Big Picture American Politics

[Psy-Fi]

GOP ad war hits $100 million as early-state campaign to stop Trump intensifies

[Lisnaholic]

On the contrary - the dossier was ultimately discredited because the main Russian source that Christopher Steele used, Igor Danchenko, was arrested for lying to the FBI.  Steele also presented everything in the dossier as irrefutable evidence, only to later say that "not everything in here was true" when pressed.

^ Like I said before, the Steele Report was a mixed-bag, flawed report, but according to wiki it did contain some later-substantiated info.

You can say the ends justify the means because Russia liked Trump over Clinton, but inferring that it's okay to make things up in order to create a reason to go after anyone, no matter who it is, is fundamentally wrong and it sets a pretty terrible precedent.

I wouldn't say the end justifies the means, Nimbly: that's a real rocky road to go down. I wonder if we agree on this fundamental sequence of investigation: allegation-investigation-confirmation/refutation of allegation. Weren't there enough allegations in the air at the time of the Steele Report to warrant an investigation? Here's a simple example, plus an excuse to inject a little music into our discussion:-
A guy in the UK telephoned the police to say that he'd witnessed a murder. The police followed up immediately, went to the house in question and found Blood On The Floor:-

Two of Britain's nastiest child-murderers were caught based on one guy's allegation, which, when he made the call, was unsubstantiated. That's how investigations start, isn't it?

The ultimate purpose of all of those Democrat-led investigations was to get Trump thrown out of office prematurely and/or prove he was illegitimately elected, outcomes that did not occur.

^ That sounds to me like an interesting corrollary to the idea that the investigations were, as you say "Democrat-led". To me, they were justice-led, the idea being that people who break the law are held accountable in hopes of deterring the next lawbreakers to come along. In that sense, many of the "Dem" investigations could be called successes.

Your definition of a fail seems to equate to "well the Republicans didn't get X out of Y" (like Benghazi) when it the general consensus here in the U.S. is that the Democrats wasted four years in their various investigations with very little to show for it, with the Mueller Report in particular becoming a point of mockery even by CNN and MSNBC for its lack of payoff despite the massive buildup.

Yep, the Mueller Report was a real wet firework because: (i) Mueller was too much the old-school decent guy, with his, "I would've if I couldn't, so I haven't but I could've" conclusion and (ii) Billy Barr completely mis-represented the conclusion of the report, but got lots of media attention away from the damning Mueller verdict that Trump had obstructed justice.

I suppose the people who are actually losing are the American tax-payers, whose money is funding so many investigations. I have no facts or figures on that. Perhaps the Mueller investigation was over-long, but wasn't it hampered by non-co-operation of historic proportions, with subpeonas being ignored - or was that a different one ? Anyway, my point is that money has probably been wasted all around - like Durham and Billy Barr going to Italy, and let's mention the number again, TEN investigations into Benghazi.

....which is why a tally of investigations/ results could be of some value: it suggests which party is initiating investgations that start from a shrewed assessment of allegations, and lead to actual indictments. And which party is initiating investigations that uncover no crimes because there wasn't a crime to start with? To me, the answers are: question one: the Dems, and question two: the Republicans.

[Nimbly9]

Justice led? How so? They justified the initial Carter Page wiretap that set off Crossfire Hurricane with the dossier that Steele lied about.  Which again, goes back to my earlier point. They would have never done that with Romney even if Obama's team had done some kind of oppo research accusing his family's company of having ties to Russia or China.  The FBI would have normally said "we're going to need something extremely substantial to justify a full blown investigation".

I'm 100% certain that the Democrats would have wasted my money to investigate Trump throughout his whole presidency whether he did anything wrong or not, and that whole mindset is not "justice led" as you so claim.  Schumer, Pelosi and all their friends were mad that their party had lost the 2016 election to an orange womanizing bozo who seemed poised to reverse a lethargic neoliberal global agenda.  He didn't turn out to be the middle class savior people were hoping for obviously, but speaking as someone who pays his taxes and sits squarely in the middle class, I can say with confidence he was better for my own bottom line than Obama-era policy was.  And sometimes that's enough for most people.

All that taken into consideration, is it really any wonder why something like January 6th might happen from the other side after four years of watching people like Clinton get up on TV and call him illegitimate with no actual proof of votes being changed or any actual problems in our election process?

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand. And Hillary wasn't the only one who spread "conspiracy theories" about the 2016 election either  So if anyone wants to make the argument as to why Trump thought he could "possibly" hold on to power in some way and subvert democratic norms, all the Democrats need to do is look in the mirror for the answer. 

When the supposedly "better" U.S. political party spends half a decade telling people that U.S. elections are easily influenced and/or fraudulent, a boomerang effect is pretty much an inevitability when the chips are down during the next election season.  Republicans were more than happy to hear from Trump that the "next" election was going to be rigged because they were already used to hearing similar language for years from politicians they didn't like.  Trump didn't even have to work that hard - his Democratic opponents had paved the way for blatant mistrust in the election process even before Covid-19 hit.

On another note, I'm still waiting for the 50 million dollar investigation into China's attempts to meddle in the midterms, but I know it isn't going to happen.  The fact that the media didn't make much of a big deal about it just confirms what I already thought - nobody cares about election interference if Trump's name isn't somewhere in the story.

2024 is gonna be a shitshow because we're now in a place where two nursing home dwellers are apparently the only viable POTUS choices according to our managerial class political overlords, which just goes to show you that neither party has any real imagination or governance goals.  We're polarized to the point of no return.

[SGR]

All that taken into consideration, is it really any wonder why something like January 6th might happen from the other side after four years of watching people like Clinton get up on TV and call him illegitimate with no actual proof of votes being changed or any actual problems in our election process?

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand. And Hillary wasn't the only one who spread "conspiracy theories" about the 2016 election either  So if anyone wants to make the argument as to why Trump thought he could "possibly" hold on to power in some way and subvert democratic norms, all the Democrats need to do is look in the mirror for the answer. 

When the supposedly "better" U.S. political party spends half a decade telling people that U.S. elections are easily influenced and/or fraudulent, a boomerang effect is pretty much an inevitability when the chips are down during the next election season.  Republicans were more than happy to hear from Trump that the "next" election was going to be rigged because they were already used to hearing similar language for years from politicians they didn't like.  Trump didn't even have to work that hard - his Democratic opponents had paved the way for blatant mistrust in the election process even before Covid-19 hit.

We as a country, whether Democrat or Republican or neither, can't know for sure the legitimacy of our election results. It's not completely auditable, nor is it completely transparent.

[Lisnaholic]

Again, I have to take issue with some of the ideas that you're presenting, Nimbly9:-

Justice led? How so? They justified the initial Carter Page wiretap that set off Crossfire Hurricane with the dossier that Steele lied about.  Which again, goes back to my earlier point. They would have never done that with Romney even if Obama's team had done some kind of oppo research accusing his family's company of having ties to Russia or China.  The FBI would have normally said "we're going to need something extremely substantial to justify a full blown investigation".

^ Then why was this the conclusion of the Durham report?

Wikipedia:

Durham's report stated that the DOJ and FBI "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law," though the report did not "recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out." Prominent national security attorney Brad Moss characterized Durham's conclusions as "a 'be more careful next time' report."...
The report largely repeated information that had been previously known, with no new significant revelations of FBI misconduct in its Crossfire Hurricane investigation...The investigation cost more than $6.5 million. In his transmittal letter to the attorney general, Durham thanked Garland for "permitting our inquiry to proceed independently."

New York Times (Jan 23):-

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham's work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr. Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.[2]

When you talk about life in the USA being better under Trump than under a Dem president, I'm happy to accept your expertise and personal experience, Nimbly.

All that taken into consideration, is it really any wonder why something like January 6th might happen from the other side after four years of watching people like Clinton get up on TV and call him illegitimate with no actual proof of votes being changed or any actual problems in our election process?

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand. And Hillary wasn't the only one who spread "conspiracy theories" about the 2016 election either  So if anyone wants to make the argument as to why Trump thought he could "possibly" hold on to power in some way and subvert democratic norms, all the Democrats need to do is look in the mirror for the answer. 

When the supposedly "better" U.S. political party spends half a decade telling people that U.S. elections are easily influenced and/or fraudulent, a boomerang effect is pretty much an inevitability when the chips are down during the next election season.  Republicans were more than happy to hear from Trump that the "next" election was going to be rigged because they were already used to hearing similar language for years from politicians they didn't like.  Trump didn't even have to work that hard - his Democratic opponents had paved the way for blatant mistrust in the election process even before Covid-19 hit.

^ This is an argument that, imo, does a dis-service to the Republican party. Are you really say that the GOP are so weak (or even uncreative ) that they just follow the Dem example?! This idea is also negated by the facts: the GOP didn't follow the Dem example, which, from Al Gore onwards, has been to grumble, but then concede for the good of the unity of the American people. Instead, Trump and plenty of GOPers haven't conceded; they clogged up the court system with 60 cases, all rejected, alleging fraud that wasn't there, then they put in motion some complex scheme of fake electors, and, cheered on by Trump, Josh Hawley and others, stormed the Capital.
Those were all Republican ideas, as are the occasional calls for civil war. I think it's a pretty distorted view to say "We copied the Dems."

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand.

^ Actually, democracy is quite frail and relies a lot on a good-faith commitment to the democratic ideal. In plenty of countries, there has been an insidious, non-violent slide away from democracy: Turkey, I think, being a recent example. That's why people were alarmed by Trump's famous "Russia if you're listening..." remark. It's not a good idea to invite foreign interference into your own elections, especially as Russia are past masters at hacking, making fake accounts, etc. They don't "change votes with the wave of a wand". (Perhaps you were thinking of Sydney Powell and Hugo Chavez when you wrote that.) Instead, Russia advanced biased dis-information, and it's prob impossible to measure what effect they had on votes, but surely, any foreign interference should be discouraged, so as to better preserve the integrity of the US election process.   

[Nimbly9]

Durham proved that the FBI had deviated extensively from their normal conduct, which most mainstream media outlets say is not important (but it is). I would have told Durham that he didn't need 4 years to figure all that out, but I wouldn't cite that one as a completely pointless investigation when the ultimate point of it was to show that the FBI needed to reform their operational processes so that they don't operate like that again in the future.

I doubt Barr ever expected Durham to come up with anything that would somehow showcase illegality beyond what was already suspected from the FBI.  The investigation rehashed some things people knew and exposed other things that people didn't know.  From another article on it cited by Axios and also the National Review:

But while mainstream media outlets have generally painted Durham's investigation as a long, winding dead-end, his efforts have not been fruitless. He established collaboration between Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the government's law-enforcement-and-intelligence apparatus to frame Trump as a Russian agent.

In the Danchenko trial, Durham established that the FBI knowingly submitted sworn applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that falsely claimed that information obtained from Cristopher Steele, a former British spy, had been verified. The FBI was also aware that Steele compiled the dossier as opposition research for the Clinton campaign, and improperly briefed him on the Trump-Russia investigation.

Durham also provided evidence that the FBI knew Sussman was representing the Democratic National Committee when he provided the bureau with skewed data that he claimed showed Trump had established a communication backchannel with the Kremlin; Sussman had claimed that he wasn't representing anyone when he provided the data. Durham also showed that FBI leaders had concealed from agents that Sussman was the source of the data.

The  suggests possible reforms to the bureau that Durham believes will prevent future abuses. One such reform would involve the appointment of a special official whose sole task would be to challenge "the steps taken" in high-profile political investigations that "pose partisan risk" to ensure all relevant procedures are followed.

Your assertions about the Republicans "not copying Dems" is incorrect - look at what Maxine Waters said during the high profile Derek Chauvin trial for example. 

And as far as Al Gore goes....he made extensive attempts at the time to challenge the 2000 election results and did a little more than "grumble" about it as you so put it.  He even said at one point he wasn't going to concede.  The country was way less polarized back then, it was pre-9/11, no pandemics, and social media did not exist...which is why something like Jan 6th didn't happen back then (but it could have under different circumstances).

Lastly, people had plenty of reason to think there would be issues with the 2020 election - all the major states pushed changes to how people could vote and other things because of Covid-19.  There was indeed reason to believe that so many large scale changes in a short time with minimal real oversight would result in problems, and thankfully it appears that while some fraud happened, it wasn't enough to shift the results in any state. 

Trump took advantage of this to further himself, but he was only able to do so because Democrats started the trend of questioning elections.  And that, my friend, is the root of this entire problem.

I know you don't agree with this, but you don't get what we got from Trump without a tremendous amount of groundwork over many many years (preparing the soil so to speak), as that 12 minute video SGR shared showcases. This is Big Picture American Politics, no? That's the big picture to me as far as why we are currently here as opposed to somewhere else where elections aren't so polarized.

[Lisnaholic]

Durham proved that the FBI had deviated extensively from their normal conduct, which most mainstream media outlets say is not important (but it is). I would have told Durham that he didn't need 4 years to figure all that out, but I wouldn't cite that one as a completely pointless investigation when the ultimate point of it was to show that the FBI needed to reform their operational processes so that they don't operate like that again in the future.

^ So why was his conclusion, as I quoted earlier:-

Durham's report stated that the DOJ and FBI "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law," though the report did not "recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out."

If it's impossible to agree on something as concrete as a report's conclusion, there's really no hope of reaching agreement on something as sweeping as the history of dirty tricks in American politics. Even if the Dems could have behaved better, I think it's a lopsided view that they have been leading the way in, for instance, undermining election integrity. Even regarding the specific case you mention:

And as far as Al Gore goes....he made extensive attempts at the time to challenge the 2000 election results and did a little more than "grumble" about it as you so put it.  He even said at one point he wasn't going to concede. 

How is "made extensive attempts" and "even said at one point" remotely a precursor to what occurred after the 2020 election?!
You don't mention that Gore's extensive attempts were well within the boundaries of the law, which undercuts any notion of a comparison with the antics of Trump's "clown car coup" allies.

Lastly, people had plenty of reason to think there would be issues with the 2020 election - all the major states pushed changes to how people could vote and other things because of Covid-19.  There was indeed reason to believe that so many large scale changes in a short time with minimal real oversight would result in problems, and thankfully it appears that while some fraud happened, it wasn't enough to shift the results in any state.

^ I can more or less agree with this. In short, covid's effect on the elections was a bit like the great Year 2K panic. Do you remember that? Every computer system in the world was about to crash - but in the end, the guys who knew what they were doing, did actually know what they were doing - and so it was with the 2020 election administrators, although after the event they were harrassed, threatened and pushed aside to let Ninja weirdos conduct repeated self-defeating audits. 

Trump took advantage of this to further himself, but he was only able to do so because Democrats started the trend of questioning elections.  And that, my friend, is the root of this entire problem.

I know you don't agree with this, but you don't get what we got from Trump without a tremendous amount of groundwork over many many years (preparing the soil so to speak), as that 12 minute video SGR shared showcases. This is Big Picture American Politics, no? That's the big picture to me as far as why we are currently here as opposed to somewhere else where elections aren't so polarized.

^ On the face of it, SGR's video, does look like there was a lot of contesting of the 2016 election from the Dems, but it largely remained in the realm of rhetoric - and also (if I'm remembering the context right, some of the "illegitimate" jabs were about the fact that Trump didn't win the popular vote). So, yeah, some ill-advised talk, but I'm still failing to see how some comments from the Dems are the cause of all the election mayhem that the Republicans have indulged in, and it strikes me as odd that, in reviewing the history of dirty tricks, you don't mention Nixon or Mister Dirty Tricks himself, Roger Stone, who was mentor to Nixon and Trump both.

[Nimbly9]

Nixon never called elections illegitimate under any circumstance that I'm aware of, so using him as any kind of example here doesn't make sense and doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Saying what Gore did was "well within the boundaries of the law" is beside the point.  It doesn't matter if it was legal or not if it has contributed foundationally the problems I mentioned.  The road to hell is paved with all kinds of good intentions and ethically dubious-but still legal actions. Re-read what SGR and myself said very carefully.  If you actually believe that the Democrats are the "adults" in the American political system, you should want to hold them to a higher standard.

A lot of your responses kinda come come off to me as "well so what if they denied elections and did all that stuff? Orange man bad!".  But Orange Man Bad-isms only gets you so far when the titular Bad Orange Man is a symptom of deeper dysfunctions. He's the Big Shiny Object in the room distracting you from real problems that can only be solved through actual reform. He wouldn't have even been elected in a normal democracy, no? 

Even in the absolute best case scenario, throwing him in jail doesn't undo the 20+ years of damage that neoliberals like Clinton and Gore and Obama have done, but they are going to pretend that it will and make a big spectacle out of it.  But next time when a smarter Trump-inspired creature comes along, that creature is going to win because nobody has learned anything in the meantime. 

Republicans are also ultimately wasting their time going after Biden too, truth be told.  People elected Biden knowing he was a more palatable liar than Trump - no amount of investigations are going to change anyone's vote in 2024.

If it's impossible to agree on something as concrete as a report's conclusion, there's really no hope of reaching agreement on something as sweeping as the history of dirty tricks in American politics. Even if the Dems could have behaved better, I think it's a lopsided view that they have been leading the way in, for instance, undermining election integrity. Even regarding the specific case you mention:

We aren't talking about the "dirty tricks" of American politics.  That's a long ass list that's way outside the scope of this conversation.  All Durham's work showcased was that there were some serious problems in what the FBI did, and those problems were clearly documented despite their protestations leading up to the publishing of the report, which makes sense as it was originally set off in order to dive deeper into the roots of Crossfire Hurricane.  Directly from Durhams's report FYI:

Our investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting. Nor was Steele able to produce corroboration for any of the reported allegations, even after being offered $1 million or more by the FBI for such corroboration

Furthermore, the FBI ultimately ended up agreeing that what happened was wrong after the media circus around the report died down, as noted here from FBI General Counsel Jason Jones:

"All senior executives overseeing the Crossfire Hurricane investigation have left the FBI as the result of termination, resignation or retirement,"

Short of essentially dismantling the FBI, what kind of reform solves the kind of issues that Durham dove into? That's not normal FBI protocol and it needed to be exposed to the light of day regardless of what kind of legal outcome awaited it.  As I said earlier, I don't think he needed 4 years to make that case (the scope of his investigation, IMO, got too wide ranging), but it needed to be spelled out or else the FBI would just continue to claim that they never did anything wrong and that they are above accountability of any kind.

[Lisnaholic]

Nixon never called elections illegitimate under any circumstance that I'm aware of, so using him as any kind of example here doesn't make sense and doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.

^ Yes, you are right. In fact, I regreted mentioning Nixon shortly after I posted that comment. He's not relevant to what we're discussing.
As for your other points, I'll probably address them later in the day when I get a bit of free time, ok?

[Nimbly9]

^ Yes, you are right. In fact, I regreted mentioning Nixon shortly after I posted that comment. He's not relevant to what we're discussing.
As for your other points, I'll probably address them later in the day when I get a bit of free time, ok?

Take your time. Debates are fun and I always learn something new from them.

[Guybrush]

Take your time. Debates are fun and I always learn something new from them.

I wanna commend you both on your civil debate,m and knowledge of American politics 🙂 I do enjoy reading your posts.

I'm much too ignorant on the subject of current US politics myself to really debate it on a deeper level. Politics often either bore or frustrate me. Sadly, watching the US from the outside has been somewhat frustrating, especially since Trump was elected (though not solely because of him). There seems to be so much conflict in American society. It must be tiring and taxing to many of you.

Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT how to reduce conflict in American society and although it doesn't get too far into specifics, it gave me a decent (imo) answer:

Reducing conflict in society is a complex challenge, but several steps can be taken in the United States to promote greater social cohesion:

1. **Promote Dialogue and Understanding:** Encourage open, respectful, and inclusive dialogue among diverse communities to foster better understanding and empathy.

2. **Education:** Invest in inclusive education that teaches critical thinking, empathy, and cultural competence to promote tolerance and reduce ignorance.

3. **Media Literacy:** Teach media literacy to help individuals distinguish between reliable and biased sources, reducing the spread of misinformation.

4. **Civic Engagement:** Encourage citizens to engage in local and national politics, fostering a sense of ownership and participation in decision-making.

5. **Community Building:** Support community-building initiatives, such as local events, volunteerism, and neighborhood programs, to strengthen social bonds.

6. **Police Reform:** Advocate for police reform to rebuild trust between law enforcement and marginalized communities, emphasizing community policing and accountability.

7. **Mental Health Services:** Improve access to mental health services to address underlying issues that may contribute to conflict.

8. **Economic Opportunity:** Address economic inequality through policies that promote equitable access to resources and opportunities.

9. **Legal Reforms:** Evaluate and reform the criminal justice system to ensure fairness and reduce disparities.

10. **Promote Diversity and Inclusion:** Encourage diversity and inclusion in workplaces and institutions, which can lead to more equitable and harmonious societies.

11. **Conflict Resolution Programs:** Develop and promote conflict resolution programs at various levels of society, from schools to workplaces.

12. **Leadership:** Elected officials and community leaders should set a tone of civility and cooperation, modeling behavior for the public.

13. **Media Responsibility:** Encourage responsible journalism that prioritizes factual reporting and balanced perspectives.

14. **National Healing Initiatives:** Consider national initiatives that promote healing, reconciliation, and the acknowledgment of historical injustices.

15. **Legal Protections:** Strengthen laws against hate crimes and discrimination to protect vulnerable communities.

It's important to note that reducing societal conflict is an ongoing process that requires the collective efforts of individuals, communities, and institutions. Collaboration, empathy, and a commitment to justice and equity are key principles in this endeavor.

[Psy-Fi]

AOC's constituents slam her claim inflation is propaganda

[Lisnaholic]

Take your time. Debates are fun and I always learn something new from them.

I wanna commend you both on your civil debate,m and knowledge of American politics 🙂 I do enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks, Nimbly and Guybrush! It's good to know that what sometimes feels like ranting from a foreigner is not entirely frowned upon.

That ChatGPT quote was very interesting: it's alarming just how good AI English sounds. That's why I haven't looked into our AI thread yet - I'm too scared by what I might find there.

[Lisnaholic]

Saying what Gore did was "well within the boundaries of the law" is beside the point.  It doesn't matter if it was legal or not if it has contributed foundationally the problems I mentioned.  The road to hell is paved with all kinds of good intentions and ethically dubious-but still legal actions.

If the topic is either election tampering, or disputing election results, or rejecting the peaceful transition of power, I would've thought that distinguishing between what is inside or outside the law was very much on point. I don't remember the details, but I remember that the Bush/Gore result was labelled as "too close to call" by most commentators for weeks. All that "hanging chad" recounting was afaik, conducted in an orderly fashion by non-partisan professionals, and Gore accepted the court-delivered result. Far from being "ethically dubious" it was a show-case of how legal remedies are in place to resolve election doubts. Pretty much the opposite of the Republican position in 2020: declare fraud before the results are in, get rejected by 60 courts for lack of evidence, then cheat with fake electors, bully election officials into changing results and as a last resort, take the fight to the streets/Capitol. That's a big wobbly edifice of misconduct to be blaming on a few remarks from the Dems.

If you actually believe that the Democrats are the "adults" in the American political system, you should want to hold them to a higher standard.

^ I think there is a flaw in your logic, though I can't pin-point it exactly. I think all politicians should be held to the same standard: you seem to be angling for the idea that the Republicans don't have to be the "adults". 

A lot of your responses kinda come come off to me as "well so what if they denied elections and did all that stuff? Orange man bad!".  But Orange Man Bad-isms only gets you so far when the titular Bad Orange Man is a symptom of deeper dysfunctions. He's the Big Shiny Object in the room distracting you from real problems that can only be solved through actual reform. He wouldn't have even been elected in a normal democracy, no? 

I was disappointed that you think my responses are just a knee-jerk reaction To say that Trump is the Big Shiny Object is a curious perspective on someone who has dominated US politics for a long time, and is still the front-runner for GOP Pres candidate. He has had a Presidential term and given his name to Trumpism. Even if you want to go "big  picture" on US democracy, I think he's more than a distraction, because if anyone talks about "actual reform", they're likely to run into people opposing reform: by and large, but not exclusively, they're likely to run into Republicans, aren't they? And many of those Republicans are supporters, apologists, enablers for Trump.

Even in the absolute best case scenario, throwing him in jail doesn't undo the 20+ years of damage that neoliberals like Clinton and Gore and Obama have done, but they are going to pretend that it will and make a big spectacle out of it.  But next time when a smarter Trump-inspired creature comes along, that creature is going to win because nobody has learned anything in the meantime.

Yep, understandably the media will make a big spectacle of it. It's a US history first, to have an ex-Pres/and likely-to-be Pres candidate, fighting a total of 91 indictments. I hope by "they" you're not, once again, trying to blame the Dems.
In bold: I wouldn't agree with this sentence at all. How do you know "that creature" is going to win? How do you know that "nobody will learn anything"? My guess is that, depending how things go in court, a lot of political actors are going to realise that there can be consequences for illegal machinations. Finally, bit of a cheap shot, but didn't you say that Trump was just a distraction ? Why mention him here then? 

Republicans are also ultimately wasting their time going after Biden too, truth be told.  People elected Biden knowing he was a more palatable liar than Trump - no amount of investigations are going to change anyone's vote in 2024.

Probably true. In fact this is something often commented on in the kind of political news that I consume: that re-litigating and investigating the past may not appeal to voters. Still, I'm not about to let on to Kari Lake, Gym Jordan, etc.: I'll leave that honour to you, Nimbly ! Send them some of our posts, ok? 

You end with some more comments about the Durham Report, but tbh, I feel like we've done with that particular topic. I've read your interpretation, you've read mine and I'm not inclined to go over it all again, if that's ok by you.

[Nimbly9]

The fact Gore questioned the election process to the extent that he did is a clear precursor to what we are dealing with today...but I've already made my case about it.  You and I aren't seeing eye to eye on that topic, so I'm moving on from it.

Trump is a distraction because even if he goes to jail, the damage has already been done. They're talking about disqualifying him even being on the ballot in a lot of states utilizing the 14th Amendment...but the time to put him on trial and make an example out of him was 2 and a half years ago, not now.

But all that aside, the way has already been paved for someone else to learn from his failures...and they will do "better" at flaunting norms and hiding misconduct.  That's why I brought up RFK Jr, a candidate on the other side of the aisle who also defies a lot of political norms and is an "outsider" like Trump.  He's a Democrat who says all the right things to liberal audiences about the environment and many other issues, but essentially believes that vaccines cause autism and is also a massive conspiracy theorist.  And according to polls, over 20% of Democrats preferred him to Biden, and that number is probably undercounted if you really dug into the data.

The point is that even if you want to be ultra optimistic about it, your still looking at a significant chunk of both Democrats and independents who'd support an RFk Jr. in the general election if he was the only option.  To me, the fact he's a presence at all tells me that there are major underlying problems with the Dem Party but get a fraction of the scrutiny that Republicans receive.  And when people don't pay attention...well, you know the rest.  Them's the breaks.

I was disappointed that you think my responses are just a knee-jerk reaction To say that Trump is the Big Shiny Object is a curious perspective on someone who has dominated US politics for a long time, and is still the front-runner for GOP Pres candidate. He has had a Presidential term and given his name to Trumpism. Even if you want to go "big  picture" on US democracy, I think he's more than a distraction, because if anyone talks about "actual reform", they're likely to run into people opposing reform: by and large, but not exclusively, they're likely to run into Republicans, aren't they? And many of those Republicans are supporters, apologists, enablers for Trump.

Nancy Pelosi is running for re-election at 83 years old.  People like Feinstein and Mitch McConnell stands up at a podium and do not seem to know who they are or where they're at.   Both parties oppose reform that would involve instituting actual term limits and limiting the amount of weaseling that goes behind the scenes. In order to have real reform, you'd need to start by putting an actual leash on these politicians but we don't really do that here.