What?

I think Trump said he could pardon himself. All he's got to do is say "pardon me" and he's absolved from any crime.

yeah let's see that work.

WASHINGTON — Standing before a crowd of thousands of MAGA-clad protesters on the National Mall on Wednesday, Representative Mo Brooks roared out a message that he said members of Congress who dared to accept President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory needed to hear.

“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” said Mr. Brooks, Republican of Alabama. “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America? Louder! Will you fight for America?”

Hours later, urged on by President Trump at the same rally, rioters stormed the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to formalize Mr. Biden’s election, chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” threatening to shoot Speaker Nancy Pelosi and forcing lawmakers to evacuate the building in a scene of violence and mayhem. Afterward, police officers recovered long guns, Molotov cocktails, explosive devices and zip ties. At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died during the protests and the siege and in the immediate aftermath.

Even after the tear gas cleared and the Capitol was secured, more than 135 House Republicans, including the party’s two top leaders, ultimately voted to throw out millions of lawfully cast votes, fulfilling the rioters’ demands and answering Mr. Trump’s call for Congress to subvert the election results in his favor.

https://nyti.ms/2XtGlNf

We don't need to go back that far. Up until the 1990s, mass media was limited to very few people and journalistic ethics were self enforced. — Hanover

I was just responding to your mention of 1000 years. In that time, there was a lot of enforcement.

I agree that the journalistic industry was quite a bit different before the nineties. There was independent companies and real competition, especially going back further from this. Now they've all been bought up by big companies and merged into conglomerations. The dollar is the driving force and so long as each of the big companies gets its cut, there is no need for quality journalism. People do not develop loyalties to their news source because of quality journalism .

The enforcement was voluntary before and it seemed to work, so we were in a position where we could expect truth to be the goal of reporting. — Hanover

I think the "enforcement" you refer to here is a feature of competition in the market place. Healthy competition helps to keep the quality up. But it's a very complicated issue here, because journalistic endeavours border on entertainment, and the same company which brings you journalism will also bring you entertainment. But entertainment is not bounded by, nor does it pretend to be, truth. And entertainment brings in a lot more money than truth.

So the boundary between entertainment and news is much blurred. And when the goal is to provide entertainment, because that's where the money is, who needs the news? But what if the news becomes your entertainment? Then they get doubled together and it's even better money. There's something really sick in this, but I think we reached a turning point with 9/11, as millions of people watched planes destroy buildings, over and over again for weeks. Why? If that was just a movie I'd say it was great entertainment. Then we got some "shock and awe" in Iraq. It's clearly been down hill, as our news has sort of become our entertainment. Remember when Trump was running for election? Wasn't that the best entertainment? When the news is your entertainment, I don't think bringing you the truth is a top priority for the so-called journalists.

It can't, of course. His more moderate language was undoubtedly through gritted teeth, but nevertheless is less ambiguous than "fight like hell" which doesn't necessarily mean violence. I'm sure Trump was delighted that they took him literally and seriously, but that's not a case. — Kenosha Kid

Let's see, he's been fraudulently claiming for months now that the election was stolen from him. Then he makes a statement that he's exhausted all legal avenues. So he recognizes that further moves would be illegal. Nevertheless he moves on to the infamous phone call. Then he tells his supporters to fight like hell to take back the Whitehouse. Where's the ambiguity?

Damn it's hard when I agree with you.

The difficulty was on my part, finding something so clear, without ambiguity.

Then you did well.

Afterward, police officers recovered long guns, Molotov cocktails, explosive devices and zip ties. At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died during the protests and the siege and in the immediate aftermath.

Hmm. We actually had a civil war one time where a whole army was trying to get to Washington. They got pretty close.

This is nothing like that.

At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died during the protests and the siege and in the immediate aftermath.

I think it worth remembering, for the sake of accuracy, that only two people died because of the riots. A heart attack may have been brought on by being there, but to say there were five deaths is being a bit disengenuous.

I think it worth remembering, for the sake of accuracy, that only two people died because of the riots. A heart attack may have been brought on by being there, but to say there were five deaths is being a bit disengenuous. — Brett

The heart attack victim may have been saved if he or she could have been rushed to a hospital for a heart catheterization, but paramedics won't enter a dangerous scene.

So we may be able to blame the riot for the heart attack death. Can't rule it out, anyway.

How far would you have to be away from the action to not be included as a death? 100m, 200, 500? Where’s the line?

How far would you have to be away from the action to not be included as a death? 100m, 200, 500? Where’s the line? — Brett

1 inch

QAnon also has a presence in Australia, which isn't too surprising considering the way they gobbled up Jehovah Witnesses and Scientology.

It's just weird to think of Australians worshipping Trump.

It's not that a physical person employed would have to follow the stuff, so the cost isn't so high. — ssu

Right. With AI the eye of Big Brother really can be everywhere. If that's not the case now, it will be soon. Captions can be provided for images automatically. Speech can also be converted to text.

I'm not quite paranoid enough to actually worry about a department of precrime, but it's feasible that algorithms will be used to select which citizens get special attention, even if such citizens have done nothing suspicious yet in human terms.

QAnon also has a presence in Australia, which isn't too surprising considering the way they gobbled up Jehovah Witnesses and Scientology. — frank

Hah. That young earth creationist, Ken Ham, started in Sydney, I used to drive past an Answers in Genesis billboard, with dinosaurs on it. But he had to relocate to Kentucky to get an audience.

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick has announced that he is declining the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he was scheduled to receive from President Donald Trump on Thursday.

Belichick cited the "tragic events of last week" as leading to his decision. Pro-Trump rioters rampaged in the US Capitol last Wednesday. Five people died as a result of the chaos, including a US Capitol Police officer. House Democrats want to impeach Trump, accusing him of "incitement of insurrection."
"Recently, I was offered the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which I was flattered by out of respect for what the honor represents and admiration for prior recipients," Belichick said in a statement. "Subsequently, the tragic events of last week occurred and the decision has been made not to move forward with the award. Above all, I am an American citizen with great reverence for our nation's values, freedom and democracy." — CNN

Now, there's a patriot.

There was a time news moved slower and we got the news behind the opinions of public figures. Now we just get reporting of opinions (whatever some public figure said) because if you're not first then nobody reads your article. Really the only thing done to meet journalistic standards is to make sure it was said or not. So a lot of opinions are catapulted into the public domain without any consideration whether it's true or to be juxtaposed with other opinions or to have nuance added. By the time someone manages to look into it, the news is dominated by something else already.

The old way of journalism is better but not suited for modern "news" consumption I'm afraid. That's not to say there aren't excellent investigative journalists out there and good background pieces but they've become the exception instead of the norm.

I'm at a loss as to how to fix that. The only thing I consider that would at least limit the reach and speed at which a lie spreads is to once again prohibit targeted ads, news and videos etc. So that, just because you read a conspiracy theory yesterday, you don't automatically receive the next one in your feed.

I don't have permissions to view what I guess is a lunatic right-wing propaganda site. Can you post evidence that the Capitol riots were staged by Antifa from trustworthy sources?

So you’re arguing ‘plausible deniability’? — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm not defending him, I think he's a turd who loved every second of the chaos he invited. But I don't think there's a solid line from what he explicitly said to what happened. In politics, "fight" does not mean "fisticuffs".

His lawyer, on the other hand, should and I think will be disbarred. His violent incitement was more explicit.

Let's see, he's been fraudulently claiming for months now that the election was stolen from him. Then he makes a statement that he's exhausted all legal avenues. So he recognizes that further moves would be illegal. Nevertheless he moves on to the infamous phone call. Then he tells his supporters to fight like hell to take back the Whitehouse. Where's the ambiguity? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because none of those things can be shown to reasonably expect as a consequence a violent coup in the Capitol. It's not about causality -- the 25th amendment option has been rejected. It's about criminal culpability. In order to pin the coup on him, they're obliged to demonstrate that he intended a coup. He probably didn't. He did intend a frenzy, an outrage, a hysterical mob, but there's no masterplan for an occupation of the Senate in what he did or said.

The Raffensperger call is a lesser crime, maybe, but one that was unambiguously intentional.

There’s a NYT article on the criminality of what he did, you’re right, it’s a very tricky thing to establish. That is part of Trump’s criminal cunning, knowing how to stay just inside the line while inciting others to do his dirty work, Anyway, I remain ever hopeful that this will be the bitter end for Trump.

Because none of those things can be shown to reasonably expect as a consequence a violent coup in the Capitol. It's not about causality -- the 25th amendment option has been rejected. It's about criminal culpability. In order to pin the coup on him, they're obliged to demonstrate that he intended a coup. He probably didn't. He did intend a frenzy, an outrage, a hysterical mob, but there's no masterplan for an occupation of the Senate in what he did or said. — Kenosha Kid

Most of the republican congress also can't accede to these kinds of arguments least they incriminate themselves. It's in their every interest to dump this mess on Trump's lap - but not have the case looked at too closely. They were slavish, willing instigators no less than Trump.

Most of the republican congress also can't accede to these kinds of arguments least they incriminate themselves. It's in their every interest to dump this mess on Trump's lap - but not have the case looked at too closely. They were slavish, willing instigators no less than Trump. — StreetlightX

On the other hand, voting to convict would be a great way of cheaply cleansing one's own sins before one's voters, which was my apparently unfounded concern (since the Republican line seems to be that Trump should not be impeached, not because he did nothing wrong, but because "bringing the country together" somehow involves supporting the nutter who divided the country with astonishing efficiency).

since the Republican line seems to be that Trump should not be impeached, not because he did nothing wrong, but because "bringing the country together" somehow involves supporting the nutter who divided the country with astonishing efficiency — Kenosha Kid

They still fear Trump's base, even if Trump himself is a political dead man walking. The lesson: the end of Trump is not the end of Trumpism.

I think he's a turd who loved every second of the chaos he invited. But I don't think there's a solid line from what he explicitly said to what happened. In politics, "fight" does not mean "fisticuffs". — Kenosha Kid

Well, what he explicitly said for at least months was a consistent pattern of blatant lies which became the foundation of the invasion of Congress. Without the lies, no invasion.

What Trump's speech can highlight is what a savvy street smarts actor Trump is. He's been walking the line between legal and illegal for years, and is very good at it. Think of all the crap he's been hip deep in for decades, and yet never served a day in jail.

What confuses we philosophers is that Trump is not an intellectual, like say, Obama. He's not articulate in the manner that we relate to. So he sounds oafish to us, and we assume that means he's stupid. But he's not stupid, he's just not smart in the way that we can appreciate. He's street smart, typically a foreign land for philosophers.

There's an excellent chance that Trump will have launched a violent invasion of the Congress of the United States, and pay no price for it. Evil. But not stupid.

Hitler is a decent example. He was considered an ignorant buffoon too. Until he came within an inch of conquering all of Europe.

Well, what he explicitly said for at least months was a consistent pattern of blatant lies which became the foundation of the invasion of Congress. Without the lies, no invasion. — Hippyhead

Right. He is the cause, which is strong grounds to apply the 25th amendment. But lying about voter fraud, even if the cause of the coup, is not an outright incitement to insurrection.

What Trump's speech can highlight is what a savvy street smarts actor Trump is. He's been walking the line between legal and illegal for years, and is very good at it. Think of all the crap he's been hip deep in for decades, and yet never served a day in jail. — Hippyhead

Yeah, I know you like this line, you use it a lot, but Trump couldn't outsmart a banana. He has not survived because he is smart. He has survived because his abject corruption eliminated any efficacious means of sating his power hunger other than within an abjectly corrupt party. He didn't figure out that he could get away with murder because there was no crime so grave that Republicans would convict him, rather the only party that could let a criminal like him get away with murder is the Republican party.

Now his more honest admirers say, He got away with perverting the course of justice because he was smart. No, he got away with perverting the course of justice because most Republicans right now are corrupt. Ah, but he did it because he'd get away with, therefore he's smart. No, he did it because that's what he wanted, and he's never had to deal with not getting what he wants.

On a general note, you can see from the actions of the Trump supporters that his only legitimate support base comes from grievance. In other words, all of those who support him have axes to grind, grudges to bear and a sense of injustice and unfairness. — Wayfarer

Well, this is a bit sweeping, isn't it? There are many millions of Trump voters, and only the tiniest fraction of them have taken part in any public demonstrations etc. I see something like this...

Corporate media focuses on drama to build audience, and thus ad revenues. And so those who invade Congress get endless hours of coverage, while the peaceful, reasonable, sane Trump voters get close to nothing. This isn't a political bias so much as it is a business bias, a bias for profits.

An important part of Trump's evil genius is that he's a realist. And so he understands far better than most that corporate media is not in the news business, but in the advertising business. He understands their business model, works it like a pro, and is rewarded with non-stop round the clock coverage of his every utterance.

Corporate media's business model is built upon our bottomless need for stimulation. It's a survival of the fittest situation. If one channel refuses to feed the beast of our endless need, they go out of business and are replaced by a company who will give us what we want.

If we can stop yelling about Trump long enough to follow the breadcrumbs back to their source, we will find they lead directly to us.

I'm getting tired of people pretending Trump is in any way smart in the conventional sense or that "philosopers" are socially inept and incapable of understanding "street smarts". He's connected, famous and he has money. That's what keeps him out of jail.

Trump is a conman and as such is highly attenuated to the emotions of others. So if he's intelligent then we're talking about emotional intelligence and keeping up appearances. His political appeal is grounded in sounding just like other Americans and saying things out loud that they've been socially conditioned not to say. We all know how great it feels if someone's position we agree with is unleashed as a tirade on other people we disagree with in a way we never could (but wish we could).

Trump gets away with it because he has power. And the more outrageous he is, the more normal these "social outcasts" feel and they feel heard because here is Trump saying stuff I'm thinking so "he gets me" and "he's one of us" when quite clearly he isn't. That's why we have people dress up like Braveheart and Bullwinkle J. Moose storming the Capitol. That's normal when Trump is accepted as normal.

So to sum up: Trump is emotionally intelligent (in a very limited and specific way) and stupid in almost every other way possible.