The Biggest Scandal of the Second Trump Term Isn’t “Signalgate” | The national-security chat debacle certainly merits attention. But the Trump administration is now blatantly disappearing students and others who are in the country legally.

[u/Murky-Site7468]

https://newrepublic.com/article/193291/trump-disappearing-students-rumeysa-ozturk-rubio-biggest-scandal

[u/Murky-Relation481]

I mean at this point some form of bloodletting seems inevitable. There have rarely been moments in history where these circumstances exist and things just go back to normal.

Honestly I've been saying this since 2012. The rhetoric after Obama got elected a second time really showed that there was no intention for the right to come back to the table and have meaningful and productive discourse.

[u/EIU86 → u/Murky-Relation481]

Former GW Bush speechwriter David Frum said that if voters reject American conservatives' ideas, they will not change their positions; instead they will abandon democracy. You can certainly argue that's what's happening now.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/EIU86]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this quote but isn't Frum just describing any ideology? For example, if (as) climate activists keep losing at the ballot box, do you expect them to just go "fair enough, you got us, drill on guys"?

[u/beforethewind → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

I mean... I think that one quote is pretty direct lol

If conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy. The stability of American society depends on conservatives' ability to find a way forward from the Trump dead end, toward a conservatism that can not only win elections but also govern responsibly, a conservatism that is culturally modern, economically inclusive, and environmentally responsible...

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/beforethewind]

Right, I get that he was specifically referring to Trumpism, but my point is that there isn't necessarily anything special about Trumpism in the way that he describes its adherents as not abandoning ideology when they lose elections.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

For example, if (as) climate activists keep losing at the ballot box, do you expect them to just go "fair enough, you got us, drill on guys"?

Nah, they mostly resorted to monkey wrenching and attacks on the infrastructure after decades and decades of being ignored and suppressed.

They did not try to overthrow democratic norms, they simply rejected the law and order argument preventing them from acting, and mostly accepting said consequences as a part of raising awareness.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/work4work4work4work4]

But that's what I'm saying. Frum thinks that conservatives will resort to lawless action in order to push their agenda if they don't win elections, but my point is this applies to most ideologies.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

Lawless action =/ Anti-Democratic Action

Frum is arguing clearly that the conservatives are of the latter contingent, where when they approach failure of democracy to meet their needs, they decide to attack democracy, whereas I and others are pointing out no, most ideologies don't resort to authoritarian destruction of democracy, and I'm pointing out even some of the ones viewed by many as extremists on the left like PETA, Greenpeace, and other groups mostly take physical action against things, not the people themselves, and certainly not democracy itself.

If you can't see the difference, that's something you would also share with the conservatives, hence the issue, and it's kind of a fundamental values-based one that isn't something you can really argue around. You either see property as inherently less valuable than human life or you don't, a civic duty to disobey unjust laws or not, a St. Augustine understanding of unjust laws are no laws at all... or not.

I'd suggest this paper if you can grab a copy is a good look at political obligation to follow the law, and might help clarify the difference between lawless action and anti-democratic action.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/work4work4work4work4]

I mean, I think a lot of that stuff is a matter of perspective, and I don't even disagree with climate activists getting more aggressive (IMO the soup on painting type stunts don't go far enough). I guess the main problem I have with the quote is that Frum seems to think he's saying something profound about Trump supporters when it's basically just a truism about political ideology.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

(IMO the soup on painting type stunts don't go far enough).

I was more talking about actions where there has been destruction of high value equipment, or other actions that otherwise required major violations of the law, like some of the breaking and entering attacks on centers of animal cruelty and so on.

Frum seems to think he's saying something profound about Trump supporters when it's basically just a truism about political ideology.

But it's not? And people like yourself acting like it is partially is what gives cover for authoritarian conservatism and Christian nationalism to thrive under this veneer of "it's all the same" when it's absolutely not.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/work4work4work4work4]

I was more talking about actions where there has been destruction of high value equipmen

I think climate activists should do more of that.

But it's not? And people like yourself acting like it is partially is what gives cover for authoritarian conservatism and Christian nationalism to thrive under this veneer of "it's all the same" when it's absolutely not.

What the fuck? I'm absolutely not saying the ideologies are the same, go through my comments if you think I'm some kind of "both sides" centrist. I'm saying that the mentality of people sticking to ideology (and possibly resorting to illegal actions) after election defeat is the same, and Frum's quote isn't actually saying anything interesting. Just because "we" think that our cause is just doesn't mean it's not motivated by the same instincts.

[u/redditlvlanalysis → u/EIU86]

It's not really an argument It's a fact

[u/ShameBasedEconomy → u/Murky-Relation481]

Unfortunately, I agree. Historians will argue about when the second American civil war started, but I believe it’s likely that this year it will go kinetic. The rhetoric around colleges and universities is setting up for a situation that could spark like Kent State did, and I don’t see this administration deescalating after the first incident at a protest. Quite the opposite, they’re looking for an excuse.

[u/craftsmen1974 → u/Murky-Relation481]

Smartest answer I’ve seen today !

[u/Stock_Pen_4019 → u/Murky-Relation481]

Never suggest or think about turning to violence. There is a saying attributed to MacArthur. Anyone who thinks the pen is mightier than the sword has never experienced modern automatic weapons. Department of defense personnel, all branches of all services, have automatic weapons.

[u/[deleted] → u/Murky-Relation481]

Deporting all these hamas supporters IS bloodletting, and the vast majority of americans are fine with it.

[u/JeulMartin → u/[deleted]]

If you think being anti-genocide is pro-Hamas, you're showing yourself to have the political acumen of a wet paper towel.

Fuck genocide and those that try to muddy the waters with bullshit answers like yours.

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/JeulMartin]

I told the person you are replying to that their reading comprehension is bad and they should feel bad. I am also now saying that to you. That is clearly not what they meant.

Also I am pretty sure neither of you know what the word bloodletting means.

[u/JeulMartin → u/Murky-Relation481]

You're obviously either responding to the wrong comment, can't fucking read, or are a genocide supporter like the clown I responded to.

Nothing I said has anything to do with bloodletting. I said being anti-genocide isn't the same as being pro-Hamas.

Pay attention before you post. lol

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/JeulMartin]

Again, they clearly don't understand what bloodletting is nor do you.

Bloodletting, the word, means conflict between both sides. One side kidnapping people is not bloodletting.

Bloodletting implies a "cathartic" violence that reduces pressure on the society in which is poised to commit violence on each other.

You guys are arguing around a word you clearly don't know and are presenting non-sequiturs as if they mean something.

[u/[deleted] → u/JeulMartin]

Except ICC already ruled no genocide.

And yep supporters of the genocidal hamas terrorists get deported, so you should be happy!

Relax and enjoy the show, taking out the trash, ok?

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/[deleted]]

Boy I hope you ain't jewish.

[u/[deleted] → u/Murky-Relation481]

Don't worry these deportations are coming along just fine

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/[deleted]]

If you think that is bloodletting then I am sorry for you when it actually starts. It's also obviously not what I was implying with my statement.

[u/[deleted] → u/Murky-Relation481]

Okie, so in the meanwhile we can watch all these deportations happen, nice.