[B0ycey]

If those crowds came armed, there is nothing the Capitol police could have done to stop them or protect members of Congress. That's why the fencing is there. They already have "bad optics." If Biden received 81M votes legitimately, he would scarcely need secret service protection except against the lone anarchist or something. Yet, we now have barrier fencing and razorwire around Congress--utterly defeating the imagery and pageantry of democracy. The person who needs to go is Nancy Pelosi. She has done immeasurable damage to the US because she was so easily trolled by Trump and could not stomach the fact that he triggered her endlessly.

Do you see barbed wire all over the Kremlin? Putin looks better than the US right now. Hell, even a ruthless absolute dictator like Kim Jong Il doesn't allow imagery like that.

The Rioters at the Capitol did come armed FYI. They however posed for selfies than were any risk. Although the storming event does set a presidence so the minor fact they were clowns shouldn't be ignored. Also I wasn't a user claiming that Trump was guilty of insurrection BTW. I doubt the rioters initially planned on braking in. One sheep would have broke in and the rest just followed behind. It gives you an idea of the idiocracy of the loony right but the minor numbers who actually protested at the Capitol should give people the knowledge that riots on the scale of BLM won't be achieved if Trump does go to jail so why shouldn't the establishment pursue it?

As for ring-fencing the Kremlin, assault rifles and gun culture just isn't even in the same scale. The loony right are a risk to individuals not the state. Besides, Putin is by and large respected in Russia and his opponents don't strike the Kremlin when they protest because they would be instantly imprisoned. Be grateful for your first amendment.

[Rancid]

LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!

[Beren]

Eh...separation of powers?

Do you mean the legal and the political systems are perfectly separated rather than totally intertwined in the US? On paper perhaps, in reality, however, in Trump's case legal decisions are political decisions as well by definition.

I don't think there is an effective remedy, because the establishment refuses to deal with the reasons Trump was elected (and then re-elected).

I don't mean to be so deeply and socially strategic here, it's another issue anyway, I rather mean to be superficially political and ask if what the tactical approach to Trump should be. He's a bit like Hannibal in Italy was (after he'd surprised them through the Alps), I guess, in the sense that Hannibal defeated any army Rome sent against him, but he couldn't do much when left alone (neither could he besiege Rome nor could he alienate her allies from her), then he had to return to North Africa, where he got defeated finally (and went to exile and committed suicide at the end). So, in my opinion being passive-aggressive with him and letting him run out of steam spontaneously could be more useful than directly confronting him from time to time. Direct confrontation rather prefers him actually.

LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!

Sure, let's be Trumper than Trump, because it's going to work for us!

[Rancid]

Sure, let's be Trumper than Trump, because it's going to work for us!

There is no moral high ground in not punishing his clear attempts to uproot the entire institution of democracy in the US.

If he did something wrong, if it can be proven (which is where the moral high ground is here, unlike baseless election fraud bullshit and calling GA to "find votes"). Lock his ass up. The looney right can have their civil unrest for a few days.

It would be great optics to lock his ass up for a real crime. I don't see any way there's a bad precedent here. All presidents should be investigated, all of them.

[Beren]

There is no moral high ground in not punishing his clear attempts to uproot the entire institution of democracy in the US.

If he did something wrong, if it can be proven

And there is where another failure comes again.

[late]

I mean how Trump should be dealt with politically, how he should be treated as a political problem or challenge, not as a corrupt businessman. In the OP I more-or-less mean to say that he should be dealt with by political means rather than using sheer (and brutal) legal force on him because the latter one would be politically ineffective, disruptive and finally counterproductive.

You simply can't maintain a modern civilisation without Rule of Law. You'll get a dictator.

We're talking about a cult of personality. The effect of losing a number of court cases will divide the Cult between the genuinely batshit crazy, and those that aren't fully committed. Most of them see this as entertainment, and possibly revenge, but nothing that requires a serious commitment from them.

Cults of personality don't outlast the personality, and between his age and his health, his days are numbered.

[Rancid]

And there is where another failure comes again.

The FBI typically doesn't bring about charges unless they have a good case. They are not dummies like local police. FBI conviction rate is like 95%+ because they make sure they are doing it right.

As long as the investigation is done properly and thoroughly. Regardless of the results everyone wins. If no wrong doing is found, then no charges, and that's it. I wouldn't consider that scenario a failure. Sure, the Trumpists can use it as political fodder, but we are beyond the point where politics matters (these morons use everything as political fodder anyway). What's more important right now is principals of our government.

There's nothing to lose from a so called failure. Trump already took us to the bottom.

[B0ycey]

I don't mean to be so deeply and socially strategic here, it's another issue anyway, I rather mean to be superficially political and ask if what the tactical approach to Trump should be. He's a bit like Hannibal in Italy was (after he'd surprised them through the Alps), I guess, in the sense that Hannibal defeated any army Rome sent against him, but he couldn't do much when left alone (neither could he besiege Rome nor could he alienate her allies from her), then he had to return to North Africa, where he got defeated finally (and went to exile and committed suicide at the end). So, in my opinion being passive-aggressive with him and letting him run out of steam spontaneously could be more useful than directly confronting him from time to time. Direct confrontation rather prefers him actually.

When you put it like that, I do think you have a point that Trumps strength is by making him relevant and leaving him alone would reduce his column inches if nothing else. But at the same same time I do think you can't just ignore illegal activity here. Or perhaps you shouldn't ignore it and that as Trump has over stepped the mark perhaps pursuing jail at the very least this time would achieve something than just doing nothing when you wouldn't do the same to another president.

I guess what I am saying is there is merit in at least pursuing tax evasion and vote rigging (and perhaps Russian interference or what else comes up) because the only negative is the looney right might get their knickers in a twist. I don't see another one because Trump makes his own column inches by just opening his mouth.

[blackjack21]

If he did something wrong, if it can be proven (which is where the moral high ground is here, unlike baseless election fraud bullshit and calling GA to "find votes"). Lock his ass up. The looney right can have their civil unrest for a few days.

What makes you think it would just be civil unrest, and that it would only last a few days. Everyone thought the Civil War would be short and sweet. It most certainly wasn't.

Michael Anton sets it up concisely:
The Continuing Crisis

Then came the election itself. Unsurprisingly, the “Red Mirage” did appear. But was it a mirage? There are reasons to doubt. (Perhaps the single-best summary of the irregularities is “Memorandum: How the 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen,” by Claes Ryn, a professor of politics at the Catholic University of America, published online at the American Conservative.)

Vote counting seemed to be inexplicably halted in five states (Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin)—or, more precisely, in Democratic Party-controlled big cities in those states—late on election night as Trump was piling up seemingly insurmountable leads. There are numerous eyewitness reports of election officials in the affected precincts telling the Republican observers to go home, because no more counting would be done that night, only to resume counting as soon as said observers were out of sight. Then suddenly, when the count was made public again, Biden was ahead in all five states.

Officials “found” huge tranches of ballots that overwhelmingly—and in some cases exclusively—favored Biden. Sometimes the dead “voted,” along with other ineligible people (e.g., felons and people who had moved to other states). Meanwhile, registered voters showed up to vote in person only to be told that they had already voted absentee despite having never requested an absentee ballot. There are sworn affidavits alleging the back-dating of ballots; there are mail-in and absentee ballots which appeared without creases (so how did they get into their envelopes?); as well as thousands upon thousands of Biden ballots without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.

Then there are the statistical anomalies. For instance, political scientist Patrick Basham reports in the Spectator that “[i]n Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.” What are the chances of that? And that’s only one example.

Beyond the statistical, there are historical anomalies. Since the 19th century, not a single incumbent president who gained votes in his second run has lost. To the contrary, winners often shed votes. Barack Obama’s total, for instance, dropped by 3.5 million. President Trump’s rose by more than 11 million. Certain states and counties have long served as “bellwethers”: win them, and you win it all. President Trump won all the bellwether states and 18 of 19 bellwether counties. Successful incumbents tend to have “coattails”: they carry down-ballot officials from their party over the finish line. The Republicans gained 11 House seats, did not lose the Senate (at least not on election day) in a year when more than two thirds of defending incumbents were Republican, and cleaned up at the state level. Finally, primary voting has long been a leading indicator of the November outcome: dominate the primaries, win the general. No incumbent who received 75% or more of the total primary vote has ever lost re-election; President Trump got 94%.

No precedent lasts forever, and perhaps one or more of these really were broken in 2020. But all of them?

Even the word "debunk" is suspiciously tied to the establishment these days. Pretty much everything they say is suspect. We now have a very weak and wobbly government that is forced to undergird precisely the policies that led to Trump in the first place. That is why Trumpism won't go away, even if Trump himself does. Thus the optics of the Capitol being surrounded by fencing and razorwire and 20k troops illustrates that the government itself does not enjoy the consent of the governed--the very foundation of democracy itself.

[Beren]

You simply can't maintain a modern civilisation without Rule of Law. You'll get a dictator.

According to the rule of law the wannabe dictator seems to always get acquitted, I wonder if it's bad for him. However, if the opposite happens and he's prosecuted, tried, and sent to jail finally, it still can serve him rather well, as at least one historic example shows.

[late]

According to the rule of law the wannabe dictator seems to always get acquitted, I wonder if it's bad for him. However, if the opposite happens and he's prosecuted, tried, and sent to jail finally, it still can serve him rather well, as at least one historic example shows.

There are no guarantees.

But history does tell us failure to respond makes getting your dictator a lot more likely.

https://acoup.blog/2021/01/15/miscellan ... ademicats/

[Beren]

There are no guarantees.

But history does tell us failure to respond makes getting your dictator a lot more likely.

I guess it's rather guaranteed that repeating the same failed responses won't help much.

[late]

I guess it's rather guaranteed that repeating the same failed responses won't help much.

No president has ever been tried in a criminal court.

This is a one off..

[Beren]

No president has ever been tried in a criminal court.

This is a one off..

I mean the same failed responses to Trump. Impeached twice, tried in a criminal court, etc. All that circus is only good for keeping you (as well as Trumpers) on the edge and distracted.

[Finfinder]

So how to deal with Trump? Or rather how to deal with Trump effectively? In my opinion it's the same question as to whether how to deal with Trump smartly.

How about come up with some policies that Americans actually support.

[late]

I mean the same failed responses to Trump. Impeached twice, tried in a criminal court, etc. All that circus is only good for keeping you (as well as Trumpers) on edge and distracted.

We will see.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think that getting rid of Trump, the individual, is difficult but doable. Different strategies will have different repercussions.

But even if it happens, he will simply be replaced by some other cunning grifter. The social conditions for Trump are still happening.

[Yggdrasill]

People clearly have some kind of PTSD when it comes to Trump eh? How odd.

I don’t think he’s going to run again. He’s no spring chicken and I doubt he’d want to put himself through that shit again.

I can't say for certain that Trump will run again but I would be surprised if he didn't. He is all about two things: increasing his brand and making money. Political donations are a great source of revenue that he can build for the next four years. He does not care about any potential negative political consequences to the party.

[late]

Trump had coat tails.

By definition, losers don't have coat tails.

Trump was rejected. Most Republicans were not..

[blackjack21]

But history does tell us failure to respond makes getting your dictator a lot more likely.

Hitler went to prison, but later became chancellor of Germany. It doesn't work. Numerous Democrats have been impeached from office or prosecuted and went on to get elected or re-elected. You don't even need to go outside of your own political party to see examples of prosecution/persecution not stopping a person's political career.

How about come up with some policies that Americans actually support.

Brilliant! It's amazing that people pushing transgender men in women's sports, illegal aliens to drive down wages, free trade with China to drive down prices while driving up US unemployment, indoctrinating children in schools, or arbitrarily shutting down small businesses and churches while leaving WalMarts, Targets, casinos, liquor stores and pot dispensaries open do not understand why their policies are unpopular with the American people.

The social conditions for Trump are still happening.

Every now and then, you say something concise that is exactly right. Biden is putting back in place exactly the policies that led to Trump.

By definition, losers don't have coat tails.

Trump was rejected. Most Republicans were not..

Trump didn't lose. That's why everyone is still talking about Trump and nobody is talking about Biden.