« Reeves a fait un défilé pour essayer de promouvoir la croissance. » Lucy North / Pool / Getty
Le futur de la Grande-Bretagne sera-t-il décidé à Milton Keynes ? La Nouvelle Ville se trouve au cœur de ce qui est désormais appelé le Corridor de Croissance Oxford-Cambridge : une étendue agréable de la campagne anglaise sur laquelle le gouvernement espère construire une nouvelle Silicon Valley.
Les événements récents ont donné à ce projet une signification mondiale. Keir Starmer est maintenant le dernier anti-populiste debout. Son pari est qu’une augmentation soutenue des niveaux de vie peut arrêter la marée illibérale. Une grande partie de cela sera la croissance de nouvelles industries en Grande-Bretagne, telles que la technologie.
Beaucoup est donc en jeu. Si un secteur technologique britannique émerge ici, les récompenses matérielles seront énormes. Le « starmerisme » générera suffisamment de richesse pour devenir un modèle pour les forces établies partout — une aide et un réconfort tant pour les démocrates américains que pour le centre-gauche continental. Échouer, et l’anti-populisme commencera enfin à perdre ce qui a toujours été sa carte maîtresse rhétorique : qu’il est, prétendument, le côté de la modernité économique et du progrès matériel.
En réalité, la Grande-Bretagne devrait déjà avoir une Silicon Valley, et ce n’est que par un tournant lunatique de la roue qu’elle n’en a jamais acquis une. Le Royaume-Uni possède certaines des meilleures universités du monde, son premier ou deuxième centre financier, et suffisamment de pétrole et de schiste pour une abondance énergétique. Ce qui est censé être un pays de généralistes gesticulants est en fait le quatrième plus grand producteur de « licornes » (startups technologiques valorisées à plus d’un milliard de dollars). Il a été un leader précoce dans les ordinateurs personnels, et a récemment donné au monde le maglev, le graphène, le clonage de mammifères et Internet.
Tous les ingrédients, donc, pour un Microsoft britannique. Ou du moins un Novo Nordisk britannique. En effet, dans des conditions à peu près normales, l’un d’eux aurait presque certainement émergé. Alors pourquoi ne l’a-t-il pas fait ? Selon le récent document « Foundations » — écrit par un trio de penseurs YIMBY — le problème est triple. En résumé, la Grande-Bretagne a un système de permis de construire qui rend l’investissement physique presque impossible, un processus de conformité environnementale ridiculement compliqué, et les coûts énergétiques les plus élevés du monde développé. Nous pouvons inventer de nouvelles technologies, mais nous ne pouvons pas construire les usines ou les laboratoires où elles pourraient atteindre leur maturité commerciale. Et donc, sans la capacité de « s’échelonner » au Royaume-Uni, les inventeurs sont en train de faire flotter leurs entreprises ailleurs ou de les vendre à des acheteurs étrangers. Selon les mots des auteurs, « à un moment donné, il devient impossible de croître lorsque l’investissement est interdit ».
Cette situation a plusieurs causes — mais elles découlent toutes de la nature décentralisée du pouvoir au Royaume-Uni. « Processus » n’est pas tout à fait le mot. Au lieu de cela, ce que nous avons est un véritable libre pour tous juridique dans lequel les autorités locales et décentralisées, les organismes publics, les ONG et les tribunaux ont un droit de révision judiciaire et d’audit pratiquement illimité contre le gouvernement central. Des tribunaux qui peuvent arrêter le forage en mer du Nord d’un coup ; une planification économique régionale qui a tué l’industrie florissante des West Midlands ; des révisions judiciaires qui ont rendu les marchés publics ruineusement coûteux ; la nécessité d’un consentement local même pour des choses comme les réservoirs. La grande majorité des classes dirigeantes de la Grande-Bretagne ont une vision presque pré-moderne de l’État et de la société, dans laquelle le pouvoir élu est quelque chose à ignorer.
Le résultat est une société dans laquelle il est généralement convenu qu’un organisme comme la Royal Society for the Protection of Birds a un rôle presque constitutionnel, et où les tentatives de contourner l’OBR sont considérées comme un prélude à la dictature. Aujourd’hui, ce système de pouvoir décentralisé, toujours un obstacle majeur à la croissance, a manifestement commencé à consumer l’hôte. Non seulement il a privé la Grande-Bretagne d’une industrie technologique, mais il pourrait en fait provoquer un épuisement de l’eau potable d’ici le milieu de la prochaine décennie.
Le libéralisme économique en Grande-Bretagne a toujours été associé à la centralisation politique. Des choses comme l’Enclosure ont été réalisées par acte du Parlement, et Canary Wharf a été construit par le fiat de la Docklands Development Corporation — qui a reçu des pouvoirs presque dictatoriaux sur la péninsule de l’Isle of Dogs. Le thatchérisme, entre autres choses, signifiait révoquer le droit des syndicats d’être consultés sur la politique économique. Nous avons maintenant besoin de quelque chose de similaire — un renouveau de l’autorité exécutive et parlementaire contre les tribunaux, les quangos et les ONG.
Nous ne sommes pas susceptibles d’en obtenir un de sitôt. Plus que tout, le starmerisme est une défense de cette Grande-Bretagne décentralisée. Ce que représente le starmerisme, c’est l’anti-politique vulgaire qui a été en gestation en Grande-Bretagne depuis les années de New Labour, qui voulait défendre un ensemble particulier de bigoteries morales sur les droits de l’homme contre des majorités électorales, et a donc dévolu des pouvoirs substantiels loin de Westminster. Ils ne faisaient pas confiance au pouvoir, de peur que quelqu’un ne l’abuse, et ont donc mis en place un système où personne ne pouvait l’exercer ; le résultat a été une oligarchie sans tête dans laquelle la responsabilité n’était attribuée à personne. La conséquence de cette dépolitisation générale a signifié qu’en 2016, les classes dirigeantes d’Angleterre ont reçu le choc de leur vie avec le Brexit, qui visait à concentrer l’autorité à Westminster. Cette expérience leur a donné une horreur durable de toute forme de centralisation, qu’ils voient maintenant simplement comme une attaque populiste contre la démocratie libérale et l’état de droit. La rencontre avec le populisme les a amenés à désespérer de la politique dans son ensemble, et le starmerisme est maintenant leur instrument pour l’abolir substantiellement. Rachel Reeves, par exemple, a fait un défilé pour essayer de promouvoir la croissance — mais a maintenant largement abandonné le contrôle de sa propre politique fiscale à l’OBR.
Ces engagements anti-populistes suivront les pas de la Silicon Valley britannique. Elle peut être construite, mais pas sans une attaque contre ces mêmes institutions — les tribunaux, les quangos, les autorités locales — que Starmer a fait de sa mission de vie de défendre. Starmer et Reeves ont annoncé des changements à la révision judiciaire, assoupli les règles concernant le développement près des gares, et se sont opposés à des projets comme le tunnel pour chauves-souris de 100 millions de livres. Ce qu’il faut retenir, cependant, c’est que chaque gouvernement en mémoire vivante a critiqué les fonctionnaires, les avocats intrusifs, le système de planification et l’excès écologique. Ils peuvent limiter certains de ses excès les plus visibles, mais l’objectif principal de l’équipe Keir est de préserver ce système intact.
Mis à part ces mesures prévues, tout le reste concernant le starmerisme va dans la direction opposée, vers une diffusion encore plus grande du pouvoir. Il s’agit de déléguer davantage de prérogatives de Downing Street à des organismes comme l’OBR et Great British Energy. Il renforce le pouvoir des conseils juridiques de Whitehall sur les ministres, et est résolu dans sa défense du droit international — y compris des choses comme la Convention d’Aarhus, qui établit la réglementation environnementale à un niveau mondial. Il n’a fait aucune tentative pour maîtriser le pouvoir judiciaire sur l’énergie ; et il a déjà consenti à une révision judiciaire de la troisième piste de Heathrow — l’autre pièce maîtresse de sa stratégie de croissance. Il décentralise des pouvoirs aux mêmes autorités locales qui bloquent le développement, et renforce les maires métropolitains. Ces derniers commencent déjà à faire valoir leur pouvoir, s’opposant aux nouveaux plans de croissance pour des raisons environnementales et régionalistes. Il est très difficile d’imaginer le starmerisme, une défense étroite du privilège de la “Blob“, s’engageant réellement dans l’exercice soutenu et de longue durée des pouvoirs exécutifs qui seraient nécessaires pour faire réussir le Corridor.
Pour tous les discours sur la prise en charge des « bloqueurs », il y a déjà des signes de recul. Reeves a refusé de relancer l’autoroute Oxford-Cambridge, qui avait échoué en raison de l’opposition locale en 2021, malgré le fait que 81 % des marchandises au Royaume-Uni sont transportées par la route.
Starmer, donc, est dans une impasse. Il doit réaliser une croissance, mais il ne peut le faire que par un revival des pouvoirs exécutifs — exactement ce que le starmerisme était censé éviter. Une nouvelle Silicon Valley est certainement réalisable, mais cela exige un acte de fratricide entre parties prenantes que Starmer ne s’engagera jamais à réaliser. Un Microsoft britannique devra attendre. Le starmerisme force les gens à choisir entre la croissance économique et les institutions libérales d’après-guerre. Cela n’aimera pas leur réponse.
Like what you’re reading?
Here are some more UnHerd articles we think you might enjoy
The folly of a British Silicon Valley
Reform won't save Britain
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting, well balanced read. He makes a significant point about the growing influence of wealth and corporations in both parties.
People should check out Tablet magazine. Some really in-depth, insightful essays over there.
Especially by Mr. Lind.
Especially by Mr. Lind.
Interesting, well balanced read. He makes a significant point about the growing influence of wealth and corporations in both parties.
People should check out Tablet magazine. Some really in-depth, insightful essays over there.
An interesting article with, I assume, a valid analysis of Trump but, as so often, lazily getting Boris completely wrong. But, as this piece is about America, let’s not dwell on that.
I believe the number of indictments against Trump is now something like 78. Two or three would be credible but 78 is clearly a political campaign, especially as the Justice Dept seems to have a marked lack of curiosity about Hunter’s laptop and Joe’s garage full of classified documents.
There were quite a few indictments against Al Capone, I believe, even if most of them failed. Was that a witchhunt, too?
They had to eventually resort to tax evasion to get the infamous mob boss. To remove any potential confusion: I’m talking about Capone, of course.
If Alan Dershowitz’s analysis of the most recent indictment of Trump is correct, every human on earth is guilty of capital crimes. All they need do is open theirs mouths and speak.
Thank you! Whatever Trump did when he was President surely made the USA better. We don’t vote for a personality, we vote for someone who can do the job.
YAY! The author mentions the other side…“a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”
NO thank you.
What did the Donald do apart from throwing ketchup at the WH walls? Oh and use a sharpie to mess up maps?
YAY! The author mentions the other side…“a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”
NO thank you.
What did the Donald do apart from throwing ketchup at the WH walls? Oh and use a sharpie to mess up maps?
All Dershowitz has to do is keep his mouth shut and dream about underage girls! Vieux croûton!
Thank you! Whatever Trump did when he was President surely made the USA better. We don’t vote for a personality, we vote for someone who can do the job.
All Dershowitz has to do is keep his mouth shut and dream about underage girls! Vieux croûton!
They had to eventually resort to tax evasion to get the infamous mob boss. To remove any potential confusion: I’m talking about Capone, of course.
If Alan Dershowitz’s analysis of the most recent indictment of Trump is correct, every human on earth is guilty of capital crimes. All they need do is open theirs mouths and speak.
There were quite a few indictments against Al Capone, I believe, even if most of them failed. Was that a witchhunt, too?
An interesting article with, I assume, a valid analysis of Trump but, as so often, lazily getting Boris completely wrong. But, as this piece is about America, let’s not dwell on that.
I believe the number of indictments against Trump is now something like 78. Two or three would be credible but 78 is clearly a political campaign, especially as the Justice Dept seems to have a marked lack of curiosity about Hunter’s laptop and Joe’s garage full of classified documents.
Very heartening to read the NYT poll: Trump supporters simply do not attach any importance to this incessantly expanding list of indictments.
Though this may seem somewhat esoteric, I suspect for many of his supporters, the true goal of a Trump presidency is in fact to clear the way for post-Trumpism. The hysteria and dirty tricks he is bringing to light are actually a boon to the process, heaping discredit on so many ideas and institutions that will, one hopes, be destroyed under Trump 2024, so that later they can be rebuilt by post-Trumpists. You could say I am more optimistic about this outcome than the author of this piece.
Of course, as always with Trump, anything can happen. . .
The true goal of a Trump presidency is to boost Mr Trump’s ego! Why on Earth anyone takes this three time loser seriously is beyond me. (And once scraping in, but nonetheless losing the popular vote by a large margin). Ok he, perhaps surprisingly is an important figure in a polarised moment, but he is sui generis and represents compete political dead end. He will constantly attack, rather than support, anyone looking to succeed him and move his legacy, such as it is, forward, often on the most petty and vindictive grounds. And as we now know, his White House was completely chaotic much of the time, with Trump endlessly falling out with his own lieutenants. A successful long-term political movement that does not make!
The Right have to get out of this tinpot saviour mentality and start doing some actual hard work (which they are supposed culturally to support) and the long road to power that the Progressive Left have been so successful in. Otherwise it will be defeat after defeat.
January 6th was a perfect illustration of this. Of course the Democrats have hysterically overplayed this as an attempted coup etc. But seeing as it had absolutely no chance of anything that could be called a political success, turned off millions of Americans who might otherwise have supported him in future, it was an absolutely futile gesture. People can demonise the never Trumpers all they wish, but they exist in significant numbers. Together with the left and centrist voters concentrated in cities they outnumber Trump’s admittedly impressively loyal (but I’d say largely misled) “base”.
Can he still run for the Presidency as a convicted felon?
Depends on the felony. Not those in the latest indictment they’re saying: charges of deliberate anti-constitutional acts or “anti-patriotism”.
Would ‘we’ call that High Treason I wonder.
That sort of language exists in early US state documents but Trump’s prosecutors haven’t quite gone there. Low Treason?
We used to call that Petty Treason.
The sentence was also slightly modified.
Off with half yer head?
Hanged but NO quartering for most.
Burning for ALL ladies!
Haha! The Old Clemency.
Haha! The Old Clemency.
Hanged but NO quartering for most.
Burning for ALL ladies!
Off with half yer head?
We used to call that Petty Treason.
The sentence was also slightly modified.
That sort of language exists in early US state documents but Trump’s prosecutors haven’t quite gone there. Low Treason?
Would ‘we’ call that High Treason I wonder.
Depends on the felony. Not those in the latest indictment they’re saying: charges of deliberate anti-constitutional acts or “anti-patriotism”.
Republicans are cowards really and are more interested in protecting what privilege they have. They’re scared he will run as an independent if they dump him.
Your first sentence applies equally to Democrats and everyone else capitulating to the authoritarian lunacy of the far left.
Your first sentence applies equally to Democrats and everyone else capitulating to the authoritarian lunacy of the far left.
I agree with your comment; I think his personal qualities disqualify him from office – a serial adulterer is almost certainly a serial liar and if he lies to those he is close to he will certainly lie when he considers it expedient to those he does not know.
I am perhaps not qualified to comment as I am in UK not US but the difference between Trump and Boris seems minimal other than that Trump owns a comb.
To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, I prefer DT’s off-the-cuff, spontaneous lies to the Biden administration’s well-crafted lies.
It takes one incompetent, unscrupulous hack (JP) to recognise another (DT).
It takes one incompetent, unscrupulous hack (JP) to recognise another (DT).
To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, I prefer DT’s off-the-cuff, spontaneous lies to the Biden administration’s well-crafted lies.
We take him seriously because, unlike you, we consider his policies during his tenure as mostly successful, unlike those of his successor. We also aren’t obsessed with his personality/ego, as you appear to be.
This. I sat out two elections (as did all but two of my evangelical friends) because of his moral failings. But many view his tenure as successful despite his personality and the chaotic nature of his administration. His main accomplish may be his exposing the corruption embedded in the US political and justice system. I’m sure Republicans have abused the structures of power, but nothing comes close to what the Democrats have been doing of late. I know it has become a cliche, but Nixon engaged in child’s play compared to this, and even Kennedy’s stolen election rankles less (possibly because of the way Nixon responded).
What I hate most in all this is that as a conservative, I want to maintain a trust in the structures that hold together society. Marriage, the family, education, the courts, and government itself have all been undermined in recent years.
This. I sat out two elections (as did all but two of my evangelical friends) because of his moral failings. But many view his tenure as successful despite his personality and the chaotic nature of his administration. His main accomplish may be his exposing the corruption embedded in the US political and justice system. I’m sure Republicans have abused the structures of power, but nothing comes close to what the Democrats have been doing of late. I know it has become a cliche, but Nixon engaged in child’s play compared to this, and even Kennedy’s stolen election rankles less (possibly because of the way Nixon responded).
What I hate most in all this is that as a conservative, I want to maintain a trust in the structures that hold together society. Marriage, the family, education, the courts, and government itself have all been undermined in recent years.
Why on earth, you ask?
Answer: the other side is “…a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”
I seem to recall Henry Tudor as a sui generis figure, intent on destroying his opponents. Of course, the Tudors didn’t amount to much historically.
Can he still run for the Presidency as a convicted felon?
Republicans are cowards really and are more interested in protecting what privilege they have. They’re scared he will run as an independent if they dump him.
I agree with your comment; I think his personal qualities disqualify him from office – a serial adulterer is almost certainly a serial liar and if he lies to those he is close to he will certainly lie when he considers it expedient to those he does not know.
I am perhaps not qualified to comment as I am in UK not US but the difference between Trump and Boris seems minimal other than that Trump owns a comb.
We take him seriously because, unlike you, we consider his policies during his tenure as mostly successful, unlike those of his successor. We also aren’t obsessed with his personality/ego, as you appear to be.
Why on earth, you ask?
Answer: the other side is “…a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”
I seem to recall Henry Tudor as a sui generis figure, intent on destroying his opponents. Of course, the Tudors didn’t amount to much historically.
The true goal of a Trump presidency is to boost Mr Trump’s ego! Why on Earth anyone takes this three time loser seriously is beyond me. (And once scraping in, but nonetheless losing the popular vote by a large margin). Ok he, perhaps surprisingly is an important figure in a polarised moment, but he is sui generis and represents compete political dead end. He will constantly attack, rather than support, anyone looking to succeed him and move his legacy, such as it is, forward, often on the most petty and vindictive grounds. And as we now know, his White House was completely chaotic much of the time, with Trump endlessly falling out with his own lieutenants. A successful long-term political movement that does not make!
The Right have to get out of this tinpot saviour mentality and start doing some actual hard work (which they are supposed culturally to support) and the long road to power that the Progressive Left have been so successful in. Otherwise it will be defeat after defeat.
January 6th was a perfect illustration of this. Of course the Democrats have hysterically overplayed this as an attempted coup etc. But seeing as it had absolutely no chance of anything that could be called a political success, turned off millions of Americans who might otherwise have supported him in future, it was an absolutely futile gesture. People can demonise the never Trumpers all they wish, but they exist in significant numbers. Together with the left and centrist voters concentrated in cities they outnumber Trump’s admittedly impressively loyal (but I’d say largely misled) “base”.
Very heartening to read the NYT poll: Trump supporters simply do not attach any importance to this incessantly expanding list of indictments.
Though this may seem somewhat esoteric, I suspect for many of his supporters, the true goal of a Trump presidency is in fact to clear the way for post-Trumpism. The hysteria and dirty tricks he is bringing to light are actually a boon to the process, heaping discredit on so many ideas and institutions that will, one hopes, be destroyed under Trump 2024, so that later they can be rebuilt by post-Trumpists. You could say I am more optimistic about this outcome than the author of this piece.
Of course, as always with Trump, anything can happen. . .
Part of the problem with moving on from Trump is Republican leadership and its intellectual elites from places like National Review do not want to move to a more populist post-Trump place. No, what they want is a return to the Paul Ryan/George W. Bush era of the party. Seriously, if you want to see this in action, look at the GOP field. It is a neocon cult of personality around Regan that pretends the last twenty years did not happen. These clowns are acting like they are fighting for the nomination circa 2004! I wanted to move on from Trump. Hell, I wish we could get another Eisenhower. Yes, Trump changed the direction of the party. Unfortunately, his own personality, ego, and his naïve trust of those around him often got in the way of his platform. Having a useless GOP congressional majority where they thought sabotaging him was more important than anything their voters wanted (see immigration or trade anything) did not help. There are promising leaders for the future such as J.D. Vance or Brian Kemp, but they are currently outnumbered by the Lindsey Graham’s and Ted Cruz’s. At this point, voters are willing to burn the party to the ground if need be because hey you’re just going to get screwed over anyway and some people have voiced aloud belief that if they ignore you and wait, you will just go away.
Gotta move away from elites to common folk. Such as down-to-earth hillbilly and Yale Law School grad JD Vance and
silver spoon ivy leaguerstraight-shootin’ regular guy Donald Trump. Oh, and DeSantis isn’t elite either: His views are too correct and normal to earn that label.Gotta move away from elites to common folk. Such as down-to-earth hillbilly and Yale Law School grad JD Vance and
silver spoon ivy leaguerstraight-shootin’ regular guy Donald Trump. Oh, and DeSantis isn’t elite either: His views are too correct and normal to earn that label.Part of the problem with moving on from Trump is Republican leadership and its intellectual elites from places like National Review do not want to move to a more populist post-Trump place. No, what they want is a return to the Paul Ryan/George W. Bush era of the party. Seriously, if you want to see this in action, look at the GOP field. It is a neocon cult of personality around Regan that pretends the last twenty years did not happen. These clowns are acting like they are fighting for the nomination circa 2004! I wanted to move on from Trump. Hell, I wish we could get another Eisenhower. Yes, Trump changed the direction of the party. Unfortunately, his own personality, ego, and his naïve trust of those around him often got in the way of his platform. Having a useless GOP congressional majority where they thought sabotaging him was more important than anything their voters wanted (see immigration or trade anything) did not help. There are promising leaders for the future such as J.D. Vance or Brian Kemp, but they are currently outnumbered by the Lindsey Graham’s and Ted Cruz’s. At this point, voters are willing to burn the party to the ground if need be because hey you’re just going to get screwed over anyway and some people have voiced aloud belief that if they ignore you and wait, you will just go away.
The term “non-college educated” is, more accurately, non-college indoctrinated. Even the STEM courses are steeped in racial and sexual grievance. Very little education is to be expected in these expensive but useless buy-a-degree institutions.
So an autodidact can still escape the Educated Class?
The autodidact is in a class of him/herself.
Nice.
Nice.
The autodidact is in a class of him/herself.
Spot the person who didn’t get into college?
Bitter much?!?!
Don’t know how to break this to you, you insufferable elitist but when many of us look at some of the pampered, weak, cowardly, vile, conformist, jargon-spewing soulless automatons who are graduating from our supposed institutes of higher learning, we’re not exactly overcome with envy. Revulsion and contempt, yes. Envy? Not by a long shot.
Don’t know how to break this to you, you insufferable elitist but when many of us look at some of the pampered, weak, cowardly, vile, conformist, jargon-spewing soulless automatons who are graduating from our supposed institutes of higher learning, we’re not exactly overcome with envy. Revulsion and contempt, yes. Envy? Not by a long shot.
So an autodidact can still escape the Educated Class?
Spot the person who didn’t get into college?
Bitter much?!?!
The term “non-college educated” is, more accurately, non-college indoctrinated. Even the STEM courses are steeped in racial and sexual grievance. Very little education is to be expected in these expensive but useless buy-a-degree institutions.
A pleasure to read an article that is insightful and well presented, and also good to know that old fashioned journalism isn’t dead yet.
A pleasure to read an article that is insightful and well presented, and also good to know that old fashioned journalism isn’t dead yet.
And no mention in the article, as far as I could see, of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who apparently is polling at 20%. Even Unherd journalists adding to the omertà around such a well informed, interesting candidate. And before the uninformed leap in with unfounded attacks, he had all his children vaccinated. He is critical of Fauci and the extraordinary way HIV was mishandled. This is the reason his powerful book is simply ignored. It is too well authenticated.
“he had all his children vaccinated.”
His kids are in their 20’s and 30’s. Are they still relying on daddy to get their shots? Somehow I doubt it…
His stupid comments about covid being engineered to target certain ethnicities have confirmed him as a conspiracy nut. (no doubt this comment will draw out the resident UnHerd swivel eyed loons who agree with him!)
Love your description of the resident Unherds!
Love your description of the resident Unherds!
“he had all his children vaccinated.”
His kids are in their 20’s and 30’s. Are they still relying on daddy to get their shots? Somehow I doubt it…
His stupid comments about covid being engineered to target certain ethnicities have confirmed him as a conspiracy nut. (no doubt this comment will draw out the resident UnHerd swivel eyed loons who agree with him!)
And no mention in the article, as far as I could see, of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who apparently is polling at 20%. Even Unherd journalists adding to the omertà around such a well informed, interesting candidate. And before the uninformed leap in with unfounded attacks, he had all his children vaccinated. He is critical of Fauci and the extraordinary way HIV was mishandled. This is the reason his powerful book is simply ignored. It is too well authenticated.
Populist Republicans don’t take Trump indictments seriously the same way Leftists and Democrats don’t take the public and private crimes and grift of the Biden family seriously ♂️
Does this mean the DOJ is run by Leftists and Democrats?
Do lawyers lurk in the woods?
Do lawyers lurk in the woods?
Does this mean the DOJ is run by Leftists and Democrats?
Populist Republicans don’t take Trump indictments seriously the same way Leftists and Democrats don’t take the public and private crimes and grift of the Biden family seriously ♂️
Interesting analysis. But it misses one aspect: Once it is well established that the President can pressure states, the vice president etc. to change the result off the presidential election, will there be room for a change of powerin the future? Or will the US join the Turkey of Erdogan,the Hungary of Orban, the India of Modi and various Latin Amrcian countries in ranks of fake democracies?
It already is a military and intelligence dictatorship.
And a rather transparent one at that.
And with the support of the far left, increasingly restricting our freedom of speech and of movement.
And a rather transparent one at that.
And with the support of the far left, increasingly restricting our freedom of speech and of movement.
That point needed to be made. Allow me to ask: Fascism is a reaction, not an action, correct? The action is primary, the reaction secondary. What is the action? The totalitarianism into which communism quickly turned?
It already is a military and intelligence dictatorship.
That point needed to be made. Allow me to ask: Fascism is a reaction, not an action, correct? The action is primary, the reaction secondary. What is the action? The totalitarianism into which communism quickly turned?
Interesting analysis. But it misses one aspect: Once it is well established that the President can pressure states, the vice president etc. to change the result off the presidential election, will there be room for a change of powerin the future? Or will the US join the Turkey of Erdogan,the Hungary of Orban, the India of Modi and various Latin Amrcian countries in ranks of fake democracies?
I agree with almost everything here except the part about Democrats thinking it would be immoral to try to win back Trump voters. There may be progressive pundits who think so, but Biden isn’t that stupid.
He has continued many of Trump’s policies on immigration and kept tariffs on the Chinese as a clear signal to working class voters, and his economic policies have been the most populist of any Democrat since LBJ. Believe me, Biden will try to appeal to Trump voter as the election nears.
It is true that he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters, but it is too soon to tell how important cultural issues will be in the general election. Given the mountain of legal troubles for the Donald, it looks more and more likely that Biden will bury him in a 2024 rematch.
How do spiraling inflation and a government handout to rich colleges under the guise of ‘student loan forgiveness’ qualify as economically populist? And as for ‘he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters’ that’s absolute crap. The SJWs are not a majority in the US, far from it. That he has capitulated to them and their insane demands is evidence that he’s weak, corrupt and unfit to serve. You don’t have to be a Trump acolyte to see that.
How do spiraling inflation and a government handout to rich colleges under the guise of ‘student loan forgiveness’ qualify as economically populist? And as for ‘he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters’ that’s absolute crap. The SJWs are not a majority in the US, far from it. That he has capitulated to them and their insane demands is evidence that he’s weak, corrupt and unfit to serve. You don’t have to be a Trump acolyte to see that.
I agree with almost everything here except the part about Democrats thinking it would be immoral to try to win back Trump voters. There may be progressive pundits who think so, but Biden isn’t that stupid.
He has continued many of Trump’s policies on immigration and kept tariffs on the Chinese as a clear signal to working class voters, and his economic policies have been the most populist of any Democrat since LBJ. Believe me, Biden will try to appeal to Trump voter as the election nears.
It is true that he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters, but it is too soon to tell how important cultural issues will be in the general election. Given the mountain of legal troubles for the Donald, it looks more and more likely that Biden will bury him in a 2024 rematch.
Let’s make it real simple. The West has been ruled for about a century by an educated class that presently has no interest in the needs and grievances of the ordinary middle class. That’s because the educated class uses the middle class as its political “enemy” and poses as the “ally” of the “oppressed peoples.”
In my Narrative, first there was Nixon, then there was Reagan, and then there was Trump. All of them were Literally Hitler to the sensitive set.
I’d recommend that the educated class steps away from the smelling salts and let Trump win. Because Trump Version 2.0 won’t be quite such a walk in the park.
Let’s make it real simple. The West has been ruled for about a century by an educated class that presently has no interest in the needs and grievances of the ordinary middle class. That’s because the educated class uses the middle class as its political “enemy” and poses as the “ally” of the “oppressed peoples.”
In my Narrative, first there was Nixon, then there was Reagan, and then there was Trump. All of them were Literally Hitler to the sensitive set.
I’d recommend that the educated class steps away from the smelling salts and let Trump win. Because Trump Version 2.0 won’t be quite such a walk in the park.
Article seems to forget Trump had 4 yrs in office and accomplished exactly what?
The guy has a poor record and always puts his own interests first. The ‘art of the Grifter’ should be his next book.
Intense disagreement with Democrat/Progressive politics (however one might define this) entirely legit. You lose credibility when you back a complete Con artist and Crook as your alternative.
His Man of the People status among his followers is his greatest successful con to date. The notion of his being on anyone’s side but his own and those immediately around him–while they serve his every whim–is laughable, if not too funny.
Policy accomplishments don’t lie.
Policy accomplishments don’t lie.
Accomplishments include the border, no wars, Abraham accords, humming economy, improved nsfta (from the US point of view). Not so good on healthcare. Compared to Biden he was a star. Focus on policies not personality
Err border hardly solved. Wars? Ran from Afghan and policies encouraged Putin. If economy had been humming he’d have won in 20. It wasn’t. And Covid you conveniently forgot.
And this before rest of the shambolic happenings.
Yes, Harry. I would contract any brawler whose right hook concerned the enlightened as much as Trump’s right hook. The left debases itself by cowering in the corner and mewling technical defense violations at the ref. They got nothing to offer.
Err border hardly solved. Wars? Ran from Afghan and policies encouraged Putin. If economy had been humming he’d have won in 20. It wasn’t. And Covid you conveniently forgot.
And this before rest of the shambolic happenings.
Yes, Harry. I would contract any brawler whose right hook concerned the enlightened as much as Trump’s right hook. The left debases itself by cowering in the corner and mewling technical defense violations at the ref. They got nothing to offer.
His Man of the People status among his followers is his greatest successful con to date. The notion of his being on anyone’s side but his own and those immediately around him–while they serve his every whim–is laughable, if not too funny.
Accomplishments include the border, no wars, Abraham accords, humming economy, improved nsfta (from the US point of view). Not so good on healthcare. Compared to Biden he was a star. Focus on policies not personality
Article seems to forget Trump had 4 yrs in office and accomplished exactly what?
The guy has a poor record and always puts his own interests first. The ‘art of the Grifter’ should be his next book.
Intense disagreement with Democrat/Progressive politics (however one might define this) entirely legit. You lose credibility when you back a complete Con artist and Crook as your alternative.
What is perhaps most frightening is Trump’s supporters utter blindness and ignorance to the predominate view of the rest of the world, that Trump is laughed at as a toe curlingly embarrasing ill-educated , verbose quasi illiterate and comic figure with zero credibility.
This sounds exactly like Justin Trudeau.
Decent comeback but DJT for sure takes the prize for international embarrassment.
Except Trudeau won re-election.
Twice.
This is the part where Jim starts blubbering and whining about voters in Quebec and Ontario.
Ya. He keeps winning elections with less voter support than the opposition. All whine about that until the cows come home.
Ya. He keeps winning elections with less voter support than the opposition. All whine about that until the cows come home.
Decent comeback but DJT for sure takes the prize for international embarrassment.
Except Trudeau won re-election.
Twice.
This is the part where Jim starts blubbering and whining about voters in Quebec and Ontario.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?
Which is utterly irrelevant as he got them to do what was needed ie spend more on defence, new nsfta, etc. And look at who was laughing.
This sounds exactly like Justin Trudeau.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?
Which is utterly irrelevant as he got them to do what was needed ie spend more on defence, new nsfta, etc. And look at who was laughing.
What is perhaps most frightening is Trump’s supporters utter blindness and ignorance to the predominate view of the rest of the world, that Trump is laughed at as a toe curlingly embarrasing ill-educated , verbose quasi illiterate and comic figure with zero credibility.
Trump as an insider made one huge mistake he won’t make again. “ Draining the swamp” assuming the system would work with him to do the badly needed deed. Entrenched bureaucrats from both sides of the isle worked to keep the stagnant stench of “ self above country” the norm. He’s learned and will have a bigger broom to sweep out those to where they belong, outside looking in.
More stories about Trump.
There is a more important person than Donald Trump in the United States – namely the President.
Why not a few stories about the guy in charge, rather than endless stories about somebody else?
The President? Is he still alive?
Technically, no. Is that important?
Technically, no. Is that important?
There are stories every day about Joe Biden, who is most certainly not in charge, but unless you read independent journalists, you’ll never see them in the hack factories known as the MSM.
Honest question: Do you read or listen to enough of the much and deservedly reviled MSM to know what they are saying for yourself?
Rhetorical question: Does propaganda become truth when it’s turned inside out?
How many stories about the President are on the Guardian website today?
I count 6 about Trump.
I’ve not counted but I’m not sure how that answers my direct question to Ms Barrows (to which I don’t expect or think I am “owed” an answer).
As someone who started looking at the Guardian website about 5 years ago, I find their coverage very skewed (of course) and most, not all of it, a bit ridiculous or preachy. And they’ve grown worse in those 5 years. But then again the price is right and their interviews and meet-cute stories are often pretty fun.
I’m actually heartened when someone with seemingly hardened or strident socio-political views (not you in particular) at least checks the other side of the fence, even if it is to hate read, as with me sometimes when I take my sensitive, mostly-liberal feelings with me to Breitbart or FoxNews.com and such. And sometimes I find things that I have to admit make sense to me at such places (oh dear!). Seeing the absurdity–and intermittent lapses into sense–on both sides is making me into something of an insistent centrist here in my middle years. It’s making me into something anyway.
I never look at Breitbart, and very rarely look at Fox News Youtube videos.
You might like the ‘Washington Examiner’ , or perhaps like to hate
Breitbart is way too much for me for the most part. When I gritted my teeth and peeked at it yesterday though their top story was not supportive of Trump or his purported innocence–which enraged their commenters!
I have looked at the Washington Examiner but think I found it boring, although the Post is often too lefty for me, especially in the abusive, moronic comments section. Might check out the WE out again.
Better examples of non-left sites where I find quite a lot to like are The Spectator, The WSJ, The Dispatch, and this one. Of course this website, though it averages out right-of center, is varied, in a chaotic and unpredictable way. I’m still not sure what to make of it but I have to applaud UnHerd for publishing (most) of my opinionated
oversharingtakes.Breitbart is way too much for me for the most part. When I gritted my teeth and peeked at it yesterday though their top story was not supportive of Trump or his purported innocence–which enraged their commenters!
I have looked at the Washington Examiner but think I found it boring, although the Post is often too lefty for me, especially in the abusive, moronic comments section. Might check out the WE out again.
Better examples of non-left sites where I find quite a lot to like are The Spectator, The WSJ, The Dispatch, and this one. Of course this website, though it averages out right-of center, is varied, in a chaotic and unpredictable way. I’m still not sure what to make of it but I have to applaud UnHerd for publishing (most) of my opinionated
oversharingtakes.It’s not that difficult to find news from both sides of the fence. Daily Mail online and real clear politics both do a good job in this regard.
Not difficult, no. But I don’t think it’s the norm to seek genuine viewpoint diversity or “pierce your own bubble” these days.
Not difficult, no. But I don’t think it’s the norm to seek genuine viewpoint diversity or “pierce your own bubble” these days.
I never look at Breitbart, and very rarely look at Fox News Youtube videos.
You might like the ‘Washington Examiner’ , or perhaps like to hate
It’s not that difficult to find news from both sides of the fence. Daily Mail online and real clear politics both do a good job in this regard.
I’ve not counted but I’m not sure how that answers my direct question to Ms Barrows (to which I don’t expect or think I am “owed” an answer).
As someone who started looking at the Guardian website about 5 years ago, I find their coverage very skewed (of course) and most, not all of it, a bit ridiculous or preachy. And they’ve grown worse in those 5 years. But then again the price is right and their interviews and meet-cute stories are often pretty fun.
I’m actually heartened when someone with seemingly hardened or strident socio-political views (not you in particular) at least checks the other side of the fence, even if it is to hate read, as with me sometimes when I take my sensitive, mostly-liberal feelings with me to Breitbart or FoxNews.com and such. And sometimes I find things that I have to admit make sense to me at such places (oh dear!). Seeing the absurdity–and intermittent lapses into sense–on both sides is making me into something of an insistent centrist here in my middle years. It’s making me into something anyway.
I’m not Ms. Barrows, but share her views, by and large. I have studied the MSM for many years and have come to the conclusion that the only thing that can be trusted is the dateline mentioned. Journalism died about 20 years ago. It is all editorial at this point, on both sides.
Ok then. Who do you trust, if anyone?
Ok then. Who do you trust, if anyone?
How many stories about the President are on the Guardian website today?
I count 6 about Trump.
I’m not Ms. Barrows, but share her views, by and large. I have studied the MSM for many years and have come to the conclusion that the only thing that can be trusted is the dateline mentioned. Journalism died about 20 years ago. It is all editorial at this point, on both sides.
Bravo, well put.
Honest question: Do you read or listen to enough of the much and deservedly reviled MSM to know what they are saying for yourself?
Rhetorical question: Does propaganda become truth when it’s turned inside out?
Bravo, well put.
The President? Is he still alive?
There are stories every day about Joe Biden, who is most certainly not in charge, but unless you read independent journalists, you’ll never see them in the hack factories known as the MSM.
More stories about Trump.
There is a more important person than Donald Trump in the United States – namely the President.
Why not a few stories about the guy in charge, rather than endless stories about somebody else?
“His Democratic enemies have deployed two impeachments and multiple lawsuits, some more frivolous than others, but they have proven as ineffective in stopping his return as the A-bomb was in halting the Martian invaders in The War of the Worlds (1953)”
Trump was impeached first because he tried to persuade the leader of a foreign country to get dirt on his political opponent. The second impeachment executed because he incited an insurrection at the capital. Period. That’s motive enough. If the American public refuse to take that into consideration when they vote that’s on them.
I’m not naive enough to think there was zero political oppotunity in both but both impeachments were warranted.
I read a lot lately of people referring to Trump as a populist like you. That rich! Like this article there is no substance to that. Trump never gave two cents about the working class.
I don’t think the author was supporting Trump in his opening. Nor do I think he was supporting the Democrats. I read it as telling the facts of the situation and his article then went on to explain what the future may look like. He seemed pretty cynical to me, attributing only political manipulation as their primary motivation to win over people and secure their votes. I disagree. Although I might be very naive – I admit. But I do think most of the candidates seeking the highest office have a certain set of ideas that they think will be best for America. And of course they must consider how best to express them and at the same time appeal to the most voters. Not an easy task.
No, he probably didn’t, but he wasn’t demonizing them or calling them dangerous ‘deplorable’ either.
Interesting that you refer to Jan. 6 as an insurrection.
TDS……QED?
It was no more than ‘A fart in a windstorm’.
.. or a comedy sketch of police/ security guards showing a bunch of people in funny outfits the Capitol.
I heard it was the most dangerous act of violence perpetrated on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor! Image what children will read in textbooks, if they are still printed, in 10 years time? It’s amazing how deadly those mostly gray- haired, fat, light beer drinking, unarmed men can be made out to be. They appeared to be so threatening that the capitol police showed them around. At least according to some of the videos. There’s always two sides to every coin.
I heard it was the most dangerous act of violence perpetrated on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor! Image what children will read in textbooks, if they are still printed, in 10 years time? It’s amazing how deadly those mostly gray- haired, fat, light beer drinking, unarmed men can be made out to be. They appeared to be so threatening that the capitol police showed them around. At least according to some of the videos. There’s always two sides to every coin.
.. or a comedy sketch of police/ security guards showing a bunch of people in funny outfits the Capitol.
Insurrection:
a violent uprising against an authority or government
What part of that definition doesn’t fit?
The only act of inexcusable violence was that of Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the Capitol Police shooting dead in ‘cold blood’ at ‘point blank range’, one Ms Ashli Babbitt, who also happened to be unarmed at the time.
I gather Byrd was later decorated for gallantry.
Ashli Babbitt got what she deserved. She was forcibly trying to enter the Capital and warned like all of themt to stop. People get shot all the time in that situation. She was no hero. She was an insurrectionist.
Nonsense!
Byrd panicked and killed her.
If he had waited a second he could have easily arrested her with the minimum of fuss. After all he was twice her size, and she only an hysterical woman.
As ‘we’ used to say “Cowards shoot first!”
You no doubt are a bit of a loud mouthed gun slinger? Although weren’t you originally a Londoner? What went wrong may I ask?
That’s a pretty cruel take, dude. She deserved to be detained but c’mon. Don’t reserve all your outrage or compassion for one side of a binary divide.
There is no “all the time” here. What nonsense.
There it is, the ugly, vindictive, retributive true face of the ‘social justice’ crowd.
Nonsense!
Byrd panicked and killed her.
If he had waited a second he could have easily arrested her with the minimum of fuss. After all he was twice her size, and she only an hysterical woman.
As ‘we’ used to say “Cowards shoot first!”
You no doubt are a bit of a loud mouthed gun slinger? Although weren’t you originally a Londoner? What went wrong may I ask?
That’s a pretty cruel take, dude. She deserved to be detained but c’mon. Don’t reserve all your outrage or compassion for one side of a binary divide.
There is no “all the time” here. What nonsense.
There it is, the ugly, vindictive, retributive true face of the ‘social justice’ crowd.
Ashli Babbitt got what she deserved. She was forcibly trying to enter the Capital and warned like all of themt to stop. People get shot all the time in that situation. She was no hero. She was an insurrectionist.
To quote CNN ‘Tell me where it says protests have to be peaceful’
I dont care what CNN said by definition that was an insurrection.
Check the US Constitution, First Amendment.
I dont care what CNN said by definition that was an insurrection.
Check the US Constitution, First Amendment.
All of it.
Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.
What part of the definitioin does not fit what they were doing?
So I guess the people who died that day were killed by costumes?
No, Babbitt was shot. No-one else was killed on the day.
No, Babbitt was shot. No-one else was killed on the day.
What part of the definitioin does not fit what they were doing?
So I guess the people who died that day were killed by costumes?
The only act of inexcusable violence was that of Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the Capitol Police shooting dead in ‘cold blood’ at ‘point blank range’, one Ms Ashli Babbitt, who also happened to be unarmed at the time.
I gather Byrd was later decorated for gallantry.
To quote CNN ‘Tell me where it says protests have to be peaceful’
All of it.
Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.
insurrection (1459): the action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Perhaps the term is a bit strong. What do you call it?
A fracas.
“What’s all this then?”
Exactly!
Exactly!
“What’s all this then?”
Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.
No where in the diffinition of Insurrection mentions guns. Thats silly.
A serious insurrection is normally described as an ‘armed insurrection’.
This wasn’t one of those, in fact it was very far from it.
Incidentally have you ever seen or taken part in an armed insurrection?
And in anticipation of your question, yes I have, in fact quite a few of them.
ps. I know little of Mr Trump and am in no way a supporter of his.
However even he must be a better option than the ossified corpse currently running the place?
You mention in passing having taken part in an armed insurrection. That’s an extremely interesting statement. What are the specifics? Not asking to be antagonistic, this genuinely piques my curiosity.
Sadly as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act (1911) I can say no more.
Ah, I see.
Yes unfortunate but there it is!
However if Mr UnHerd Reader thinks the 6th ofJanuary 2020 last, was an Insurgency he is in for a bit of a shock when the real thing happens!
He might like to make a brief study of the various insurgencies the British Army was involved in suppressing post 1945. To wit :-
1945-8: Jewish Revolt in Palestine.*
1946: Dutch East Indies.
1948-60: Malaya.
1953-56: Canal,Zone, Egypt.
1952-60: Kenya, Mau Mau.
1956-60: Cyprus*.
1963-7: Aden & South Arabia.
1964-66: Borneo.
1969-97: Northern Ireland.
(* Denotes particularly revolting behaviour by the ‘Insurgents’.)
I attempted a slightly fuller reply, but the CENSOR has forbidden it!
Somethings MUST remain UnHerd it seems.
As at: 07.51 BST. 07.08.23.
Yes unfortunate but there it is!
However if Mr UnHerd Reader thinks the 6th ofJanuary 2020 last, was an Insurgency he is in for a bit of a shock when the real thing happens!
He might like to make a brief study of the various insurgencies the British Army was involved in suppressing post 1945. To wit :-
1945-8: Jewish Revolt in Palestine.*
1946: Dutch East Indies.
1948-60: Malaya.
1953-56: Canal,Zone, Egypt.
1952-60: Kenya, Mau Mau.
1956-60: Cyprus*.
1963-7: Aden & South Arabia.
1964-66: Borneo.
1969-97: Northern Ireland.
(* Denotes particularly revolting behaviour by the ‘Insurgents’.)
I attempted a slightly fuller reply, but the CENSOR has forbidden it!
Somethings MUST remain UnHerd it seems.
As at: 07.51 BST. 07.08.23.
Ah, I see.
Sadly as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act (1911) I can say no more.
So you are misrepresenting the term. “Arms” doesn’t necessarily mean “guns”. You can be “armed” with a fork. You can be “armed” with a stick. Stop your false narrative please:
There are two types of people on this little planet of ours:
Those with loaded guns, and those ‘armed’ with sticks and forks.
Which would you rather be?
There are two types of people on this little planet of ours:
Those with loaded guns, and those ‘armed’ with sticks and forks.
Which would you rather be?
You mention in passing having taken part in an armed insurrection. That’s an extremely interesting statement. What are the specifics? Not asking to be antagonistic, this genuinely piques my curiosity.
So you are misrepresenting the term. “Arms” doesn’t necessarily mean “guns”. You can be “armed” with a fork. You can be “armed” with a stick. Stop your false narrative please:
Arms implies more than zip ties
A serious insurrection is normally described as an ‘armed insurrection’.
This wasn’t one of those, in fact it was very far from it.
Incidentally have you ever seen or taken part in an armed insurrection?
And in anticipation of your question, yes I have, in fact quite a few of them.
ps. I know little of Mr Trump and am in no way a supporter of his.
However even he must be a better option than the ossified corpse currently running the place?
Arms implies more than zip ties
Sure I’ll allow the that the i-word is a little strong, though some certainly were armed in one way or another, with murderous intent–which, I admit, does not by itself distinguish it from a riot.
However riot is far too weak a term for what happened. An attempt to overturn an election result from inside a federal hall of government, with coordinated menace (by leaders of the Boogaloo Bois, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc., many of whom orchestrated menace from afar), with the endorsement of the president, which only ended when the president finally told them (after hours of watching it all unfold on TV while people around him pleaded with him to make some de-escalatory statement) “we love you, go home”–ain’t no regular riot. It should at least be called the Capitol Riot, in capital letters, or something. If they had reached the inner chamber of the Senate or House before the legislative branch retreated to a “secure location”: Do you doubt there would have been political murders, beginning with the Vice President and the Speaker of the House?
If your key concern is term-inflation or partisan-exaggeration, one can also object to ludicrous minimizations like “sightseers in patriotic protest”. Or using “J6ers” as some sly attempt to self-associate with 76ers. I did not like or accept similar minimizations (“mostly peaceful protests”; “crying out for racial justice” with weapons and explosives) during the left-wing riots in 2020 either.
Not an Insurrection, ok. More than a mere riot.
My concern is partisan exaggeration and accuracy. It was simply not an insurrection. No one was seriously trying to overthrow the govt – at least by action, maybe not by deluded intention.
I’m on board with it being more consequential than a typical riot and I’m fine with calling it anything, as long as it’s accurate. It was a dark day in American history fueled by the derangement of Trump.
Calling it an insurrection is a manipulation of language for partisan purposes. I’m as biased as the next guy – I flat out think the Democrats are more dangerous than Trump despite his deranged personality – but we should at least strive for accuracy.
I accept all of that as a fairminded stipulation or understandable opinion. Those of us who aren’t keen fomenters of an actual Second Civil War should avoid “triggering” exaggerations and understatements, in this case “insurrection”/”treason” one the one hand and “patriotic protest” /”sightseeing tour” on the other.
So while I still don’t see how what happened doesn’t fit pretty well with at least one dictionary definition of “insurrection”, I can see that this is unhelpful language that has become a point of needless contention, and I won’t use it myself anymore. I’m going with Capitol Riot or Jan 6th Riot for now. I’d suggest capitalizing it the first time it’s used in whatever context then, sure, call it “the riot” thereafter, but not the “fracas” or “kerfuffle” please. Onward.
Done. Capitol Riot it is. I did a brief search for a more accurate term but couldn’t find anything.
Thanks, Jim. I agree it ain’t perfect and I’d be happy to use a better, consensus term.
Thanks, Jim. I agree it ain’t perfect and I’d be happy to use a better, consensus term.
Done. Capitol Riot it is. I did a brief search for a more accurate term but couldn’t find anything.
So when they stated “Stop The Steal” what did they mean? When Stewart Rhodes stated Trump should invoke the insurrection act what did he mean? So when the Oath Keeps who are on tape stating they wanted to hunt Pence and Pelosi down, what was there intent? When all the people showed on Jan 6 stating their goal was to keep Trump in office, AND acted upon it. What do you call it?
No offence. This is silly. All those jokers may have had the deluded intention of stopping the steal, but they didn’t bring guns to make it happen. The lasting image of the capitol riot isn’t someone running around with a gun, but a Viking outfit.
Could that have possibly been UnHerd Reader himself?
(The Viking that is.)
So if people are killed without guns does that make them less dead? No offense but you think there have never been a murder without guns? Thats silly.
Could that have possibly been UnHerd Reader himself?
(The Viking that is.)
So if people are killed without guns does that make them less dead? No offense but you think there have never been a murder without guns? Thats silly.
A disturbance.
No offence. This is silly. All those jokers may have had the deluded intention of stopping the steal, but they didn’t bring guns to make it happen. The lasting image of the capitol riot isn’t someone running around with a gun, but a Viking outfit.
A disturbance.
I accept all of that as a fairminded stipulation or understandable opinion. Those of us who aren’t keen fomenters of an actual Second Civil War should avoid “triggering” exaggerations and understatements, in this case “insurrection”/”treason” one the one hand and “patriotic protest” /”sightseeing tour” on the other.
So while I still don’t see how what happened doesn’t fit pretty well with at least one dictionary definition of “insurrection”, I can see that this is unhelpful language that has become a point of needless contention, and I won’t use it myself anymore. I’m going with Capitol Riot or Jan 6th Riot for now. I’d suggest capitalizing it the first time it’s used in whatever context then, sure, call it “the riot” thereafter, but not the “fracas” or “kerfuffle” please. Onward.
So when they stated “Stop The Steal” what did they mean? When Stewart Rhodes stated Trump should invoke the insurrection act what did he mean? So when the Oath Keeps who are on tape stating they wanted to hunt Pence and Pelosi down, what was there intent? When all the people showed on Jan 6 stating their goal was to keep Trump in office, AND acted upon it. What do you call it?
Thank you for mentioning the 2020 riots, which occured across the country and went on for days, weeks and even months in some instances. The MSM’s hypocrisy in condemning Jan 6 after condoning what was allowed to happen after George Floyd’s murder (even though just previous to this anyone not staying indoors and/or wearing a mask was excoriated as recklessly endangering everyone else) while ramping up the absurd claims of the far left is absolutely outrageous.
“George Floyd’s murder”?
A most unfortunate accident at worst.
As for GF, a more worthless piece of
human detritus would be hard to imagine.
Have we all LOST our sense of proportion here?
9 minutes is not an accident silly.
He obviously thought GF was bluffing!
A simple mistake under the circumstances.
He obviously thought GF was bluffing!
A simple mistake under the circumstances.
I don’t have any more love for the late, unlamented Mr Floyd than you do but what I saw on the video looked s lot to me like someone being deliberately killed.
9 minutes is not an accident silly.
I don’t have any more love for the late, unlamented Mr Floyd than you do but what I saw on the video looked s lot to me like someone being deliberately killed.
True but how many stated that that they wanted to stop democracy in action? Thats the question. Stop deflecting.
So rampant rioting and looting is OK as long as it’s for the right cause? I could give a damn about either side’s justification for their actions, it’s the actions themselves that were wrong. That’s not deflection, it’s the point.
So rampant rioting and looting is OK as long as it’s for the right cause? I could give a damn about either side’s justification for their actions, it’s the actions themselves that were wrong. That’s not deflection, it’s the point.
“George Floyd’s murder”?
A most unfortunate accident at worst.
As for GF, a more worthless piece of
human detritus would be hard to imagine.
Have we all LOST our sense of proportion here?
True but how many stated that that they wanted to stop democracy in action? Thats the question. Stop deflecting.
My concern is partisan exaggeration and accuracy. It was simply not an insurrection. No one was seriously trying to overthrow the govt – at least by action, maybe not by deluded intention.
I’m on board with it being more consequential than a typical riot and I’m fine with calling it anything, as long as it’s accurate. It was a dark day in American history fueled by the derangement of Trump.
Calling it an insurrection is a manipulation of language for partisan purposes. I’m as biased as the next guy – I flat out think the Democrats are more dangerous than Trump despite his deranged personality – but we should at least strive for accuracy.
Thank you for mentioning the 2020 riots, which occured across the country and went on for days, weeks and even months in some instances. The MSM’s hypocrisy in condemning Jan 6 after condoning what was allowed to happen after George Floyd’s murder (even though just previous to this anyone not staying indoors and/or wearing a mask was excoriated as recklessly endangering everyone else) while ramping up the absurd claims of the far left is absolutely outrageous.
No where in the diffinition of Insurrection mentions guns. Thats silly.
Sure I’ll allow the that the i-word is a little strong, though some certainly were armed in one way or another, with murderous intent–which, I admit, does not by itself distinguish it from a riot.
However riot is far too weak a term for what happened. An attempt to overturn an election result from inside a federal hall of government, with coordinated menace (by leaders of the Boogaloo Bois, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc., many of whom orchestrated menace from afar), with the endorsement of the president, which only ended when the president finally told them (after hours of watching it all unfold on TV while people around him pleaded with him to make some de-escalatory statement) “we love you, go home”–ain’t no regular riot. It should at least be called the Capitol Riot, in capital letters, or something. If they had reached the inner chamber of the Senate or House before the legislative branch retreated to a “secure location”: Do you doubt there would have been political murders, beginning with the Vice President and the Speaker of the House?
If your key concern is term-inflation or partisan-exaggeration, one can also object to ludicrous minimizations like “sightseers in patriotic protest”. Or using “J6ers” as some sly attempt to self-associate with 76ers. I did not like or accept similar minimizations (“mostly peaceful protests”; “crying out for racial justice” with weapons and explosives) during the left-wing riots in 2020 either.
Not an Insurrection, ok. More than a mere riot.
Mostly peaceful ?
A fracas.
Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.
Mostly peaceful ?
TDS……QED?
It was no more than ‘A fart in a windstorm’.
Insurrection:
a violent uprising against an authority or government
What part of that definition doesn’t fit?
insurrection (1459): the action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Perhaps the term is a bit strong. What do you call it?
‘The second impeachment executed because he incited an insurrection at the capital’
You are getting Trump confused with Ray Epps.
you are getting facts confused with hyperbole
you are getting facts confused with hyperbole
Technically, he was asking for co-operation for a investigation of Biden over Burisma – something that looks more and more like a genuine political bribery scandal now, as more documents and witness statements are uncovered. Perhaps there was some fire behind that smoke, and Trump was right to ask. And maybe the Democrats knew and so used impeachment to protect Biden, not just to get at Trump.
“Perhaps” ? It’s interesting how you want to project on something with no merit, no evidence. Trump said what he said. It was recorded, but for reason you want to dismiss it. He asked for a personal favor . FACT
As we’re finding out, there was evidence that a Ukrainian had a bribery scheme involving the Vice-President of the USA, via the VP’s son, in order to counter a Ukrainian prosecutor investigation. In the call, Trump asked for Zelenskyy/his team to take a call from the Attorney General – ie part of a legal process with law officers involved (in addition to taking a call from Giulliani, who knew the case) with reference to ‘get[ting] to the bottom of’ Biden stopping the prosecution.
He did say “I would like you to do us a favor”. However ‘Us’ is open to interpretation – it could mean the USA, the AG investigative team, Trump’s cabinet, Trump’s friends. It could mean ‘do me a favour’, but it’s not clear.
As more documents/witness statements have appeared in the past months, it seems there genuinely was merit in the request. And due to the political sensitivity, a call between presidents was probably the right level to open discussions before American investigators got involved.
Well said Saul. Trump has been investigated six ways to Sunday. Where is the FBI or the DOJ with investigating Biden? Of ya, sending out letters to the regime media calling the Hunter laptop classic Russian disinformation.
Trump is a special kind of POS. Yet he has no institutional power. Biden is a POS as well, but he has all the institutions lined up to protect him.
We’ve got people on this site telling us Jan. 6 was an insurrection. Yet the most dangerous and foreboding thing to happen in association with the 2020 election was the treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop.
Hunter Biden was has been investigated for 5 years. And stop the false equivalency. Has Biden filed for bankrupcy. Has Biden paid of prostitutes? Has Biden stated you should grab them by the p***y. Has Biden been found guilty in a civil suit of sexual assault. Sure Biden like any other man has faults. But Trump is a special kind of trifling.
False equivalency. That’s fair. We just had two IRS agents testify that the DOJ and FBI blocked their investigative efforts every step in the process. They finally resigned from the investigation because they couldn’t get anything done. Yet I’m supposed to believe the FBI is seriously investigating any of this.
Trump is a POS. Biden is a POS. The difference is Trump has no institutional power. The full weight of the security state is there to protect Biden. And that’s where the laptop fits in. It clearly, indisputably shows how the institutions protect him.
We had HB’s business partner refute everything you stated.
Good but what evidence is there. SHOW EVIDENCE OR SHUT UP
We had HB’s business partner refute everything you stated.
Good but what evidence is there. SHOW EVIDENCE OR SHUT UP
Paid off prostitutes? Heavens, where is my fainting-couch? Got no love for Trump but you’re engaging in whataboutism here.
Also, I think we should all appreciate the fact that he paid someone for once
False equivalency. That’s fair. We just had two IRS agents testify that the DOJ and FBI blocked their investigative efforts every step in the process. They finally resigned from the investigation because they couldn’t get anything done. Yet I’m supposed to believe the FBI is seriously investigating any of this.
Trump is a POS. Biden is a POS. The difference is Trump has no institutional power. The full weight of the security state is there to protect Biden. And that’s where the laptop fits in. It clearly, indisputably shows how the institutions protect him.
Paid off prostitutes? Heavens, where is my fainting-couch? Got no love for Trump but you’re engaging in whataboutism here.
Also, I think we should all appreciate the fact that he paid someone for once
Hunter Biden was has been investigated for 5 years. And stop the false equivalency. Has Biden filed for bankrupcy. Has Biden paid of prostitutes? Has Biden stated you should grab them by the p***y. Has Biden been found guilty in a civil suit of sexual assault. Sure Biden like any other man has faults. But Trump is a special kind of trifling.
Funny! LOL! You left out this part where it becomes clear who the favor is for:
” I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
So no It doesn mean the a favor for the US. Its a favor for him.
You forgot to follow on with this bit “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
Again where is the evidence? All you guys are doing is talking not showing anything.Cite it or be quiet. Dont tell me what someone said is evidence cite it.
Still waiting
Still waiting
Again where is the evidence? All you guys are doing is talking not showing anything.Cite it or be quiet. Dont tell me what someone said is evidence cite it.
You forgot to follow on with this bit “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
Well said Saul. Trump has been investigated six ways to Sunday. Where is the FBI or the DOJ with investigating Biden? Of ya, sending out letters to the regime media calling the Hunter laptop classic Russian disinformation.
Trump is a special kind of POS. Yet he has no institutional power. Biden is a POS as well, but he has all the institutions lined up to protect him.
We’ve got people on this site telling us Jan. 6 was an insurrection. Yet the most dangerous and foreboding thing to happen in association with the 2020 election was the treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop.
Funny! LOL! You left out this part where it becomes clear who the favor is for:
” I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
So no It doesn mean the a favor for the US. Its a favor for him.
As we’re finding out, there was evidence that a Ukrainian had a bribery scheme involving the Vice-President of the USA, via the VP’s son, in order to counter a Ukrainian prosecutor investigation. In the call, Trump asked for Zelenskyy/his team to take a call from the Attorney General – ie part of a legal process with law officers involved (in addition to taking a call from Giulliani, who knew the case) with reference to ‘get[ting] to the bottom of’ Biden stopping the prosecution.
He did say “I would like you to do us a favor”. However ‘Us’ is open to interpretation – it could mean the USA, the AG investigative team, Trump’s cabinet, Trump’s friends. It could mean ‘do me a favour’, but it’s not clear.
As more documents/witness statements have appeared in the past months, it seems there genuinely was merit in the request. And due to the political sensitivity, a call between presidents was probably the right level to open discussions before American investigators got involved.
Man you guys have been hanging on to that forever. Every year “Its looking more and more like a geniune political bribery scanda”. Tell me what facts do you have to support that clam? I’ll wait.
Here you go – a starter for 10 (million). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/18/foreign-payments-to-biden-family-members/
When “Opinion” is in the heading…. I already know its not fact. Again what FACTS do you have. State them in your own words if you capable of such a small request for facts.
You’re playing being braindead. The opinion piece has links. I’m not here to spoonfeed you – we’re all adults. If you don’t know this stuff or what is being claimed or shown in the Congress inquiries you’re not reading widely enough. I don’t know if it’s true, but there’s a pattern of documents and witness statements to the FBI that give merit to an investigation, and that investigation would have to include help from Ukraine.
So in your own words state the facts that make him guilty. Or shut up. You can’t.
Stop saying that about Daddy! He’s good! He is! He is!
Stop saying that about Daddy! He’s good! He is! He is!
So in your own words state the facts that make him guilty. Or shut up. You can’t.
You’re playing being braindead. The opinion piece has links. I’m not here to spoonfeed you – we’re all adults. If you don’t know this stuff or what is being claimed or shown in the Congress inquiries you’re not reading widely enough. I don’t know if it’s true, but there’s a pattern of documents and witness statements to the FBI that give merit to an investigation, and that investigation would have to include help from Ukraine.
When “Opinion” is in the heading…. I already know its not fact. Again what FACTS do you have. State them in your own words if you capable of such a small request for facts.
Here you go – a starter for 10 (million). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/18/foreign-payments-to-biden-family-members/
“Perhaps” ? It’s interesting how you want to project on something with no merit, no evidence. Trump said what he said. It was recorded, but for reason you want to dismiss it. He asked for a personal favor . FACT
Man you guys have been hanging on to that forever. Every year “Its looking more and more like a geniune political bribery scanda”. Tell me what facts do you have to support that clam? I’ll wait.
I agree with most of your post (Am I through the looking glass?) with only one quibble: Many famous Populists–such as Huey Long, Fidel Castro, Indira Gandhi, Idi Amin, Berlusconi, or Bolsonaro–were also manipulative opportunists, not actual Men (or Women) of the People.
Name ONE populist legistation bill Trump supported. I’ll wait.
Stimulus checks. (Debatable, granted)
But you seem to be confusing Populist with “in the true interest of the common people”. Populist leaders are very often more in the business of being rabble rousing demagogues, dividing public sentiment and professing their sympathy with the common man, etc. All things Trump did to a disturbingly effective degree. I never said he actually gave a digetty dang about common folks in reality, let alone passed legislation that helped the non-wealthy. Unless perhaps you are an impoverished opponent of non-white immigration, or a pauper who derives great solace from “sticking it to the libs”. *actually, most small business owners and many farmers probably enjoyed better finances under Trump too. But do I think he was on the side of the common people in general, especially in demographics and regions that didn’t vote for him? Heck no.
Stimulus checks. (Debatable, granted)
But you seem to be confusing Populist with “in the true interest of the common people”. Populist leaders are very often more in the business of being rabble rousing demagogues, dividing public sentiment and professing their sympathy with the common man, etc. All things Trump did to a disturbingly effective degree. I never said he actually gave a digetty dang about common folks in reality, let alone passed legislation that helped the non-wealthy. Unless perhaps you are an impoverished opponent of non-white immigration, or a pauper who derives great solace from “sticking it to the libs”. *actually, most small business owners and many farmers probably enjoyed better finances under Trump too. But do I think he was on the side of the common people in general, especially in demographics and regions that didn’t vote for him? Heck no.
Name ONE populist legistation bill Trump supported. I’ll wait.
Impeaching a president who has already left office is, if nothing else, a colossal waste of time and resources that could have been put to better use, say, governing the country. It was a joke and an extremely wasteful one. And a riot hardly qualifies as an insurrection.
I disagree. The first impeachment was about Hillary trying to get dirt on Trump. Her camp was the initiator of the made up dossier about the “golden shower”…
If funny how 14 people supported this obvious lie. You guys are hilarious.
If funny how 14 people supported this obvious lie. You guys are hilarious.
I know Guardian readers more clued in than you
A quote from someone in an online discussion in 2018:
“This is why I will always like Trump, and I don’t care what ANYBODY says. When I was younger, my mother’s husband used to drive a yellow cab and Trump was known to be super nice and a perfect gentleman. He used to tip the cabbies $100. He was a night owl then too and he used to come down to the hotel kitchens and just kick it with the back kitchen staff. There was a story in the Daily News and the Post once about how he jumped out of his limo to help someone who was getting beaten by a bat. We would always hear stories about Trump and they were always about what a GREAT person he was. On top of that, my aunt lives in a Trump building off Hillside Avenue. Its terrible how they destroyed this man’s name and ruined his reputation.”
They didn’t destroy anything amongst the people who count. I assure you, the same crew who think “Trump is bad” believe everything their elite overseers tell them to think.
LOL! Trump as a very long history of stiffing small businesses. From Trump U to the Carpenters that sued him for pay. He’s been sued many time for not paying his bills. I think your story is poppycock. Heres a story from the conservative business insider just this year where he stiffed a business:
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/trump-showed-up-at-a-miami-restaurant-and-promised-food-for-everyone-but-left-without-paying-for-anything/articleshow/101034326.cms
TDS plus confirmation bias means you’re not doing enough cross-checking. Here’s the fact check on that story: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-offer-buy-food-miami-leave-without-paying-1807346
OK fair. See I can admit when I am put straight. But what are the chances that over TWO HUNDRED civil claims were filed against. And lets not forget Trump U and the fact that he is serial liar. He makes fellow repug George Santos look like Jesus in that regard.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
Dude is pathetic
OK fair. See I can admit when I am put straight. But what are the chances that over TWO HUNDRED civil claims were filed against. And lets not forget Trump U and the fact that he is serial liar. He makes fellow repug George Santos look like Jesus in that regard.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
Dude is pathetic
TDS plus confirmation bias means you’re not doing enough cross-checking. Here’s the fact check on that story: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-offer-buy-food-miami-leave-without-paying-1807346
You forgot to mention the time that he saved a pink unicorn from being attacked by a yeti.
They didn’t destroy anything amongst the people who count. I assure you, the same crew who think “Trump is bad” believe everything their elite overseers tell them to think.
LOL! Trump as a very long history of stiffing small businesses. From Trump U to the Carpenters that sued him for pay. He’s been sued many time for not paying his bills. I think your story is poppycock. Heres a story from the conservative business insider just this year where he stiffed a business:
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/trump-showed-up-at-a-miami-restaurant-and-promised-food-for-everyone-but-left-without-paying-for-anything/articleshow/101034326.cms
You forgot to mention the time that he saved a pink unicorn from being attacked by a yeti.
I don’t think the author was supporting Trump in his opening. Nor do I think he was supporting the Democrats. I read it as telling the facts of the situation and his article then went on to explain what the future may look like. He seemed pretty cynical to me, attributing only political manipulation as their primary motivation to win over people and secure their votes. I disagree. Although I might be very naive – I admit. But I do think most of the candidates seeking the highest office have a certain set of ideas that they think will be best for America. And of course they must consider how best to express them and at the same time appeal to the most voters. Not an easy task.
No, he probably didn’t, but he wasn’t demonizing them or calling them dangerous ‘deplorable’ either.
Interesting that you refer to Jan. 6 as an insurrection.
‘The second impeachment executed because he incited an insurrection at the capital’
You are getting Trump confused with Ray Epps.
Technically, he was asking for co-operation for a investigation of Biden over Burisma – something that looks more and more like a genuine political bribery scandal now, as more documents and witness statements are uncovered. Perhaps there was some fire behind that smoke, and Trump was right to ask. And maybe the Democrats knew and so used impeachment to protect Biden, not just to get at Trump.
I agree with most of your post (Am I through the looking glass?) with only one quibble: Many famous Populists–such as Huey Long, Fidel Castro, Indira Gandhi, Idi Amin, Berlusconi, or Bolsonaro–were also manipulative opportunists, not actual Men (or Women) of the People.
Impeaching a president who has already left office is, if nothing else, a colossal waste of time and resources that could have been put to better use, say, governing the country. It was a joke and an extremely wasteful one. And a riot hardly qualifies as an insurrection.
I disagree. The first impeachment was about Hillary trying to get dirt on Trump. Her camp was the initiator of the made up dossier about the “golden shower”…
I know Guardian readers more clued in than you
A quote from someone in an online discussion in 2018:
“This is why I will always like Trump, and I don’t care what ANYBODY says. When I was younger, my mother’s husband used to drive a yellow cab and Trump was known to be super nice and a perfect gentleman. He used to tip the cabbies $100. He was a night owl then too and he used to come down to the hotel kitchens and just kick it with the back kitchen staff. There was a story in the Daily News and the Post once about how he jumped out of his limo to help someone who was getting beaten by a bat. We would always hear stories about Trump and they were always about what a GREAT person he was. On top of that, my aunt lives in a Trump building off Hillside Avenue. Its terrible how they destroyed this man’s name and ruined his reputation.”
“His Democratic enemies have deployed two impeachments and multiple lawsuits, some more frivolous than others, but they have proven as ineffective in stopping his return as the A-bomb was in halting the Martian invaders in The War of the Worlds (1953)”
Trump was impeached first because he tried to persuade the leader of a foreign country to get dirt on his political opponent. The second impeachment executed because he incited an insurrection at the capital. Period. That’s motive enough. If the American public refuse to take that into consideration when they vote that’s on them.
I’m not naive enough to think there was zero political oppotunity in both but both impeachments were warranted.
I read a lot lately of people referring to Trump as a populist like you. That rich! Like this article there is no substance to that. Trump never gave two cents about the working class.