Part 2

I held my nose and voted for Trump in 2020.

Which is nice but hardly an exoneration of your behavior now.

I might even do so again this year, on the theory that if we’re going to have a corrupt, incompetent, aspiring tyrant either way, I might prefer to have one whose policies I like better.

Oh, you MIGHT do so again this year. How generous!

The Republic bleeds out from Anarcho-Tyranny. The Biden government practices unconstitutional and anti-constitutional measures that dwarf anything Trump has even been “credibly” alleged to have done, including by you. We have political prisoners being held in inhumane conditions without recourse to proper counsel or treatment, under measures that are utterly discordant with any justification the government has given for such holding (I am not claiming all of them are 100% Innocent Lambs, though I think they are entitled to that presumption pending a FAIR trial. I AM however going to say that if the government’s justification for holding someone is – at best – unlawful trespass in a public government building, stealing something, and/or assault and battery – it is Inhumane, Absurd, Cruel, Brutal, and Illegal to hold them in conditions worse than that of the 9/11 Terrorist Godfathers like the Blind Sheikh, as well as dangerous to our rights as American citizens).

Rioters explicitly calling for the destruction of Western Civilization block traffic, pillage locations, and in many cases are escalating to calls for violence or even mass murder and are generally being treated with kid gloves. They are aided and abetted both by permissive or even criminally complicit government officials in many jurisdiction and by credentialed “intellectuals” claiming this is all well and proper.

The left is escalating to using textbook eliminationist rhetoric against us (and yes Bauxite, THAT INCLUDES YOU), and its treatment of the vulnerable shows that this is no idle banter or nonexistent threat. The ability to criticize is increasingly being curtailed both officially and unofficially, as many patriots with military service can attest. Our government is in the hands of a capable of kakistocratic crooks, anti-American radicals, and amoral careerists. We are taxed more heavily than Boston was under military occupation by the British Crown, and usually for less recourse. Attempts to make sure our elections fit the basic standards for integrity, transparency, and authenticity we hold other countries to are ignored or outright demonized, not just by the left but also by useful idiots claiming elsewhere, much like the “Insurrection” and “tyranny” narrative gets parroted by people like you.

And Bauxite CONDESCENDS to say he “might” vote for Trump in opposition to this, after having previously stated he would likely stay home and that we should stop complaining about things like vote fraud or the Jan 6th Mistreatment because it isn’t “popular” outside of a right wing thought bubble (nevermind how even if that’s true, it is due to aggressive demonization and propaganda by the left)?

Truly Bauxite wishes to show how they are among the Very Best, Most Enlightened of people. Please Clap.

How about no?

As many people far better than either of us have pointed out, this is an information and narrative war. Voting is necessary, but it is nowhere near sufficient. Which is why your demands that we accept your demonization, mocking, gaslighting, and other follies in exchange for your POTENTIAL vote (leaving aside the issue of how that gets cancelled out by it being “misplaced” or countered with a fraudulent, dishonestly exploited, or illegal vote of the kind Neo pointed out it is hard to deal with) while you parrot the enemy’s propaganda and demand we take you seriously is disgraceful in a way merely criticizing Trump (even harshly or IN MY JUDGEMENT unfairly) is not.

If you are at the point of castigating those of us tired of this nonsense as apologists for a corrupt tyrant as you allege Trump is with “Source: Trust me Bro” or “Source: Trust Biden’s Handlers, Bro”), you might as well quit while you are behind.

Not that it’ll matter, though. I think it is profoundly unlikely that Trump will win.)

Then we need to start asking ourselves what Republican or conservative could win, and the answers are almost certainly worse than either of us hope for, or that you think so. It takes a particularly naive person to believe that Nikki Haley is likely to perform better than Trump in spite of having virtually no base left after her gaffes, failures, and issues with achievement.

A lot of the allegations of corruption against Trump are matters of overzealous prosecutors.

Honestly that is putting it mildly. And frankly I believe both you and Abraxas are downplaying it by simply calling the likes of political hatchet men with a Beriaesque “Show me the Man” mindset and merely calling them “overzealous prosecutors.” Tom Dewey or Draco the Athenian may well have qualified as “Overzealous Prosecutors”, but we are dealing with downright corrupt, tyrannical hacks.

Some are not,

Then let us kindly discuss the ones that are not, in detail.

however. If Trump received millions of dollars in business from foreign governments while he was President, that’s not OK.

Depends. Leaving aside Trump’s claims to have divested from his commercial interests while running (which seems to have been plausible enough that the Powers that Be could not find significant evidence even with the might of the Federal Government), there’s a lot more leeway than you’d care to admit. Which admittedly shouldn’t be surprising given how the first Presidents of the US were generally Plantation Barons in an agricultural export economy and so would REGULARLY make lots of money from foreign actors including governments during their Presidency, even nonwithstanding their estate.

My concerns are A: where such money is not gained through RELATIVELY normal commercial dealings, B: Where it is directly detrimental to the interests of the American Republic, the American people, and said President’s domestic political opponents, and C: Where it can be indicated this had undue influence on American Government policy (whether or not I necessarily AGREE with that influence or not).

This is also why I tend to err on the side of caution in charges like this, precisely because they tend to be wooly and hard to prove. And yes, that includes political actors other than Trump, including Biden.

<blockquote. I don’t see a problem with it if he disgorged the profits to the government as Don Jr. says he did. But did he?

Ask the IRS and the people who have doubtless been investigating this every which way to Sunday. It is their job to present evidence of such things, and unlike with Biden and Obama most of their leadership clearly have incentives and motive to do exactly that.

I have more pressing problems than such hypotheticals, and I submit most people here do too.

I don’t think we just take Don Jr.’s word for it.

Agreed, but see above.

PS: This means we should take the word of Biden and co? Especially given things like the Shokin firing?

It shouldnt’ be difficult to show the documentation.

Then have the IRS etc. al. prove this was not the case or the documentation was forged.

I have better things to do like consider how to deal with a possible collapse of Western Civilization and freedom, while my domestic political opponents not merely call me a Nazi (ironically while resembling the NSDAP far more than I ever have) but talk about disenfranchising me, and my supposed political colleagues like you lean into that when you think it serves your purpose.

Ridiculousness of the NY civil “fraud” case aside,

No, No let us not set the NY Civil Fraud Case Aside, precisely because it represents part and parcel of systematic abuse for political purpsoe.

we do know that Trump tends to be, shall we say, creative with accounting.

Because accounting is by definition a creative field in a maddeningly complex background, in which even without any fraudulent intent or corruption things get messy. THERE IS A GODDAMN REASON WE ARE SUPPOSED TO OPERATE UNDER THE THEORY OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And those actually involved in accounting will attest to how muddy, subjective, and inherently adversarial that is, and by extension how AUDITING of said accounting is.

Larry Correia – who I submit is probably more accomplished and knowledgeable in general than both of us combined will be in a dozen lifetimes, and particularly on this field – DOES. And he posted this piece two years ago, and while you can pooh pooh him as a Deplorable Trump Supporter you do NOT get to claim he is insulated in the right wing thought bubble or ignorant on this field.

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/09/28/no-you-idiots-thats-not-how-taxes-work-an-accountants-guide-to-why-you-are-a-gullible-moron/

I remember when I was taking my first tax class back in college. This class was all accounting majors by this point. At the beginning of the semester the professor (who’d had a long career as a tax guy) gave us an imaginary family as our clients and had us do their taxes. One kid didn’t take advantage of all the obvious deductions for his clients. When the professor asked why, the kid said some mushy thing about how he didn’t think it was FAIR to keep that money from the government… Holy shit. The professor ripped this kid a new asshole. HOW DARE YOU!?! IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY! IT IS YOUR CLIENT’S MONEY. YOU OWE THEM YOUR BEST! IT IS YOUR SACRED DUTY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY! YOU DISGUST ME AND YOU SHOULD NEVER BE A CPA!

That class was one of my favorites.

*Snip*

Trump has those resources. I bet he’s got a room full of accountants, and their leader is probably a grizzled old CPA with an eye patch and a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree. This man has wrestled bears, and he’s going to take advantage of every tax break in the US Code for his client, and do so gleefully, knowing that many of those laws were signed by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

On the other side, you know damned good and well that the IRS has sent their most fearsome auditor against him. This man sold his soul to the devil, and then fined the devil for failing to list that soul as a depreciable asset. When he shows up to audit your company, he appears a flash of fire and brimstone, as a Finnish death metal band plays his theme song. He is an auditor bereft of mercy, compassion, or pity, and beneath his leathery wings serve a legion of IRS goblins, who will crawl into every nook and cranny of the Trump Corporation’s P&L looking for errors, and if a mouse so much as shits a turd large enough to unbalance that ledger, there will be hell to pay.

Is it unfair that rich guys can employ Gandalf level CPAs and take advantage of more complicated tax laws, while regular people use TurboTax? Yep. But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.

I recall a similar freak out several years ago when it came out that some giant mega-corp (I think it was GE, but I don’t remember) didn’t pay any taxes due to some Obama green energy tax breaks. Only that time the freak out was coming from the right (who hate Obama) and the Bernie Bros (who hate all business). It’s the same kind of thing though. If the laws are on the books, of course companies (and individuals) are going to take advantage of those laws. THAT IS WHY CONGRESS PUT THEM THERE.

Now, it is perfectly okay to get mad at congress for writing stupid laws and needlessly complicating everything with their endless meddling. But it’s stupid to get mad at the people for obeying the laws that are in place.

If it comes out that Trump broke the law, then it goes back to that soulless abomination from the IRS (which again, I say with all due respect, Mr. Auditor Sir, please don’t hurt me) to hook his ebony talons into the Trump Corp’s meaty flank, to pull it down and feast upon the carcass.

That hasn’t happened yet, in spite of the left’s efforts and no small amount of those supposedly in the center and right being amiable to that.

The Left fucking leaked Trump’s Taxes to the public after the government audited him year in and year out, and they still haven’t been able to substantiate charges against him.

https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/09/27/people-really-dont-understand-how-audits-work-and-the-media-likes-it-that-way/

Did he actually make payments to the treasury? If so, did he correctly account for the foreign spending? It’s important. And, so far, we’re just being asked to trust them.

Let’s leave aside the fact that Trump’s pledge to pay earnings to the Treasury was voluntary, and not something done by those exalted as paragons of reason and honesty as Harry Truman (President who quite literally defrauded Congress and the Republic) or George Washington, and so Trump would have plenty of legal right to up to a point say “I am altering the deal” and renege on that without it being corrupt (Unethical? A betrayal of a promise? Worth shunting him for? Yes. But there’s a difference between those and criminality.)

(And on that note we’re going to cover how you like conflating them when it suits your purpose).

If Trump is not compliant with his pledge or has been taking undue payments from foreign governments, the Treasury has been under Donk Control for at least 3 years, if not longer. Ditto the IRS. If they have evidence of that, then let their Satanic Auditors provide it, and THEN we can go over that evidence to make sure it isn’t as much bullshit as the disinformatsiya that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian fake. Until those things happen, neither you nor I have much reason to take this seriously, ESPECIALLY when we have way more pressing threats to deal with.

Which is why I will not humor this kind of nonsense navel gazing “prove you are innocent” bull pucky, especially against someone who for whatever his MANY flaws was a reasonably upstanding citizen under the microscope for decades.

But at least while facetious, hypothetical to a deranged degree, and flipping the burden of proof, there is at least grounds to sympathize with that doubt.

There is not when it comes to a lot of the tripe you say next.

It’s also corrupt to use the implied threat of withholding congressionally-appropriated aid money to lean on an ally to investigate your political opponents.

No, NO IT IS NOT.

Because you see, while Larry Correia’s area of expertise is finances and writing, my area of RELATIVE expertise is history and American Constitutional Law. And even I know enough to recognize this is bullshit. Moreover, if you put things into a fraction of their context it becomes VERY CLEAR why this is bullshit.

Firstly: It is not corrupt or illegal to use the implied or even explicit threat of withholding congressionally apportioned money to lean on an ally. This is done decades in and decades out for all kinds of reasons. While Congress is delegated the power to declare war, make binding treaties, and deliberate on foreign policy the day to day affairs of Foreign Diplomacy and State are purviews of the Executive Branch, with appointments made by the President under the oversight of Congress. Presidents can and do use Congressionally earmarked funds for allies or co-belligerents or others for all kinds of pressure such as pushing for elections or to clamp down on or encourage military policy for our allies, and indeed this is largely intentional .

Diplomacy is an ugly horse trading game that calls for no small amount of arm twisting and leverage, and the Founders recognized this (after all, how the heck would they NOT given their own problems in dealing with the French, Spanish, Dutch, British, Prussians, Russians, and a host of others even before winning independence?).

This becomes particularly clear when you realize a few things, especially about the early US.

A: While there WAS a time prior to the Constitution that the President of the Congress could not even reply to a letter without the express permission of the Congress, THIS was quickly realized to be unworkable (especially for reasons I’ll get to later) and the Constitution itself underlined the consent and advice of Congress and the President in making foreign policy JOINTLY.

B: Congress was and is a body with a changing structure that adjourns or stands variably, and this was PARTICULARLY true in the pre-modern period where it would adjourn for months at a time, meaning that the President and other Executive offices needed the autonomy to formulate responses.

So you’re going to need more to prove corruption than simply pointing to horse trading and using Congressionally Appropriated funds as leverage over a foreign ally.

Secondly: I can already hear you say “AH, but if it isn’t corrupt to use those funds as leverage against an ally/friendly country’s government in and of itself, IT IS corrupt to use them to investigate your domestic opposition! Theerefore Orange Man Bad!”

Breaking news from 1777: *That’s not True EITHER.* And that should be OBVIOUS when you remember that the very first “domestic enemies” the US faced were British Loyalists and Amerindians (who for various bizarre and often bigoted reasons were generally not considered fully sovereign foreign countries and thus domestic; I don’t have to agree with that in order to point out its relevance to the law), and where we would very quickly see Citoyen Genet and Minister Plep Liston would duel and do incredibly saucy things like finance outright domestic propaganda calling for things up to and including actual, unironic insurrection (esp. in Genet’s case).

And this is before we talk about other issues like the CPUSA and German-American Bund.

The Founders were many things, but they were not THIS naive. They recognized that there was the prospect of foreign powers unduly influencing the US (after all, they lived during a time when they never stopped doing that) and of the US doing similar. Indeed the fear that John Adams was doing this was central to the XYZ Affair and the start of the Quasi War, and this actually happening helped kneecap Pierce’s Presidency.

So the Executive DOES have a legitimate scope for using the powers vested in it and the resources appropriated by Congress for relations with a given country to pressure that country to investigate illegal and/or unethical conduct by the Sitting Executive’s Domestic Enemies. Whether this is out of fear for Insurrection or more mundane matters like Corruption (such as the fallout of Lockheed and US government pressure to investigate and clear this up) does not inherently matter.

This is the legitimate wedge that the left used to press on to justify their Russia Collusion BS.

And IRONICALLY, you’ll note the Left by and large dropped or at least downplayed the issues of Trump using that pressure to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden etc. al.’s role in the dismissal of Shokin and the ties of Hunter to Burmisa.

Largely because

A: Of the naked double standard involved, because even explaining this in the typically clipped, dishonest way the MSM is given to would probably involve touching at least briefly over the reasons why Trump was pressing for that investigation, which in turn reopened the old Shokin Dismissal issue. Which for various reasons Legal Insurrection and others have pointed out didn’t play well for the left to start with and now plays EVEN WORSE since we have internal Obama Admin documents discussing how Biden’s demand ran counter to the US’s nominal anti-corruption pressure campaign in Ukraine (when that was the fig leaf Biden used to justify it before).

B: There is such a strong precedent for allowing POTUS to do these kinds of manipulation and pressure in such fashions, to some degree going back even to the strictly constructionist Pre-Jackson Presidents.

(Though I imagine the Dems are glad you are making an argument they can’t coherently or credibly make themselves for them.)

It’s ridiculous to call that impeachable, but neither was it a “perfect phone call.”

Ok, so it wasn’t a “perfect phone call.” And Jefferson’s investigation of British pressure campaigns in the US did not consist of perfect letters.

So what?

Policy does not have to be perfect in order to not be corrupt.

Trump’s incompetence goes beyond Covid.

Sure, agreed. But his competence also goes far beyond.

He lost on his census question issue because his appointees couldn’t shoot straight and had internal memos saying one thing while they told the court another.

Agreed, and that is one thing I criticize him for. But I note that his “lost” is still much better than any GOP POTUS in my timeline.

Sally Yates is a disgrace, but issuing his travel ban before he had his own AG in place was silly, and incompetent.

Only if you assume that the POTUS does not have powers to limit immigration in an emergency (such as say a state of ongoing international terrorism, LIKE WHAT THE FOUNDERS EXPERIENCED THROUGH THE 1780s AND 1790s
WHEN THE FRENCH, BRITISH, AND PETTY BARBARY DEYLIKS COMPETED TO SEE WHO COULD CAPTURE THE MOST AMERICANS ) or that the risk of terrorism from the clusterfarqs in Syria and Iraq were not threats that demanded a rapid response.

Which given the drumbeat of jihad at here, is going to be One HECK of a pull to make.

Trump put his foot in his mouth on plenty of things and allowing the Left to paint it as a “Muslim Ban”, but this is still far better than the alternatives.

Continuing to publicly comment on cases that were being considered by the Justice Department was silly and incompetent (and added significant fodder to his opponent’s complaints).

Silly maybe. Incompetent I would argue in some cases. But the POTUS has a bully pulpit for a reason, and that includes being willing to call out the Justice Department or its predecessors for abuses or folly. In many ways I would argue he erred in not being careful enough but also not confronting JD on matters like Epstein’s “Suicide” .

I could go on.

I’m sure you can, and I am sure that you will not be overly encumbered by checking the facts or relevant law before making grandiose allegations of fact.

Regarding “asipring tyrant,” it’s not just about Trump’s loose lips. Attempting to stay in power after losing an election is the act of a tyrant.

Where do I start with this?

Firstly, Bauxite is once again playing the Humpty Dumpty “Words Mean What I want Them To Mean” game again, using “Tyrant” and “tyrannical” with staggering dishonesty.

So let’s go to what Tyrant ACTUALLY means. Namely, one who seizes power illegitimately and rules absolutely or at least in an authoritarian manner.

That’s important because it establishes a few things.

Firstly: NO, IT IS NOT TYRANNICAL TO ATTEMPT TO STAY IN POWER AFTER LOSING AN ELECTION unless almost every single Prime Minister to head a Minority Government in a Parliamentary Democracy were to be considered a Tyrant, especially after facing crushing electoral defeats.

(And before you say “But the US is not a Parliamentary system!” That is true but ignores the point: you overstated. Grotesquely. Because you get to demonize and vilify Trump and by extension those of us who support him, no matter how cautiously. Again. Own your screwup.)

Nor is it tyrannical to attempt to remain in power by legitimately rules lawyering about the integrity of the vote or asking for investigation, which is what Trump did.

It is tyrannical to remain in power without legal authority or justification, but that is not what Trump did.

Sorry. As “goofed” up as the 2020 election was, Trump didn’t have evidence that he was the rightful winner.

This is a strawman that’s moving the goal post. Election audits rarely feature ironclad evidence that the other side was the rightful winner starting out, as Neo pointed out. Indeed, Correia and others pointed out that *This is literally the purpose of audits.* To identify red flags indicating POSSIBLE Tomfoolery and to clamp them down, whether or not this changes the result.

(Though it can and it has).

I will be the first to argue that Trump was brash and overconfident in putting it as he did, but he had SIGNIFICANT reason to suspect this was the case and demand audits (and not mere recounts). I keep bringing up the 100%+ Turnout in much of Milwaukee but that was not even the only or most important case, and it gets all the more jarring when one points to the synchronized gaps in vote counting in crucial swing states and the illogically Democrat leaning “new votes” counted after the pause.

All of these are legal grounds to suspect fraud or other shenanigans and to demand an audit, as was recognized in Florida in 2000 and in many other cases.

To act like one has no right to call for such things unless one has ironclad proof that shenanigans happened but did so decisively enough to change the outcome of the election is suicidal, dishonest, and illogical. It also handily regurgitates the Left’s rhetoric and propaganda points, as others have pointed out.

You come forth with evidence that justifies an investigation and THEN investigate and see if what you find will turn up enough to change the results of the election. It’d be NICE if the initial evidence is enough to show “OMG you guize cheated I won”, but it isn’t AND SHOULDN’T Be NECESSARY.

https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/09/27/people-really-dont-understand-how-audits-work-and-the-media-likes-it-that-way/

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/12/i-asked-one-simple-question-to-people-who-work-with-fraud/

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/09/election-2020-the-more-fuckery-update/

And before you go into the issue of “But Popularity/Optics!”

A: This being unpopular with the public or controversial does not change whether or not it is necessary.

B: It does not change whether or not shenanigans happened.

B.1: It does not change if there were so much shenanigans the outcome was changed.

C: It does not justify or explain why YOU are so quick to pooh pooh the results and condemn anybody who so much as raises the question.

Nearly three and a half years later, there still isn’t evidence establishing that Trump was the rightful winner.

For reasons Neo has talked about EXTENSIVELY, namely how hard it is to wing it against voter fraud and machine politics with the flaws we have, and also harder to detect it after the fact even with an opposition making no effort to cover its corrupt tracks.

Ironically, this is an argument in favor of what Trump argued, of an immediate post-election audit. A system that REALLY SHOULD be well integrated into this system already but which isn’t and which we suffer from.

(Distinguish “evidence that something was fishy” from “evidence demonstrating that Trump actually won.” There’s plenty of the former and none of the later.)

The problem is that the latter would be aggregated from the former.

Moreover, the former serves as an alarm bell or red flag TO PUSH FOR AN AUDIT or at least a delay of the EC.

Anyway, there you go. Trump is an incompetent, corrupt, aspiring tyrant.

There you go, says the gaslighting ignoramus. The supposed bottom line or exclamation point justifying demonization of Trump and those that support him and grotesque indifference to Biden etc. al.’s abuses. Let’s go through this.

A: “Aspiring Tyrant”. No, he’s not, for the reasons I pointed out. Indeed, you had to torture the definition of tyrant past the point of breaking in order to make this claim.

B: “Corrupt”. The one explicit claim you made about corruption here was that it was corrupt for Trump to use apportioned aid to pressure the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and Obama’s role in the firing of Shokin and investigations of corruption at Burmisa, BOTH OF WHICH were tied to iterated concerns of the US Government regarding corruption in Ukraine. That makes your claim that this is “corrupt” historically and legally illiterate, as well as the moral equivalent of word salad. It can be utterly dismissed.

The only other claim you had was the question of if Trump financially benefitted from foreign payments while President, which YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT KNOW IF HE DID or if he did anything improper. You try to flip this on its head to argue Trump has not Proven Himself Innocent even with the might of Treasury looking over his finances, but this is irrelevant. It is Trump’s necessary obligation to pay what is legally determined as his obligation, avoid illegal entanglements, and produce what documents are demanded.

It is Treasury’s job to provide evidence if he did what you did, and BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION they have not. You complain about trusting Trump or Trump Jr, which is fair, but it also means we have every right to trust unproven innuendo or theory casting like this.

So the part you made a concrete claim about Trump’s corruption on is blatantly false. The rest is innuendo to which I respond “Then Freaking Prove It”. Because it’s not like Treasury wouldn’t like to prove it.

As such going off of the arguments and evidence you cited, there is no “There” there. Indeed, there is actually LESS than no “there” there because of the legal precedents allowing the US to lean on Ukraine using Congressionally appropriated aid as a lever to demand things like anti-corruption investigation and preventing undue ties by the likes of Biden.

There’s a reason why the Left generally leaves this particular hot potato alone and when they don’t they greatly abridge and crop it to try and make it look bad.

FWIW, I don’t believe he would succeed in making himself a tyrant (See the part about incompetence).

Forgive us if I don’t give particular freight to what a bombastic ignoramus who has been uncritically lapping up anti-Trump agitprop from the Left without even *checking it* “believes.”

But he’s our incompetent, corrupt, aspiring tyrant and if you don’t vote for him, you’re “accepting” the other guy’s incompetent, corrupt, aspiring tyrant!” That’s not exactly a great way to quell dissent in your own party.

This is rich considering how you have been using similar guilt tripping to argue that those of us who do not ditch Trump are empowering Biden. It’s even more rich since smearing your opponents as morons while peddling literal blood libel and lies is also not a great way to quell dissent in your own party.

Especially when you engage in gaslighting, arguments in bad faith, factual illiteracy, crass indifference to injustice by Biden and co against people like the Jan 6th Defendants and Trump because you don’t like them and/or it’s unpopular, and so on.

Most people don’t have the patience to read through your prattle and respond to it with even a fraction of the autistic prattle and text bombing I do. let alone what knowledge I do have to point out things like how you misuse the word “tyrant” when it is appropriate and blatantly lie about what is and is not corrupt for a POTUS to do with Congressional Funding to an allied country as if you were proclaiming empirical reality that water is wet.

But I at least am willing to make the effort, because this kind of foulness needs to be called out more, and I encourage others to do it too. It goes well beyond mere distaste for Trump and doubt about whether he could win (which for all of the issues is at least a position that can be HONESLTY argued). You are engaging in blood libel character assassination and leftist propaganda on here while smearing your fellow contributors, and it needs to be called out.

I hope others continue to do so.

Finally, I frankly think om is being too generous to you by calling you a “Concerned Conservative” given the abject lack of concern regarding things like the abuses to January 6th defendants and his overreach.

Part of me considers using the label of one of the villains from the original Max Payne, but I ultimately propose Cruel Conniver.

Part 1

The dishonesty, sophistry, ignorance, and transparently bad faith you resort to has been grating for many a month, but it seems to be reaching a fever pitch.

The problem is that we’ve entered a political doom loop.

That’s only one problem, and in many ways it is far from the root cause. It is a bit like telling the first responders to Chernobyl “the problem is that you have widespread cancer” when that is a symptom caused by the reactor sending out an appreciable fraction of the sun’s radiation straight through them. The long march of the left through the institutions (taking full advantage of the growing weight of the Statutory Legal System and the growth of the administrative state) coupled with their monopolization over entire vectors of media may not be the root cause of our problems, but they are at least a much, much more core set of reasons to why we are here than ghettoization and polarization (which are if anything natural outgrowths of the aforementioned).

We’re all mostly ensconced in our own idegological ghettos, with an entire ecosystem of news sources to tell us exactly what we want to hear.

That’s not the main problem we’re dealing with, because we saw this pop up several times before in American history, especially the Jeffersonian Age, the 19th century and to a lesser degree around the Great Depression. None of these were GOOD, far from it, but they were survivable in large part because the state was a lot smaller, a lot less invasive, a lot less centralized, and a lot less bankrupt, and you had a much more robust and competitive series of news sources and local government. That allowed the “Laboratories of Democracy” to continue ticking along and ultimately helped brew backlashes against things such as the FDR-Truman Dem Monopoly or the Ohio Dynasty Republican Dominance on power.

That’s a lot less likely now both because of the extreme politicization, but also the increasingly authoritarian repudiation of the US’s founding tenets by the Left and their attempts to criminalize dissent and delegate more power that should belong to the constitutional organs to unaccountable administrative bodies, while also using their message dominance to squelch hostile reporting. And increasingly demonize the opposition.

All of that means that another period of Democrat dominance probably does not merely herald a return to internal disruption, authoritarian politics, and low level violence but a threat to freedom on the local level.

We can all rationalize away the flaws on our own side of the political divide by keeping our focus on the clear flaws on the other side. All the while, the real flaws on the other side make fantasy-land conspiracy theories about the other side seem more plausible, so we believe those too.

I agree, and you raise a good point, Which makes it all the more ironic that YOU are the one raising this point, and will probably completely ignore applying it to yourself.

The left (and a lot of independents) look at Trump and see a candidate who really did call for the suspending of the Constitution, really did rile up a mob that stormed the Capital, really did use a crackpot legal theory to try to stop certification of the 2020 election, and really did recently claim that he would be a dictator, albeit “only for a day.” (And spare me the, “it was only a joke” defense. There are some things that no serious public servant should joke about. “Oh no undecided voters, our candidate isn’t actually going to try to become a dictator, he was just joking.” – Yeah. Good luck with that.)

Spare me the “She was wearing a short skirt” horseshit.

The left and a lot of independents still think George W Bush “stole” the 2000 election from Albert Gore, lied in order to invade Iraq for its oil, and was a fascist. In large part due to remorseless, relentless spinning and lies as well as Bush’s own failings (of which there many). That points to a core problem separate from and more fundamental than the flaws of any one Republican President, including Trump. Which of course you ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda.

Made all the more damning because you are quick to resort to what can be generously called overstatements, and are more likely bald lies.

“really did rile up a mob that stormed the Capital,”

Then prove it, Bauxite, like you demand we do with voter fraud while dismissing or downplaying recorded facts like wards of Milwaukee turning in results in excess of 100% of the vote. Considering the Left had a full blue ribbon witch hunt on live television to try and prove this and ultimately could not close the deal. But I’m suuuure you can.

In spite of how you were unaware of things like Saddam Hussein’s patronage of Al Qaeda until I quite literally shoved the documents in a link and shoved that link in your face, at which point you proceeded to try and spin and minimize to the extent you even bothered addressing it at all.

You also don’t seem to understand a very basic fact that even the Prog goon H.L. Mecknen.

“The trouble about fighting for human freedom,” he remarked once, “is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

Even if every single strawman you made about Trump were correct, it would NOT be a reason to justify skimping on due process. It would not justify turning the other cheek as the left treated many January 6th Political Prisoners (because that is what they are, because no crime they could have possibly committed would justify the nakedly inhumane, politicized, and unconstitutional manner of their detention for the best part of these past four years)., You make a big deal about Trump being “tyrannical” but that is ACTUAL tyrannical behavior, much like the abuse of the judiciary for politicized spying and a host of others.

My stance is quite simple. I will support the most conservative constitutionalist that has a possible chance of winning, whoever that may be, including Trump. I can take or leave Trump as the nominee. But if Trump is an actual criminal, then the evidence should be presented and he should be punished according to Constitutional Law. Full stop. Until that happens, I will defend him. And even after that should happen, IF it should happen, I will defend him against what I view as nakedly hypocritical, corrupt, and tyrannical charges and abuses.

Precisely because if a regime is allowed to abuse Orange Man in violation of said Constitutional Law, it will not take much of a genius to realize they will go after others. Something you conveniently downplay or ignore whenever Trump comes up.

The alligator is coming. It’s hungry. How many people do you intend to let it feast on in the hopes it will not inevitably eat you last?

And no, to pre-empt possible strawmen and put forth an argument in the absurdity: you do not get to hold yourself to be the very wisest among us by arguing “but that stupid person/those stupid people did stupid things and flung themselves into the mouth of the Progressive Alligator!” That is completely missing the point. The Progressive Alligator will take easy meals where it can get them, but it ultimately does not care about how Wise or Stupid, Brilliant or Dumb, or Moral or Immoral you are. It will not care that you are a Concerned Conservative (TM), just that you are a Conservative.

The fact that I have to explain this is jarring.

Anyway, beginning the analysis from that perspective makes a lot of the hyperbolic claims made by Biden and the left look very plausible.

And if you begin the analysis from that perspective, you wind up conceding so much of the battlespace to the Left that you will be unable to counter them effectively. It is STAGGERING how widespread many leftist myths and “hyperbolic claims” are primarily because they are not countered effectively. Which is why you have to fight. We can quibble about the manner with which to fight, or how the effective strategies are, but if you give them an inch they will take more than a mile.

That’s why Biden is doing this. It works. It worked in 2020. It worked in 2022. It will likely work again in 2024.

It works in large part because it is not countered effectively. Even when it DOESN’T work right away it tends to win in the long run. One thing I have criticized Trump for is adopting some of the left’s myths when it is politically convenient (or if he simply doesn’t know better) like on Iraq.

How many people can explain the 2000 Florida Presidential Election results accurately?

Ok, and how many of those people are in what we would consider John or Jane Q Public? Let alone those with Ds on their party registrations?

How many people know that the Philippines Persona Non Grata’d a bunch of Iraqi diplomats sent by Saddam because of their connections to Moro Jihadists sworn to Osama Bin Laden?

Hell, how many can define Fascism correctly?

This is not an explicitly new problem. The Haymarket Terror attack and ensuing Trials had much of their scholarship be based on the propaganda work of the anarchist accused until people actually began looking through the primary source documents of the trial. This was about a trial in the 1880s and “scholarship” lasting more than a century.

I think the same goes for the right, except that we don’t have the media on our ideological side.

One difference is, the “ideological ghetto” on the Right in the US is a hell of a lot less suffocating because it is less absolute and more permeable, in large part because we do not have the news media on our side. So we tend to get at least some of their world view and actions by osmosis from their outlets or from those we know who have drunk the Flavor Aid.

Moreover, the right by and large accepts the concept of an objective and objectively knowable reality. The “Truth Based Community” on the Left increasingly does not due to the ravages of the more radical postmodernists.

It’s not difficult to cite mutiple examples of tyranny from the Biden administration. It’s not difficult to cite multiple examples of just rank buffoonary from the Biden administration. (See the incident with the Sec. Def. earlier this month.) It’s not difficult to point out that Biden is clearly not up to the job and it is frightenting that someone other than the elected president is running the country because the elected president clearly isn’t capable. And so on.

Ah yes, the “Both sidesism.” As if Trump appealing for a peaceful, law abiding demonstration in the capitol is equal to several of said demonstrators being Gulag’d for literal years.

But you have a point in this, alas while predictably (and by design) avoiding another one: It is not difficult to cite multiple examples of tyrannical, corrupt, incompetent, anti-American, and corrosive actions by the Biden Administration and Obama, it is however incredibly difficult to FREELY ARTICULATE said arguments and evidence, in large part due to the increasingly official censorship and demonization the left employs both outside of government and in it, and also the conformity that Neo has spoken of often in her “A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change” series. All aided and abetted by a pliant, corrupt, and politicized media and many other institutions.

This means that even if your both sidesism was so fitting, the left’s abuses and tyranny would cause far more damage than the right’s, at least at this moment in the US, because the left’s have the backing of the media, vast parts of the US bureaucracy, and a climate of reductionist, post-modernist The Ends Justify The Means, There Are No Bad Strategies Only Bad Targets mindsets.

So we focus on this, and ignore the manifest weaknesses and unfitness of our own candidate and the rank unpopularity of things like “stop the steal” and advocating for the J6 defendants.

Where do I start with this masterclass?

Firstly: Something does not stop being right or even necessary to do just because it is unpopular. Tammany Hall was usually much more popular than attempts to rein it in (and outright abolishing it was all but unthinkable for most of its history, which I note is still well over a third of our country’s independent history). That did not mean allowing it to poison our politics both on the state and a national level did not have horrible consequences we still live with today.

Though frankly compared to the New Left, Tammany Hall looks downright benign or at least much less of a threat to our freedoms and the country as a whole.

Secondly: You speak blithely of the unpopularity of defending the January 6th defendants and of “Stop the Steal” as if you expect to never have your vote be overridden by corrupt Democrat ballot stuffing (or shredding) and never expect to be placed in the dock on trial for liberty or prosperity on trumped up (hurr) charges. How craven.

Thirdly: Many of us “ignore” the “manifest weakness and unfitness of our own candidate” both because we disagree about how manifest said things are (as I know you know given the sparring you’ve done), but also as a simple matter of prioritization. Your nose is less likely to itch when you have your foot caught in a bear trap. We care less about the “manifest unfitness and weakness” of Trump because we can see not only how Biden’s unfitness and weakness (and those of most other Dems) exceeds his, but also because of the DIRE THREAT they pose due to their anti-American policies, tyrannical attitudes, and actual repressiveness.

This holds true even in cases where Trump shares blame with the Left like the COVID lockdowns. How many people died because of leftist pushing of the infected into nursing homes and others? You mock people for emphasizing that Biden is Worse, but THAT IS A PERFECTLY COGENT AND LOGICAL REASON TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND TRUMP, especially if one believes that he would be better than the alternative(s).

Let us preserve the American Republic for a few more years from downright satanic enemies of Western Civilization before we prioritize yet more sparring over how fit or unfit a given Republican or Conservative pol is. And I have made that clear to many Ever Trumpers demonizing DeSantis and others, so you do not get to honestly accuse me of hypocrisy in Trump’s favor on this case.

Indeed, even among those Republican or Conservative/”Conservative” pols I actively dislike such as MTG, Romney, and Haley, all of whom I have criticized quite sharply, I prioritize the mud fights against them much less than I do emphasizing the basic threat of the Left’s unconstitutional power grabs and usurpations BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE PRIMARY THREATS LIE, and indeed those threats are MUCH more fundamental and important than arguments over mere fitness or weakness for office because they go to the heart of the constitutionality of that office.

Fourthly: I find it richly ironic that you focus on the ignoring weaknesses and unfitness in our own candidate when you have caught doing the same both to the left and to candidates you prefer, and also ignoring strengths or achievements of those you dislike such as Trump. I have not been in denial about Trump being a deeply flawed human who made a number of bungles and mistakes, and I have talked about a fair number of them.

You have proven less than capable of leveling up to that. Indeed, I still remember acutely how you tried to aggressively gaslight me and anyone else reading your writing about what the meaning of “Get Out the Vote” is and who was more successful.

In summary, there are and remain far more important things in this election than mere unpopularity. If you do not understand that (as it is blindingly obvious that YOU DO NOT from what you write further down), you are even more unfit to comment on this than Trump is to run, and that’s BEFORE I get into your tendency to regurgitate enemy propaganda without critical examination and your historical and legal ignorance (as I will detail later).

The left makes the same mistakes,

If anything it makes even more egregious mistakes, as well as outright abuses.

but there are two differences. First, Biden’s abuses are a matter of ideology and are about how the government should be run. Trump’s abuses are about the the integrity of the system itself.

Oh, what manifest bullshit this is.

To anybody deigning to read this drivel, yes, you read that right. That is quite literally Bauxite trying to convince us that Trump’s “abuses” are worse than those of Biden and co, as you can see by rhetorical sleight of hand.

Now to examine what is wrong with this.

You try to convince us that Biden’s abuses are merely “about ideology and how the government should be run” as opposed to “the integrity of the system itself.” This is offensively wrong hogwash for multiple reasons.

A: Biden’s abuses in person have been about a myriad of reasons and towards a myriad of goals (and probably by a myriad of actors), many differing in severity and not all of them being tied to ideology. Biden’s long track record of venal corruption and attempts to flatter his ego and reputation are extensive and well known, with our host talking about them. This ranges from the petty (such as smearing the other person in the fatal accident that killed his wife as a drunk driver when he was not, or refusing to recognize his illegitimate grandchild) to the corrosive.

To believe that Biden is more of a leftist ideologue than Barack Obama is delusional, but even Obama pointedly avoided pulling out of Afghanistan, let alone in as nightmarish a fashion as what happened. As Neo pointed out, that has Biden’s personal fingerprints all over it.

B: Biden’s abuses ALSO go to the integrity of the system as a whole in addition to ideology and how it was run. Censorship about electoral malfeasance and fraud, persecution of political prisoners in worse ways than we treated the 9/11 masterminds we captured, and enabling of politically connected rioters and domestic terrorists all strike at the integrity of the American System far more than anything The Great Orange Satan did.

There is something viscerally wrong about trying to stay in power (or take power) after losing an election,

Paging Al Gore in 2000. Or Stacy Abrams (who is the best argument for your sweetheart Governor Kemp after the latter’s failures and backbiting) for that matter. Which should underline to anybody who is not utterly deluded the lengths by which the Left will go to take and stay in power after losing an election.

There’s something viscerally wrong with you resorting to leftist agitprop in lieu of evidence to demonize your political opponents.

and I think people outside of the right ideological bubble understand that.

I think people outside the right ideological bubble would be outraged and disgusted at the voter fraud and voter “irregularities” we have already proven took place and got the left to admit, to say nothing of the much wider “Unproven” cases (again such as multiple jurisdictions turning in 100%+ voter turnout).

And I guarantee that those with consciences would be outraged and disgusted at things such as how the DC Police and the Left lied about Officer Sicknick’s death in order to demonize us, and also how widely they have arrested and how poorly they have treated both real and alleged Jan 6th Participants.

The issue is, NOT MANY PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THOSE THINGS precisely BECAUSE of the Left’s narrative control and how pliant many on the Left, Center, and supposed Right have been. That includes you. Had the parties been switched, this would have been prime Hollywood Propaganda material played back with more regularity than Bush and Trump Assassination Fetish Material, much like the McCarthy Era myths.

“Oh but da parties aren’t switched!” you say, “The Dems have the advantage and we just have to acknowledge and adjust to that!”

To which I say: how the heck do you think they got and maintain that advantage, ya genius? If you don’t have a plan for undermining the Left’s narrative control and Trueing the Vote, you are adjusting decks on the Titanic. Period.

Ask the recently re-elected “not-Governor” of Georgia about it.

By all means, let us. And in the meantime we’ll discuss things such as Abrams and Kemp’s track record.

The second difference is that, outside of the Supreme Court, practically every institution in the country has been captured by the ideological left.

Again, how the hell do you think THAT happened, and why do you think the Left has been more successful in weaponizing its control over the institutions (which I note are often FAR feebler and more dependent than they look from the outside) than we have been?

You cite these points but never clarify how.

The right’s message just isn’t going to get out in the same way as the left’s.

Which is the issue.

And frankly, I don’t know if even the left’s machine could pull off electing a candidate who previously tried to “suspend the constitution” and otherwise behaved like Trump did after 2020.

You don’t need to ask, because we have the examples of Wilson, FDR, Obama, and (supposedly) Biden. How many people in New York City do you figure would be entirely happy knowing that Biden treated people like literal grandmothers (remember: Freeze, Personalize, Trumpet) worse for January 6th than any US Administration treated the Blind Sheikh?

(That in no way means that they would become MAGA converts, and I imagine many of them would justify or accept it, but how many even of those would find it disgusting or angering, and might be less eager to come to the ballots?)

This goes back to the root cause of Leftist unanimity and the difficulty of getting evidence out, which as Mark Steyn and others pointed out is largely by design from the Left and how they prefer to cancel the debate rather than have it.

AND IT’S MADE ALL THE WORSE BY PEOPLE REGURGITATING THEIR PROPAGANDA WITHOUT CHECKING IT WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT FOR THEM.

(Once again, see Abrahams, Stacey, and her behavior wasn’t nearly as repulsive as Trump’s.)

According to who, Kemosabe?

I have plenty of issues with Trump’s handling of the 2020 election and its aftermath, mostly on grounds of practicality, but he did not behave “tyrannically” as you claim. Unlike the people you implicitly try to argue are the lesser evil, who have violated basic fundamentals such as attorney-client privilege, freedom of conscience, and freedom of the press as well as the sanctity of the vote.

You can argue about how far any of those went. You can even argue their effects. But not that they do it.

I do know that it is profoundly unlikely that the right will be able to do so.

Which brings us to the issue of why. You want to dumb this down into “Orange Man Bad, Orange Man Unfit, Orange Man Weak.” While simultaneously lauding Romney, who ultimately lost his run and much more clearly.

I argue that is largely a sidebar or side issue. Trump’s personal strengths and weaknesses exist, but they are nowhere near as important, either for the Republic as a whole or explaining the weaknesses of the Republican Party and American Conservativism.

So is Biden’s speech mirror politics? Arguably, but I don’t think that’s why he’s running this campaign. He’s running this campaign because, just as with his 2020 basement campaign, his handlers have a much keener sense of the state of play than Trump. They know this will work. They’re probably right.

They don’t know this will work (none of us do), they do however assume so. And one of the major and cogent reasons they believe it will work is because they have narrative control, can get away with peddling utter libel and defamation as fact, and can count on the near lockstep uniformity of much of the major press and political institutions but also the intellectual and moral cowardice of many that claim to be on the Middle of the Road or even on the Right, including you.

Mercifully, they tend to overreach, overextend, and overplay their hands in ways that aggravate and enrage the Middle of the Road and even give many on their side pause, while engaging in purity spirals and infighting over spoils. The ballot pulls are one sign of trouble in the Leftist Groupthink, as are the attempts to support Hamas. That provides the ability to either size or make opportunities to hammer them.

One of those being their disgusting and “dubiously legal” at best treatments of Trump, those around him, and January 6th members. Andrew Weissmann should be a household name of infamy, and indeed on the Right he increasingly is. Because he represents both the past and the future of the Left’s particular brand of politics, which in addition to corroding the very integrity of the US as a whole and being tyrannical are also repellent on a personal level.

And along comes Miguel cervantes to prove my point. His defense of Trump? “Look at how awful Biden is!”

*Sigh* I’ve disagreed with miguel in the past and will do so again, in many ways spiritedly, but he has you pegged here.

Firstly: He didn’t “prove your point.” Indeed he pointed out many of the intentional blindsides of it.

Secondly: You’re COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that that is a perfectly valid defense of Trump. “Look at how awful Biden is!” IS NOT a trivial point, NOR is it besides the subject of this discussion.

Thirdly: Unlike you, Miguel actually discussed – in a very brief – way how things like the Leftist dominance of the institutions happened, and points out this should not be taken as a

Well, that along with the ad hominem that I somehow “accepted” Biden.

Ah yes, more namecalling and dishonesty. Well, two can play that game.

Let me make things very clear, you goddamn ignoramus. Ad Hominems are not a matter of name calling. They CAN be that and indeed they are one of the most common forms of it, of course, but that is not what they are in their essence.

But by all means, do not believe me.

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/ad-hominem-fallacy/

Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent’s character, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Also note the link goes on to mention when ad hominem arguments are not fallacious.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-ad-hominem/

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

So a couple of things.

Firstly: Pointing out that you have accepted Biden, his handlers, and much of his narrative isn’t an ad hominem, fallacy or not, especially when we can point to you quite literally regurgitating much of his narrative, lies and falsehoods you really should have known better about included. Ergo your attempts to deflect from what miguel said by alleging an ad hominem is, in and of itself, an ad hominem fallacy.

Secondly: While I have employed ad hominems in this response and other dealings with you, you gaslighting sleaze, I do not do so fallaciously. I studiously address your points (such as they are) to a fault, am not afraid of conceding when and where I think they are valid and to what extent, and laying out where you are wrong or even wrong and acting in bad faith.

Thirdly: You are quite prone to ad hominems yourself, including fallacious ones, such as implying or outright stating that those that disagree with your claims (which in some cases are not merely false but outright gaslighting, such as the claim that Romney was better at GOTV than Trump, which is OBJECTIVELY false and which you had to torture the definition of virtually every relevant term to claim) is unwell, irrational, living in a bubble, dishonest, or some combination of them.

(Aside – It ain’t me babe.

This would be a hell of a lot more convincing if we didn’t have clear evidence in front of us where you are reiterating Biden regime talking points about Trump’s “tyranny”, “riling up a mob”, and so forth (one might be inclined to add “Without Evidence” given how even the Select Star Court for January 6th could not find that he riled up the mob to storm the capitol).

But he didn’t do anything tyrannical to stay in power. He wanted the results reviewed, which AG Barr wasn’t interested in doing. There was no real investigation. As such there is no evidence demonstrating Biden won, either.

So far there’s nothing indicating they have anything real on Trump. The closest thing is the classified document thing, but given the context of the last 7+ years it would be wrong to prosecute Trump on the classified docs even if the charge was legit. Which it probably isn’t.

Clinton was clearly in violation of laws on handling classified material. The facts publicly available provide proof if what was released about them are true.

Her handling of the information on her private server suggest she was engaging in a pay for play scam, and there is a lot of other evidence that suggests this.

Prosecuting her would be legitimate.

It’s also corrupt to use the implied threat of withholding congressionally-appropriated aid money to lean on an ally to investigate your political opponents. It’s ridiculous to call that impeachable, but neither was it a “perfect phone call.”

Trump’s incompetence goes beyond Covid. He lost on his census question issue because his appointees couldn’t shoot straight and had internal memos saying one thing while they told the court another. Sally Yates is a disgrace, but issuing his travel ban before he had his own AG in place was silly, and incompetent. Continuing to publicly comment on cases that were being considered by the Justice Department was silly and incompetent (and added significant fodder to his opponent’s complaints). I could go on.

Regarding “asipring tyrant,” it’s not just about Trump’s loose lips. Attempting to stay in power after losing an election is the act of a tyrant. Sorry. As “goofed” up as the 2020 election was, Trump didn’t have evidence that he was the rightful winner. Nearly three and a half years later, there still isn’t evidence establishing that Trump was the rightful winner. (Distinguish “evidence that something was fishy” from “evidence demonstrating that Trump actually won.” There’s plenty of the former and none of the later.)

Anyway, there you go. Trump is an incompetent, corrupt, aspiring tyrant. FWIW, I don’t believe he would succeed in making himself a tyrant (See the part about incompetence). “But he’s our incompetent, corrupt, aspiring tyrant and if you don’t vote for him, you’re “accepting” the other guy’s incompetent, corrupt, aspiring tyrant!” That’s not exactly a great way to quell dissent in your own party.

From the Biden Team’s own point of view, the fact that nobody’s awake and in control hasn’t worked out so badly. They’ve gotten what they wanted, though it hasn’t been at all good for the country.
__________

Biden likes to see himself as an optimistic guy. “We’re the United States of America! We can do anything if we put our minds to it!” But now he’s running a very negative campaign with a very dark view of the country and its future. I’d say it’s darker than Trump’s . Trump says that the country has been poorly run, but implies that with the right leadership we can bring it back and make things work again. Biden just seems to be offering repression and the prospect of civil war. The end result of that will be what? Preservation of the current state of things, which most of the country is dissatisfied with and may regard as a disaster. I guess if you are going to vote for Biden you have to believe that he is Saving Our Democracy, because otherwise he doesn’t have that much to offer.

“We’re the United States of America! We can do anything if we put our minds to it!” puts me in mind of Lyndon Johnson — or maybe of George W. Bush. It’s the same hubris. The same mindless belief that we are more powerful and less fragile than we really are, though this time it’s belied by just how negative Biden’s vision of the country and its future really is. Still, that line does attract attention. Biden’s policies may or may not be Obama’s policies, but if they are he’s carrying them out with a different spirit and a different rhetoric. Biden has brought us Jimmy Carter’s malaise, but with a greater arrogance and hunger for power than Carter had.

(Aside – It ain’t me babe. I held my nose and voted for Trump in 2020. I might even do so again this year, on the theory that if we’re going to have a corrupt, incompetent, aspiring tyrant either way, I might prefer to have one whose policies I like better. Not that it’ll matter, though. I think it is profoundly unlikely that Trump will win.)