The aims of this blog are to entertain and to provoke thought. I am watching TV News about violence in Washington and about hospitals overwhelmed in London. I hope that the blog achieves some of its aims but it cannot address such issues. Tomorrow evening, instead of blogging, I will be in a zoom discussion about current affairs because we cannot go to the
Meeting House. I trust that Poul Anderson fans think about real as well as fictional conflicts and that we will be able to rebuild after the current Chaos.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The recent disgraceful violence at the US Capitol yesterday certainly shows how much anger lingers over the disputed Presidential, with millions of Americans still not convinced "Josip" won fairly or entirely honestly.
I put much of the blame for what happened yesterday on the Democrats. Their obsessive hatred of Pres. Trump, conspiracy theorizing (esp.over that fake Russian dossier), endless attacks from a mostly left wing media on all Republicans, above all their support for, egging on, and defense of the BLM riots of the past spring and summer contributed directly to yesterday's atrocity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But Trump himself instigated the demonstration which became a riot? And referred to "these people" who had perpetrated a "fraudulent election"? And told the rioters that they were loved and special? There is surely something wrong with the man himself?
Millions are not convinced because they have been repeatedly told and have wanted to believe that Trump could not lose except by fraud.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree Pres. Trump did not help. And I do think some fraud was perpetrated, but not enough to change the election.
And millions of Americans simply don't trust the Democrats and the media. And they have good reason for that!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that "...did not help..." is less than adequate! Trump carefully built the story that, if he loses an election, then it must have been rigged, for a very long time beforehand. What makes his followers so sure? Mainly that they have been told it and have wanted to believe it. Courts have rejected all the allegations that have been brought to them. Have all those courts been party to a Democratic conspiracy?
That there is a massive unresolved conflict in US society is indeed obvious.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We may not agree politically, but I’m definitely with you on this. Dishonest Donald lied about the election being stolen, beginning before it was even held, and encouraged his thuggish followers in their march to the Capitol and attempted assault on the Congressman accepting Biden’s victory. This is an unprecedented disgrace, and I am disappointed that the Senate did not remove the twice-impeached scoundrel from the Presidency before his term expires. Arguably, they can still try him, and declare him unfit ever after to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
I am sorry, but I still disagree in some ways. I am not absolutely convinced the electoral results were wholly honest in at least Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And however unwise Pres. Trump's words were before that disgraceful riot at Capitol Hill, they did not meet the standard set by US law to justify being called urging an insurrection. Here I had Andrew McCarthy's analysis of the flawed article of impeachment cooked up by Nancy Pelosi, one of the most despicable persons in DC.
As a lawyer and former prosecutor who often writes about the law and legal matters for NATIONAL REVIEW, Andrew McCarthy knows this stuff.
Regards! Sean
Sean,
Again, please, no apologies for disagreeing!
Paul.
Kaor, Sean!
I, too, am not absolutely convinced that the election results were wholly honest, in the sense that out of 150 million votes cast, there will be some instances of irregularity and skullduggery somewhere; for example, Trumpublican efforts at vote suppression were reported. This does not mean that the election was stolen, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin, or elsewhere.
As far as I’m concerned, Trump and his minions have no credibility. Trump’s attorneys held press conferences announcing that they had proof of ballot fraud, which they would present in court, but when it came to actual appearances in court, they had basically nothing to present; you can say almost anything in a press conference, but a lawyer can face penalties, including disbarment, for provably lying to a judge in court. The Trumpists lost more than fifty lawsuits, some before Republican-appointed judges, and some before Trump appointees. It may possibly be true that Democratic operatives stole the election for Biden in some clever way that left no evidence, while oddly neglecting to steal enough down-ballot votes to expand instead of shrinking the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and to win some more Senate seats, but I see no reason to believe it.
Donald Trump may not quite have met the legal standard for sedition or incitement to riot (he did say “peacefully and patriotically”), but his words on January 6 were nonetheless a spark on dry tinder, tinder which he had gathered with his falsehoods about a stolen election, beginning, to reiterate, with his assertion before the election that he could only lose if it were stolen. This was either grotesque narcissism or propaganda in bad faith right out of Goebbels’s playbook. Mr. McCarthy may be right about the criminal law, although that is debatable; for example, I read an article by a lawyer in Slate arguing that Trump could be prosecuted for failing to take action to rescue people from a peril which he had created by encouraging the insurrectionists, and instead, he saw the Capitol riot, and failed to tell the rioters swiftly and unambiguously to cease their assault. The doctrine is that if you create a peril, even without deliberate intention, you have a positive duty to save people from it.
Even if the standard for a criminal conviction is not met, impeachment is a different issue, and “high crimes and misdemeanors” are what Congress says that they are, as Gerald Ford said decades ago. If a President encourages an attempted coup, and contributes to people being killed, I believe that it is proper to impeach and convict him as a public menace and threat to constitutional government, even if he did not quite violate any criminal law. And if he is now an ex-President, there is still reason to convict him, disgrace him, and declare him unable to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States again.
Finally, while I do not admire Nancy Pelosi, I like her better than Trump. Talk about defining deviancy down!
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Hi both and everyone,
I ought to say something! There was a serious attack on the American electoral system. Trump made a concerted attempt to persuade officials at every level to overturn the election result even when there was no possible basis for doing that. Because of Trump, some Republican Senators voted not to accept the Electoral College result, fortunately not enough of them. Trump followers believed that the election was stolen only because he told them that it had been. After the event, HE tried to steal the election both by pressuring officials and by calling his supporters to a demonstration that he said would be "wild" and told them to "fight like hell" and never to accept the election result. The word "peacefully" hardly mitigates that. It was a mere political cliche, covering his back. Instead of leading the march that he had instigated, he went home, watched it on TV and was slow to react. Reportedly, he was more concerned about one of his supporters making him look bad by wearing horns, body paint etc. He has expressed no regret, remorse or concern for five deaths directly resulting from a riot sparked off by him. He refused to attend the Inauguration. Three former Presidents attended in order to affirm their support for a peaceful transition. It should not have been necessary for them to speak out as they did. Does anyone want Trump back as a candidate in 2024? Does anyone doubt that, if he had been able to do so, then he would have imposed martial law to stay in power?
Paul.
Kaor, Gentlemen!
There are reasonable grounds for believing former Pres. Trump, even if his actions and words did not meet the statutory criteria necessary for convicting him of insurrection, were still so irresponsible that he should be disqualified from running for office again as President. So I agree that much with Nicholas. Problem is, I still believe the hastily passed, with no due process, article of impeachment is so badly flawed that it can't get the two thirds senatorial vote needed to be passed. To say nothing of the additional problem of whether it can even be applied to a now FORMER President (the Constitution plainly had only the impeaching and possible removing of SITTING Presidents in mind).
No, despite his many successes while President, I no longer wish Trump to run again in 2024. In fact, back in 2016, it was Jeb Bush I most favored as the GOP candidate. For all I know, Bush might be calculating he might have a chance! Esp. as that BUNGLER "Josip" is already making catastrophic decisions.
Ad aastra! Sean
Post a Comment