•  
  • Übersicht

    Quasselzimmer

    Trump - was jetzt noch kommen mag?

    Betrifft

    Trump - was jetzt noch kommen mag?

    Kommentar

    Nachdem der letzte Trump-Faden bei L&L von Doris geschlossen wurde, aber vielleicht weiterhin Interesse an "the orange bastid" besteht, kann's ja vielleicht hier weitergehen.


    Ich hab letztens irgendwo gelesen (finde die Fundstelle aber nicht mehr), dass vor den Ausschreitungen in Washington am 6.1. erhebliche Zahlungen aus "dem Trump-Lager" an Vereinigungen getätig wurden, die dann maßgeblich in die Vorfälle verwickelt waren. Ich geh mal suchen.


    Edith meint, es war bei Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-...


    "Former President Donald Trump’s campaign paid more than $2.7 million over two years to individuals and firms that organized the Jan. 6 rally that led to rioters storming the U.S. Capitol, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


    The payments, which span Trump’s re-election campaign, show an ongoing financial relationship between the rally’s organizers and Trump’s political operation. They were all made through Nov. 23, the most recent date covered by Federal Election Commission filings, which is before the rally was publicly announced."

    VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  24 Jan. 21, 10:15
    Kommentar

    Thanks for the new thread; and yes, you should be able to find various sources for that.

    While I appreciate the option to continue in a less prominent place, I don't want to upset Doris, or make anyone else worry that it may just descend into repetitive name-calling, cussing, or bashing.

    If we could focus mainly on information and not just opinion, maybe it would help.

    ______________

    For Prosecutors, Trump’s Clemency Decisions Were a ‘Kick in the Teeth’
    Commutations in high-profile Medicare fraud cases have elicited anger among those who spent years pursuing complex prosecutions.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/us/politic...
    #1Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 24 Jan. 21, 10:24
    Kommentar

    Two informative articles from the NYT:


    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/us/politic...


    This is an account of the massive - and, in my view, pretty smart - efforts progressives made to ensure that the true results of the presidential election were not overturned. I had no idea that so many organizations were working hard for my benefit. :)


    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/trump-f...


    This is an account of the "The Financial Minefield Awaiting an Ex-President Trump." (One could be forgiven for assuming that financial problems were one of the reasons he thought he absolutely needed to retain control.)


    [edit]

    The article claims that "the cash lifelines he once relied on are gone." Here's hoping!

    #2VerfasserSD3 (451227)  24 Jan. 21, 17:00
    Kommentar

    Ruhig geworden hier ...


    https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/wahl-i...


    "Falschinformationen zur US-Wahl


    Giuliani auf 1,3 Milliarden Dollar Schadensersatz verklagt


    Rudy Giuliani hat das Ergebnis der US-Wahl mehrfach angezweifelt. Nun geht eine Wahlmaschinenfirma juristisch gegen Donald Trumps Vertrauten vor."


    Ich muss gestehen, dass ich mich eines gewissen Schmuzelns nicht erwehren kann :-D


    Ich wurde auf den Schreibfehler per PM aufmerksam gemacht, aber ich will "Schmuzeln" nicht wegmachen ;-)


    #3VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  25 Jan. 21, 17:33
    Kommentar

    Ebenso:


    China announces sanctions against 'lying and cheating' outgoing Trump officials


    Chinese foreign ministry announced sanctions against Mike Pompeo and 27 others as Biden was taking presidential oath

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/20...


    #4VerfasserGibson (418762) 25 Jan. 21, 18:18
    Kommentar

    Trump opens Office of the Former President; will ‘carry on the agenda of the Trump Administration’

    Former president Donald Trump announced Monday that he has formally opened the Office of the Former President.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/...


    This is a so-called "live update." Assuming the link is still live when you read this, you will probably need to scroll down to find the relevant section.


    Trump obviously can't take "no" for an answer.

    #5VerfasserSD3 (451227)  26 Jan. 21, 02:19
    Kommentar
    I had never heard of the Congressional Review Act. Is it too much to hope that it might be as promising as it sounds?

    _________________


    How to Fix 4 Years of Trump’s War Against Government
    The Biden administration must act quickly to repair the damage. ...
    In the dwindling months of his presidency, Mr. Trump pushed through a series of so-called midnight rules, surreptitiously sliding politically controversial and unpopular legacy items under the wire.
    These recent rules, for example, would expand the methods of execution in federal death cases to include electrocution and death by firing squad. They broaden the definition of “independent contractors,” allowing gig economy companies to avoid providing benefits and safety protections to their workers. They prevent immigration judges from using their discretion to close immigration cases and halt deportations, and allow federal contractors to claim a religious exemption to discriminate in hiring. They shield companies from liability for killing migratory birds and effectively ban certain methods of scientific research in the drafting of public health rules.
    Although the practice has historically been deployed by presidents of both parties, Mr. Trump turned it into a sport, finalizing more rules in his last year than any other modern president and even bypassing statutory waiting periods. ...
    Just hours after being sworn in, President Biden took bold action to freeze a litany of final and pending agency regulations and signed a bevy of executive orders reversing Trump-era policies. ...
    The Biden administration should also use the Congressional Review Act
    ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/801 )
    to reverse even more of the recent rules. The wins in Georgia’s Senate races — giving Democrats control of both houses of Congress as the presidency changes hands — provide the rare opportunity to use this little-known law.
    The review act allows agency rules sent to Congress on Aug. 21, 2020, or later to be rescinded by bare-majority votes in both houses, with the approval of the president. The rejection of a rule further bars an agency from adopting one that is “substantially the same” in the future, making reversal more enduring than some actions the executive can take alone. ...

    Neil Eggleston and Alexa Kissinger ...
    ... are lawyers who served in the administration of President Barack Obama. Mr. Eggleston was the White House counsel from 2014 to 2017. Ms. Kissinger was a special assistant to Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, from 2013 to 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/opinion/bi...

    Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General
    Trying to find another avenue to push his baseless election claims, Donald Trump considered installing a loyalist. ...
    The Justice Department’s top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department’s power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.
    The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump’s continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president’s entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.
    The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed?
    The answer was unanimous. They would resign.
    Their informal pact ultimately helped persuade Mr. Trump to keep Mr. Rosen in place, calculating that a furor over mass resignations at the top of the Justice Department would eclipse any attention on his baseless accusations of voter fraud. Mr. Trump’s decision came only after Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark made their competing cases to him in a bizarre White House meeting that two officials compared with an episode of Mr. Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice,” albeit one that could prompt a constitutional crisis.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politic...

    Fauci on What Working for Trump Was Really Like
    From denialism to death threats, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci describes a fraught year as an adviser to President Donald J. Trump on the Covid-19 pandemic.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/health/fau...
    #6Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 26 Jan. 21, 10:00
    Kommentar

    How to Fix 4 Years of Trump’s War Against Government


    Can´t fix this...

    #7VerfasserKronos327 (1300799) 26 Jan. 21, 10:11
    Kommentar

    I see that T's lawyers for his impeachment trial due to begin in a week or so have thrown in the towel. Apparently they and T could not agree on strategy. They wanted to base their case on the opinion that a president who is out of office cannot be impeached. T wanted them to argue that the 2020 election was rigged. The lawyers presumably did not see a way forward with his proposed strategy. Hawley and Cruz are lawyers. Perhaps they could take over the case.

    #8VerfasserSD3 (451227) 31 Jan. 21, 13:10
    Kommentar

    He should represent himself.

    #9VerfasserGibson (418762) 31 Jan. 21, 13:24
    Kommentar
    Zu sehen, wie er sich immer weiter reinreitet, wär echt Geld wert 😂
    #10VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 31 Jan. 21, 13:33
    Kommentar
    Hier noch eine interessante Analyse des Verhaltens von Mitch McConnell ggü dem EX-Peäsidenten. Sehr lesenswert. Und sehr illusionslos..

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01...

    After the Capitol assault—and after losing his perch as Majority Leader—the senator finally denounced the outgoing President. Was it a moral reckoning or yet another act of political self-interest?
    #11VerfasserQual der Wal (877524)  31 Jan. 21, 13:39
    Kommentar

    Ein Ex-Präsident.

    Keine Anwälte.

    Ein Impeachment-Verfahren.

    Eine Wahlbetrugsbehauptung.


    Wie will er das durchsetzen?

    #12VerfasserKronos327 (1300799) 31 Jan. 21, 15:15
    Kommentar

    Thanks for the link, Qual der Wal. That's a very good article (Jane Mayer is a very good journalist).


    McConnell knows the rules of the game better than most, and he uses them in the service of his own interests. I would not expect him to pursue a morally consistent path, or even a course that was in the best interests of the people of the US, if it did not benefit him.

    #13VerfasserSD3 (451227) 31 Jan. 21, 15:20
    Kommentar

    Der "Schamane" Jacob Chansley wurde nach dem gewaltsamen Sturm auf das Kapitol zum Symbol für den randalierenden Mob. Ausgerechnet er will nun vor dem US-Kongress gegen Donald Trump aussagen. Denn entgegen seiner Erwartungen habe ihn der Ex-Präsident nicht begnadigt. [...] Die Aussage Chansleys könnte Einfluss auf die Position der Republikaner nehmen ...

    (https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Hoerner-Mann-will...)

    Die Einschätzung, dass die Aussage des "Hörnermanns" die bzw. einzelne Republikaner dazu bringen könnte, für ein Impeachment zu stimmen, klingt zwar wie Musik in meinen Ohren, ich bezweifle sie jedoch stark.

    #14VerfasserfehlerTeufel (1317098) 01 Feb. 21, 08:00
    Kommentar

    Ich möchte wissen, wie Trump sich das vorstellt. Etwa so?


    Ankläger: Mr. Trump, Sie werden beschuldigt, als amtierender Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zum tätlichen Angriff auf Verfassungsorgane der USA aufgerufen und dadurch eine hochgefährliche Situation ausgelöst zu haben, der fünf Menschen zum Opfer gefallen sind. Deshalb sollen Sie nachträglich des Amtes enthoben werden. Was haben Sie dazu zu sagen?

    Trump: Ich habe die Wahl gewonnen.

    Ankläger: Das steht hier nicht zur Debatte. Bitte äußern Sie sich zum Vorwurf.

    Trump: Aber ich habe doch die Wahl gewonnen.

    Ankläger: So kommen wir nicht weiter. Vielleicht lassen Sie besser ihren Anwalt sprechen.

    Trump: Ich habe keinen Anwalt. Ich brauche keinen Anwalt. Ich habe die Wahl gewonnen.

    Ankläger: Wollen Sie damit sagen, wenn Sie die Wahl gewonnen hätten, wäre Ihr Handeln rechtens gewesen?

    Trump: Ich habe die Wahl gewonnen. Ich bin der rechtmäßige Präsident. Die Demokraten haben die Wahl gestohlen. Jawohl, gestohlen!

    Ankläger: Also gut. Sie sagen, Sie hätten die Wahl gewonnen. Das wurde schon vom Obersten Gerichtshof als unwahr zurückgewiesen. Haben Sie vielleicht neue Beweise?

    Trump: Bitte - ähh ... was? Ich habe die W...

    Ankläger: Ja ja, schon gut. Beweise. Irgendetwas, was belegen könnte, dass Sie die Wahl tatsächlich gewonnen haben.

    Trump: Ich, ähh ... ich verstehe nicht -- die Demokraten haben natürlich alle Beweismittel vernichtet, aber ich habe die Wahl gewonnen! 

    Ankläger: Mr Trump, ich fordere Sie nochmals auf, Ihr verantwortungsloses Handeln am 6. Januar zu erklären. 

    Trump: Ich habe alle Patrioten aufgefordert, durchzusetzen, dass ich die Wahl gewonnen habe.

    Ankläger: Und dafür sind Ihnen alle Mittel recht?

    Trump: Selbstverständlich! Ich habe die Wahl gewonnen!

    Ankläger: Mr Trump, wer ist aktuell der rechtmäßige Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten?

    Trump: Na, ich natürlich! Ich habe die Wahl gewonnen!

    Ankläger: Also, da Sie, wie Sie meinen, der rechtmäßige Präsident sind, kann man Sie ja auch rechtmäßig des Amtes entheben.

    Trump: ... ähh ... ??

    Ankläger: Wir schreiten jetzt zur Abstimmung im Senat ...

     

    Ergebnis: Antrag abgelehnt. Begründung: Jemanden, der nicht Präsident ist, kann man auch nicht des Präsidentenamtes entheben.


    #15Verfasserdirk (236321)  01 Feb. 21, 08:40
    Kommentar
    Ich hatte irgendwo in den früheren Trump-Fäden zur Wahl von Marjorie Greene gesagt, dass das Repräsentantenhaus sicherlich schon früher verrückte Vertreter hatte und auch diese Verrückte überstehen werde. Jetzt bin ich mir nicht mehr so sicher:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/...

    Mitch McConnell says congresswoman's 'loony lies' are 'a cancer' for Republicans
    Senate minority leader didn’t name Marjorie Taylor Greene, but the remarks were clearly directed at the QAnon supporter

    ... McConnell’s outspoken remarks on Greene can be seen as part of the delicate path he is trying to walk between the pro-Trump and post-Trump wings of the Republican party which are increasingly at loggerheads. Greene, a fervent member of the former group, has said that she recently talked with Trump and has his support....
    #16VerfasserQual der Wal (877524) 02 Feb. 21, 07:49
    Kommentar

    The problem is that the vile Ms. Greene is not in the Senate, where McConnell still has some influence, but in the House, where GOP leader Kevin McCarthy recently traveled to Florida to lick Trump's boots and display submission/fealty. It remains to be seen whether McConnell feels strongly enough to actually vote to convict in the Senate trial, but that seems unlikely, to say the least.

    The Trump news is so scattershot that I'm not sure it's even a good idea to repeat it. But for what it's worth ...

    ______________


    Donald Trump hires new impeachment defence team after lead lawyers quit
    Lawyers David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor will head up new legal team after Butch Bowers clashed with Trump over strategy

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/...

    The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy ...
    Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset over 40 years and proved so willing to parrot anti-western propaganda that there were celebrations in Moscow, a former KGB spy has told the Guardian.
    Yuri Shvets, posted to Washington by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, compares the former US president to “the Cambridge five”, the British spy ring that passed secrets to Moscow during the second world war and early cold war.
    Now 67, Shvets is a key source for American Kompromat, a new book by journalist Craig Unger, whose previous works include House of Trump, House of Putin. The book also explores the former president’s relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/...

    Dolly Parton turned down presidential medal of freedom twice from Trump
    Singer says she’s not sure she’ll accept it from Biden either because it might seem political to do so

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/feb/02...
    #17Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 03 Feb. 21, 11:09
    Kommentar

    House votes to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from committee assignments

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/04/politics/h...


    Mit mageren 11 Stimmen der Republikaner. Aber besser als 0.

    #18VerfasserGibson (418762)  05 Feb. 21, 14:41
    Kommentar

    *schnüff* das wäre bestimmt erhellend geworden

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/...

    Donald Trump will refuse to testify at Senate impeachment trial, lawyers say

    Democrats had challenged Trump to explain in next week’s proceedings why he disputed factual allegations


    #19VerfasserMasu (613197) 05 Feb. 21, 14:58
    Kommentar

    I had never heard of this guy, but the NYT seemed to think he was worth a mention.

    Or else they were just clutching at straws, again. /-:

    _________________


    Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial
    Charles J. Cooper, a stalwart of the conservative legal establishment, said that Republicans were wrong to assert that it is unconstitutional for a former president to be tried for impeachable offenses. ...
    In an opinion piece posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website,
    ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution... )
    the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, who is closely allied with top Republicans in Congress, dismissed as illogical the claim that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president. The piece came two days before the Senate was set to start the proceeding, in which Mr. Trump is charged with “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the deadly assault on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politic...
    #20Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 08 Feb. 21, 10:50
    Kommentar

    I think this is another sign that the Republican Party is in the process of figuring out if they want to be Trump's party or a post-Trump party. This lawyer is clearly with the post-Trump crowd.

    Most Republicans in the House seem to be in Trump's party. And as long as Trump can whip up his base and get his people through in the announced primary challenges this will not change. If Trump loses his base those same people will turn their back on him faster than anyone can count (even in the Zählfaden :-))

    #21VerfasserAGB (236120)  08 Feb. 21, 12:05
    Kommentar


    Putting my clean sheets on the bed before heading for it, I just caught this NPR report by Nina Totenberg, one of the best judicial reporters in D.C. I don't know whether it's ultimately encouraging, but it seemed like at least a faint ray of light.


    ________________



    'I Said The Opposite': Criticism Of Trump's Impeachment Defense Intensifies

    By Nina Totenberg

    [Feb. 9, 2021, Morning Edition, NPR]

    https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/... ...

    A constitutional law professor whose work is cited extensively by former President Trump's lawyers in their impeachment defense brief says his work has been seriously misrepresented.

    In a 78-page brief filed in the U.S. Senate Monday, Trump's lawyers rely heavily on the work of Michigan State University Professor Brian Kalt, author of the seminal article about impeachment of a former president. His work is cited 15 times in the Trump brief, often for the proposition that the Senate does not have the authority under the constitution to try an impeached ex-president.

    The problem is that Kalt's 2001 book-length law review article concluded that, on balance, the historical evidence is against Trump's legal argument.

    "The worst part is the three places where they said I said something when, in fact, I said the opposite," Kalt said in an interview with NPR.

    Trump's lawyers argue that the Senate lacks jurisdiction because the president is already out of office, making an impeachment trial pointless. Kalt argues that impeachment is about more than removal; it's about accountability and deterrence. "The framers worried about people abusing their power to keep themselves in office," he adds. "The point is the timing of the conduct, not the timing of the legal proceeding."

    Kalt is among more than 170 leading constitutional scholars who have formally weighed in on this issue, telling the Senate that contrary to Trump's assertion, it does have the authority to try Trump.

    There are relatively few scholars on the other side. But among them is the highly respected Columbia Law Professor Philip Bobbitt. "If you look at the text of the Federalist Papers," Bobbitt argues, "getting the person out of office ... is the object."

    Those who argue for the Senate trial, such as Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, contend that it makes no sense to allow a president who commits serious offenses in the final weeks or months in office, and who is impeached by the House of Representatives while he is in office, to escape from a trial by the Senate.

    "[Do] you want to give someone a 'get out of jail free' card at the end of the administration so they can do anything they like and be immune from. ... the high court of impeachment?" Amar asks.

    Even as scholars across the political spectrum are increasingly voicing support for a Senate trial, they acknowledge that there are precedents both ways ...

    There is another legal defense that Trump's lawyers are pushing hard. They contend that a Senate trial and conviction would be in violation of his free speech rights. "The unsupported idea that because Mr. Trump was an elected official ... he has fewer rights under the First Amendment than anyone else," is "sophistry," they argue. And they contend that nothing Trump said on Jan. 6 or before was any different from what Democratic members of the House said in urging on Black Lives Matter protesters.

    Not so, says Peter Keisler, a conservative Republican who served as acting attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.

    "The First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech simply doesn't apply to impeachment," he says. "This isn't a criminal prosecution which seeks to render someone's speech illegal." Trump is entitled to hold whatever opinions he wants, and to express them, Keisler says. "But he is not entitled to assert a First Amendment defense against removal or disqualification from office ... because the founders were in particular worried about. ... the ways in which demagogues could become tyrants."

    The distinction between a criminal proceeding and an impeachment is critical. ...

    Indeed, if convicted, the worst that could [happen] would be that the Senate, by majority vote, could ban him from future federal office.

    https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/...


    Donald Trump impeachment trial: what you need to know

    Senate trial begins on Tuesday for ex-president charged with ‘incitement of insurrection’ over Capitol riot

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/...


    Watch Live ...

    U.S. Senate

    Impeachment Trial

    The Senate impeachment trial of former President Trump begins with arguments and a vote on the constitutionality of the trial. Opening arguments from the House impeachment managers and the former president’s defense team are expected to follow. ...

    [Feb. 9], 2021 | 12:55pm EST | C-SPAN 2

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?508293-1/impeac...


    #22Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  09 Feb. 21, 13:23
    Kommentar

    Interesting news:

    One Republican senator changed his opinion, if Trump can be tried with impeachment when he is not president anymore, to yes. The last time the vote was that 45:5 Republicans found an impeachment trial unconstitutional, yesterday it was 44:6 Republicans. In both cases all 50 Democrats and Independents caucusing with the Democrats found such a trial constitutional on the argument that there cannot be a short timeframe in which the President cannot be held accountable for his actions in office.

    #23VerfasserAGB (236120) 10 Feb. 21, 10:04
    Kommentar
    Acquitted again.

    https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/tr...

    Moral bankruptcy at its best. Or worst :-(
    #24VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  13 Feb. 21, 21:55
    Kommentar
    Moral bankruptcy. Are you talking about McConnell‘s speech after the acquittal?
    #25VerfasserAmy-MiMi (236989) 13 Feb. 21, 22:18
    Kommentar

    Minutes after the verdict was announced Mr. Trump sent out a statement thanking his legal team and decrying, as he did for most of his presidency the “witch hunt” he says is being waged upon him by his enemies.

    “It is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law, defame law enforcement, cheer mobs, excuse rioters, and transform justice into a tool of political vengeance, and persecute, blacklist, cancel and suppress all people and viewpoints with whom or which they disagree,” he wrote, echoing the final arguments of his lawyers in the Senate on Saturday.

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/13/us/im...


    I'm speechless. Cheer mobs? Excuse rioters? Transform justice into a tool of political vengeance? The other party???

    #26VerfasserGibson (418762) 13 Feb. 21, 22:28
    Kommentar
    About the fact that there were not more Republicans with a modicum of spine and a residue of decency.
    #27VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 13 Feb. 21, 22:34
    Kommentar
    Sorry, that question was sarcastic. McConnell talks big now. Trump hasn‘t gotten away with anything yet. Yet. Really, Mitch? What are you going to do?
    #28VerfasserAmy-MiMi (236989) 13 Feb. 21, 22:48
    Kommentar

    "Denigrate" - ein Wort mit einer interessanten Wortgeschichte. Warum es wohl gerade im 19. Jh. wiederbelebt wurde?


    denigrate (v.)

    1520s, "to sully or stain" (the reputation, character, etc.), from Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare "to blacken; to defame," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nigr-, stem of niger "black" (see Negro), which is of unknown origin.

    The figurative sense is oldest in English; the literal sense of "blacken, make black" is recorded from 1620s. But denigrate as a past-participle adjective meaning "darkened, discolored" is attested from early 15c. "Apparently disused in 18th c. and revived in 19th c." [OED]. Related: Denigrated; denigrating.

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/denigrate

    #29VerfasserSelima (107) 14 Feb. 21, 09:13
    Kommentar

    @Amy-MiMi:

    If you want to find a person to showcase hypocrisy you currently have quite a selection. McConnell is just one, but I agree one of the worst.

    #30VerfasserAGB (236120) 15 Feb. 21, 15:30
    Kommentar
    I can‘t believe that no journalists or commentators are talking about how reprehensible it is that Republicans are being censured for voting for impeachment or conviction. It’s true that they represent their constituents and many may not like the way they voted, but we don’t (didn’t?) have ParteIzwang here; they should evaluate evidence and vote their conscience. And I saw Trumpist in the media. Have we sunk so low? Yes, we have.

    *würg*

    Please, Joe, be so competent that things can get better. How nice that he‘s making a trip to Michigan (to a Pfizer plant where they manufacture vaccine), and it won‘t be all about him.
    #31VerfasserAmy-MiMi (236989) 15 Feb. 21, 23:39
    Kommentar

    Trump attacks McConnell in lengthy statement, calls him ‘dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack’

    It's the normal rambling insults laced with threats, attacks and self-adulation.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/...


    Not that I have any interest in defending Mitch Machiavelli, "gamer" par excellence of the American political system. The speech he made following his vote in favor of the "breaker" par excellence made my jaw drop. What a hypocrite!


    #32VerfasserSD3 (451227) 17 Feb. 21, 01:06
    Kommentar

    Geht mir genauso, was das Mitgefühl für McConnell betrifft.


    Die Nachricht ist auch in allen deutschsprachigen Medien. Trumps Attacke soll der NYT zufolge im Ursprungstext noch stärkerer Tobak gewesen sein als:

    "Politischer Nichtsnutz", "unbeliebtester Politiker der Vereinigten Staaten"*** mit dem, falls die Republikaner an solchen wie ihm als Führungsperson festhalten, "sie nie wieder gewinnen würden", der "abgesetzt" gehöre wegen "fehlendem politischem Verständnisses, mangelnder Weisheit, Begabung und Persönlichkeit" (bei jemandem, der seit 36 Jahren politisch aktiv ist ausgerechnet aus dem Mund von Trump), Drohungen, bei den nächsten Wahlen die Herausforderer seiner parteiinternen Kritiker zu unterstützen.


    Wenn sich die GOP damit mal nicht ins politische Abseits katapultiert. Die Demokraten treten bislang noch geschlossen auf, bei den Republikanern wird offen darüber gemunkelt, sowohl Trump und seine Getreuen planten, eine neue Partei zu gründen, als auch Vertreter des moderaten Flügels.


    ***YouGove und The Economist untersuchten vor ein paar Tagen in einer Umfrage, wer der als der schlechteste bzw. beste Präsident der US-Geschichte angesehen wird. Ergebnis:

    Bester: 1. B. Obama 18%, 2. A. Lincoln 17%, 3. D. Trump 13%.

    Schlechtester: 1. D. Trump 46%, 2. B. Obama 24%, 3. R. Nixon 5%.

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/j4gnxcc2td/econTo... (Fragen 58/59)


    Interessant vielleicht auch die Fragen nach Joe Biden. 34% der Befragten hatten bei den Wahlen für Biden gestimmt, 31% für Trump. Vielleicht auch deshalb liegt Biden bei fast allen Fragen zu ihm im positiven Bereich, doch die Zahl derer, die ihn für unlegitim, unfähig, falsch usw. halten, ist noch erschreckend hoch.

    #33VerfasserReeva (908916) 17 Feb. 21, 09:31
    Kommentar

    "Wenn sich die GOP damit mal nicht ins politische Abseits katapultiert." - na hoffentlich tut sie das.


    "bei den Republikanern wird offen darüber gemunkelt, sowohl Trump und seine Getreuen planten, eine neue Partei zu gründen, als auch Vertreter des moderaten Flügels." - wenn die damit in der Versenkung verschwänden, wäre das zwar doof, weil dann nur eine große Partei über bliebe, aber man muss ja Opfer bringen :-D

    #34VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 17 Feb. 21, 09:34
    Kommentar

    wenn die damit in der Versenkung verschwänden, wäre das zwar doof, weil dann nur eine große Partei über bliebe, aber man muss ja Opfer bringen :-D

    Stimmt schon, aber aus der Versenkung kann man trotzdem noch andere Politiker verleumden.

    #35VerfasserKronos327 (1300799) 17 Feb. 21, 09:39
    Kommentar

    Klar, aber politische Macht werden die Typen dann auf absehbare Zeit nicht mehr haben.

    #36VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 17 Feb. 21, 09:46
    Kommentar

    Wäre ich mir nicht so sicher. Siehe "Brexit Party" und die Tories. Erst Konkurrenten, und dann schön gemeinsam dem Blondschopf eine massive Mehrheit beschert.


    Der Effekt, den man auch bei CSU und AfD zeitweise beobachten konnte: Eine im Aufwind begriffene Bewegung rechts von einer sowieso schon sehr konservativen Partei wird das Programm dieser konservativen Partei ebenfalls weiter nach rechts rücken, anstatt es als moderateres Gegengewicht zu gestalten.

    #37Verfassergrinsessa (1265817)  17 Feb. 21, 14:12
    Kommentar

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/us/supreme...


    Today, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's accountants must release his tax returns to prosecutors in New York. Since Nixon, it has been the practice for US presidents to make their tax returns available. Despite promising to do the same, Trump has tried to keep his information secret - all the way up to the Supreme Court. Now, it seems, he's out of options.

    #38VerfasserSD3 (451227) 22 Feb. 21, 19:51
    Kommentar

    Denkst du, er findet jetzt noch ein Schlupfloch, oder muss er jetzt wirklich? Ich erinnere mich, vor einiger Zeit mal gelesen zu haben, dass sich die rechtlichen Streitigkeiten über dieses Thema noch über einen sehr langen Zeitraum hinziehen könnten - ein Urteil des Supreme Court hört sich aber für mich eigentlich schon so an, dass er jetzt keine weiteren Möglichkeiten mehr hat. Oder?

    #39VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 22 Feb. 21, 20:57
    Kommentar

    Ich bin zwar nicht vom Fach, aber ich denke, es wird für ihn jetzt ein bißchen eng. In New York laufen ja schon seit Längerem einige Ermittlungen gegen ihn wegen möglicher Steuerhinterziehung u.s.w.

    #40VerfasserSD3 (451227) 22 Feb. 21, 22:00
    Kommentar

    Da die Unterlagen nicht von ihm angefordert wurden, sondern von externen Buchhaltern - die Firma heisst Mazar - und diese bereits angekündigt haben, dass sie seine Unterlagen nach diesem Urteil an die Strafverfolgungsbehörden weitergeben werden, kann Trump diese Weitergabe nicht verhindern. Das heisst aber nicht, dass seine Steuern öffentlich werden, denn sie werden unter dem Siegel der Grand Jury lediglich zur Strafverfolgung zur Verfügung stehen.

    #41VerfasserAGB (236120) 23 Feb. 21, 07:36
    Kommentar

    Vielleicht kann er seine externen Buchhalter noch verklagen. Oder hat er das schon?

    #42VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  23 Feb. 21, 08:54
    Kommentar

    Anhänger von Ex-US-Präsident Donald Trump spielen nach Polizeiangaben offen mit dem Gedanken, einen schweren Anschlag auf das Kapitol in Washington mit zahlreichen Toten zu verüben. Angehörige von Milizen "haben ihren Wunsch geäußert, dass sie das Kapitol in die Luft jagen und so viele (Kongress-)Mitglieder wie möglich umbringen wollen", teilte die kommissarische Chefin der für das Parlament zuständigen Polizei, Yogananda Pittman, mit.

    Als Zeitpunkt für das Vorhaben sei die anstehende Rede von Trumps Nachfolger Joe Biden vor beiden Kongresskammern genannt worden. Ein konkreter Termin für diese einmal pro Jahr gehaltene Ansprache, in der sich der Präsident traditionell zur Lage der Nation äußert, steht noch nicht fest. Normalerweise findet sie in den ersten Monaten des Jahres statt.

    https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Trump-Anhaenger-w...



    #43VerfasserReeva (908916) 27 Feb. 21, 09:16
    Kommentar

    😱😨WAS?

    Bekriegen sich die Amerikaner jetzt untereinander?

    Das wird sich zu einer Krise entwickeln. Wenn das so weiter geht, dann wird es zu Bürgerkriegen kommen.

    International ist man zwar froh über die Wahl von Joe Biden, aber solange Trump noch politische Macht besitzt wird es weiter solche Äußerungen und möglicherweise sogar Anschläge geben.

    Für mich tut sich die Frage auf, ob Trump das angezettelt hat, oder sind seine Anhänger von selbst drauf gekommen?


    Laut Medien bereitet er sein Comeback vor:

    https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/wirtschaft/ame...

    #44VerfasserKronos327 (1300799) 27 Feb. 21, 10:16
    Kommentar
    Irgendwelche Endverstrahlten haben zur Conservative Political Action Conference eine goldene Statue vom ehemaligen Moron in Chief schaffen lassen. Das kannste dir echt nicht ausdenken ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/...
    #45VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 28 Feb. 21, 23:02
    Kommentar

    ... wobei ich den Verdacht nicht loswerde, dass mit der Statue etwas nicht stimmt. Es könnte sich um das Werk eines Satirikers handeln, der dieses groteske Ding unter falscher Flagge bei der CPAC untergebracht hat. Dafür spricht auch das sonderbare Eigenlob des Künstlers:


    Zegan said the piece on display at CPAC is actually the fiberglass mold of the real, stainless steel sculpture currently stored in a warehouse in Tampa where it awaits a potentially high-profile showcase.


    "It is museum-quality, and that's the one I'm eventually hoping to get in the Trump library," Zegan said. "It is literally priceless."


    So 'priceless', dass sie bei der CPAC mit der Fiberglas-Version vorliebnehmen mussten?

    #46VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  01 Mär. 21, 14:20
    Kommentar

    Ein Bericht im Heute Journal gestern war alles andere als optimistisch. Mehr als die Hälfte der Republikaner seien nach neuesten Umfragen bereit Gewalt anzuwenden, wenn sich ihr Land nicht so entwickelt, wie sie es wollen. Ansonsten wird versucht, das Wählen mit immer neuen Gesetzesanträgen schwieriger zu machen bzw. die Wahlergebnisse zu beeinflussen. Anträge zu Gerrymandering, Anzahl der Wahllokale, Briefwahl usw., alles betrifft vor allem Minderheiten und Sozialschwache.


    2020 wurden in 15 Bundesstaaten 35 solcher Gesetze beantragt, 2021 in 33 Bundesstaaten 165!

    https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute-journal/...





    #47VerfasserReeva (908916) 10 Mär. 21, 18:01
    Kommentar
    Mal wieder was irgendwie Erstaunliches und dann auch wieder nicht aus dem Trump-Lager:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/...

    Pro-Trump lawyer says ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her election lies
    Lawyers for Sidney Powell argued conspiracies she laid out constituted legally protected first amendment speech

    A key member of the legal team that sought to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump is defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact.
    In a motion to dismiss a complaint by the large US-based voting machine company Dominion, lawyers for Sidney Powell argued that elaborate conspiracies she laid out on television and radio last November while simultaneously suing to overturn election results in four states constituted legally protected first amendment speech.
    #48VerfasserQual der Wal (877524) 23 Mär. 21, 23:50
    Kommentar

    Das geht ja noch weiter:


    In her defense against the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell argued that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases.


    “In fact,” Powell’s motion reads, “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.”


    Also, Powells Argument ist: Kein vernünftiger Mensch konnte das glauben, aber sie glaubt es, und deshalb war es keine Verleumdung? -- Okay, wenn man mich auf 1,3 Milliarden Dollar verklagt, würde ich mich notfalls auch für komplett bescheuert erklären.

    #49VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  24 Mär. 21, 05:20
    Kommentar

    Sollte Powell damit durchkommen und evtl. einen Präzedenzfall kreieren, könnte dann zukünftig jedwede Verleumdungsklage vom Tisch gefegt werden, vielleicht auch Falschaussagen oder Meineide? Man glaubte ja fest daran und ist somit unschuldig. Oder möchte man sich lieber für unzurechnungsfähig erklären lassen?


    Kein vernünftiger Mensch konnte doch für bare Münze nehmen, was ich da von mir gegeben habe. Ich war jedoch überzeugt davon.

    #50VerfasserReeva (908916)  24 Mär. 21, 08:42
    Kommentar
    Trump tut, was er am besten kann: Zusammenhangloses Zeugs blubbern ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/...

    “I just got, I turned off the news, I get all these flash reports, and they’re telling me about the border, they’re telling me about China, they’re telling me about Iran – how’re we doing with Iran, how do you like that?

    “Boy, they were ready to make a deal, they would have done anything, they would have done anything, and this guy goes and drops the sanctions and then he says, ‘We’d love to negotiate now,’ [and Iran replies], ‘We’re not dealing with the United States at all,’ Oh, well, they don’t want to deal with us.”

    Was für ein Gestammel.
    #51VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 29 Mär. 21, 22:37
    Kommentar
    #52VerfasserKronos327 (1300799) 30 Mär. 21, 09:52
    Kommentar

    Aus dem Link in 52, wie üblich unter der Gürtellinie und natürlich ist ein Virologe völlig inkompetent, wenn er ein miserabler Baseballspieler ist:

    Trump bezeichnete Fauci und Birx als "zwei Selbstdarsteller, die versuchen, die Geschichte umzudeuten, um ihre schlechten Instinkte und fehlerhaften Empfehlungen zu überdecken". Fauci habe etwa davon abgeraten, zu Beginn der Pandemie Einreisen aus China in die USA zu unterbinden. Trump sagte, er habe nicht auf Fauci gehört und auf diese Weise viele Menschenleben gerettet.

    Der Ex-Präsident ätzte weiter, Fauci könne nicht mal vernünftig einen Baseball werfen. Birx wiederum nannte er eine "Lügnerin", die nur noch "sehr wenig Glaubwürdigkeit" habe. Viele ihrer Ratschläge seien als "Pseudo-Wissenschaft" angesehen worden, spottete Trump. Auch Fauci habe immer schlecht über Birx gesprochen und nicht mal mit ihr in einem Raum sein wollen, behauptete er.




    #53VerfasserReeva (908916) 30 Mär. 21, 10:30
    Kommentar

    (aus dem Off....hatte es gar nicht mehr so richtig auf dem Schirm, dass ich hier ein Lesezeichen hatte.....)


    Findet ihr es wirklich sinnvoll, dieser Art Äußerungen eines Ex-Präsidenten hier auf Leo eine Plattform für die weitere Verbreitung zu verschaffen?

    Ich weiß ja, dass ihr es kritisch tut, aber trotzdem wäre es bedenkenswert, meine ich, so etwas eher mit Nicht-Beachtung zu behandeln anstatt es - wenn auch in lauterer Absicht - weiter zu streuen.

    #54VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 30 Mär. 21, 10:37
    Kommentar

    Findet ihr es wirklich sinnvoll, dieser Art Äußerungen eines Ex-Präsidenten hier auf Leo eine Plattform für die weitere Verbreitung zu verschaffen?


    Meine 2 Cents: sinnvoll wohl nicht, aber manchmal spaßig. Leo ist ja nicht Twitter oder Facebook; die Reichweite und der potentielle Schaden, wenn sein BS hier weitergegeben wird, dürfte gering sein.


    Übrigens war letztens zu hören, Facebook sei gerade dabei, T's Sperrung zu "prüfen"; hoffentlich geben sie ihn nicht wieder frei. Die amerikanischen Medien würden sich dann wieder auf jeden Mist stürzen, den er von sich gibt; es ist einfach so bequem...

    #55VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 30 Mär. 21, 11:23
    Kommentar

    Leo ist ja nicht Twitter oder Facebook

    Manchmal bin ich mir da nicht so sicher.

    #56VerfasserDoris (LEO-Team) (33)  30 Mär. 21, 11:26
    Kommentar
    Mr. C.
    Ist für mich kein wirkliches Argument, dass es eine noch größere Verbreitung gäbe.
    Auch jede Verbreitung im kleinen Rahmen ist zuviel.
    Auch "spaßig" überzeugt mich da weniger... Es geht mir auch weniger um große Schäden, eher darum, dass er in der Öffentlichkeit geächtet werden sollte und keinen Raum haben sollte, auch nicht bei Leo.
    #57VerfasserGoldammer (428405)  30 Mär. 21, 16:30
    Kommentar

    Das stimmt insofern, als T. es ja nicht so weit gebracht hätte, wenn die sozialen und anderen Medien seinen gefährlichen Schwachsinn nicht so bereitwillig in die Welt getragen hätten. Das hätten sie besser gelassen, allerdings ist der Zug ja inzwischen abgefahren und der Mann auch nicht mehr im Amt. Ich halte nichts davon, nachträglich eine Art Voldemort aus ihm zu machen, dessen Namen zu nennen Unheil heraufbeschwört.


    Das wäre schon deshalb falsch, weil ja die Aufarbeitung -- man könnte sagen: Bewältigung -- seiner "Regierungs"-Zeit noch aussteht. Sie wird kaum möglich sein, wenn man sich mit ihm nicht mehr öffentlich befassen darf, weil er ja, wie du schreibst, "geächtet" gehört.


    Ob nun Leo der passende Ort für diese Diskussion ist, steht auf einem anderen Blatt; es war sicher schon mal richtig, den T-Faden aus Land und Leute zu den weniger gewichtigen Quasselzimmerfäden zu verlegen.

    #58VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  31 Mär. 21, 08:17
    Kommentar

    ...eine Art Lord Voldemort aus ihm zu machen, dessen Namen zu nennen Unheil heraufbeschwört.


    ...ehm, wer hat dafür plädiert oder sich in diese Richtung geäußert? Ich jedenfalls nicht.

    Dagegen verwahre ich mich entschiedenst.


    (Vielleicht hast du dich am Begriff "geächtet" aufgehängt, das war vielleicht etwas missverständlich formuliert. Was ich meinte war: Seine jetzigen banalen, unwichtigen Äußerungen zu irgendwelchen Personen gehören mit Verachtung gestraft und keiner Aufmerksamkeit gewürdigt.)


    Ich bin nicht gegen eine Aufarbeitung der Amtszeit. Ich habe auch nichts dagegen, wenn man sich mit ihm, dem Phänomen seiner Anhängerschaft oder den Auswirkungen seiner Tätigkeit öffentlich auseinandersetzt. Ich kann allerdings nicht wirklich erkennen, wie eine Verbreitung der bescheuertsten Äußerungen, die Trump jetzt aktuell macht und die mit seiner Amtszeit praktisch nichts zu tun haben, dazu etwas beitragen kann, sei es auf Leo oder sonstwo.


    Aber seis drum - wenn's dir solchen Spaß macht, dann tu's eben.

    #59VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 31 Mär. 21, 08:35
    Kommentar

    Danke für die Erlaubnis. Es dürfte übrigens schwierig sein, Trumpsche Äußerungen zu finden, die nicht banal sind oder nicht zumindest ihre "bescheuerten" Seiten haben.

    #60VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 31 Mär. 21, 08:43
    Kommentar

    Immer gerne, keine Ursache! 😀


    Genau das meine ich - Äußerungen von ihm zu verbreiten dient meiner Ansicht nach nicht zu irgendeinem Zweck, außer sich genüßlich an ihrer Doofheit zu weiden.

    Bringt auch keinerlei neue Aspekte in die Diskussion. Kennen wir alles schon.

    #61VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 31 Mär. 21, 08:51
    Kommentar
    LEO does have its trollish waves and internecine spats (bikes! cars!), but on the whole I thought we had been trying pretty hard to keep things relatively sachlich and not just rant and rave, even though we all have often felt like it occasionally. /-:

    Probably none of us want to see the thread prolonged just to keep rehashing the same frustrations. But on the other hand, it still seems to me that there is some value in keeping an eye on the facts of what's happening, especially now that new developments are happening farther offstage from the mainstream media.

    It also still seems important to keep looing back at how Trump got so much power and came so close to an authoritarian takeover, because it's not at all clear that we're out of danger yet. The likelihood that Republicans will come surging back in the elections of 2022, perhaps even retaking both houses of Congress, seems worryingly strong to me, because the margin is already so thin, and it seems so unlikely that Biden will be able to accomplish anything significant before then, and there's always such a backlash against the party in power at the midterm.

    I wasn't sure where or whether to mention these articles, but maybe they halfway fit here and could at least give us something different but related to think about.

    Ross Douthat is one of a couple of token conservatives at the New York Times. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions he draws, particularly his sense that Trumpian conservatism must be a waning force just because it's so nutty and not as widely supported by military and industrial leaders as the Nazis were in the Weimar era. Surely that's dangerously wishful thinking.

    In that sense, it's also sobering to read Harvard history professor Jill Lepore's review of the weaknesses of the US constitution when it comes to preventing dictatorship.

    _____________________


    ‘Babylon Berlin,’ Babylon America?
    How watching a TV show about Weimar Germany can help us interpret our own era. ...
    ... if you are inclined to see contemporary America, under Donald Trump or after him, as a nation entering its own Weimar period, there will be scenes from the Berlin tapestry that prompt a shock of recognition.
    This includes the aspects of Weimar that inspire nostalgia on the left, the Babylon Brooklyn mix of socialist radicalism and sexual liberation. It includes the bully-boy factions in the streets, whose menace antifa and the Proud Boys imitate in our own era. It includes the way that extremes can radicalize one another as the center weakens, the agony of moderate figures trying to decide whether their official political opponents or their more extreme ideological allies are the bigger threat, and the mix of cynicism and naïveté with which the wrong choice is often made.
    Above all it includes the depiction of Berlin itself, the show’s real main character, a self-contained world of deracination and atomization, sexual experimentation and depravity, utopian fantasy and reactionary zeal, old and new bigotries, media frenzies and political radicalization. What is the city, if not the late-1920s version of the internet?
    But then alongside these familiarities there is the stronger shock of difference. The scale of poverty and degradation on display, even before the Great Depression hits, is a reminder that the world in which the Nazis rose was extraordinarily poorer than our own, with a fundamental fragility even for the middle class that neither the Great Recession nor the coronavirus have yet delivered to Americans. The violent legacy of World War I, its brutalization of an entire generation, is palpable in both the violence in Berlin’s streets and the literal shell shock afflicting multiple male characters: No recent American trauma can compare.
    Equally unfamiliar is the scope of viable-seeming political possibilities for the characters to embrace. In the course of the show we meet Stalinists and Trotskyists and White Russians, nationalists and fascists and would-be restorers of the Kaiser, as well as the fractious defenders of the republic. Almost all of them, crucially, have real-world correlatives for their ambitions — still-extant monarchies, the Soviet Union, Mussolini’s Italy. If the tragedy of Weimar is that it went through a doorway that opened into hell, the drama of Weimar is that so many doors were open, so many different political futures seemed entirely possible — in a way that makes our own era’s radicalisms feel more fantastic, ungrounded or made for cable TV.
    Then the final thing that’s striking about Weimar’s world compared to ours is the sweeping institutional and cultural strength of the nationalist right. Indeed if anything the show underplays this power: It portrays a right-wing German military eager for a coup and conservative industrialists eager to support it, but the potency of right-wing ideas in the intelligentsia and the German university hasn’t really been depicted; the lone student character so far is an idealistic Communist.
    The overall vibe on the show, though, makes some kind of rightward shift in 1930s Germany seem all but inevitable. (Which only makes the role the non-Nazi right played in elevating Hitler seem more shameful.) But that is not at all the vibe of 2020s America, where conservatism feels much more decayed and self-marginalizing, with little of the right-wing infrastructure and ambition that the Nazis channeled, co-opted and corrupted.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/opinion/ba...

    When Constitutions Took Over the World
    Starting in the eighteenth century, citizens were promised their rights in print. Was this new age spurred by the ideals of the Enlightenment or by the imperatives of global warfare? ...
    To prepare for his citizenship test, knowing that he’d be asked questions about the U.S. Constitution, Gödel had dedicated himself to the study of American history and constitutional law. Time and again, he’d phoned Morgenstern with rising panic about the exam. (Gödel, a paranoid recluse who later died of starvation, used the telephone to speak with people even when they were in the same room.) Morgenstern reassured him that “at most they might ask what sort of government we have.” But Gödel only grew more upset. Eventually, as Morgenstern later recalled, “he rather excitedly told me that in looking at the Constitution, to his distress, he had found some inner contradictions and that he could show how in a perfectly legal manner it would be possible for somebody to become a dictator and set up a Fascist regime, never intended by those who drew up the Constitution.” He’d found a logical flaw.
    Morgenstern told Einstein about Gödel’s theory; both of them told Gödel not to bring it up during the exam. When they got to the courtroom, the three men sat before a judge, who asked Gödel about the Austrian government.
    “It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship,” Gödel said.
    “That is very bad,” the judge replied. “This could not happen in this country.”
    Morgenstern and Einstein must have exchanged anxious glances. Gödel could not be stopped.
    “Oh, yes,” he said. “I can prove it.” ...
    In 1949, the year after Kurt Gödel became a U.S. citizen, Linda Colley was born in the United Kingdom, a country without a written constitution. Colley, one of the world’s most acclaimed historians, is a British citizen and a C.B.E., a Commander of the Order of the British Empire. (If there were a Nobel Prize in History, Colley would be my nominee.) She lives in the United States. For the past twenty years or so, she’s been teaching at Princeton, walking the same grounds and haunting the same library stacks that Gödel once did, by turns puzzled and fascinated, as he was, by the nature of constitutions. “I came to this subject very much as an outsider,” she writes in an incandescent, paradigm-shifting new book, “The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World” (Liveright). “Moving in the late twentieth century to live and work in the United States, a country which makes a cult out of its own written constitution, was therefore for me an arresting experience.” Colley has upended much of what historians believe about the origins of written constitutions. Gödel’s Loophole is all over the Internet ... The graver the American constitutional crisis, the greater the interest in the idea that there’s a bug in the constitutional code. But, for genuine illumination about the promise and the limits of constitutionalism, consider, instead, Colley’s Rule: Follow the violence. ...
    ... as the usual story has it, American constitutionalism served as a model for what can be called the age of constitution-making, an era also characterized by the spread of democracy[. B]y 1914, governments on every continent had adopted written constitutions, driven by the force of the idea that the nature of rule, the structure of government, and the guarantee of rights are the sorts of things that have got to be written down, printed, and made public.
    Colley doesn’t see it this way. First, she finds the origins of constitution-writing elsewhere—all over the place, really, and often very far from Philadelphia. Second, she thinks it’s important to separate the spread of constitutionalism from the rise of democracy, not least because many nations that adopted written constitutions rejected democracy, and still do. Third, she isn’t convinced that the writing of constitutions was simply driven by the force of an idea; instead, she thinks that the writing of constitutions was driven, in large part, by the exigencies of war. States make war and wars make states, the sociologist Charles Tilly once argued. Colley offers this corollary: Wars make states make constitutions. ...
    During the brutal world wars of the eighteenth century, millions of men carried millions of weapons, sailed hundreds of thousands of ships, and marched with thousands of armies. If most of those men demanded political rights, and political equality, in exchange for their sacrifices, they didn’t always get them. Some constitutions written in the great age of constitution-writing were, like many constitutions written more recently, instruments of tyranny. But, when constitutions did grant rights, it was because people, in wartime, had their governments by the throat. ...
    Placed in this global context, the constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 looks both less and more original. Colley points out that nine of the first ten Federalist Papers concern the dangers of war and two more concern insurrection. Thirty of the fifty-five delegates had fought in the war for independence. The Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman said that there were four reasons to adopt a new constitution: defense against foreign powers, defense against domestic insurrections, treaties with foreign nations, and the regulation of foreign commerce. One overlooked factor that distinguished the constitution debated in Philadelphia from the Nakaz, Colley suggests, is how quickly, easily, and successfully the American document was circulated. There were no newspapers in Russia, and no provincial presses. By contrast, anyone who wanted a copy of the U.S. Constitution could have one, within a matter of days after the convention had adjourned.
    Wars make states make constitutions; states print constitutions; constitutions guarantee freedom of the press. In the nearly six hundred constitutions written between 1776 and about 1850, the right most frequently asserted—more often than freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly—was freedom of the press. ...
    As more states adopted constitutions, the number of published constitutions and collections of constitutions grew. Edmund Burke wrote, in 1796, that a chief architect of the 1791 French constitution had “whole nests of pigeon-holes full of constitutions readymade, ticketed, sorted, and numbered; suited to every season and every fancy.” A newspaper in Strasbourg even printed a template for anyone wishing to write a new constitution; all you had to do was fill in the blanks. Norway’s 1814 constitution, hastily written in Oslo under threat of an invasion by Sweden, borrowed passages, verbatim, from the printed constitutions of the United States (1787), France (1791, 1793, and 1795), Poland (1791), Batavia (1798), Sweden (1809), and Spain (1812). The new constitution was then printed and made available in post offices, and, as Colley reports, the government encouraged people to paste copies on the walls of their houses. ...
    Constitutions grant rights; they can also take rights away. In 1794, Mary Wollstonecraft celebrated the promise of constitutionalism: “A constitution is a standard for the people to rally around. It is the pillar of a government, the bond of all social unity and order. ...” But constitutions, Colley says, have nearly always made things worse for women. Before constitutions were written, women had informal rights in all sorts of places; constitutions explicitly excluded them, not least because a constitution, in Colley’s formulation, is a bargain struck between a state and its men, who made sacrifices to the state as taxpayers and soldiers ...
    The U.S. was the first nation whose constitution provided for its own revision. Article V, the amendment clause, ... left ajar a constitutional door for making it, and the Union, “more perfect.” Federalists cited the amendment provision when arguing for ratification. ... Without an amendment provision, the only way to change the rules is to overthrow the government, by way of insurrection. ...
    The problem, in the United States, is that it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. It’s often thought to be structurally impossible these days, but much scholarship suggests that it is, instead, merely
    culturally impossible ...
    The U.S. Constitution has been rewritten three times: in 1791, with the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments; after the Civil War, with the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments; and during the Progressive Era, with the ratification of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. It is time for another reinvention.

    Published in the print edition of the March 29, 2021, issue, with the headline “The Age of Consent.”
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/29...

    #62Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 31 Mär. 21, 09:07
    Kommentar

    Politisch ist er noch lange nicht weg vom Fenster.

    Totschweigen oder berichten, wenn jemand Negativwerbung für sich selbst macht, ist für mich ein zweischneidiges Schwert.

    #63VerfasserReeva (908916) 31 Mär. 21, 10:39
    Kommentar

    @hm -- us: Thank you for the two articles in #62.


    Regarding the first one: Is it possible that the author is seeing the US through slightly rose tinted glasses? He writes "[t]he scale of poverty and degradation on display, [...] was extraordinarily poorer than our own". I have the impression that he does not take into consideration that poverty in 1920 and poverty in 2020 might look different, but that poverty in 2020 is not less than in 1920 - especially when you compare to what average people and the well-off had/have in contrast. I am thinking about ongoing boil water advisories and similar occurrences in the US.

    And while the violent legacy of men just returned from war was felt in all classes in Germany the US has ongoing gun violence with mass shootings in increasing frequency in schools and supermarkets and other public places. School children by now have regular drills what to do in case of an active shooter in the school. While this is a different kind of violence it is to my perception worse on the violence scale since it hits people at a younger age.

    #64VerfasserAGB (236120) 31 Mär. 21, 14:21
    Kommentar

    Nicht direkt Trump, doch es hat wahrscheinlich mit den Wahlen zu tun, die er und auch seine republikanische Partei tatsächlich nach dem US-Wahlrecht verloren haben und nicht nur nach Wählerstimmen wie in der vergangenen Jahren sieben von acht Malen..


    Stundenlang standen die Menschen im November im US-Bundesstaat Georgia Schlange, um ihre Stimme bei der Präsidentschaftswahl abgeben zu können. Joe Biden gewann knapp gegen Donald Trump, als erster demokratischer Kandidat seit 1992 siegte er in dem Staat.

    Er gewann auch, weil vor allem schwarze Wählerinnen das lange Warten in ihren Wahlbezirken akzeptierten. Freiwillige brachten Essen und Getränke vorbei. Doch künftig darf Wartenden keine Flasche Wasser mehr gereicht werden. Die Republikaner in Georgia sind der Ansicht, dass dabei eine Wahlbeeinflussung stattfinden könnte. So begründen sie diesen Punkt ihrer umstrittenen Wahlrechtsreform, die Gouverneur Brian Kemp vergangene Woche unterschrieb. Er sei stolz, das Gesetz zu unterschreiben, um sicherzustellen, dass Wahlen in Georgia sicher, fair und zugänglich seien, twitterte Kemp./.../

    "Offiziell sagen die Republikaner, dass es ihnen mit dem neuen Gesetz um die Verhinderung von Wahlbetrug geht", sagt Peter Sparding, Fellow beim German Marshall Fund in Washington, D. C.. "Doch die offizielle Begründung ist nicht die eigentliche Motivation, denn Kemp selbst war es, der neben seinem Secretary of State nach der Präsidentschaftswahl entgegen der Behauptungen von Donald Trump mehrfach bestätigte, dass es in Georgia keine nennenswerte Fälle von Wahlbetrug gab."/.../

    Nun könnte Georgia ein bedenklicher, aber doch ein Einzelfall sein. Doch die Republikaner versuchen in diversen von ihnen kontrollierten Bundesstaaten, das Wahlrecht zu ihren Gunsten umzuschreiben./.../

    Der republikanische Abgeordnete John Kavanagh verstieg sich in der Debatte um die Wahlgesetze in Arizona zu der Aussage, er sei über die Qualität der Wähler besorgt: "Nicht jeder will wählen, und wenn jemand nicht interessiert daran ist, bedeutet das wahrscheinlich, dass er völlig uninformiert bei Themen ist", zitiert ihn CNN. "Quantität ist wichtig, aber wir müssen auch auf die Qualität der Stimmen achten."/.../

    Verhindern könnte diese Bestrebungen der H.R. 1 For The People Act, ein Gesetz, das die Demokraten gerade mit ihrer Mehrheit im Repräsentantenhaus verabschiedet haben. Es würde das Wahlrecht im Land substanziell reformieren. Unter anderem müsste dann jeder Bundesstaat alle Wählerinnen und Wähler automatisch mit 18 Jahren registrieren. Feste Zeiträume für das Early Voting wären vorgegeben, das Gerrymandering würde von einer unabhängigen und parteiübergreifenden Kommission geregelt und Super-PACs, die Kandidaten mit riesigen Geldbeträgen unterstützen, müssten ihre Spenden offenlegen. Laut einer Umfrage des Data for Progress von Anfang des Jahres unterstützen parteiübergreifend 67 Prozent der Befragten das Gesetz. Es hat allerdings wenig Aussicht, die nötige Mehrheit von 60 Stimmen im Senat zu bekommen. Minderheitsführer Mitch McConnell nannte es "eine dramatische Machtübernahme einer Partei darüber, wie Amerikaner wählen".

    https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-04/w...

    #65VerfasserReeva (908916) 04 Apr. 21, 18:13
    Kommentar

    "Qualität der Wählerstimmen" - mannomann. Wollen die zurück zum Wahlrecht des 19. Jhdt.s, als nur Männer mit Landbesitz (Abb. ähnl.) wählen durften?

    #66Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 06 Apr. 21, 14:39
    Kommentar
    Hier ist ein Überblick, was der Ex-Präsident dieser Tage so in Mar-a-Lago treibt und wer ihn so besucht.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/...

    What’s Donald Trump up to these days? I tried to find out via Instagram
    In the early days of his post-presidential life, Trump has crashed a wedding and welcomed maskless Mar-a-Lago guests

    It’s early days, but Donald Trump’s post-presidential life has been just like his presidency: non-traditional. Aside from setting up an eyebrow-raising new website, and releasing wannabe tweets as official statements, he’s spent most of his time inside his new home at Mar-a-Lago, the giant and exclusive resort he owns in south Florida.




    #67VerfasserQual der Wal (877524) 11 Apr. 21, 09:56
    Kommentar

    We zu erwarten gewesen: republikanische Politiker reisen zu ihm, um ihm ihre Treue zu demonstrieren, Kevin McCarthy war der erste und Delegierte aus Alabame am 13. März die letzten (zumindest der im Artikel Erwähnten), die da waren. Die aus Alabama mit einer gerahmten Resolution, in der Trump "..." (meine Finger wollen es partout nicht tippen) genannt wird.

    Masken werden nicht getragen, obwohl Hunderte von Menschen bei einer Wohltätigkeitsveranstaltung für Hunde in einem Raum präsent sind. Sechs Tage später musste das Resort teilweise wegen eines Covid 19-Ausbruchs bei dem Personal geschlossen werden.

    Pikanterweise wurde bei der Wohltätigkeitsveranstaltung stolz auf eine Leinwand projiziert, dass seit 2008 mehr als 47000 Leben gerettet wurden, Hundeleben, versteht sich.

    Ach ja, und die Schwiegertochter steht in Verbindung mit dieser Wohltätigkeitsorganistion und soll in den letzten Jahren statt für Hunde mehr als zwei Mio. Dollar der Organisation für Trump-Immobilien ausgegeben haben. Diese Masche ist ja auch nichts Neues.

    #68VerfasserReeva (908916) 11 Apr. 21, 11:08
    Kommentar

    Der Kurs der Republikaner oder zumindest vieler führender Republikaner, scheint sich nicht zu ändern. Sie setzen trotz seiner spaltenden Rhetorik weiterhin auf Trump, am Wochenende gab es eine Republican National Committee donor retreat.in Mar-el-Lago. So richtig zufrieden waren sie wohl nicht nach Trumps Rede, in der er wie üblich über Wahlbetrug log, "abtrünnige" Republikaner beleidigend angriff, mehr als Demokraten und - ganz logisch - zur Einheit der Partei aufrief. .

    Aber sie woll(t)en es ja nicht anders.Ich hoffe weiterhin, dass das gründlich in die Hose geht, auch wenn es vor allem demokratischen Wählern noch einmal erschwert werden sollte, überhaupt wählen zu können.


    https://www.startribune.com/bowing-to-trump-g...

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/11/repu...

    #69VerfasserReeva (908916)  12 Apr. 21, 09:05
    Kommentar

    https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-telev...


    While Trump still garners coverage, Google search results for his name are at their lowest point since 2015, as noted this week by The Washington Post.


    Sic transit gloria mundi...

    #70VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  13 Apr. 21, 07:22
    Kommentar

    Ich fand die dreiteilige Dokumentation "America First - Bilanz einer Amtszeit" auf ARTE ganz interessant.

    Vor allen Dingen weil ziemlich unaufgeregt über das politische Leben von D. Trump berichtet wird und wie seine ehemaligen Mitstreiter/-innen mit ihm und seinen Aktionen umgingen.

    Beleuchtet werden auch die Enttäuschungen durch die Partnerländer wenn es darum ging, auf eine Krise adäquat und geeint zu reagieren.

    Teil 1 - https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/094504-001-A/am...

    Teil 2 - https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/094504-002-A/am...

    Teil 3 - https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/094504-003-A/am...

    Alle Teile zur Zeit verfügbar bis 30.11.2021

    #71Verfasserpetewald_DE (1202508) 21 Apr. 21, 16:35
    Kommentar
    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/internati...

    DONALD Trump jumped his skateboard over a car but only his cousin saw it ‘and you don’t know him’ it has been confirmed.


    The President of the United States said he achieved the feat last summer on the road outside the White House.

    His wife Melania was also there, but she was not watching.
    #72VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Mai 21, 22:11
    Kommentar

    Das Unglaubliche ist doch, dass er mit diesem vollkommen durchsichtigen Middle-School-Bullshit immer durchgekommen ist.


    "Ich habe Detektive auf der Suche nach Obamas Geburtsurkunde nach Hawaii geschickt, und die können gar nicht fassen, was sie da gefunden haben." (Es war nie wieder etwas davon zu hören.)


    "Alle Frauen, die mich sexueller Übergriffe beschuldigen, werden nach der Wahl von mir verklagt." (Dito.)


    "Wir haben einen grandiosen Plan für eine Gesundheitsreform. In etwa zwei Wochen werden wir ihn präsentieren." (Dies jahrelang.)


    Ihr entschuldigt dieses Aufwärmen von ollen Kamellen; ich kann es wirklich immer noch nicht fassen.

    #73VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  03 Mai 21, 16:45
    Kommentar
    The recent 'news,' such as it is, was probably the raid on the home and office of Rudy Giuliani. But I assume that that was probably already reported internationally.

    Recent Supreme Court decisions were, sadly, completely divorced from the question of ethical behavior on the part of the justices.


    ________________

    Opinion
    At the Supreme Court, a tale of two Bretts ...
    Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has enjoyed a life of comfort and privilege, the son of a Beltway lobbyist and the product of the Ivy League. Mississippi prisoner Brett Jones has endured a life of misery and abuse, the son of an alcoholic father who brutalized his mother and a stepfather who beat him.
    As fate would have it, their lives converged this week: In an opinion released Thursday, Brett Kavanaugh upheld Brett Jones’s sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole for killing his grandfather just 23 days after his 15th birthday. (And, yes, let us pause here to note a certain irony in the fact that the opinion was written by a justice whose confirmation hearings featured discussion about how people can change after high school.)
    The 6-to-3 ruling in Jones v. Mississippi was notable not only for the juxtaposition of the two Bretts. It offered a snapshot of a court transformed by the arrival of Kavanaugh and two other conservative justices named by President Donald Trump. And it demonstrated how a conservative majority bent on reshaping the law can do so without the showy fanfare of explicitly overruling precedents. ...
    ... here is where Jones v. Mississippi resonates beyond the sad circumstances of Brett Jones, who at 31 has spent more than half his life behind bars. “How low this Court’s respect for stare decisis has sunk,” lamented Sotomayor, referring to the doctrine by which the court only overturns its precedents when there is “special justification” for acting. “Not long ago, that doctrine was recognized as a pillar of the ‘rule of law,’ critical to ‘keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.’ ”
    She was quoting from a Kavanaugh concurrence last year, outlining his approach to reversing precedent. Fine, noble words — undercut by the actions of a conservative majority that now has its thumb firmly on that scale.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-th...

    Opinion
    A question for Brett Kavanaugh: who gets a second chance? ...
    The man who wept angrily when people judged him for his past appears not to want others to have the opportunity to change.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/202...

    #74Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 04 Mai 21, 12:05
    Kommentar

    Fast alle rechnen damit, dass die zwar sehr konservative Politikerin, doch engagierte Trumpgegnerin Liz Cheney als drittwichtigste Persönlichkeit der Republikaner heute zu Gunsten von Elise Stefanik abgewählt wird, die von einer eher moderaten Republikanerin während Trumps Präsidentschaft zu einer seiner glühendsten Anhängerinnen wurde, Verbreitung von der Wahlfälschung inklusive.

    Es scheint sich immer mehr herauszukristallisieren, in welche Richtung die GOP sich entwickelt.

    https://www.tt.com/artikel/30791309/showdown-...

    #75VerfasserReeva (908916)  12 Mai 21, 08:26
    Kommentar

    Hier ihre Rede von heute (Dienstag) abend. Nach Medienberichten hatten bei Redebeginn alle republikanischen Abgeordneten den Saal verlassen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5oVKb4Ew00


    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/...

    [...] 

    Today we face a threat America has never seen before. A former president, who provoked a violent attack on this capital in an effort to steal the election, has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him. He risks inciting further violence. Millions of Americans have been misled by the former president, they have heard only his words, but not the truth. As he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all.

    [...]

    This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans. Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. I will not participate in that. I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president's crusade to undermine our democracy. [...]

    #76VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  12 Mai 21, 08:36
    Kommentar

    Nach Medienberichten hatten bei Redebeginn alle republikanischen Abgeordneten den Saal verlassen


    Wie kindisch.

    #77VerfasserSelima (107) 12 Mai 21, 08:52
    Kommentar

    #75, die zwar sehr konservative Politikerin, doch engagierte Trumpgegnerin Liz Cheney


    Ergänzend hierzu Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/202...


    House Republicans have rallied around Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) as a successor to embattled Conference Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (...)


    From 2017-2021, Cheney voted in line with Trump’s position 92.9% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker, while Stefanik voted with the former president just 77.7% of the time.


    Demnach lag Liz Cheney sogar genauer auf Trumps Linie als ihre designierte Nachfolgerin. Sie hat bloß -- nach der Stürmung des Kapitols -- für das zweite Trump-Impeachment gestimmt und macht den Unfug mit dem angeblichen Wahlbetrug nicht mit.


    Es geht hier tatsächlich um die Treue zum Großen Stammesführer, nicht um politische Inhalte.


    (Editiert)

    #78VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  12 Mai 21, 15:00
    Kommentar

    FAKE NEWS

    Komm hier bloß nicht mit Fakten.


    https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/u...

    Republikaner werfen Trump-Kritikerin aus Fraktionsführung

    12.05.2021, 16:24 Uhr | dpa, AFP


    Ich kann nur hoffen, dass sie bei den nächsten Wahlen in ihrem Wahlkreis genug Stimmen bekommt und nicht komplett aus der Politik rausgewählt wird.

    #79VerfasserMasu (613197)  12 Mai 21, 15:43
    Kommentar

    Wann sie angefangen hat, sich von ihm zu distanzieren, spielt doch jetzt keine Rolle mehr, Mr Chekov, ebenso wenig wie die Tatsache, wann Stefanik angefangen hat, ihn zu verehren.


    Ich fürchte wie Rieke Havertz von der Zeit, dass deine Hoffnung nicht erfüllt wird, masu.


    Der Fall Cheney geht weit über eine simple Personalie hinaus. Er zeigt die Richtung auf, die die Partei einschlägt. Die Grand Old Party unterwirft sich der Ideologie des Trumpismus. /.../ Trumps Falschaussagen über eine vermeintlich manipulierte Wahl als Lüge zu bezeichnen, löst weder in der Partei noch bei ihren Anhängern Erschrecken aus oder ein Nachdenken über die Konsequenzen. Die Konservativen haben sich knapp vier Monate nach der Amtseinführung von Joe Biden dafür entschieden, ihren Machterhalt und damit ihr Schicksal an Trump zu knüpfen./.../Niemand in der Partei wagt es derzeit, sich gegen die Richtung zu stellen, die Donald Trump vorgegeben hat. Diese Ideologie, dieser Trumpismus ist letztlich auch von seiner Person unabhängig. Denn er steht für eine grundsätzliche Entscheidung darüber, wie sich die Republikaner in den kommenden Jahren positionieren wollen. Gehen die Konservativen diesen Weg konsequent weiter, entscheidet sich eine der zwei Parteien in den Vereinigten Staaten dafür, eine demokratiefeindliche Partei zu werden. Eine, in der Machterhalt mehr zählt als Fakten und die Verfassung, auf die sich Amerika einst gegründet hat.

    https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-05/l...

    #80VerfasserReeva (908916) 13 Mai 21, 11:04
    Kommentar

    Inwieweit es wirklich um Prinzipien geht oder doch nur angestammte Pfründe (bei den Bushs, Romneys und Cheneys ist die Politik quasi Familiengeschäft), ist für mich sehr schlecht einzuschätzen. Vor der Ära Trump habe ich auch mal Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham und Nikki Haley für Konservative mit Anstand und etwas Rückgrat gehalten, nachdem ich sie jahrelang by C-SPAN verfolgt hatte -- und mich darin gewaltig getäuscht.


    Der einzige Silberstreifen, den ich sehe, ist, dass amerikanische Schüler zum Thema Personenkult sich nicht mehr mit fernen oder historische Diktatoren beschäftigen müssen, sondern aktuelles Anschauungsmaterial direkt vor der Haustür haben. Ich glaube übrigens im Gegensatz zur Zeit-Autorin nicht, dass der Trumpismus unabhängig von der Figur Trump lebensfähig ist.

    #81VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  13 Mai 21, 11:24
    Kommentar

    Mir ging es weniger um das Schicksal von L. Cheney (unter vielen anderen Dingen, die ich missbillige, eine Frau, die ihre eigene Schwester im politischen Streit um die Ehe für alle wegen deren Homosexualität angreift) als um die eingeschlagene Richtung der Republikaner.


    Was die Person Trump und den Trumpismus betrifft, so sehe ich das im Moment unbedingt wie du, kann aber nicht einschätzen, was bei Havertz das "letztlich" bedeuten soll. Wenn es im Sinne von "irgendwann später" zu interpretieren ist, kommt es wohl darauf an, welche "Lichtgestalten" Trump demnächst in seiner Partei politisch beerben, denn ein Jungspund ist er ja nun auch nicht mehr.

    #82VerfasserReeva (908916)  13 Mai 21, 11:42
    Kommentar
    Das klingt alles sehr schräg.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/...

    Cyber Ninjas, UV lights and far-right funding: inside the strange Arizona 2020 election ‘audit’
    Election experts are watching the effort with alarm, saying officials are not using a reliable methodology – and fear it could be a model for Republicans to try elsewhere

    #83VerfasserQual der Wal (877524) 15 Mai 21, 09:41
    Kommentar

    Schräg gehört zum Konzept. Was sie unternehmen, darf ruhig als dreister Unsinn erkennbar sein, solange es für Wirbel, Verwirrung und an der radikalen Basis für Beifall sorgt (und die Spenden fließen). Trump hat es auch so gemacht.

    #84VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  15 Mai 21, 10:17
    Kommentar

    Jetzt wissen wir dank Andrew Clyde, was das für Leute am 6. Januar im Capitol waren: Touristengruppen!


    Bei einer Anhörung im Repräsentantenhaus am 12. Mai 2021 zu dem Sturm auf das Kapitol in Washington am 6. Januar 2020 behauptete Clyde, dass es eine große Lüge sei, dass es einen Aufruhr gegeben habe. Videos von den Vorfällen sähen eher nach Touristengruppen aus.

    #85VerfasserReeva (908916) 29 Mai 21, 09:53
    Kommentar

    Wenn sich Touristen im Allgemeinen so benähmen, würde bald kaum noch ein Land Touristenvisa erteilen 😀

    #86VerfasserDaja (356053) 31 Mai 21, 08:15
    Kommentar

    https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2021-06/...


    "Donald Trump stellt Blogprojekt ein


    Für seine Anhänger wollte der ehemalige US-Präsident eine Plattform aufbauen. Mehr als Pressemitteilungen gab es dort aber nicht zu lesen. Nun ist das Blog geschlossen."


    Total loser, so sad.

    #87VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 03 Jun. 21, 15:41
    Kommentar

    Vielleicht fällt es ihm leicht, das Scheitern seines Blogs zu verwinden, weil er anscheinend damit rechnet, noch dieses Jahr wieder ins Amt eingesetzt zu werden:


    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie...

    I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed. (...) The scale of Trump’s delusion is quite startling (...)

    #88VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 03 Jun. 21, 20:15
    Kommentar
    Man kann nur froh sein, dass das DoJ solche aufrechten MitarbeiterInnen hatte - und mag sich nicht ausmalen, was gewesen wäre, wenn nicht.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/...

    Pure insanity’: emails reveal Trump push to overturn election defeat
    White House chief of staff pushed debunked conspiracy claims
    House committee releases emails sent to justice department

    The documents reveal Trump and his allies’ increasingly desperate efforts between December and early January to push bogus conspiracy theories and cling to power – and the struggle of bewildered justice department officials to resist them.
    “These documents show that President Trump tried to corrupt our nation’s chief law enforcement agency in a brazen attempt to overturn an election that he lost,” said Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House of Representatives’ oversight committee, which released the emails on Tuesday.

    #89VerfasserQual der Wal (877524) 15 Jun. 21, 23:34
    Kommentar

    Weiter unten im Text steht Folgendes


    On Tuesday the attorney general, Merrick Garland, said nearly 500 people had been arrested in connection with the attack.

    “The resolve and dedication with which the justice department has approached the investigation of the 6 January attack,” he said, “reflects the seriousness with which we take this assault on a mainstay of our democratic system, the peaceful transfer of power.

    “Over the 160 days since the attack, we have arrested over 480 individuals and brought hundreds and hundreds of charges against those who attacked law enforcement officers, obstructed justice and used deadly and dangerous weapons to those ends.”

    #90VerfasserMasu (613197) 16 Jun. 21, 14:27
    Kommentar

    Ja, aber 500 Deppen mit MAGA-Mützen festzunehmen ist nicht das gleiche, wie einer bewaffneten, potentiell umstürzlerischen Unternehmung auf den Grund zu gehen -- etwa den Fragen, warum die Sicherheitsvorkehrungen offenbar zu lax waren, warum die National Guard nicht früher eingesetzt wurde, ob Trump einen Plan hatte, worin der bestand und wer davon wusste.

    #91VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 16 Jun. 21, 15:54
    Kommentar

    Noch mal das Justizministerium:

    Der frühere US-Sicherheitsberater John Bolton zeichnete in einem Enthüllungsbuch ein vernichtendes Bild des ehemaligen Präsidenten Donald Trump.

    Nun hat das Justizministerium nach Angaben von Boltons Anwälten mehrere Verfahren im Zusammenhang mit dem Enthüllungsbuch eingestellt. Indem das Ministerium die Verfahren beendet habe, ohne Bolton zu bestrafen, habe es stillschweigend anerkannt, dass Trump und Mitarbeiter des Weißen Hauses unrechtmäßig gehandelt hätten, teilte Boltons Anwalt Charles Cooper mit. Das Justizministerium reagierte auf eine Anfrage zunächst nicht.

    Unter Trump hatte das Ministerium Bolton vor der Veröffentlichung des Buchs im vergangenen Jahr vorgeworfen, er gefährde damit die nationale Sicherheit. Die Behörde reichte Klage ein. Im September wurde auch eine strafrechtliche Untersuchung dazu bekannt, die feststellen sollte, ob Bolton geheime Informationen preisgegeben hat.

    https://www.zeit.de/news/2021-06/16/us-justiz...


    Ich hoffe mal, dass Boltons Anwalt mit seiner Annahme recht hat.

    #92VerfasserReeva (908916) 17 Jun. 21, 11:56
    Kommentar

    Mit Spannung war das Ermittlungsverfahren gegen den Finanzvorstand der Trump Organization erwartet worden, der Muttergesellschaft des Trump'schen Unternehmensimperiums. Doch die Erwartungen derer, die hofften, dass Trump in New York persönlich angeklagt und seinem Konzern breite Betrügereien nachgewiesen werden würden, haben sich bislang enttäuscht. Gegen den ehemaligen Präsidenten selbst gibt es keine Anklage./.../

    Recherchen der New York Times zeigen/.../, dass Trump seine Steuerschuld systematisch kleingerechnet hat./.../

    rump ließ einen Großteil seiner Geschäfte von Weisselberg abwickeln. Damit ist der Finanzchef eine mögliche Schlüsselfigur in einer etwaigen Klage gegen Trump selbst. Doch offenbar hat die Staatsanwaltschaft nicht ausreichend belastbare Hinweise, die sie zur Anklage bringen kann oder will.  

    Verglichen mit der Tragweite der mutmaßlichen Vergehen wirken die Vorwürfe gegen Weisselberg aber eher kleinformatig. Im Kern geht es um Vergünstigungen, die dieser für seine Arbeit bekommen haben soll – und auf die offenbar weder er noch die Trump Organization Steuern oder Lohnnebenkosten abgeführt haben. Darunter fallen Schulgebühren für die Enkel Weisselbergs sowie Kosten für Dienstwagen und -wohnungen. Insgesamt 1,7 Millionen Dollar soll Weisselberg nicht versteuert haben./.../

    Die Strafverfolger versuchen /.../ ganz offenkundig, Weisselberg mit ihrer Anklage dazu zu nötigen, mit den Ermittlern zu kooperieren. Im US-amerikanischen Rechtssystem ist es üblich, Anklagepunkte drastisch zu reduzieren oder fallenzulassen, wenn Angeklagte mithelfen, weitere Personen – in diesem Fall Donald Trump – zu belasten. 

    https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-07/d...


    In einem Ranking von Historikern ist Donald Trump der viertschlechteste der ersten 45 US-Präsidenten. Der aktuelle Präsident Biden wurde wegen der Kürze seiner Amtszeit noch nicht einbezogen.

    Joe Bidens Präsidentschaft ist die 46. in der Geschichte der USA, doch nach einem halben Jahr wurde er noch nicht von den Historikern bewertet. Seinen Vorgänger Donald Trump hingegen ordneten die Wissenschaftler in das Ranking ein, das der Politiksender C-SPAN zum vierten Mal nach 2000, 2009 und 2017 anfertigen ließ. Dieses Mal war Donald Trump zum ersten Mal Teil der Bewertung und die fällt nicht gut für den 75-Jährigen aus.


    Die einzigen drei Präsidenten, denen die Historiker ein schlechteres Zeugnis ausstellen, führten das Land im 19. Jahrhundert. Auf den letzten drei Plätzen landeten Franklin Pierce (1853-57), Andrew Johnson (1865-69) and James Buchanan (1857-61). Doch dann kommt auch schon Donald Trump, sogar noch hinter dem eher unbekannten Präsidenten William Henry Harrison.

    https://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/ranking-der-...


    #93VerfasserReeva (908916) 03 Jul. 21, 10:34
    Kommentar


    It's probably no coincidence that damaging reports about Trump are once again coming out, just at the time when he recently got some media coverage by appearing at the CPAC conservative convention and winning the straw poll. (Which is probably why Ted Cruz suddenly discovered an urgent scheduling conflict and did not appear.)


    But still, the newer revelations are even more appalling than what we already knew, so it's certainly clear why career officials in defense, intelligence, and diplomatic circles would like to draw Americans' attention to the dangers.


    Once again, it's hard to see how any Republicans could ever support the man after knowing these things. And once again, all the Republican politicians who hope to stay in power and be reelected will probably do it regardless, unless he's actually indicted and prosecuted. /-:


    ____________________



    The person to ‘weaken’ America: what the Kremlin papers said about Trump

    Documents appear to show how Russian intelligence worked to install their preferred candidate as president ...

    That he was the Kremlin’s preferred candidate is not in doubt. What has been a source of endless conjecture is the lengths Russiawas prepared to go to to help Trump win. The Guardian has spent months seeking to verify the authenticity of papers that may provide an answer to this question.

    Our investigation has revealed that western intelligence agencies have known about the papers – and have been examining them – for some time. ...

    The document describes how Putin’s expert department was urging a multi-layered plan to interfere in the race for the White House. The goal: to “destabilise” America.

    One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.

    This plan was presented as being entirely defensive. The Obama administration had inflicted damage on the Russian economy by imposing sanctions. Living standards were falling, regional elites were unhappy and the sugar rush from Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea had worn off, the report said. Potential domestic political dangers lay ahead. ...

    The documents indicate that on 14 January Vladimir Symonenko, the expert department chief, shared a three-page summary.

    “At the moment the Russian Federation finds itself in a predicament. American measures continue to be felt in all areas of public life,” it starts. Next, Putin ordered the head of his foreign policy directorate, Alexander Manzhosin, to arrange an urgent meeting of the national security council, Russia’s top decision-making body. At some point over the next few days Putin appears to have read the document himself.

    By 22 January, other security council members had had a chance to digest its contents. The early part dealt with Russia’s economy. The secret American measures were contained in a special section beginning on page 14.

    The report seemed to confirm what Trump would later deny: that Putin’s spy agencies had gathered compromising material on him, possibly stretching back to Soviet KGB times.

    Trump’s personal flaws were so extensive – also featuring an “inferiority complex” – that he was the perfect person to feed divisions and to weaken America’s negotiating position. ...

    The allegation that the Russians had kompromat on Trump would haunt his four years in the White House. True or false, his flattering treatment of Putin was one riddle of his chaotic presidency.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15...


    Two Accounts of Donald Trump’s Final Year in Office, One More Vivid and Apt Than the Other

    Two new books about the final year of Donald J. Trump’s presidency are entering the cultural bloodstream. The first, “Landslide,” by the gadfly journalist Michael Wolff, is the one to leap upon, even though the second, “I Alone Can Fix It,” from the Washington Post journalists Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, is vastly more earnest and diligent, to a fault.

    This is Wolff’s third book about Trump in as many years. It’s Leonnig and Rucker’s second, after the excellent “A Very Stable Genius,” which appeared in early 2020. This one, alas, reads like 300 daily newspaper articles taped together so that they resemble an inky Kerouacian scroll. ...

    A primary and not insignificant achievement in “I Alone Can Fix It,” however, is its bravura introduction of a new American hero, a man who has heretofore not received a great deal of attention: Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ...

    Wolff is a sometimes-mocked figure in the worlds of journalism and politics. He’s been accused of being less than diligent in his fact-checking. He’s been ticketed for careless writing violations. These complaints are valid, up to a point. But “Landslide” is a smart, vivid and intrepid book. He has great instincts. I read it in two or three sittings. ...

    Wolff doesn’t have Mark Milley. He’s not so interested in the Covid narrative. He zeros in on the chaos and the kakistocracy, on how nearly everyone with a sense of decency fled Trump in his final months, and how he was left with clapped-out charlatans like Sidney Powell and Giuliani. Giuliani’s flatulence is a running joke in this book, but the author doesn’t find him funny at all. ...

    In this accounting, Trump belittles his followers. “Trump often expressed puzzlement over who these people were,” Wolff writes, “their low-rent ‘trailer camp’ bearing and their ‘get-ups,’ once joking that he should have invested in a chain of tattoo parlors and shaking his head about ‘the great unwashed.’”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/books/revi...


    ‘I Alone Can Fix It’ book excerpt: The inside story of Trump’s defiance and inaction on Jan. 6

    Terror at the Capitol, delay at the Pentagon, resistance in the Oval Office and democracy hanging in the balance

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/...


    ‘A madman with millions of followers’: what the new Trump books tell us

    Books show how close the US came to disaster, and document an unprecedented moment in US history that is not yet over

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/17...


    How a book about evangelicals, Trump and militant masculinity became a surprise bestseller

    When historian Kristin Du Mez’s latest book, “Jesus and John Wayne,” came out in the summer of 2020, it received little attention from mainstream gatekeepers and reviewers.

    But the book, which explores evangelical fondness for former president Donald Trump and strong masculine figures, has since sold more than 100,000 copies through word of mouth, podcasts and book clubs. When it came out in paperback last month, the book shot up to No. 4 among nonfiction paperbacks on the New York Times bestseller list.

    As journalists and academics tried to explain how evangelicals could bring themselves to vote for Trump, Du Mez argued that evangelical support was not a shocking aberration from their views but a culmination of evangelicals’ long-standing embrace of militant masculinity, presenting the man as protector and warrior.

    “In 2016, many observers were stunned at evangelicals’ apparent betrayal of their own values,” Du Mez wrote. “In reality, evangelicals did not cast their vote despite their beliefs, but because of them.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/...


    #94Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  16 Jul. 21, 07:51
    Kommentar

    https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/usa-kongress-e...

    "Das US-Justizministerium hat die Finanzbehörden angewiesen, die Steuerunterlagen des früheren Präsidenten Trump einem Ausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses auszuhändigen. ... Zur Begründung hieß es, das Parlament habe ein zwingendes Interesse, zu klären, ob Trump unzulässige Gelder aus dem Ausland angenommen habe oder durch ausländische Nationen oder etwa persönliche wirtschaftliche Verwicklungen beeinflusst gewesen sei."


    Schlicht und ergreifend:

    Gut so.

    #95VerfasserBraunbärin (757733) 31 Jul. 21, 10:14
    Kommentar

    Roughly 24 hours after the death of Colin Powell, Donald Trump proved, again, that he is utterly incapable of empathy, grace or even common decency.

    "Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction, be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media," Trump said in a statement released Tuesday morning. "Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO, if even that, always being the first to attack other Republicans. He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!"

    "But anyway, may he rest in peace!" Yes, Trump really said that.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/19/politics/d...




    #96VerfasserReeva (908916) 20 Okt. 21, 09:14
    Kommentar

    Und da er jetzt eh wieder ausgegraben wurde, hier seine letzte Aktion (Tagesschau von gestern):

    Ex-US-Präsident Trump hat dagegen geklagt, dass Dokumente zum Sturm auf das Kapitol veröffentlicht werden.

    /.../

    Mit einem "politischen Trick" wolle er (Präsident Biden) seine Klientel zufrieden stellen, indem er sich weigere, ein Exekutivprivileg "für vom Ausschuss beantragte eindeutig privilegierte Dokumente geltend zu machen".

    /.../

    Rechtsexperten sind sich allerdings nicht einig, ob das Privileg auch für einen ehemaligen Präsidenten gilt. Auch wenn eine juristische Niederlage Trumps als wahrscheinlich gilt, könnte die Klage die Ermittlungen des Kongress-Untersuchungsausschusses um Monate oder Jahre verzögern. 

    https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/tru...



    #97VerfasserReeva (908916) 20 Okt. 21, 09:24
    Kommentar

    Dieser Typ ist so ein widerliches Stück [expletive deleted], das ist kaum zu ertragen.

    #98VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 20 Okt. 21, 09:32
    Kommentar

    Former President Donald J. Trump’s family business, which is already under indictment in Manhattan, is facing a criminal investigation by another prosecutor’s office that has begun to examine financial dealings at a golf course the company owns, according to people with knowledge of the matter.


    In recent months, the district attorney’s office in suburban Westchester County, N.Y., has subpoenaed records from the course, Trump National Golf Club Westchester, and the town of Ossining, which sets property taxes on the course, a sprawling private club that is perched on a hill north of New York City and boasts a 101-foot waterfall.


    ....the district attorney, Mimi E. Rocah, appears to be focused at least in part on whether Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, misled local officials about the property’s value to reduce its taxes, one of the people said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/nyregion/t...


    I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that underassessing a property's value to reduce taxes payable was par for the course in Trumpland. But as Leona Helmsley (also in the real estate business, I believe) was once famously quoted as saying, "We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes."

    #99VerfasserSD3 (451227) 20 Okt. 21, 21:18
    Kommentar

    As journalists and academics tried to explain how evangelicals could bring themselves to vote for Trump, Du Mez argued that evangelical support was not a shocking aberration from their views but a culmination of evangelicals’ long-standing embrace of militant masculinity, presenting the man as protector and warrior. (#94)


    Das löst aber nur die Hälfte des Rätsels, oder? Mag ja sein, dass Evangelikale sich als Präsidenten einen militant männlichen Beschützer und Krieger wünschen, aber Trump war eigentlich nichts in dieser Richtung. Eher eine Art Parodie auf so einen Menschen.


    *Edit* gerade erst gesehen, dass hm's Beitrag vom Juli war. Macht nichts, das Rätsel bleibt mir ein Rätsel :-)

    #100VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  21 Okt. 21, 08:38
    Kommentar
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm always glad to see that anyone has found a link helpful, at whatever remove. (-:



    Siehe auch: at a remove
    Siehe auch: at one remove
    Siehe auch: at one remove
    Siehe auch: at one remove - entlegen, abgeschieden
    #101Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  21 Okt. 21, 10:33
    Kommentar

    https://www.zeit.de/digital/2021-10/usa-donal...


    "Truth Social: Donald Trump stellt eigenes soziales Netzwerk vor


    Der frühere US-Präsident will eine Konkurrenzplattform zu Twitter und Facebook starten. Die führenden sozialen Netzwerke hatten ihn Anfang des Jahres ausgeschlossen."


    Hatten wir das nicht schon mal? Wird vermutlich genau so ein Rohrkrepierer wie's letzte Mal.


    #102VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 21 Okt. 21, 10:38
    Kommentar

    Ja, hatten wir schon mal. Genau wie rotzige Nachrufe auf Verstorbene (damals McCain, jetzt Powell) und wie die Gerüchte über seltsame Sexualpraktiken, auf die er neulich ungefragt zurückkam. Ihm fällt einfach nichts mehr ein.

    #103VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  21 Okt. 21, 10:52
    Kommentar

    Trump also announced he intended to set up a new website for short messages (not more than 33-45 letters). Its name will be "Twatter".

    #104VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  21 Okt. 21, 16:18
    Kommentar

    edith

    #105VerfasserMasu (613197)  21 Okt. 21, 16:23
    Kommentar

    #100: Warten die Evangelikalen nicht auf das Weltgericht?

    Wenn sie ihn als eine der Plagen ansehen, die das Weltgericht ankündigen, dann muss er die Welt nur in Chaos und Schrecken versetzen, um in ihren Augen Gottes Willen zu erfüllen.

    #106VerfasserDaja (356053) 21 Okt. 21, 16:33
    Kommentar

    nichtsdestotrotz wollen gut 80% der Wähler der Partei ihn wieder zum Kandidaten haben:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/577453-...


    man fragt sich schon ein wenig, ob die Republikaner so tief in der Personalkrise stecken...

    #107VerfasserJaLeTe (1335919) 21 Okt. 21, 16:47
    Kommentar

    ... oder in einer Art psychiatrischer Krise?

    #108VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 21 Okt. 21, 17:15
    Kommentar

    Ist ja schon länger bekannt, dass dieser Apfel nicht weit vom Stamm fiel:


    Der Sohn des 45. Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten verkauft dort ein T-Shirt mit der Aufschrift: "Guns don't kill people. Alec Baldwin kills people"


    Kann man doch schön Geld mit verdienen und gleichzeitig die Waffenlobby stärken. Ob wohl eins von den drei älteren Kindern den Vater politisch beerben will, wenn der irgendwann nicht mehr kann?

    https://www.t-online.de/unterhaltung/stars/id...

    #109VerfasserReeva (908916)  27 Okt. 21, 08:44
    Kommentar

    Hätte eigentlich irgendjemand ein Problem damit, wenn ich schriebe "Donald Trump Jr., du bist so 1 Pimmel"?


    Was für ein widerliches Stück Exkrement.

    #110VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Okt. 21, 08:48
    Kommentar

    Alec Baldwins Crew soll aus Spaß mit echter Munition geschossen haben (t-online.de)

    Mitarbeiter beklagten Sicherheit am Set

    So sei die Sicherheit am Set nicht immer gegeben gewesen, die Crew habe aus Protest die Arbeit niedergelegt und sei am Unfalltag durch eine andere ersetzt worden. Jetzt wird bekannt: Nur wenige Stunden vor dem tragischen Schuss wurde aus der Tatwaffe mit echter Munition geschossen, wie Sharon Waxman von der Nachrichtenseite "The Wrap" der CNN erzählte. 

    Eine der Waffen, die zum Freizeitschießen benutzt wurde, soll dann später Baldwin für den Dreh überreicht worden sein. "Nach Drehschluss kann es manchmal sein, dass die Crew in ländlichen Gegenden auf Bierdosen schießt", so Waxman. "Dazu wird echte Munition verwendet. Wir haben erfahren, dass dies auch am Morgen des Tages, an dem Halyna Hutchins getötet wurde, der Fall war." Dieses Schießen sei bei Filmdrehs sogar recht üblich, erklärt sie weiter. 


    Womit die Position von A.Baldwin, dass echte Waffen verboten werden sollen, sich wieder bestätigt.

    #111VerfasserMasu (613197) 27 Okt. 21, 09:29
    Kommentar

    Jaja, Schusswaffen sind sooo schöne Spielzeuge. Und man braucht sie auch für die eigene Verteidigung.

    #112VerfasserReeva (908916) 27 Okt. 21, 09:41
    Kommentar

    Vor allem für die Selbst- und Fremdverteidigung. Das alles ist nur passiert weil keiner der Anwesenden den Schießwütigen mangels Waffe stoppen konnte.

    Jawoll. *sarkasmusoff*

    #113VerfasserMasu (613197) 27 Okt. 21, 10:49
    Kommentar

    https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichten/politik...


    "US-Abgeordneter kassiert Rüge wegen Gewalt-Video gegen Biden und AOC


    Washington. Der US-Abgeordnete Paul Gosar hat sich per Zeichentrick in blutigen Kampfszenen mit politischen Gegnern inszeniert - einer davon ist der US-Präsident. Das Repräsentantenhaus griff zu einer seltenen Disziplinarmaßnahme.


    ...


    Der republikanische Minderheitsführer in der Kammer, Kevin McCarthy, warf den Demokraten Doppelmoral und Machtmissbrauch vor."


    Haben die Republikaner eigentlich noch einen Funken Anstand im Leib?

    #114VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  18 Nov. 21, 10:16
    Kommentar

    @B.L.Z.Bubb #114:

    Was erwartest Du von Gläubigen der Glaubensgemeinschaft des erweckten und ewigen Präsidenten Trump?

    #115VerfasserAGB (236120) 18 Nov. 21, 10:57
    Kommentar

    The revolution is eating its own? I sincerely hope so.


    It's all about money? No kidding!


    It seems that QAnon crazies are mad at onetime general and apparent ally Michael Flynn.


    Then there's the welcome news that Trumpies now suspect Trump of betraying them by becoming a "vaccine salesman."


    After months of failing to disprove the reality of Trump’s 2020 presidential election loss, some of the Internet’s most popular right-wing provocateurs are grappling with the pressures of restless audiences, saturated markets, ongoing investigations and millions of dollars in legal bills.


    The result is a chaotic melodrama, playing out via secretly recorded phone calls, personal attacks in podcasts, and a seemingly endless stream of posts on Twitter, Gab and Telegram calling their rivals Satanists, communists, pedophiles or “pay-triots” — money-grubbing grifters exploiting the cause.


    The infighting reflects the diminishing financial rewards for the merchants of right-wing disinformation, whose battles center not on policy or doctrine but on the treasures of online fame: viewer donations and subscriptions; paid appearances at rallies and conferences; and crowds of followers to buy their books and merchandise.


    Not only all of the above, but the "Q" of "QAnon" appears to be AWOL. Oh, woe is me! Well, not me personally. I'm feeling quite chipper.


    [edit]

    So chipper I forgot the link:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/202...


    #116VerfasserSD3 (451227)  03 Jan. 22, 16:11
    Kommentar

    Das hört sich ja gut an.....(leider ist der verlinkte Artikel hinter einer Paywall...ich meine, bisher hätte man ein paar wenige Artikel pro Monat in der WP umsonst lesen dürfen, vielleicht haben sie das inzwischen abgeschafft)


    *SD3 chipperly zuwink* (ehm...geht chipperly??)

    #117VerfasserGoldammer (428405)  03 Jan. 22, 18:27
    Kommentar

    Hi Goldammer! A happy new year to you and Mr. G..


    Paywall - have you tried turning off JavaScript? (JS in top right corner of my screen).


    Chipperly - I'm not sure if that passes the linguistic equivalent of the Reinheitsgebot, but maybe I can offer you a temporary dispensation on the grounds of poetic license.

    #118VerfasserSD3 (451227) 03 Jan. 22, 18:50
    Kommentar

    Oh thanks for the dispensation, that's very sweet of you.


    I don't have a clue how I can turn off JavaScript, to be honest. There's no easy way obviously, and I don't feel like doing things in the system which I can't understand. Und du hast ja das Wesentliche aus dem Artikel zusammengefasst.

    #119VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 03 Jan. 22, 19:09
    Kommentar

    Tja, wenn's doof läuft, brauchen wir noch ein paar dieser Trump-Fäden ...


    https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-01/u...


    "Die große Selbstlüge


    Die Republikaner verweigern sich dem Gedenken an den 6. Januar, die Anti-Trump-Opposition ist entmachtet. Für die nächsten Wahlen lässt das Schlimmes befürchten.


    Am Ende ist es dann wohl vor allem ein Bild, das von diesem 6. Januar bleiben wird: Die gut gefüllten Reihen auf der einen Seite des US-Repräsentantenhauses, die gähnend leeren auf der anderen. Während sich die Abgeordneten der Demokratischen Partei zahlreich versammelt haben, um mit einer Schweigeminute an die Opfer des gewaltsamen Angriffs auf das Parlamentsgebäude vor einem Jahr zu erinnern, sind die Republikanerinnen und Republikaner der Veranstaltung demonstrativ ferngeblieben."


    Man fragt sich.

    #120VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 07 Jan. 22, 08:22
    Kommentar

    Liz Cheney war immerhin da und hat dem Vernehmen nach ihren Vater mitgebracht, den früheren Vizepräsidenten. Solche Gesten mögen nicht viel ändern, aber sie deuten darauf hin, dass vielleicht noch nicht alle Republikaner den Verstand verloren haben.

    #121VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 07 Jan. 22, 08:48
    Kommentar

    Liz Cheney ist bei den Reps ausgebootet, genau wie die drei anderen verbleibenden Reps, die wenigstens noch ein Fünkchen Anstand zu haben scheinen. Kein wirklicher Lichtblick in meinen Augen.

    #122VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 07 Jan. 22, 08:51
    Kommentar

    (1/2)


    OT re #119,


    Turning off JS is pretty easy on an iPad via Settings > Safari > Advanced. Evidently also pretty easy with Chrome, harder in Windows IE, and for some reason hardest on Firefox v. 23, which threatens you with voiding your warranty if you use about:config and don't install an add-on instead. That seems unnecessarily high-handed, but then you don't really need a warranty for a browser, and the browser is free anyway, right?


    I would also take with a large shovel of salt any claims about how much of the internet 'needs' JS to run. The main things it seems to be used for are playing videos and fetching data from other locations (which includes many ads, but also some things like data in databanks, and PM and edit functions on LEO). It doesn't cost anything but a moment of your time to go ahead and see first if you can run any page without it, and if not, decide if you care to continue on that basis. I keep it off until I need it as a matter of principle.


    Unfortunately turning it off doesn't help at all with certain German sites, namely, Welt, SZ, and FAZ. That only makes me appreciate more the friendlier sites like DW, tagesschau, taz, etc.


    That said, if you often find articles worthwhile on a site, of course the ethical thing to do is to subscribe. But even on the NYT, I often prefer the version with as few ads as possible, despite having a paid subscription.


    Perhaps some of these tips might help.


    __________________



    You can turn JavaScript off and on for specific sites (some websites require it) using extensions such as NoScript and ScriptSafe.

    https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stay-anon...


    Deactivating JavaScript in Firefox ...

    Deactivate JavaScript in Chrome ...

    Deactivate JavaScript with Internet Explorer ...

    An alternative to deactivate JavaScript in the browser are browser extensions that restrict the client-side execution of scripts according to user-defined rules. The market leader in this area is the open source Firefox plugin NoScript. For Chrome, ScriptSafe is an open source extension with the same concept available.

    https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/w...


    (Firefox)

    I just updated to FF 23. When I clicked on options>content> there is no longer a " Load images automatically" nor an "Enable JavaScript" option. I need to switch back-and-forth frequently throughout the day for both of these options ...

    ... you can use an addon like https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/quickjava to quickly toggle those settings.

    ... if you are concerned about JavaScript, you should use the NoScript extension. It allows you to trust individual sites to run scripts while keeping the scripts from other sites disabled.

    * http://noscript.net/

    * https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/noscript/

    https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/967188


    /OT

    #123Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  07 Jan. 22, 09:28
    Kommentar
    (2/2)

    If Liz Cheney is the only remaining Republican concerned about investigating the Jan. 6 riots, I agree it's a lost cause and so is she. (If she's not actually a spy reserving the option to change sides yet again, which given her father is probably also thinkable.)

    I just still feel like all the swing voters, the 'independents,' the 'moderates' in rural areas and suburbs away from the coasts, mostly white but also including many Latinos, everyone who voted for Biden for a change, but has now evidently already soured on him in the polls -- all those much-needed votes are probably just rolling their eyes by now at what they likely see as the overwrought hype and melodrama on the part of the 'liberal media,' with all the endless, breathless, 'shocked!' rehashing of the Jan. 6 riot. I'm actually sympathetic to progressive causes, but I'm sick of seeing it all over and over and over again, because it seems to have as slim a chance of motivating voters as anything else the Democrats propose, but that needs a bipartisan vote to actually happen. The only people watching the whole depressing deluge of media coverage were surely those of us who were 'never Trump' all along, i.e., the choir who is sick to death of being preached to.

    So to offer a slightly different topic, this is an even more discouraging, but in my view a more pertinent article. It's also from the Washington Post, so I've excerpted a little more than I normally might, in case that helps, though the original is much longer still.

    If Trumpism gets a second wind in 2022 and beyond, with or without Trump himself depending on his legal cases, it may well be via populist surrogates like this guy.

    ________________

    The Radicalization of J.D. Vance
    As he runs for the Senate, the ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ author has gone from media darling to establishment pariah. Is his new, fiery, right-wing persona an act? ...
    Vance has become one of the leading political avatars of an emergent populist-intellectual persuasion that tacks right on culture and left on economics. Known as national conservatism or sometimes “post-liberalism,” it is — in broad strokes — heavily Catholic, definitely anti-woke, skeptical of big business, nationalist about trade and borders, and flirty with Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban. In Congress, its presence is minuscule — represented chiefly by Sens. Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio — but on Fox News, it has a champion in Tucker Carlson, on whose show Vance is a regular guest. And while the movement’s philosopher-kings spend a lot of time litigating internal schisms online, the project is animated by a real-life political gambit: that as progressives weaken the Democratic Party with unpopular cultural attitudes, the right can swoop in and pick off multiracial working-class voters. ...
    Vance’s Senate race is an almost perfect test of these ideas because the front-runner in the Republican primary, former state treasurer and tea party product Josh Mandel — who, according to recent polling, leads Vance by 6 points — is the candidate of traditional conservative tax-cutters. ... Before Vance deleted his old anti-Trump tweets, he tended to attack Trump for abandoning his stated commitment to economic populism. In a 2020 interview ..., Vance contended that Trump’s great political failure wasn’t his handling of the pandemic, but his signature corporate tax cut and his attempts to undo Obamacare. ...
    In “Hillbilly Elegy,” Vance acknowledged the economic forces that had hollowed out the industrial base of his hometown and wrought problems like domestic violence and opioid abuse. Yet he was reluctant to blame “faceless companies” for the self-destructive impulses of people like his mother, who worked regularly as a nurse until she started stealing prescription narcotics and getting high. Raised in chaos, Vance attributes his success largely to the interventions of his fierce grandmother, Mamaw, the only real source of stability in his life. As the memoir continues, Vance is propped up by a handful of other parental surrogates: the paternalistic Marine Corps and the Tiger Mother herself, his law school mentor Amy Chua, who guided the book to publication.
    Vance’s family had moved to the Ohio Rust Belt from rural Kentucky, and the book’s focus on what he deemed Appalachian culture was key to its broad appeal. Published in the summer of 2016, it was pitched as a generous but unsentimental portrait of the disaffected White working class — though not one that drifted into potentially off-putting populist territory. In a rapturous Times review, Jennifer Senior wrote that Vance had situated the problems of his community in a “fatalistic belief, born of too much adversity, that nothing can be done to change your lot.” What he was really writing about, she said, was “despair.” ...
    Vance, who was writing regular columns for the Times, felt his relationship with liberals was growing untenable. ... the narrative shifted: Liberals became convinced Trump’s win was not correlated to economic strife, but rather delivered by Russian interference and Republican racial animus. Whatever the ultimate strength of this diagnosis — which at minimum seemed to discount some portion of voters who had previously supported Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders — it meant that blue-collar voters didn’t need to be won back after all. Which, functionally, gave cosmopolitan America permission to look away from the troubles of rural White America. ...
    When the “Hillbilly Elegy” movie came out on Netflix in 2020, it was not just critically panned but greeted with intense online mockery, and the tenuous cultural diplomacy achieved by the book seemed to unravel for good ... the “last straw” in his falling-out with elites.
    Ironically, this breakup seemed to bring Vance closer to certain critics who had accused him of blaming low-income Appalachians for their own problems. In his book, Vance cited the research of Harvard economist Raj Chetty, which found that a region’s lack of social mobility was strongly correlated to its percentage of single-family households. Subsequently, he has been more likely to cite MIT economist David Autor’s work on globalization, which estimates that imports from China cost the United States about a million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of the 21st century. By 2020, Vance was tweeting that the legacy of Reaganite-Thatcherite conservatism was “the rise of China, the decimation of the American family, and a lot of tax cuts for the rich.” ...
    In November, Vance delivered the closing speech at the second annual national-conservatism conference, held at a Hilton in Orlando near SeaWorld. Called “Universities Are the Enemy,” the speech wasn’t exclusively about the campus — the title echoes a famous Richard Nixon line — but the priorities of progressive elites. The left, he argued, pushed for lax border control while average Americans were the ones overdosing on fentanyl from Mexico. Grocery and gas bills were skyrocketing, but Janet Yellen escaped blame for inflation because she is the first female Treasury secretary. “So long as we’re trailblazing on diversity, equity and inclusion,” Vance complained, “it doesn’t matter if normal people get screwed.” After the speech, Dreher says, Vance texted him: “When you realize that culture war is class warfare, everything becomes easy.”
    National conservatism is the intellectual version of Trumpism, committed to the populist reorienting of the GOP away from free markets and interventionist foreign policy. ...
    Vance’s concerns dovetail with a number of recent polemics from across the political spectrum, including Daniel Markovits’s “The Meritocracy Trap,” Michael Sandel’s “The Tyranny of Merit,” Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed” and Ross Douthat’s “The Decadent Society.” ...
    For Vance, the story of the past few decades is that the social permissiveness of the left fused with the free-market creed of the right to create the soulless ethic known as neoliberalism. It’s why Vance will decry unregulated capitalism in one breath and porn in the next. It’s also why so many national conservatives are drawn to Catholic social teaching, as opposed to Protestant work-ethic individualism. In his NatCon speech, you could hear Vance articulating both sides of the argument: “The fundamental lie of American feminism of the past 20 or 30 years is that it is liberating for women to go work for 90 hours a week in a cubicle at Goldman Sachs.” ...
    One unlikely text Vance has cited is Elizabeth Warren’s 2004 book “The Two-Income Trap,” about the financial pressures families experience when two parents enter the workforce. ...
    But just how committed are national conservatives to the parts of their platform that are more traditionally left-wing — the infrastructure investments, the social-service interventions?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/...

    #124Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 07 Jan. 22, 09:55
    Kommentar
    Republikaner, Tories, AgD - alles die gleiche, demokratiefeindliche, widerliche Grütze ...

    https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/usa...

    "Die US-Republikaner haben zwei prominente parteiinterne Kritiker von Ex-Präsident Donald Trump abgestraft. Das Nationalkomitee der konservativen Partei sprach eine formale Rüge gegen die Abgeordneten Liz Cheney und Adam Kinzinger aus. Deren Verhalten sei "zerstörerisch für das US-Repräsentantenhaus, die Republikanische Partei und unsere Republik". Von 168 anwesenden Mitgliedern hätten laut Reportern nur eine Handvoll Republikaner gegen die Rüge gestimmt.

    ...

    In ihrer Rüge wirft das Komitee Cheney und Kinzinger vor, den Demokraten dabei zu helfen, US-Bürger zu verfolgen, die am 6. Januar am "legitimen politischen Diskurs" teilgenommen hätten."

    Es ist zum Brechen.
    #125VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 05 Feb. 22, 04:28
    Kommentar

    Shame, shame, shame! The censure document:


    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21197...

    [...]

    WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, therefore, be it


    RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee hereby formally censures Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and shall immediately cease any and all support of them as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference.


    It looks like it will be a loooong time before I will be able to vote for any Republican candidate again, and that the monotony of voting for Democrats all the time (at best occasionally interrupted by a third-part candidate) will annoy me to no end.


    As far as I am concerned, the sentences passed so far on participants of the January 6 insurrection have been way too lenient. Mere slaps on the wrist. The deterrent effect will be zero. Do we need to tighten our laws? It needs to be clear to everybody in the land that this kind of attack on our highest democratic institutions will not be tolerated.

    #126VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  05 Feb. 22, 04:54
    Kommentar
    Wobei,

    ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse 

    ist schon geil. Dazu ein paar Bilder vom 6. Januar, fertig ist der demokratische Wahlkampfspot :-)
    #127VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  05 Feb. 22, 05:43
    Kommentar

    Interessant könnte es werden, wenn sich jetzt irgendwelche Leute berufen fühlen würden, diese Form des legitimen politischen Diskurses in die Kapitole von republikanisch dominierten Bundesstaaten zu tragen. Solche Aussagen sind doch sprichwörtlich Öl ins Feuer gegossen.

    #128VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 05 Feb. 22, 07:34
    Kommentar
    Und als nächstes sehen die Republikaner standrechtliche Erschießungen als legitimrs Mittel an? Was für eine Verbrechertruppe.
    #129VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 05 Feb. 22, 08:15
    Kommentar

    Noch vor einem Jahr hätte ich das für übertrieben gehalten.

    #130VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  05 Feb. 22, 08:53
    Kommentar

    Justice Clarence Thomas thinks there are aborted fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines (dailykos.com)


    "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has just claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells. I can't believe I have to write this again, but no aborted fetus cells are found in any COVID-19 vaccines. None. Nada. Nichts.

    I can't believe I've reached a point in my writing career, which generally does not focus on dissenting opinions written by a Supreme Court Justice, but here we are. So let's get into this nonsense by stating once again that Clarence Thomas is wrong — there are no fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines. But let's look at the case and what Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion.


    Justice Clarence Thomas, aborted fetal cells, COVID-19 vaccines"


    Und sowas ist Richter am SCOTUS. Ich fasse es nicht.


    #131VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 01 Jul. 22, 14:45
    Kommentar

    Ganz ernsthaft: Sind heute mehr Irre unterwegs, oder gab's das schon immer und fiel nur nicht so auf, weil nicht alle immer über alles berichtet haben? Jedesmal, wenn ich Nachrichten über UK oder US lese, kommt es mir vor wie eine schlechte Komödie, nur dass es nicht lustig ist. Das kenne ich von früher so nicht - selbst z.B. zu den Zeiten von Bush Jr., der weiß Gott damals als ebenso schlimm empfunden wurde wie Trump heute, hatte ich nicht den Eindruck, dass alle(s) andere(n) auch irre war(en). Aber vielleicht ist das selektive Wahrnehmung.

    #132VerfasserGibson (418762) 01 Jul. 22, 15:32
    Kommentar

    Gibson, mir geht es genau so :-/

    #133VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 01 Jul. 22, 15:33
    Kommentar

    same 🥴

    #134VerfasserWittGenStein (1323045) 01 Jul. 22, 20:37
    Kommentar

    Aus heutiger Sicht war Bush Jr doch fast ein Wickelkind.

    #135VerfasserMasu (613197) 01 Jul. 22, 22:16
    Kommentar

    Das würde ich nun nicht sagen.

    #136VerfasserGibson (418762) 01 Jul. 22, 22:25
    Kommentar

    War ein schlechter Scherzversuch.


    Wenn ich so lese, dass der Supreme Court jetzt auch noch entschieden hat, das die Umweltbehörde nichts mehr zu sagen hat, wird mir Angst und bange.

    Da stehen doch alle Umweltschutzerfolge der letzten Jahre auf dem Spiel

    #137VerfasserMasu (613197) 01 Jul. 22, 23:07
    Kommentar
    https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-07/s...


    "US Supreme Court: Dienstleister des republikanischen Machterhalts

    Das höchste Gericht der USA versteht sich neuerdings als politisches Entscheidungsorgan, jetzt auch beim Klimaschutz. Dadurch droht das Land unregierbar zu werden."

    Übel.
    #138VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Jul. 22, 03:01
    Kommentar

    ...

    Behind dusty oaken doors

    Six robed dinosaurs

    ...


    Video vom Freitag einer amerikanischen Folk-Sängerin und Songwriterin, Reina del Cid: A song for post-Roe America (auf YouTube).

    Mit dem intellektuellen Ausblick dieser Typen hätten sie den Dinosauriern allerdings nicht das Wasser reichen können. Unfaßbar.


    #139VerfasserWachtelkönig (396690) 02 Jul. 22, 05:05
    Kommentar

    auf YouTube (#139)


    Nämlich hier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFlqYR837A

    #140VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  02 Jul. 22, 06:13
    Kommentar

    Zwei Fragen:


    1. Gibt es im amerikanischen System zumindest theoretisch Möglichkeiten, einen Richter am Supreme Court zu beurlauben oder aus dem Dienst zu entlassen, wenn unzweifelhaft nachgewiesen werden kann, dass er "not fit" für die Aufgabe ist? Mir ist erstens klar, dass das in diesen Fällen nicht passieren wird, und zweitens weiß ich, dass sowas ein sehr heikles Thema ist, wenn man die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz bewahren will.
    2. Präsident Biden hält sich mit Kritik am Supreme Court im Moment nicht zurück. Kritik an Gerichtsentscheidungen gab es auch schon von deutschen Politikern, aber in Deutschland muss ein Politiker sehr aufpassen, dass er es nicht übertreibt, da das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung aus guten Gründen als sehr wichtig angesehen wird. Wenn ein deutscher Bundeskanzler oder Minister so auf das Bundesverfassungsgericht eindreschen würde (rein verbal natürlich), wie es Biden gerade beim Supreme Court macht, dann wäre er im Kreuzfeuer der Kritik und könnte sich vermutlich nicht lange im Amt halten. In den USA scheint das anders. War das schon immer so?
    #141Verfasserharambee (91833)  02 Jul. 22, 11:37
    Kommentar

    Sehr schön

    #142VerfasserMasu (613197) 02 Jul. 22, 11:46
    Kommentar

    Zu harambees 1.: Theoretisch ist das möglich, über ein Impeachment (wie es auch bereits gefordert wurde):


    Like presidents and Cabinet members, federal judges can be removed from office through a similar process: impeached by the House and convicted in a trial by the Senate that would prompt removal from office.


    Proceedings start in the House and usually involve a set of hearings about the investigation into the articles of impeachment levied. If a majority of lawmakers support impeachment, the charges move to the Senate, which convenes as a court of impeachment to consider conviction and removal.


    The bar is a lot higher in the upper chamber. It takes a two-thirds majority of senators to convict and remove from office. And even if removed, it doesn’t necessarily mean the judge in question will be prohibited from running for elected office in the future.


    Since 1789, 15 federal judges have been impeached while sitting on the bench. Of those, eight were convicted by the Senate and removed from office while the others were either acquitted or resigned. Only three of these impeachments occurred in the last several decades.


    Only one Supreme Court justice – Samuel Chase – has ever been impeached. (...)


    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles...


    Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass es zu einem solchen Impeachment oder gar zur Amtsenthebung kommt, ist natürlich äußerst gering.

    #143VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  02 Jul. 22, 11:47
    Kommentar

    Zu #131: Ich habe noch etwas genauer gelesen. Die Behauptung


    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has just claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells.


    scheint nicht zu stimmen. Zumindest habe ich sie in dieser Form in http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-conten... (Das ist sein Minderheitsvotum) nicht gefunden, aber ich gestehe, dass es mir nicht allzu leicht fällt, derartige juristische Texte zu lesen.


    PS: Vielen Dank an Mr Chekov für #143!

    #144Verfasserharambee (91833)  02 Jul. 22, 11:53
    Kommentar
    Naja, er sagt stark verkürzt "die wollen aus religiösen Gründen nicht geimpft werden, weil da Zellen angetriebener Föten drin sind, und das Gericht hatte deshalb der Klage stattgeben müssen". Statt zu sagen "Ja, WENN da abgetriebene Föten drin wären, DANN ..."

    Er macht sich die Behauptung also letztlich zu eigen.
    #145VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Jul. 22, 13:03
    Kommentar

    Wo sagt er das, Bubb? Meinst Du den Satz


    They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.


    Danach behaupten auch die Antragsteller nicht, dass im Impfstoff Zellen abgetriebener Föten enthalten sind, sondern "nur", dass bei der Entwicklung der Impfstoffe Zelllinien verwendet wurden, die von abgetriebenen Föten abstammen. Das ist für mich ein deutlicher Unterschied und deshalb behaupte ich bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils, dass weder der Richter noch die Antragsteller behauptet haben, dass der Impfstoff derartige Zellen enthält. Dass bei der Entwicklung (und dazu gehört das Testen) derartige Zelllinien verwendet wurden, ist, soweit ich weiß, nicht falsch. Ich zitiere aus National Geographic (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/ar... ):


    It’s true that such cells have been used either in the testing or development and production of COVID-19 vaccines. The cells are grown in a laboratory and were derived from a few elective abortions performed more than three decades ago. These same cell lines are also used to test and advance our understanding of several routine drugs, including acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and aspirin, and they continue to be used for treatment research in diseases such as Alzheimer’s and hypertension.

    #146Verfasserharambee (91833)  02 Jul. 22, 13:15
    Kommentar
    So verstehe ich den Satz

    "Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children."

    Und an diesem Satz begründet er, dass deren Religionsfreiheit verletzt sei.
    #147VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Jul. 22, 13:29
    Kommentar

    Genau! In #131 zitierst Du aber eine Quelle mit dem Satz:


    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has just claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells.


    Und diese Behauptung ist meiner Ansicht nach falsch. Richtig wäre


    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has just claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.


    Richtig wäre dieser Satz in zweierlei Hinsicht: Erstens hat der Richter das tatsächlich mehr oder weniger behauptet und zweitens stimmt es, dass diese Zelllinien bei der Entwicklung der Impfstoffe eine Rolle gespielt haben. Sie sind aber nicht in den Impfstoffen enthalten. Siehst Du diesen wesentlichen Unterschied wirklich nicht, Bubb?


    Ich vertrete den vermutlich völlig aus der Zeit gekommenen Standpunkt, dass ich bei Leuten, mit deren Schlussfolgerungen ich tendenziell übereinstimme, viel kritischer bin, wenn sie mit falschen Argumenten für die richtige Sache werben, als bei Leuten, die ganz andere Ziele verfolgen als ich. Wenn letztere lügen, freue ich mich, weil das ja zeigt, dass sie keine guten Argumente haben. Wenn erstere lügen oder Unsinn verbreiten, dann ärgere ich mich, weil ich davon überzeugt bin, dass sie der Sache schaden.

    #148Verfasserharambee (91833)  02 Jul. 22, 14:19
    Kommentar
    Stimmt, Du hast Recht, harambee, mein Fehler.
    #149VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Jul. 22, 14:39
    Kommentar

    Bubb, das kannst Du nicht machen! Damit verletzt Du die Grundlegen der modernen Diskussionskultur, nach der man nie zugeben darf, dass jemand anders Recht hat. Wenn doch mal jemand Recht hat, dann wechselt man das Thema oder beschimpft das Gegenüber. Du musst noch viel lernen, aber Du bist ja noch jung (-;

    #150Verfasserharambee (91833) 02 Jul. 22, 15:20
    Kommentar
    Ach, wieder alles falsch gemacht :-/
    #151VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Jul. 22, 15:32
    Kommentar

    Da! Schon wieder!! ;-))

    #152VerfasserPeter <de> (236455) 02 Jul. 22, 15:38
    Kommentar
    Schuligom ...
    #153VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Jul. 22, 17:31
    Kommentar
    #154VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 09 Aug. 22, 06:40
    Kommentar
    Und Trump tut, was er am besten k8: er jammert und klagt.
    #155VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 09 Aug. 22, 06:42
    Kommentar

    Das täten du und ich auch, wenn das FBI vor der Tür stünde... Mr. Orange war allerdings nicht da, er war in New Jersey. Mar-a-Lago wird anscheinend im Sommer immer geschlossen.

    #156VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  09 Aug. 22, 07:22
    Kommentar

    Reporting that I heard said that tRump was getting ready for an upcoming deposition in New York for one of the legal cases against him when the raid happened. A Secret Service guard detail was still at Mar-a-Lago, they were informed of the raid in advance, and they cooperated fully by letting the FBI in.

    What's also delightful is that FBI Director Christopher Wray, appointed by tRump, most certainly would have had to approve the FBI's involvement.


    I saw a delightful meme about the raid that said something like "'The safe's that way,' said Barron, without looking up from his XBox."


    Interesting fact: It was 48 years ago to the day that President Nixon resigned on national television because of the Watergate scandal. I was on a family camping trip when the speech was announced. Someone in the campground had a small TV in their trailer (a rarity back then) and placed it outside so that folks could gather around it, so I heard the speech "live."

    #157Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 09 Aug. 22, 11:53
    Kommentar

    Nixon must have been on Trump's mind, too: apparently he compared searching Mar-a-thingy to Watergate. (Him being the victim, of course.)

    #158VerfasserGibson (418762) 09 Aug. 22, 12:41
    Kommentar

    Und, hbberlin, wie war die Reaktion der meisten Leute? *interessantfind*

    #159Verfasservirus (343741) 09 Aug. 22, 12:50
    Kommentar

    Even though I was only about 15, I was thrilled. (It was about that time that I was one of the three founders of a chapter of "Teen-age Democrats" in my VERY Republican suburb.)

    I suspect that many of those in the "crowd" were Republicans, but there were surely Democrats there as well.

    I don't recall any great number of strong reactions being expressed. Unlike tRump, Nixon didn't have much of a cult following (except for maybe Roger Stone, a current tRump supporter and advisor who has an image of Tricky Dick tattooed across his whole back). I think that most people were rather shocked, even though things had been moving in that direction anyway -- especially when GOP members of Congress were publicly turning on him. People were also ready for the saga to be over, so it was a relief. At noon the next day, Gerald Ford was sworn in (rather bland, uncontroversial person for the most part). Sadly, as president, he pardoned Nixon.

    #160Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 09 Aug. 22, 13:28
    Kommentar

    Articles about the grim fallout from Trumpism have been many, but these two were moving to me recently, especially thinking of the LEO forum members and their relatives who struggle with autoimmune diseases.

    The Atlantic article in particular is very long, but worth reading.

    __________________

    Abortion bans complicate access to drugs for cancer, arthritis, even ulcers
    Some chronically ill women face questions about critical medications that could be used to end a pregnancy. ...
    Becky Hubbard, 46, has decided to get sterilized so that she can go back on the only medication that has relieved her disabling pain from rheumatoid arthritis for the last eight years.
    Soon after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the Tennessee woman said she got an ultimatum from her rheumatologist. If she wanted to stay on the treatment of choice for her condition, a drug called methotrexate, she was told she had to go on birth control despite her age and history of infertility. ...
    Medicines that treat conditions from cancer to autoimmune diseases to ulcers can also end a pregnancy or cause birth defects. As a result, doctors and pharmacists in more than a dozen states with strict abortion restrictions must suddenly navigate whether and when to order such drugs because they could be held criminally liable and lose their licenses for prescribing some of them to pregnant women.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/08...

    The secret history of the U.S.
    government’s family-separation policy
    “We need to take away children.”
    For more than a year, Quintana and her colleagues encountered cases like this repeatedly. To track down the parents of children in their care, they would scour American prisons and immigration detention centers, using clues from social media or tips from friends inside the government. They would struggle to explain to parents why their kids had been taken away or how to get them back. The therapists, teachers, and caseworkers would try to maintain their composure at work, but they would later break down in their cars and in front of their families. Many debated quitting their job. Though they were experts in caring for severely traumatized children, this was a challenge to which they did not know how to respond. ...
    Trump-administration officials insisted for a whole year that family separations weren’t happening. Finally, in the spring of 2018, they announced the implementation of a separation policy with great fanfare—as if one had not already been under way for months. Then they declared that separating families was not the goal of the policy, but an unfortunate result of prosecuting parents who crossed the border illegally with their children. Yet a mountain of evidence shows that this is explicitly false: Separating children was not just a side effect, but the intent. Instead of working to reunify families after parents were prosecuted, officials worked to keep them apart for longer.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/...



    #161Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 09 Aug. 22, 18:00
    Kommentar

    Der Fall der Rheumatikerin, die kein MTX mehr bekommen soll, solange sie potentiell schwanger werden kann, ist ja unfassbar! Ich wünsch allen, die solche Zustände möglich machen, einen richtig schönen Rheumaschub in sämtliche Glieder.

    #162VerfasserSelima (107)  09 Aug. 22, 18:12
    Kommentar

    https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-r...


    kann man nicht lesen, ohne das große Würgen zu bekommen.

    #163VerfasserPeter <de> (236455) 09 Aug. 22, 18:16
    Kommentar

    Ja, übel.

    Ich befürchte, dass ihm mal wieder gelingt, alles abzuwehren und er ohne nennenswerten Schaden davonkommt.

    Dass ihm weder die Hausdurchsuchungen wegen der illegal mitgenommenen präsidialen Dokumente, noch die Befragungen durch die New Yorker Generalstaatsanwältin zum geschäftlichen Gebaren seiner Unternehmen, noch die Ergebnisse des Untersuchungsausshcusses zum 6. Januar etwas anhaben können.


    Vermutlich um viele Steuern (mindestens drei unterschiedliche Arten von Steuer) zu sparen, hat er seiner Ex Ivana auf seinem Golfplatz ihre letzte Ruhestätte gegeben.


    Wie mehrere US-Medien berichten, wurde die kürzlich verstorbene Ex-Frau Donald Trumps auf einem der Golfplätze des ehemaligen US-Präsidenten beerdigt - ganz in der Nähe des Klubhauses./.../m schönen Township Bedminster im US-Bundesstaat New Jersey, gut 70 Kilometer westlich von New York City, hat man so seine Erfahrungen mit Gräbern der Familie Trump./.../Der erste (Genehmigungsantrag 2007) drehte sich darum, ein 5,8 Meter hohes klassisches Steinmausoleum mit vier Obelisken, einem Altar und sechs Gewölben zu errichten - inmitten des Golfplatzes. Doch vonseiten der Verwaltung hatte man seine Bedenken, was das Projekt angeht./.../

    Versuche, einen Kompromiss zu finden, scheiterten. Trump warf die Idee eines Mausoleums schließlich über den Haufen - aber nicht die Idee an sich, aus seinem Golfplatz eine Grabstätte zu machen. Er bot den Behörden schließlich an, mehr als 1000 Gräber anzulegen. Für sich - und für Mitglieder seines Golfklubs/.../Als sich die Stadt wieder querstellte, kam Trump mit einem neuen Angebot entgegen. Zehn Gräber sollten es sein, für ihn selbst und Mitglieder seiner Familie /.../ Nach den lokalen Behörden bewilligte schließlich auch der Staat New Jersey die entsprechende Lizenz für den privaten Golf-Friedhof.

    Später soll Trump nochmals versucht haben, die Anzahl der Gräber zu erhöhen, um 284, die zu verkaufen sein sollten. Es ist nicht ganz klar, ob er diesen Plan wirklich vollendet und alle Genehmigungen eingeholt hat./.../

    für Friedhöfe gibt es in New Jersey gewisse Regeln. Brooke Harrington, Soziologieprofessorin am Dartmouth College in New Hampshire und nach eigener Aussage auch mit Forschungen zu Steuern befasst, schrieb auf Twitter, dass Friedhöfe in dem Staat mindestens von Grund-, Einkommens-, und der US-Version der Mehrwertsteuer befreit sind. Es gebe keine Mindestanzahl an Gräbern, um von den Regeln zu profitieren. 

    https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/ivana-tr...

    #164VerfasserReeva (908916)  11 Aug. 22, 09:57
    Kommentar

    Ich befürchte, dass ihm mal wieder gelingt, alles abzuwehren und er ohne nennenswerten Schaden davonkommt.


    Ich nicht. Die Mühlen der Justiz mahlen langsam, frustrierend langsam, aber irgendwann kriegen sie ihn. Wenn er nicht das Land verlässt oder einer seiner Nachfolger ihn begnadigt.

    #165VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  11 Aug. 22, 10:14
    Kommentar

    Das wäre zu schön!

    Das schlimmste Szenario wäre, wenn er vorher wiedergewählt würde.


    Zu den Steuertricksereien in New Jersey schreibt der Guardian, dass das kleine Friedhofsarreal vermutlich nicht reiche, um die Steuerbefreiungen für das gesamte Ressort geltend machen zu können.

    Deshalb habe Trump (sie berufen sich auf die Washington Post) auch schon einen Teil davon zu einem Bauernhof deklarieren lassen:


    "But every break counts, and the former president has previously designated the plot as a farm because some trees on the site are turned into mulch used for flower beds, according to the Washington Post."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/...

    #166VerfasserReeva (908916)  11 Aug. 22, 10:31
    Kommentar

    Der Artikel in der gestrigen SZ war wenig optimistisch, was die Anklagen angeht.

    #167VerfasserSelima (107) 11 Aug. 22, 10:41
    Kommentar

    Auf Bloomberg denkt jemand darüber nach, warum T. überhaupt geheime Unterlagen beiseite schaffen ließ, und kommt auf drei mögliche Gründe:


    Reason One seems relatively harmless. Trump is a seven-year-old grown old, and he liked some of the cool doodads you get your hands on as president. He reportedly wanted to keep an Air Force One model displaying a bespoke paint job he had commissioned for the presidential jet and resented restrictions against hanging on to such stuff. (…)


    Reason Two: Money. Unfettered greed has motivated Trump his entire life. (…) It had to occur to him that if hangers-on such as Kushner and Mnuchin could rake in billions because of their proximity to him, he could sell himself — or, possibly, state secrets — for even higher prices.


    Recall that Trump’s businesses have been in difficult straits. When Trump left the White House, his operations were saddled with about $1 billion in debt, $900 million of which comes due relatively soon. (…) It should also raise alarms for any rational observer concerned that Trump might have been inspired to use the powers and access to records that his presidency provided to rake in lucre by peddling classified information after he left the White House. Perhaps that won’t prove to be the case — and I hope it doesn’t — but extreme vigilance around that particular problem would be well advised.


    Reason Three: Reputational damage. Trump reportedly held on to letters he exchanged with North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un (…) [W]hat other communications are contained in the documents Trump kept? Anything with Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping? (…)


    Again, maybe there’s nothing of this sort, either, in the documents Trump kept. But it’s not unreasonable to worry that his communications with foreign leaders — and anything disreputable or possibly illegal that took place in connection with those — could have been something he felt compelled to hide.

    #168VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  15 Aug. 22, 16:08
    Kommentar

    Es sagt eine Menge über die Situation in den USA aus, wenn man sich freut, dass Liz Cheney überlegt, zu kandidieren:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/...


    Vor Trump hätte ich gedacht: wie schrecklich, wenn sie gewinnt. Heute denke ich: Wenn's denn ein Republikaner sein muss, besser sie als was sonst so im Angebot ist.

    #169VerfasserGibson (418762) 17 Aug. 22, 18:43
    Kommentar
    Die wird's aber nicht :-/
    #170VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 17 Aug. 22, 19:36
    Kommentar

    Mir geht's wie Gibson: Angesichts der Alternativen entdecke ich bei Cheney meine konservative Seite, von der ich bislang nichts wusste :-)


    Aber Bubb hat natürlich Recht: Die wird's nicht. Nie im Leben steht sie die republikanischen Vorwahlen durch.

    #171VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 18 Aug. 22, 07:02
    Kommentar
    "Mir geht's wie Gibson: Angesichts der Alternativen entdecke ich bei Cheney meine konservative Seite, von der ich bislang nichts wusste :-)"

    Schon übel, wenn man nur die Wahl zwischen einem halb und verschiedenen komplett vergammelten Äpfeln hat ...
    #172VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 18 Aug. 22, 07:08
    Kommentar

    Wobei ja noch nicht alle Äpfel auf dem Tisch liegen. Wir wissen nicht, was mit Trump wird und ob Biden wieder antritt. Es scheint, dass die meisten Amerikaner sich keinen von beiden zurückwünschen.

    #173VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  18 Aug. 22, 07:14
    Kommentar

    Von meiner franzöischen ehemaligen Chefin habe ich "die Wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera" übernommen.

    #174Verfasservirus (343741) 18 Aug. 22, 09:28
    Kommentar

    Vielleicht finden beide Parteien noch 100jährige, die das Land in die goldene Zukunft führen können

    #175VerfasserMasu (613197) 18 Aug. 22, 12:16
    Kommentar

    Until January 6, Rep. Cheney was about as strong of a tRump supporter as one could find. Her voting record matched his wishes about 93% of the time, and she has voted with the rest of the GOP herd against the recent successes that Pres. Biden has had regarding legislation. .

    I detest her politics, but she's one of the few current Republicans that I can say has at least a bit of decency.

    I seem to recall that she is one of the few conservatives who have appeared on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show. The two of them had a substantive, interesting, and challenging conversation, showing respect for each other and finding commonalities (such as fishing, I believe). The exact opposite of when Sen. Rand Paul (from Kentucky) was on. He was just a jerk and wouldn't provide substantive answers to Dr. Maddow's legitimate questions.

    I wouldn't mind if Rep. Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) were to try to run as a team of 3rd-party candidates (for pres.&VP, respectively) in 2024. tRump would still get more votes (should he be "available" to run and not in an orange jumpsuit, for example ;-) ), but if they could draw enough voters away from tRump's cult, it could be a warning sign to the cult that they need to change if they don't want to go the way of the Whigs (which is the party that the GOP replaced in the mid-19th century).

    The downside of that could be that they might siphon of "never-tRump" voters who voted for Biden/Harris in 2020. One just has to hope that a split right-wing" vote would be weaker than a lessened left-wing vote.

    #176Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 18 Aug. 22, 15:41
    Kommentar

    I detest her politics, but she's one of the few current Republicans that I can say has at least a bit of decency.

    Agreed.

    #177VerfasserSD3 (451227) 18 Aug. 22, 15:46
    Kommentar

    Direkt nach der Hausdurchsuchung in Mar-a-Lago berichtete die Tagesschau, dass Trump nicht nur medial sofort zum Gegenangriff übergangen ist, sondern die Razzia auch direkt zum Anlass genommen hat, um seine Getreuen um noch mehr Wahlkampfspenden zu bitten.

    https://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/trump-raz...


    Offenbar ebenso erfolgreich wie auf der politischen Ebene u. a. bei Liz Cheney.



    Over the past week, Trump's fundraising team solicited donations through a flurry of emails that denounced the FBI search as a "threat to democracy" and an "unprecedented infringement of the rights of every American citizen" by Democrats.

    "We need EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN PATRIOT to take action and bolster our Official Trump Defense Fund," one email said. "This is the ONLY way to DEFEND President Trump and help him SAVE AMERICA."

    Supporters quickly took the call to action. For at least two days, figures reached up to $1 million dollars, according to a report from The Washington Post.


    https://businessinsider.mx/trump-raised-milli...


    Dass Millionäre, Milliardäre und andere Profiteure von Trumps Politik gerne von ihrem in der Regel reichlich vorhandenen Geld abgeben, kann ich ja noch nachvollziehen. Aber sehr viel Geld stammt mit Sicherheit auch von einfachen Bürgern, die es eigentlich nicht entbehren können.

    Und im Gegensatz zu vielen Profiteuren, die genau wissen, dass sie vornehmlich in ihrem eigenem Interesse handeln und nicht das der Allgemeinheit vertreten, glauben diese eher armen Schlucker wahrscheinlich, dass sie wahre Patrioten sind und dazu beitragen, ihr Land zu retten.


    Zur medialen Gegenoffensive der Trumpgetreuen ist noch zu vermelden, dass unmittelbar nach der Razzia bei FOX News ein Bild veröffentlicht wurde, auf dem der zuständige Richter Bruce Reinhart zusamen mit Ghislaine Maxwell (verurteilte Kumpanin von Jeff Epstein).zu sehen war, wie sie ihm die Füße massiert.

    "Er unterschrieb den Durchsuchungsbefehl beim FBI für Präsident Trumps Anwesen." stand bei dem Foto.


    Es wurde schnell als Fake entlarvt, Epstein war durch Reinhart ersetzt worden, wie immer war es trotzdem zu spät, um eine massenhafte Weiterverbreitung weltweit zu verhindern.

    #178VerfasserReeva (908916)  20 Aug. 22, 09:34
    Kommentar

    Es wurde schnell als Fake entlarvt, Epstein war durch Reinhart ersetzt worden, wie immer war es trotzdem zu spät, um eine massenhafte Weiterverbreitung weltweit zu verhindern."


    Den gehirngewaschenen Trump-Gläubigen ist das doch egal. Die glauben das trotzdem.

    #179VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 20 Aug. 22, 09:38
    Kommentar

    Da ist leider was dran. Das ist magisches Denken. Viele scheinen auch kein logisches Problem damit zu haben, dass die in Mar-a-Lago sichergestellten Dokumente sowohl Trump böswillig vom FBI untergeschoben wurden als auch vollkommen rechtmäßig dort lagerten und nun schleunigst an ihn zurückgehen müssen. (Sie waren außerdem dort so sicher wie bei der Regierung, und sie waren auch gar nicht geheim, weil er sie alle pauschal von ihrer Geheimhaltungsstufe befreit hat, und außerdem war Obama viel schlimmer.)

    #180VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  20 Aug. 22, 10:00
    Kommentar

    Viele scheinen auch kein logisches Problem damit zu haben, dass die in Mar-a-Lago sichergestellten Dokumente sowohl Trump böswillig vom FBI untergeschoben wurden als auch vollkommen rechtmäßig dort lagerten und nun schleunigst an ihn zurückgehen müssen, und er sie auf Nachfrage doch sowieso sofort rausgegeben hätte ... (Sie waren außerdem dort so sicher wie bei der Regierung, und sie waren auch gar nicht geheim, weil er sie alle pauschal von ihrer Geheimhaltungsstufe befreit hat, und außerdem war Obama viel schlimmer, und was ist mit Hilarys E-Mails!)


    Was für Vollidioten.

    #181VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 20 Aug. 22, 10:23
    Kommentar
    These two articles are much too long, even after I tried to edit them down.

    But nevertheless, it seems important at least to document the failures of the rule of law, as we slide ever closer to the anarchic abyss.


    _________________

    State Legislatures Are Torching Democracy
    Even in moderate places like Ohio, gerrymandering has let unchecked Republicans pass extremist laws that could never make it through Congress.

    By Jane Mayer
    As the Supreme Court anticipated when it overturned Roe v. Wade, the battle over abortion rights is now being waged state by state. Nowhere is the fight more intense than in Ohio, which has long been considered a national bellwether. The state helped secure the Presidential victories of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, then went for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. Its residents tend to be politically moderate, and polls consistently show that a majority of Ohio voters support legal access to abortion, particularly for victims of rape and incest. Yet, as the recent ordeal of a pregnant ten-year-old rape victim has illustrated, Ohio’s state legislature has become radically out of synch with its constituents. In June, the state’s General Assembly instituted an abortion ban so extreme that the girl was forced to travel to Indiana to terminate her pregnancy. ...
    Longtime Ohio politicians have been shocked by the state’s transformation into a center of extremist legislation, not just on abortion but on such divisive issues as guns and transgender rights. Ted Strickland, a Democrat who served as governor between 2007 and 2011, told me, “The legislature is as barbaric, primitive, and Neanderthal as any in the country. It’s really troubling.” ... The story is similar in several other states with reputations for being moderate, such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania: their legislatures have also begun proposing laws so far to the right that they could never be passed in the U.S. Congress. ...
    How did this happen, given that most Ohio voters are not ultra-conservatives? “It’s all about gerrymandering,” Niven told me. The legislative-district maps in Ohio have been deliberately drawn so that many Republicans effectively cannot lose, all but insuring that the Party has a veto-proof super-majority. As a result, the only contests most Republican incumbents need worry about are the primaries—and, because hard-core partisans dominate the vote in those contests, the sole threat most Republican incumbents face is the possibility of being outflanked by a rival even farther to the right. ...
    Three days before the Supreme Court overturned Roe, I went to a luncheonette in Columbus, Ohio, to meet with David Pepper, an election-law professor, a novelist, a onetime Cincinnati city councilman, and a former chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. ...
    Last year, Pepper wrote a book, “Laboratories of Autocracy,” whose title offers a grim spin on a famous statement, attributed to the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, calling America’s state legislatures “laboratories of democracy.” The subtitle of Pepper’s book, “A Wake-Up Call from Behind the Lines,” is a bit more hopeful. He is determined to get the Democratic political establishment to stop lavishing almost all its money and attention on U.S. House, Senate, and gubernatorial races ... and to focus more energy on what he sees as a greater emergency: the collapse of representative democracy in one statehouse after another. ...
    In 2010, the Supreme Court issued its controversial Citizens United decision, which allowed dark money to flood American politics. Donors, many undisclosed, soon funnelled thirty million dollars into the Republicans’ redistricting project, called REDMAP, and the result was an astonishing success: the Party picked up nearly seven hundred legislative seats, and won the power to redraw the maps for four times as many districts as the Democrats. ...
    The journalist David Daley tells the story of REDMAP in his 2016 book, “Ratf **ked.” ...
    For Pepper, the state’s transformation has been crushing. He has watched the reputation of Ohio’s public-school system slide as Republicans have siphoned off public funding to support failing, politically connected charter schools. In 2010, Education Week ranked the state’s schooling as the fifth best in the country; in 2021, U.S. News & World Report ranked it thirty-first. Last year, F.B.I. agents told USA Today that public-corruption cases in Ohio were the most egregious in the country. In the past five years, the state has had five speakers of the House, because two were forced out as a result of the biggest bribery scandals in Ohio’s history. ...
    A recent study by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, a nonpartisan nonprofit, documents how deeply right-wing extremism has infiltrated U.S. statehouses. Of the 7,383 people who served in state legislatures in the 2021-22 session, eight hundred and seventy-five had joined far-right Facebook groups. (All but three were Republicans.) The study describes the fringe beliefs that many of these members shared, including “the idea that Christians constitute a core of the American citizenry and/or that government and public policies should be reshaped to reflect that.” ...
    Many of the most extreme bills ... have been written not by the legislators themselves but by local and national right-wing pressure groups, which can raise dark money and turn out primary voters in force. Nationally, the most influential such group is the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization that essentially outsources the drafting of laws to self-interested businesses. In Ohio, ... it is often extreme religious groups that exert undue influence. ...
    The vast majority of Ohio residents clearly want legislative districts that are drawn more fairly. By 2015, the state’s gerrymandering problem had become so notorious that seventy-one per cent of Ohioans voted to pass an amendment to the state constitution demanding reforms. As a result, the Ohio constitution now requires that districts be shaped so that the makeup of the General Assembly is proportional to the political makeup of the state. In 2018, an even larger bipartisan majority—seventy-five per cent of Ohio voters—passed a similar resolution for the state’s congressional districts.
    Though these reforms were democratically enacted, the voters’ will has thus far been ignored. Allison Russo, the minority leader in the House, who is one of two Democratic members of the seven-person redistricting commission, told me, “I was optimistic at the beginning.” But, she explained, the Republican members drafted a new districting map in secret, and earlier this year they presented it to her and the other Democrat just hours before a deadline. The proposed districts were nowhere near proportional to the state’s political makeup. The Democrats argued that the Republicans had flagrantly violated the reforms that had been written into the state constitution.
    This past spring, an extraordinary series of legal fights were playing out. The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the map—and then struck down four more, after the Republican majority on the redistricting commission continued submitting maps that defied the spirit of the court’s orders. The chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court was herself a Republican. ...
    The Republicans’ antics lasted so long that they basically ran out the clock. Election deadlines were looming, and the makeup of Ohio’s districts still hadn’t been settled. “They contrived a crisis,” Russo told me. At that point, a group allied with the Republicans, Ohio Right to Life, urged a federal court to intervene, on the ground that the delay was imperilling the fair administration of upcoming elections. The decision was made by a panel of three federal judges—two of whom had been appointed by Trump. Over the strenuous objection of the third judge, the two Trump judges ruled in the group’s favor, allowing the 2022 elections to proceed with a map so rigged that Ohio’s top judicial body had rejected it as unconstitutional.
    On Twitter, Bill Seitz, the majority leader of the Ohio House, jeered at his Democratic opponents: “Too bad so sad. We win again.” He continued, “Now I know it’s been a tough night for all you libs. Pour yourself a glass of warm milk and you will sleep better. The game is over and you lost.”
    Ohio Democrats, including David Pepper, are outraged. “The most corrupt state in the country was told more than five times that it was violating the law, and then the federal court said it was O.K.,” he told me. “If you add up all the abnormalities, it’s a case study—we’re seeing the disintegration of the rule of law in Ohio. They intentionally created an illegal map, and are laughing about it.” ...
    As Pepper sees it, Republicans understand clearly that, “if it were a level playing field, their positions would be too unpopular to win.” But “this is not a democracy to them anymore.”
    He told me, “There are two sides in America, but they’re fighting different battles. The blue side thinks their views are largely popular and democracy is relatively stable—and that they just need better outcomes in federal elections. The focus is on winning swing states in national elections. The other side, though, knows that our democracy isn’t stable—that it can be subverted through the statehouses. Blue America needs to reshape everything it does for that much deeper battle. It’s not about one cycle. It’s a long game.”

    Published in the print edition of the August 15, 2022, issue, with the headline “Goodbye, Columbus.”
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15...


    Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals
    How Mark Milley and others in the Pentagon handled the national-security threat posed by their own Commander-in-Chief.

    By Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker
    ... the gulf between Trump and the generals was not really about money or practicalities, just as their endless policy battles were not only about clashing views on whether to withdraw from Afghanistan or how to combat the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran. The divide was also a matter of values, of how they viewed the United States itself. That was never clearer than when Trump told his new chief of staff, John Kelly—like Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general—about his vision for Independence Day. “Look, I don’t want any wounded guys in the parade,” Trump said. “This doesn’t look good for me.” ...
    Kelly could not believe what he was hearing. “Those are the heroes,” he told Trump. “In our society, there’s only one group of people who are more heroic than they are—and they are buried over in Arlington.” Kelly did not mention that his own son Robert, a lieutenant killed in action in Afghanistan, was among the dead interred there.
    “I don’t want them,” Trump repeated. “It doesn’t look good for me.” ...
    The four years of the Trump Presidency were characterized by a fantastical degree of instability: fits of rage, late-night Twitter storms, abrupt dismissals. At first, Trump, who had dodged the draft by claiming to have bone spurs, seemed enamored with being Commander-in-Chief and with the national-security officials he’d either appointed or inherited. But Trump’s love affair with “my generals” was brief, and in a statement for this article the former President confirmed how much he had soured on them over time. “These were very untalented people and once I realized it, I did not rely on them, I relied on the real generals and admirals within the system,” he said.
    It turned out that the generals had rules, standards, and expertise, not blind loyalty. The President’s loud complaint to John Kelly one day was typical: “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
    “Which generals?” Kelly asked.
    “The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
    “You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
    But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied. In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the President was determined to test the proposition. ...
    ... Milley’s appointment was not even the day’s biggest news. As Trump walked to his helicopter to fly to the game, he dropped another surprise. “John Kelly will be leaving toward the end of the year,” he told reporters. Kelly had lasted seventeen months in what he called “the worst fucking job in the world.”
    For Trump, the decision was a turning point. Instead of installing another strong-willed White House chief of staff who might have told him no, the President gravitated toward one who would basically go along with whatever he wanted. A week later, Kelly made an unsuccessful last-ditch effort to persuade Trump not to replace him with Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina who was serving as Trump’s budget director. “You don’t want to hire someone who’s going to be a yes-man,” Kelly told the President. “I don’t give a shit anymore,” Trump replied. “I want a yes-man!”
    A little more than a week after that, Mattis was out, too, having quit in protest over Trump’s order that the U.S. abruptly withdraw its forces from Syria right after Mattis had met with American allies fighting alongside the U.S. It was the first time in nearly four decades that a major Cabinet secretary had resigned over a national-security dispute with the President.
    The so-called “axis of adults” was over. None of them had done nearly as much to restrain Trump as the President’s critics thought they should have. But all of them—Kelly, Mattis, Dunford, plus H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser, and Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State—had served as guardrails in one way or another. Trump hoped to replace them with more malleable figures. As Mattis would put it, Trump was so out of his depth that he had decided to drain the pool. ...
    Two weeks into the job, Milley sat at Trump’s side in a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders to discuss a brewing crisis in the Middle East. Trump had again ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, imperilling America’s Kurdish allies and effectively handing control of the territory over to the Syrian government and Russian military forces. The House—amid impeachment proceedings against the President for holding up nearly four hundred million dollars in security assistance to Ukraine as leverage to demand an investigation of his Democratic opponent—passed a nonbinding resolution rebuking Trump for the pullout. Even two-thirds of the House Republicans voted for it. ...
    Eventually, Pelosi, in her frustration, stood and pointed at the President. “All roads with you lead to Putin,” she said. “You gave Russia Ukraine and Syria.” ...
    Early on the evening of June 1, 2020, Milley failed what he came to realize was the biggest test of his career: a short walk from the White House across Lafayette Square, minutes after it had been violently cleared of Black Lives Matter protesters. Dressed in combat fatigues, Milley marched behind Trump with a phalanx of the President’s advisers in a photo op, the most infamous of the Trump Presidency, that was meant to project a forceful response to the protests that had raged outside the White House and across the country since the killing, the week before, of George Floyd. ...
    The President wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and use active-duty military to quell the protests. He wanted ten thousand troops in the streets and the 82nd Airborne called up. He demanded that Milley take personal charge. When Milley and the others resisted and said that the National Guard would be sufficient, Trump shouted, “You are all losers! You are all fucking losers!” Turning to Milley, Trump said, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”
    Eventually, Trump was persuaded not to send in the military against American citizens. ...
    In the days after the Lafayette Square incident, Milley sat in his office at the Pentagon, writing and rewriting drafts of a letter of resignation. There were short versions of the letter; there were long versions. His preferred version was the one that read in its entirety:
    __________
    I regret to inform you that I intend to resign as your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thank you for the honor of appointing me as senior ranking officer. The events of the last couple weeks have caused me to do deep soul-searching, and I can no longer faithfully support and execute your orders as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable harm to my country. I believe that you have made a concerted effort over time to politicize the United States military. I thought that I could change that. I’ve come to the realization that I cannot, and I need to step aside and let someone else try to do that.
    Second, you are using the military to create fear in the minds of the people—and we are trying to protect the American people. I cannot stand idly by and participate in that attack, verbally or otherwise, on the American people. The American people trust their military and they trust us to protect them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and our military will do just that. We will not turn our back on the American people.
    Third, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and embodied within that Constitution is the idea that says that all men and women are created equal. All men and women are created equal, no matter who you are, whether you are white or Black, Asian, Indian, no matter the color of your skin, no matter if you’re gay, straight or something in between. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, or choose not to believe. None of that matters. It doesn’t matter what country you came from, what your last name is—what matters is we’re Americans. We’re all Americans. That under these colors of red, white, and blue—the colors that my parents fought for in World War II—means something around the world. It’s obvious to me that you don’t think of those colors the same way I do. It’s obvious to me that you don’t hold those values dear and the cause that I serve.
    And lastly it is my deeply held belief that you’re ruining the international order, and causing significant damage to our country overseas, that was fought for so hard by the Greatest Generation that they instituted in 1945. Between 1914 and 1945, 150 million people were slaughtered in the conduct of war. They were slaughtered because of tyrannies and dictatorships. That generation, like every generation, has fought against that, has fought against fascism, has fought against Nazism, has fought against extremism. It’s now obvious to me that you don’t understand that world order. You don’t understand what the war was all about. In fact, you subscribe to many of the principles that we fought against. And I cannot be a party to that. It is with deep regret that I hereby submit my letter of resignation.
    __________
    The letter was dated June 8th, a full week after Lafayette Square, but Milley still was not sure if he should give it to Trump. He was sending up flares, seeking advice from a wide circle. ... Most told him what Robert Gates, a former Secretary of Defense and C.I.A. chief, did: “Make them fire you. Don’t resign.” ...
    Milley put away the resignation letter in his desk and drew up a plan, a guide for how to get through the next few months. He settled on four goals: First, make sure Trump did not start an unnecessary war overseas. Second, make sure the military was not used in the streets against the American people for the purpose of keeping Trump in power. Third, maintain the military’s integrity. And, fourth, maintain his own integrity. In the months to come, Milley would refer back to the plan more times than he could count. ...
    By the evening of Monday, November 9th, Milley’s fears about a volatile post-election period unlike anything America had seen before seemed to be coming true. News organizations had called the election for Biden, but Trump refused to acknowledge that he had lost by millions of votes. The peaceful transition of power—a cornerstone of liberal democracy—was now in doubt. ...
    Both Esper and Milley found new purpose in waiting out the President. They resisted him throughout the summer, as Trump repeatedly demanded that active-duty troops quash ongoing protests, threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and tried to stop the military from renaming bases honoring Confederate generals. “They both expected, literally on a daily basis, to be fired,” Gates recalled. ...
    Milley and Pompeo were alarmed that the Defense Secretary was being replaced by Christopher Miller, until recently an obscure mid-level counterterrorism official at Trump’s National Security Council, who had arrived at the Pentagon flanked by a team of what appeared to be Trump’s political minders.
    For Milley, this was an ominous development. From the beginning, he understood that “if the idea was to seize power,” as he told his staff, “you are not going to do this without the military.” Milley had studied the history of coups. They invariably required the takeover of what he referred to as the “power ministries”—the military, the national police, and the interior forces.
    As soon as he’d heard about Esper’s ouster, Milley had rushed upstairs to the Secretary’s office. “This is complete bullshit,” he told Esper. Milley said that he would resign in protest. “You can’t,” Esper insisted. “You’re the only one left.” Once he cooled off, Milley agreed.
    In the coming weeks, Milley would repeatedly convene the Joint Chiefs, to bolster their resolve to resist any dangerous political schemes from the White House now that Esper was out. He quoted Benjamin Franklin to them on the virtues of hanging together rather than hanging separately. He told his staff that, if need be, he and all the chiefs were prepared to “put on their uniforms and go across the river together”—to threaten to quit en masse—to prevent Trump from trying to use the military to stay in power illegally. ...
    ... a video of Miller tripping on the stairs soon made the rounds. Accompanying him were three men who would, for a few weeks, at least, have immense influence over the most powerful military in the world: Kash Patel, Miller’s new chief of staff; Ezra Cohen, who would ascend to acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; and Anthony Tata, a retired general and a talking head on Fox News, who would become the Pentagon’s acting head of policy.
    It was an extraordinary trio. Tata’s claims to fame were calling Obama a “terrorist leader”—an assertion he later retracted—and alleging that a former C.I.A. director had threatened to assassinate Trump. Patel, a former aide to Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories claiming that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election. ... Eventually, Patel was sent to help Ric Grenell carry out a White House-ordered purge of the intelligence community. ...
    Part of the new team’s agenda soon became clear: making sure Trump fulfilled his 2016 campaign promise to withdraw American troops from the “endless wars” overseas. Two days after Esper was fired, Patel slid a piece of paper across the desk to Milley during a meeting with him and Miller. It was an order, with Trump’s trademark signature in black Sharpie, decreeing that all four thousand five hundred remaining troops in Afghanistan be withdrawn by January 15th, and that a contingent of fewer than a thousand troops on a counterterrorism mission in Somalia be pulled out by December 31st. ...
    The order, it turned out, was not fake. It was the work of a rogue operation inside Trump’s White House overseen by Johnny McEntee, Trump’s thirty-year-old personnel chief, and supported by the President himself. The order had been drafted by Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and a Trump favorite from his television appearances, working with a junior McEntee aide. The order was then brought to the President, bypassing the national-security apparatus and Trump’s own senior officials, to get him to sign it. ...
    On the day that Esper was fired, McEntee had invited Macgregor to his office, offered him a job as the new acting Defense Secretary’s senior adviser, and handed him a handwritten list of four priorities that, as Axios reported, McEntee claimed had come directly from Trump:
    1. Get us out of Afghanistan.
2. Get us out of Iraq and Syria.
3. Complete the withdrawal from Germany.
4. Get us out of Africa. ...
    The compromise ... was a new order that codified the drawdown to twenty-five hundred troops in Afghanistan by mid-January, which Milley and Esper had been resisting, and a reduction in the remaining three thousand troops in Iraq as well. The State Department was given one hour to notify leaders of those countries before the order was released. ...
    Two nightmare scenarios kept running through Milley’s mind. One was that Trump might spark an external crisis, such as a war with Iran, to divert attention or to create a pretext for a power grab at home. The other was that Trump would manufacture a domestic crisis to justify ordering the military into the streets to prevent the transfer of power. Milley feared that Trump’s “Hitler-like” embrace of his own lies about the election would lead him to seek a “Reichstag moment.” ...
    ... Pompeo told Barr about the extraordinary arrangement he had proposed to Milley to make sure that the country was in steady hands until the Inauguration: they would hold daily morning phone calls with Mark Meadows. Pompeo and Milley soon took to calling them the “land the plane” phone calls. ...
    There was a problem, however. “Both engines are out, the landing gear are stuck. We’re in an emergency situation.” ...
    Trump often seemed more bluster than bite, and the Pentagon brass still believed that he did not want an all-out war, yet he continued pushing for a missile strike on Iran even after that November meeting. ...
    Among those pushing the President to hit Iran before Biden’s Inauguration, Milley believed, was the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. ...
    On January 6th, Milley was in his office at the Pentagon meeting with Christine Wormuth, the lead Biden transition official for the Defense Department. ...
    ... as they realized in horror what was transpiring on the screen in front of them, Milley was summoned to an urgent meeting with Miller and Ryan McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army. They had not landed the plane, after all. The plane was crashing. ...
    Miller issued an order at 3:04 p.m. to send in the D.C. Guard.
    But it was too late to prevent the humiliation: Congress had been overwhelmed by a mob of election deniers, white-supremacist militia members, conspiracy theorists, and Trump loyalists. Milley worried that this truly was Trump’s “Reichstag moment,” the crisis that would allow the President to invoke martial law and maintain his grip on power. ...
    Later, Milley would often think back to that awful day. “It was a very close-run thing,” the historically minded chairman would say, invoking the famous line of the Duke of Wellington after he had only narrowly defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. Trump and his men had failed in their execution of the plot, failed in part by failing to understand that Milley and the others had never been Trump’s generals and never would be. But their attack on the election had exposed a system with glaring weaknesses. “They shook the very Republic to the core,” Milley would eventually reflect. “Can you imagine what a group of people who are much more capable could have done?”

    This is drawn from “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021.”
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15...

    #182Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 22 Aug. 22, 10:06
    Kommentar

    Eskalation in den USA: Republikanischer Senator droht mit Aufständen, Trump fordert seine Wiedereinsetzung als Präsident oder Neuwahlen


    Graham ist ein enger Vertrauter Trumps. Der Senator aus South Carolina äußerte sich in der TV-Sendung „Sunday Night in America“ auf Fox News. Er warf der Justiz eine „Doppelmoral“ vor. „Die meisten Republikaner, mich eingeschlossen, glauben, wenn es um Trump geht, gibt es kein Gesetz. Es geht nur darum, ihn zu kriegen“, sagte Graham. Dann fügte er hinzu: „Und ich sage Ihnen, wenn Donald Trump nach dem Clinton-Debakel wegen des falschen Umgangs mit geheimen Informationen strafrechtlich verfolgt wird, wird es Aufstände auf den Straßen geben.“

    /.../

    Die Offensive der Republikaner steht auch in Zusammenhang mit einem Vorgang bei Facebook vor der US-Wahl 2020. Der Chef von Meta (ehemals Facebook), Mark Zuckerberg, hatte /.../ in einem Podcast gesagt, eine Geschichte der „New York Post“ über Hunter Biden habe in das Muster polarisierender Inhalte, einschließlich „russischer Propaganda“, gepasst, vor denen das FBI Facebook gewarnt habe. Facebook schränkte die Reichweite der Geschichte in den Newsfeeds der Website daher für einige Tage ein.

    /.../

    Trump warf dem FBI vor, die Geschichte über Bidens Sohn vor der Wahl bewusst unterdrückt zu haben. Das FBI habe gewusst, dass er die Präsidentschaftswahlen 2020 sonst gewonnen hätte, behauptete Trump.

    /.../

    Trump forderte dann: „Erklären Sie den rechtmäßigen Gewinner oder, das wäre die Minimallösung, erklären Sie die Wahl 2020 für irreparabel gefährdet und veranstalten Sie eine neue Wahl, sofort!“

    Der Facebook-Konzern (mittlerweile Meta) twitterte, dass „nichts an der Hunter-Biden-Laptop-Geschichte neu ist“ und dass das „FBI allgemeine Warnungen über ausländische Einmischung geteilt hat – nichts Spezifisches über Hunter Biden.“

    https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/usa-er...

    #183VerfasserReeva (908916)  30 Aug. 22, 11:30
    Kommentar
    Trump hat bei FixundFoxi-News allen Ernstes behauptet, (a) er habe Dokumente allein dadurch "declassified", dass er darüber nachgedacht habe, und (b) das FBI habe in Mar-A-Lago in Wirklichkeit nach Hillary Clintons E-Mails gesucht.

    Ohne Worte
    #184VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 23 Sep. 22, 06:49
    Kommentar

    Mangelnde Selbstüberschätzung kannst ihm nicht vorwerfen.

    #185VerfasserMasu (613197)  23 Sep. 22, 06:55
    Kommentar
    Das ist das Eine. Aber dass es immer noch ne Menge Leute gibt, die sein Gestammel für bare Münze nehmen, find ich echt enorm. Da muss der Hirntod unbemerkt schon lange eingetreten sein.
    #186VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 23 Sep. 22, 08:25
    Kommentar

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn9BWf50UdE


    "Trump: As President You Can Declassify Documents 'By Thinking About It'"


    FFS ...






    #187VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 24 Sep. 22, 09:53
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
  • Pinyin
     
  • Tastatur
     
  • Sonderzeichen
     
  • Lautschrift
     
 
 
:-) automatisch zu 🙂 umgewandelt