The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump supporters showed up to William Barr's house to protest the fact that he hasn't locked up Joe Biden yet.

We're nearly guaranteed to see serious violence if Trump loses and Trump is going to stoke that violence as much as he can. It's going to be interesting to see how the rest of the GOP in Washington handles it.

We've already seen serious violence, and we've seen a potential kidnapping of government official.

My only hope is God takes Trump on election day when he has a meltdown that he's going to lose, finds out he cannot steal the election and the incoming bills for his debt come to roost.

I do think that if he does lose, he'll destroy everything in the next three months. He'll then go on a rally circuit to create disruption and foment insurrection. Then he'll have to be taken down by the gub'ment.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We're nearly guaranteed to see serious violence if Trump loses

Based on what? I think they'll whine and complain a lot, which is pretty much par for the course. You'll have isolated incidents, probably some protests but this strikes me as just like all the predictions that Trump was going to start a nuclear war.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

We've already seen serious violence, and we've seen a potential kidnapping of government official.

What serious violence? People make plots against government officials all the time. A lot of the time it barely makes the news. At the end of Obama's term as just one example. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ooting-n577701. Reagan was shot, there's been incidents at the White House or similar for every president of my lifetime so far as I know.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Based on what? I think they'll whine and complain a lot, which is pretty much par for the course. You'll have isolated incidents, probably some protests but this strikes me as just like all the predictions that Trump was going to start a nuclear war.

Just this weekend we had Trump supporters try to run a Presidential campaign bus off the road after stalking them across the country. When was the last time a campaign shut down multiple events out of fear of escalating violence from the other side?

The most partisan AG I can remember is being protested by his president's supporters for not being partisan enough.

Hundreds of Trump supporters shut down traffic in New Jersey.

That's just this weekend and Trump and his family are cheering it on. Do you think it's going to get better after an election loss that Trump said is only possible if the Dems cheat and that 80% of Replicans believe he's going to win?

Our own government says right wing domestic terror is the biggest threat to our country and I don't think that's going to go away once they see an illegitimate president that's going to cancel Christmas, turn us into a communist country, and ban Christianity take over.

You can drive fear and partisanship as much as the GOP has been going for the past decade plus and have people just shrug when the things they fear start to become reality in their mind.

Edit: also see the election thread where KSyrup posted about Trump planning to claim victory on Tuesday night.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When was the last time a campaign shut down multiple events out of fear of escalating violence from the other side?

They attempted to stop the bus, which was a terrible and wrong action. I hope they are arrested and prosecuted for it. It was not violence. You can't have escalating violence until you have actual violence acts to begin with. The reporting I've seen mentions only one event being canceled (in Austin).

Originally Posted by Atocep

The most partisan AG I can remember is being protested by his president's supporters for not being partisan enough.

A protest is not violence.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Hundreds of Trump supporters shut down traffic in New Jersey.

Also not violence. We're now into 'protest, but not that way' territory here.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Do you think it's going to get better after an election loss that Trump said is only possible if the Dems cheat and that 80% of Replicans believe he's going to win?

No. Irresponsible people do irresponsible things regularly after elections. I expect the modern pattern of that escalation to continue. I don't think we're going to have any violence that will even be noticeable as compared to the background, typical levels of violence in the country. There's no indication at all of that happening.

Originally Posted by Atocep

also see the election thread where KSyrup posted about Trump planning to claim victory on Tuesday night.

Yet another in the nope-this isn't violence category.

Originally Posted by Atocep

You can drive fear and partisanship as much as the GOP has been going for the past decade plus and have people just shrug when the things they fear start to become reality in their mind.

You mean like say, the fear of a second Trump term regularly exemplified on this board (and elsewhere to greater degrees?) I'm full-on against fearmongering but there's lots of blame to go around on that front.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump supporters showed up to William Barr's house to protest the fact that he hasn't locked up Joe Biden yet.

We're nearly guaranteed to see serious violence if Trump loses and Trump is going to stoke that violence as much as he can. It's going to be interesting to see how the rest of the GOP in Washington handles it.

He came out and took photos with the fascists.

Attorney General Bill Barr Meets With Radical Right-Wing Activist Dave Daubenmire | Right Wing Watch

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They attempted to stop the bus, which was a terrible and wrong action. I hope they are arrested and prosecuted for it. It was not violence. You can't have escalating violence until you have actual violence acts to begin with. The reporting I've seen mentions only one event being canceled (in Austin).



A protest is not violence.



Also not violence. We're now into 'protest, but not that way' territory here.



No. Irresponsible people do irresponsible things regularly after elections. I expect the modern pattern of that escalation to continue. I don't think we're going to have any violence that will even be noticeable as compared to the background, typical levels of violence in the country. There's no indication at all of that happening.



Yet another in the nope-this isn't violence category.



You mean like say, the fear of a second Trump term regularly exemplified on this board (and elsewhere to greater degrees?) I'm full-on against fearmongering but there's lots of blame to go around on that front.

I'd argue with you further but I just can't dumb it down to your level of ignorance.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They attempted to stop the bus, which was a terrible and wrong action. I hope they are arrested and prosecuted for it. It was not violence. You can't have escalating violence until you have actual violence acts to begin with. The reporting I've seen mentions only one event being canceled (in Austin).

It's interesting (sad) to me that we have video with license plates clearly visible and yet no arrests have been made currently. The FBI is "investigating" (FBI investigating 'Trump Train' swarming of Biden bus in Texas)

SI

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They attempted to stop the bus, which was a terrible and wrong action. I hope they are arrested and prosecuted for it. It was not violence. You can't have escalating violence until you have actual violence acts to begin with. The reporting I've seen mentions only one event being canceled (in Austin).

Events were canceled in Austin and Pflugerville.

And I'd say ramming another vehicle on a highway is violence. YMMV

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A protest is not violence.

No but they can be precursors to violence. My general point is the amount of anger his supporters are showing heading into an election they expect to win, a president and his family continually praising violence, along with the fear that's been stoked for over a decade is a recipe for violence.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You mean like say, the fear of a second Trump term regularly exemplified on this board (and elsewhere to greater degrees?) I'm full-on against fearmongering but there's lots of blame to go around on that front.

This is bothsidesism at its best. One side spends over a decade telling its supportors the Mexicans are coming to rape our daughters, the Dems want to take away your religion, the Muslims are taking over our government, and the Dems want to turn us into a communist state, but fearmongering a Trump 2nd term is equally bad.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is bothsidesism at its best. One side spends over a decade telling its supportors the Mexicans are coming to rape our daughters, the Dems want to take away your religion, the Muslims are taking over our government, and the Dems want to turn us into a communist state, but fearmongering a Trump 2nd term is equally bad.

On the contrary, I wouldn't say - and didn't say - both sides are equally bad, but your statement here is a transparently gross distortion of what one side has actually said. As long as we are dealing in hyperbolic exaggerations, it's not possible to come to a rational and realistic assessment.

One can be against something that both sides do extensively while not at the same time saying they both do it in the same exact ways to the same exact degrees. That isn't bothsidesism; it's a refusal to engage in distortionism regardless of how popular it is to do so.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Based on what? I think they'll whine and complain a lot, which is pretty much par for the course. You'll have isolated incidents, probably some protests but this strikes me as just like all the predictions that Trump was going to start a nuclear war.

I think there is a fair chance there will be sporadic violence if Trump loses but agree that it won't be as bad as many here think. I also think there is a fair chance there will be sporadic violence if Biden loses.

It comes down to Trump losing by how much. Worse case is another "hanging chad" situation. But looks like Biden is going to be a clear cut winner so violence will be sporadic. If Trump sneaks by or wins by a fair amount (surprise, surprise) another series of peaceful-like BLM protests and unpeaceful-like BLM (e.g. Portland etc.) protests will likely happen.

[PilotMan]

Any violence will be cast aside as a mentally disturbed individual and whatever ties look like they are tied to anything trump related will be quickly severed, and whoever the individual is will be left to hang on their own. Of course, that still won't stop them.

People who do act in this way are essentially ISIS martyrs, willing to take the fall for what they believe in, and they are sure that they will be 'protected' in the end.

[Lathum]

Trump on Pennsylvania ballots being counted if they arrive up to three days after Election Day: "We're going to go in the night of. As soon as that election's over, we’re going in with our lawyers."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 1, 2020

[kingfc22]

God let this be a blowout. Please

[JPhillips]

Whether it works or not, it's another seal removed from doors keeping us separated from tyranny.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

On the contrary, I wouldn't say - and didn't say - both sides are equally bad, but your statement here is a transparently gross distortion of what one side has actually said. As long as we are dealing in hyperbolic exaggerations, it's not possible to come to a rational and realistic assessment.

One can be against something that both sides do extensively while not at the same time saying they both do it in the same exact ways to the same exact degrees. That isn't bothsidesism; it's a refusal to engage in distortionism regardless of how popular it is to do so.

The President just applauded supporters who rammed a car and tried to drive a bus off the road. He is a fascist who has advocated for violence numerous times and had his supporters respond.

[GrantDawg]

Driving a car off the road is violence, and the president applauding it is fascist. There is no equivocation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean.

I really don't see how you can watch the video of what those people did to the bus and think it is anything other than violence. If I waive a gun in your face but don't shoot you it is still a violent action.

[GrantDawg]

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. As in, driving a car of the road which injured someone in the car.
Fascism :a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, such as using violence try to silence an opponent.
I am pretty comfortable in my knowledge in understanding those words. I seriously doubt your ability.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stevew]

but is that the webster's dictionary definition or is it the urban dictionary one?

[stevew]

Literally being on a bus that's being driven off the road would easily be a top 3 most terrifying life moment for most of us. but, hey, both sides are evil and that's not violent.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by stevew

but is that the webster's dictionary definition or is it the urban dictionary one?

Where is Edward!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Where is Edward!

Reading up on Hasidic jews to better understand why they are prejudiced against.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by stevew

Literally being on a bus that's being driven off the road would easily be a top 3 most terrifying life moment for most of us. but, hey, both sides are evil and that's not violent.

+1000000

[PilotMan]

I would have figured a guy like you would already have plenty of sources on that.

[Butter]

Naw man, we're all just hysterical idiots and Brian Swartz is the intellectual who can truly see the evil in both sides

[GrantDawg]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[whomario]

Trump & the Coronavirus: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

starting about 17.15 is the quintessential Trump Moment. Presumably a doctor tells him about PTSD in colleagues seeing a lot more death in a shorter time than even they are used to --> "yeah, lot of dead. And BTW,while we are at it, will you pass these pens around, okay ?"

You got this man coming into the presidents office gathering his courage to bring up to the president (who he knows is not exactly keen on hearing about "the bad stuff") the suffering of his colleagues and ... He's fucking giving him a pen for his troubles to remind him of the awesome day he got to meet the president.

[Vegas Vic]

In somewhat of a surprise, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which hasn't endorsed a republican candidate for President since 1972, just endorsed Trump.

"Mr. Biden is too old for the job, and fragile. There is a very real chance he will not make it through the term. Mr. Trump is also too old but seemingly robust. But in Mike Pence, Mr. Trump has a vice president ready to take over, if need be. He is a safe pair of hands. Sen. Kamala Harris gives no evidence of being ready to be president.

This newspaper has not supported a Republican for president since 1972. But we believe Mr. Trump, for all his faults, is the better choice this year. We respect and understand those who feel otherwise. We wish that we could be more enthusiastic and we hope the president can become more dignified and statesmanlike. Each American must make up his or her own mind and do what he or she thinks is best for the community and the republic. Vote your conscience. And, whatever happens, believe in the country."

The Man And The Record

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I really don't see how you can watch the video of what those people did to the bus and think it is anything other than violence. If I waive a gun in your face but don't shoot you it is still a violent action.

No it isn't. It's still a criminal action, but it's not violent. Violence involves harm, not just intimidation. This is why we have laws not just for vehicular manslaughter and the like, but also ones for reckless driving, endangerment, etc; because there's a difference. If the other vehicles had rammed into the bus, as opposed to attempting to force it off the road, that would have been a violent act.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. As in, driving a car of the road which injured someone in the car.
Fascism :a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, such as using violence try to silence an opponent.
I am pretty comfortable in my knowledge in understanding those words. I seriously doubt your ability.

See above distinction between endangerment and violent acts, a distinction enshrined in our legal system for a very long time. All the reporting I've seen says nobody in the bus was injured. On fascism, a leader approving of violence is an element of fascism. There are many other elements of fascism as well. Embodying one element is the not the same as embodying all of them, and there are many forms of government which endorse violence and intimidation to achieve their desired ends. Ergo there is no such thing as a single act which can properly be described as fascist. And then we could also add equivocation, which I haven't seen anybody in the conversation do; that's using ambiguous language to conceal the truth of a situation. I think everyone here has been forthright about what they think.

Originally Posted by stevew

Literally being on a bus that's being driven off the road would easily be a top 3 most terrifying life moment for most of us. but, hey, both sides are evil and that's not violent.

I've been driven off the road before. I wouldn't rank it this high, but it definitely was scary and not fun and it's not on my list of things to do again. Again, it's a horrible thing to do but not violent. Many actions are terrifying but don't involve violence.

Originally Posted by Butter

we're all just hysterical idiots and Brian Swartz is the intellectual who can truly see the evil in both sides

There's almost nobody on this board I consider an idiot. Why is it that we can't simply disagree without resorting to this kind of aburdist exagerration (to put it charitably)? What I see is a general pattern of emotional overreactions to excessively demonize people who I also detest, but don't wish to exaggerate the flaws of - they have plenty of legit ammunition given out freely without making it worse than it really is.

[cuervo72]

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, also known simply as the PG, is the largest newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Descended from the Pittsburgh Gazette, established in 1786 as the first newspaper published west of the Allegheny Mountains, the paper has existed under its present title since 1927.

It ended daily print publication in 2018 and currently puts out print editions only three days a week, going online-only the rest of the week. In 2018, the editorial tone of the paper shifted from liberal to conservative after the editorial pages of the paper were consolidated with the The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. After the consolidation, Keith Burris, the pro-Trump editorial page editor of The Blade, directed the editorial pages of both papers.

Not surprising?

[cuervo72]

Dola - also fired a long-time political cartoonist who was critical of Trump (and replaced him with one who was conservative) and pulled a Black reporter from covering George Floyd.

[wustin]

The Pittsburgh Gazette are owned by the Block family who are strong trump supporters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No it isn't. It's still a criminal action, but it's not violent. Violence involves harm, not just intimidation.

Aggravated assault is 100% a violent crime (which pointing a loaded gun at someone is) by any legal and technical definition.

The FBI considers it as such, for example.

FBI — Aggravated Assault

" Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. "

So does the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

(Aggravated assault is a violent crime)

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31#terms_def

(Description of aggravated assault)

In state and federal statutes that use "violent crime" as a category for some qualification (like prior violent crimes enhancing a sentence of a subsequent crime), aggravated assault it always a violent crime. I've personally described it as a violent crime in many criminal sentencing briefs.

There's usually two ways to commit assault - it's either an attempted battery, or a intentional threat of violence which actually creates well-founded fear. Both are violent crimes, all day.

[Brian Swartz]

Thanks molson. I stand corrected on that point, although it's still quite strange because it doesn't actually fit the commonly used definition of violence.

[sterlingice]

I can’t believe Tuesday is only 4,000 days away

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) November 1, 2020

SI

[kingfc22]

Seriously

[Fidatelo]

"Driving people off the road is not violence" is the new "waterboarding is not torture".

[Brian Swartz]

I would say waterboarding is definitely torture, and not even among the milder forms of such. So no.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not surprising?

It is to me, The Blade used to be known as a pretty liberal paper. Though I can't say I've read it recently.

[kingfc22]

Did you not read what he posted

“In 2018, the editorial tone of the paper shifted from liberal to conservative after the editorial pages of the paper were consolidated with the The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. After the consolidation, Keith Burris, the pro-Trump editorial page editor of The Blade, directed the editorial pages of both papers.”

[QuikSand]

we cut out the parts that don't advance our choice of narrative

we're going with "liberal bastion finally sees the light" try to keep up

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It is to me, The Blade used to be known as a pretty liberal paper. Though I can't say I've read it recently.

perhaps different Blade papers in various cities?

[PilotMan]

Meanwhile Blade had this to say:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b1526077.html

After being reminded that Trump was avoiding tax long before he was elected, Snipes replied: “This is not rocket science. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”

[sterlingice]

I just came here to make the Snipes or vampire reference but I see the job was already done.

SI

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There's almost nobody on this board I consider an idiot. Why is it that we can't simply disagree without resorting to this kind of aburdist exagerration (to put it charitably)? What I see is a general pattern of emotional overreactions to excessively demonize people who I also detest, but don't wish to exaggerate the flaws of - they have plenty of legit ammunition given out freely without making it worse than it really is.

Why can't you admit trying to run someone off the road is violent? What ridiculous firewall exists within you that refuses that comparison?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter

Why can't you admit trying to run someone off the road is violent? What ridiculous firewall exists within you that refuses that comparison?

Exactly. This is one of the most ludicrous attempts to parse something I've ever seen on this board, and there have been a LOT of attempts to parse words on this board.

[QuikSand]

Once you plant your flag, it's unbelievably hard to unplant it. This is not a new thing, it's a well documented (though poorly understood) psychological phenomenon, and it happens to all of us.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

Why can't you admit trying to run someone off the road is violent? What ridiculous firewall exists within you that refuses that comparison?

You may wish to consider my post two and a half hours prior to this one, in which I said this:

Originally Posted by me, earlier today

I stand corrected on that point, although it's still quite strange because it doesn't actually fit the commonly used definition of violence.

There are a number of things society doesn't consider violent which also involve threats of force not actual force itself. This leaves in a position where I don't understand what violence actually means in modern society, since we certainly aren't following the definition of the word. Nonetheless, I was clearly wrong; this situation must be considered an act of violence in light of molson's excellent points. The underlying point about how much violence is likely to occur post-election still stands.

More fundamentally even, people can simply have differences of perspective and opinion, including those that seem ridiculous to you, me, or the neighborhoood muse. None of these necessarily mean that someone is trying to play semantic games or aren't expressing themselves in good faith or are implying others are idiots. It just means they see a situation differently, and only that.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Once you plant your flag, it's unbelievably hard to unplant it. This is not a new thing, it's a well documented (though poorly understood) psychological phenomenon, and it happens to all of us.

Perhaps, but from a poster who seems to demand absolute intellectual rigor from all, it seems an odd hill to die on. Even if he did try to take it back in a very weak manner.