Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General National Commission to Investigate the January 6

The problem as I see it, is this modern political era we've entered into. The polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. In my opinion Trump is nothing more than an end result of that. Not the cause.

What was so appealing to the Republicans of Trump. He was a fighter, he wouldn't take any lip from anyone. He had no political ideology, no philosophy, he stood for nothing except himself. But he was a fighter among so many other things. Republicans were mad at their own congressional critters, for not standing up to Obama. For some unknown reason when the GOP recaptured the house in 2010, they expected them to run the government. Stupid, insane, but that was what they expected. Never mind Obama was still president, the Democrats still controlled the senate, they expected the GOP house to run the government which was impossible.

Trump, the 7 time party switcher believe in nothing or everything political depending on how one looked at him. He'd switch his positions, his political views to whichever party he belonged to at the time. He was no more than an egotistical opportunist among with a thousand other adjectives with no political beliefs. His loyalty extends no further than to just himself, no one else, nothing else.

These angry Republicans revolted against the GOP establishment, against life long, conservative ideological Republicans in favor of a man who had been a Republican for a less than 3 years when he announced his bid for the GOP nomination. For the third time being a Republican I'll add.

These angry revolter's in my opinion aren't interested in any conservative cause, although they say they are. Is Trump a danger to democracy, a threat, but not a real threat in overturning democracy. He's too unrefined, too obnoxious, too uncouth, too rude, too much like the schoolyard bully which no one likes or wants outside of his gang.

The real danger would come from a smooth talker able to take more folks in than just his gang. Granted, Trump's gang probably makes up 30-35% of America. But a more suave individual able to charm his way into more than half of America's heart would be the real danger. Not a coarse, blunt, gruff man like Trump. One who was too easy to dislike by a majority of Americans.

Seems like lies, bullying, and fear are big players in the overthrow of sensible governments. Trump's gang may 'only' be 30-35% of Americans, but his power associated with lies, bullying, and fear affect a much larger group.

I wonder. I wonder that the United States is the third largest nation, in population, in the entire world! The first is China and the Second is India. China is pure authoritarian and India has an ongoing religious war going. The current leader of India tend to authoritarian and is pro-hindi (the religion). The United States, on the other hand thinks of itself as a small country trying, very hard, to be almost liberal and free from all that bad stuff that China and India indulges in.

If you have read the above I am sure most have have a problem with it. I suspect that main thought is that its just wrong and just not us. We also tend to think, a lot, about us. Most of us think of the United States as a single country that has freedom for everybody. I also suspect that all of us are wrong and its pretty necessary that we all start a kindofa educational effort to actually understand ourselves - ALL OF US! We got problems and the problems are, quite possibly, worse rather than better.

All I am saying is that there is a whole lot of us and we are, more and more, at each other's throats. My thought is that we had better start figuring out just why that is before we have serious problems! The pandemic is also of interest. The pandemic is a medical problem which has killed, I think, over 500,000 people! That's pretty serious. We also know how to control it and deal with it. All that being said there are, right now, millions of people who don't believe what I just said. They have turned the pandemic into a political thing which you get to vote for or against and, somehow, that will fix the problem. One of the ways to control the problem is to wear a face mask. In American these millions of non-believers actually believe that masks are somehow the tools of the evil beings that invented the fake pandemic to enslave them (really!). It even gets better! The side that believes in the pandemic think that its so obvious nobody has bothered to actually explain to non-believers why their belief is killing others! Killing others! I am on the side that believes in the pandemic and prefers not to die. The other side doesn't care and that tends to make me a bit nervous.

I suspect that the real problem is that there is simply too many of us to live under the present system with any kind of comfort. The non-believers have a solution - authoritarianism! They want a dictator to figure it all out and then we can have freedom! This is serious stuff! The other side understands that the pandemic is real and dangerous and are trying to fix it with almost authoritarian methods without really explaining anything! They think they have but - they haven't (its SO obvious - there is no need).

So, again, we have two sides and that's the problem. Neither side is interested in the beliefs of others as they are flat out right. One side believes nothing is real, when it comes to pandemic, and the other believes in the pandemic - its almost that simple! (and crazy) Hell, nobody can even win a fight like this, its like we all live in a very strange place which nobody really understands.

It dawns on me that it is actually possible to list the differences between sides as they are stark. Perhaps somebody should do that one - it would be interesting.

Sorry, on reflection I apologize for going on, and on, and on, and on.......

No problem, I find it quite interesting. But I'm not sure how to reflect on it. I think one problem is our great ideological divide that has become a political party divide. At one time both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The Republicans had their liberal Rockefeller Republicans in in the Northeast which was basically solid republican at that time while the Democrats had their solid conservative south. The Midwestern conservatives were republican, very different from the southern democratic conservatives. Both parties had their own ideological divide with the two major parties themselves. Then the Democrats discarded it's conservatives and the GOP got rid of its liberals leaving us not only with an ideological divide which was always there, but with that ideological divide is now a huge party divide. A divide not within factions of both parties, but a united ideological divide of one party vs. the other.

This is something that can't be corrected as long as each party views the other as this nation's number one enemy.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...voters_see_each_other_as_america_s_enemy

As long was neither will listen to the other, as long as each is out to destroy the other, as long as each paints the other as the epitome of evil, as long as both sides fail to cooperate and compromise like they use to, the polarization, the mega, ultra high partisanship will continue and the great divide will only grow.

What has been forgotten that was there in the past when both parties has their liberal, conservative wings along with moderates is the notion that the goal of each party was a secure, free and prosperous America. It seems to me that hate for the other party has replaced respect. We live in a 100% purely negative political world. So things aren't about to change, no change is possible until the rancorous and vitriol rhetoric, speech of both parties for the other ceases.

That I think is impossible in our polarized political word of today where if one has a different political point of view, that person becomes the enemy.

I don't really recall those Halcyon days when the two parties were friends and jovial colleagues....

From the very beginning there have been fisticuffs and shootings and duels to the death.

We didn't make it 100 years as a nation before we fell into a devastating civil war.

I maintain that it is now as it has always been,

Yes ... you started out ok with the obvious and then ....

Rationalizations, one after another. Look I get it. We havent had a coup in this country, so why would anyone think it could happen here? But there was an attempt on 1/6. You never imagined it could happen all the while I was warning this forum of the very real possibility.

Let's see .... so smooth talking Trump .... wait a sec .... Trump never in life was a smooth talker .... he is a narcissistic bully who speaks like a bowl of garden vegetables ... and yet ... he was able to harness the Republican base with idiotic promises of making white people masters .... what imaginary real danger of which you type??? You need look no further, we already have a real danger and his name is Donald Trump. .

You are correct about the delusional Trump supporters. They account for about 1/3 of voters in last election. So what makes you believe that is not enough people to participate in a coup??? Lenin did it with far fewer people. Hitler managed to gain power with a similar number of elected officials.

Gen Flynn at the same Patriot Roundup for God and Country alluded to gaining power through a coup. Imagine that!!!! .... a former general in the US Army willing to overthrow the government. It is well known there are many Trump supporters in the military, including a list of crazy ex generals who believe the election was stolen.

Just how many clues does it take for someone to suspect something is happening ....

Heads up ...

It’s the “both sides” dead end again.

Are there really only two sides, and are they really symmetric?

Are they even stable and consistent in what they represent?

Are “both sides” responsible for a growing political divide when one side is staying on the job while the other sides sails off in a ragtag fleet of pirate ships loaded with assault weapons that they claim the Constitution wants them to have so they can overthrow a government that won’t allow them to rule as a minority?

Is there any utility in the “both sides” postulate? This particular topic is about establishing a commission to fully investigate an insurrection to overthrow the U.S. government. It is connected to a refusal to accept the results of national elections, which have been diligently conducted and audited. “Both sides” are not doing this. It portends total chaos for American government, which is already suffering from chaos resulting from decades of escalating and intentional lying and dishonesty directed at undermining trust in government - “both sides” are not doing this.

Perhaps the investigation would be more properly named the “Commission to Figure Out How To Stop America From Going To Sh!t”?

It doesn’t feel right to me that we should ignore this just because “independents” won’t remember the insurrection by the time the next election rolls around, therefore there won’t be any political benefit to be had from it.

Are there really only two sides, and are they really symmetric? They are in the sense that in our political system, a 2 party system there are only two choices. One can say you do have multiple choices when third party candidates are considered, but most of those only get on a couple of state ballots and on average only receive 1.5% of the the total vote and none of the big money financing from corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, mega money donors etc.

There's no doubt we have a great ideological divide regardless of how both sides act. Although recently I would say one side isn't that ideological anymore, worshiping a man instead of promoting their party's ideology. The other side remained constant with ideology. So in that sense things are out of skelter. In the other sense, republicans opposing any proposal made by the democrats and the democrats opposing any proposal made by the republicans, not based on any merits or lack of merit of the proposal, only who proposed goes on. At least since what I term the beginning of our modern political era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship.

Trump is a result of the modern era of our politics, not the cause. Political escalation and payback of things done is normal in our modern political era. In 2006 Schumer said the Democratic controlled congress wouldn't consider any Bush SCOTUS nominations if an opening occurred. Payback for than was McConnell not allowing a vote on Garland, escalation. Reid first used the nuclear option for all presidential appointments but excluded the SCOTUS, as payback McConnell then used the nuclear option, escalated it to include the SCOTUS, hence Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Perhaps it's today's party's political leaders we have to thank. Party firsters. Lott and Daschle would never have even dreamed of the nuclear option or denying a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. Neither would have Mitchell and Dole or Baker and Byrd going back further. Straight party line votes never happened under their senate leadership. They do all the time under Reid, Schumer and McConnell. Just using the senate as an example.

Of course, in today's modern political era it is always the other party's fault, the other party is always to blame, not my party. I do however think Trump has thrown a twist into that whereas one party has become fixated on a man, not ideology while as I stated earlier, the other remained constant. Hence you have a valid point in my opinion.

I don't think there is any fixing that can be done until Trump disappears. Then maybe a complete change in party leadership to get back to a previous political era where cooperation between parties is possible, where compromise is more the norm than thinking it is total surrender to the other side. To where each party respects the other and is willing to work with the other where ever possible. We need to get back to where both sides of the aisle respect and acknowledge the others political point of view.

If Reagan and Tip O'Neill can work together to get things done, political leaders of entirely different political philosophies, I don't see why it isn't possible today. Except each party today views the other as this nation's number one enemy instead of a political opponent with a different political point of view.

When Trump goes, completely disappears, perhaps that may be possible. But I highly doubt it. Not without a complete change of both parties leadership. Perhaps the base of each party doesn't want to go back to compromise and working together where possible. Perhaps their present view of the other party being public enemy number one is now too ingrained to change. I have little to no hope of this changing, Trump or no Trump.

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at mentioning an instance where this happened.|

Perhaps you could list a few Republican Proposals with some merit...any merit.

Or an instance where the Democrats used the filibuster to kill popular Republican proposals...

I'll wait.

Me and my peeps have every intention of changing it over the next 20-50 years. I think we hit the bottom with Trump and we have nowhere to go but up from here.

There isn't another McConnell waiting in the wings.

DeSantis(or whomever) is not Donald Trump.

Reid is gone, Pelosi's days are numbered. We are at the end of a political era.

The silver lining to this is that a new political era is about to begin.