DC Unrest Megathread

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Reminder that many people on this very forum cited that poll earlier about how 45% or so of Republicans seemingly supported the attacks, and in the process acted prematurely before things settled.

And you are certain that this one is correct and the other one incorrect, or the actual level of support of somewhere in between, because....?

Incidentally, as one of those individuals you refer to, I don't see how this changes the analysis of how to act in this matter what I owe, nor does it change my analysis whatsoever oh, other than it creating the tiniest glimmer of hope that maybe there is hope for at least tepid changes away from trumpism in the Republican Party

I think that it's relevant in regards to what language we use when referring to Trump voters/supporters overall. There was substantial underestimation of just how normal their views actually were, and it contributed to the rather silly-in-retrospect panic over how GOPers, as a group, think and are willing to behave.

We have no idea yet which poll is "correct," and considering the problems we have seen with regard to polls underestimating support for Trump and his politics in now two presidential elections, rushing to declare that anything about the reaction to Wednesday's events is "silly-in-retrospect" (what retrospect? it's been two days) is itself silly. Given how quickly the situation has developed in the last 36 hours, it's possible that both polls are correct, and people who initially approved of the insurrection have changed their position as more prominent Republicans speak out against Trump. (I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is one plausible interpretation of the available data.) It will be months if not years before we know how Trump voters respond to these events. In the meantime, while I don't endorse every #hottake in this thread (if for no other reason than I have not read them all), presuming that a plurality of Americans who voted for Trump after he suggested his political opponents should be shot and said he would "accept the results of the election if I win" in fact support shooting his opponents and overturning the results of the election is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm not against a Trump resignation. He's a coward anyway. These calls for him to resign have helped further drain Trump's political capital. No matter what he does, he's going to end up disgraced too.
It's hard not to feel pity, but it's equally easy not to feel sympathy.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/bnonews/status/1347705860567523335?s=21

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Reminder that many people on this very forum cited that poll earlier about how 45% or so of Republicans seemingly supported the attacks, and in the process acted prematurely before things settled.

And you are certain that this one is correct and the other one incorrect, or the actual level of support of somewhere in between, because....?

Incidentally, as one of those individuals you refer to, I don't see how this changes the analysis of how to act in this matter what I owe, nor does it change my analysis whatsoever oh, other than it creating the tiniest glimmer of hope that maybe there is hope for at least tepid changes away from trumpism in the Republican Party

I think that it's relevant in regards to what language we use when referring to Trump voters/supporters overall. There was substantial underestimation of just how normal their views actually were, and it contributed to the rather silly-in-retrospect panic over how GOPers, as a group, think and are willing to behave.

We have no idea yet which poll is "correct," and considering the problems we have seen with regard to polls underestimating support for Trump and his politics in now two presidential elections, rushing to declare that anything about the reaction to Wednesday's events is "silly-in-retrospect" (what retrospect? it's been two days) is itself silly. Given how quickly the situation has developed in the last 36 hours, it's possible that both polls are correct, and people who initially approved of the insurrection have changed their position as more prominent Republicans speak out against Trump. (I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is one plausible interpretation of the available data.) It will be months if not years before we know how Trump voters respond to these events. In the meantime, while I don't endorse every #hottake in this thread (if for no other reason than I have not read them all), presuming that a plurality of Americans who voted for Trump after he suggested his political opponents should be shot and said he would "accept the results of the election if I win" in fact support shooting his opponents and overturning the results of the election is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

My personal view is that many, many rank-and-file Republicans were uncertain what actually happened and a great many felt it likely simply the left trying to screw Trump over. (see: Mo Brooks' tweet cautioning against a rush to judgement) They changed their views as key Republicans spoke out on the matter.
As such, thinking 45% of Republicans ever actually supported storming the Capital strikes me as an imprudent conclusion.

[Badger]

I'm not against a Trump resignation. He's a coward anyway. These calls for him to resign have helped further drain Trump's political capital. No matter what he does, he's going to end up disgraced too.
It's hard not to feel pity, but it's equally easy not to feel sympathy.

Are you f****** high? In what Universe does Trump deserve an ounce a pity for doing this not only to himself but the entire country?

It's ever so reassuring that you don't "oppose" Trump's resignation. The only Teensy problem with that is it's very clear that is not, repeat not going to happen. That's why additional steps need to be taken, which goes far far beyond merely being out for blood as you so pithily mischaracterized it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm not against a Trump resignation. He's a coward anyway. These calls for him to resign have helped further drain Trump's political capital. No matter what he does, he's going to end up disgraced too.
It's hard not to feel pity, but it's equally easy not to feel sympathy.

Are you f****** high? In what Universe does Trump deserve an ounce a pity for doing this not only to himself but the entire country?

It's ever so reassuring that you don't "oppose" Trump's resignation. The only Teensy problem with that is it's very clear that is not, repeat not going to happen. That's why additional steps need to be taken, which goes far far beyond merely being out for blood as you so pithily mischaracterized it.

I pity people regardless of their morality. I want to see some level of good in everyone.
If I pity someone, it's actually most often because they wasted their true potential and went down a dark path, only to find themselves in eventual ruin.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Reminder that many people on this very forum cited that poll earlier about how 45% or so of Republicans seemingly supported the attacks, and in the process acted prematurely before things settled.

And you are certain that this one is correct and the other one incorrect, or the actual level of support of somewhere in between, because....?

Incidentally, as one of those individuals you refer to, I don't see how this changes the analysis of how to act in this matter what I owe, nor does it change my analysis whatsoever oh, other than it creating the tiniest glimmer of hope that maybe there is hope for at least tepid changes away from trumpism in the Republican Party

I think that it's relevant in regards to what language we use when referring to Trump voters/supporters overall. There was substantial underestimation of just how normal their views actually were, and it contributed to the rather silly-in-retrospect panic over how GOPers, as a group, think and are willing to behave.

We have no idea yet which poll is "correct," and considering the problems we have seen with regard to polls underestimating support for Trump and his politics in now two presidential elections, rushing to declare that anything about the reaction to Wednesday's events is "silly-in-retrospect" (what retrospect? it's been two days) is itself silly. Given how quickly the situation has developed in the last 36 hours, it's possible that both polls are correct, and people who initially approved of the insurrection have changed their position as more prominent Republicans speak out against Trump. (I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is one plausible interpretation of the available data.) It will be months if not years before we know how Trump voters respond to these events. In the meantime, while I don't endorse every #hottake in this thread (if for no other reason than I have not read them all), presuming that a plurality of Americans who voted for Trump after he suggested his political opponents should be shot and said he would "accept the results of the election if I win" in fact support shooting his opponents and overturning the results of the election is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

My personal view is that many, many rank-and-file Republicans were uncertain what actually happened and a great many felt it likely simply the left trying to screw Trump over. (see: Mo Brooks' tweet cautioning against a rush to judgement) They changed their views as key Republicans spoke out on the matter.
As such, thinking 45% of Republicans ever actually supported storming the Capital strikes me as an imprudent conclusion.

That may be, and I hope you are proved correct, as the alternative is indeed a grave prognosis for our country. The fact remains, however, that the attack on the Capitol did not come out of nowhere: Trump has been spreading conspiracy theories and giving his implicit support (or at least refusing to condemn) political violence against his rivals, so until we know more, we cannot discount the possibility that many or most of his supporters do in fact support these actions.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Ya know I just realized if Trump even was going to resign he can’t because he doesn’t have his precious Twitter. We basically cut his tongue out

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

is tim turner the susan collins of atlas lol

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1347674222194253825

Throw it in the trash. Marist is a joke pollster and should not be taken seriously ever. Remember Cooper +19?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Ya know I just realized if Trump even was going to resign he can’t because he doesn’t have his precious Twitter. We basically cut his tongue out

He could just do another hostage video.

[emailking]

Where would he post it? lol

But yeah, just needs to sign a letter and send it to Pompeo, if he can ever get over his pride.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/danielchaitin7/status/1347701112514736128?s=21

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I have to say I'm pretty uncomfortable with Google / Apple play store removing Parler from their downloads (in Apple's case, threatening removal in 24 hours). I think these tech companies may be flexing their muscles too much here.

[leonardothered]

I have to say I'm pretty uncomfortable with Google / Apple play store removing Parler from their downloads (in Apple's case, threatening removal in 24 hours). I think these tech companies may be flexing their muscles too much here.

Free market. Let the rednecks learn to code and build their own platform to spout bullsh**t from. It's all feeding this conspiracy nonsense. They use out of context memes as "I'd die for this" evidence and I'm over it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/1347703193845829633

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Reminder that many people on this very forum cited that poll earlier about how 45% or so of Republicans seemingly supported the attacks, and in the process acted prematurely before things settled.

And you are certain that this one is correct and the other one incorrect, or the actual level of support of somewhere in between, because....?

Incidentally, as one of those individuals you refer to, I don't see how this changes the analysis of how to act in this matter what I owe, nor does it change my analysis whatsoever oh, other than it creating the tiniest glimmer of hope that maybe there is hope for at least tepid changes away from trumpism in the Republican Party

I think that it's relevant in regards to what language we use when referring to Trump voters/supporters overall. There was substantial underestimation of just how normal their views actually were, and it contributed to the rather silly-in-retrospect panic over how GOPers, as a group, think and are willing to behave.

We have no idea yet which poll is "correct," and considering the problems we have seen with regard to polls underestimating support for Trump and his politics in now two presidential elections, rushing to declare that anything about the reaction to Wednesday's events is "silly-in-retrospect" (what retrospect? it's been two days) is itself silly. Given how quickly the situation has developed in the last 36 hours, it's possible that both polls are correct, and people who initially approved of the insurrection have changed their position as more prominent Republicans speak out against Trump. (I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is one plausible interpretation of the available data.) It will be months if not years before we know how Trump voters respond to these events. In the meantime, while I don't endorse every #hottake in this thread (if for no other reason than I have not read them all), presuming that a plurality of Americans who voted for Trump after he suggested his political opponents should be shot and said he would "accept the results of the election if I win" in fact support shooting his opponents and overturning the results of the election is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

My personal view is that many, many rank-and-file Republicans were uncertain what actually happened and a great many felt it likely simply the left trying to screw Trump over. (see: Mo Brooks' tweet cautioning against a rush to judgement) They changed their views as key Republicans spoke out on the matter.
As such, thinking 45% of Republicans ever actually supported storming the Capital strikes me as an imprudent conclusion.

That may be, and I hope you are proved correct, as the alternative is indeed a grave prognosis for our country. The fact remains, however, that the attack on the Capitol did not come out of nowhere: Trump has been spreading conspiracy theories and giving his implicit support (or at least refusing to condemn) political violence against his rivals, so until we know more, we cannot discount the possibility that many or most of his supporters do in fact support these actions.

I suppose on narrow grounds this is completely agreeable. I do agree it was something that indeed could have been the case, and I don't like using absolutes.
It's just all the actual evidence, imo, hints to perhaps 10-15% of Trump backers finding this a good idea, and the rest, 85%, are generally average joe schmoes in Lima, OH or Wichita, KS or some other place, driven by suprisingly normal motivations that we in fact see quite often on both sides of the partisan divide, just in different iterations and degrees.

This should in fact be cause of alarm to some degree - as evidence of what excessive partisan division can bring about in the right circumstances. Say things further detoriated due to mutual overreach on parts of Ds and Rs. You don't need to be some person who is inherently a radical extremist in order to get brainwashed into doing something terribly desctructive. You'd simply be defending your political tribe and defending your way of life, or so you are thinking.

We've gone that path for years. Trump was likely to lose re-election many months ago. The moment Trump actually lost for good, something like this was bound to happen because Trump had by then lost true control of his most radical supporters. Extreme right-wingers, residing in their partisan bubbles, would have come to believe a raft of things that would encourage them to take action the way they knew best, in circumstances that were more high-stake than ever. Yet the supposed ringmasters suspected nothing until it actually happened. "oh, just another Maga protest" nope, not this time. This was legit terrorism.

I realize this is a odd mixture of fatalism and some other elements. But I think it's the most realistic way of looking at it. A lot of disturbing trends have been occuring beneath the surface that together have made our politics more toxic on a cultural level than the 10 or 20 years ago (among them, the death of local news). And worst is, there is no easy way to just cure it. We just have to manage it, preferably carefully.

[ProudModerate2]

Do you guys really think that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski would jump ship, become an Independent and side with the Dems?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Do you guys really think that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski would jump ship, become an Independent and side with the Dems?

There's a thread on the Congressional board about this.  (IMO it's a real possibility.)

[Figueira]

It's weird seeing "Chao" and "chaos" in the same thread title.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Do you guys really think that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski would jump ship, become an Independent and side with the Dems?

She’s already won as an Indy write in and with the Top 4 primary she’s pretty well insulated from right wing challengers, so she could pull it off. Aside from the moral, how can I side with the GOP after this, it might make cynical political sense to get in as a pivotal vote in a very slim majority.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The immense amount of pleasure this gives me...

https://twitter.com/andrewsolender/status/1347708362788663297?s=21

[leonardothered]

Reminder that many people on this very forum cited that poll earlier about how 45% or so of Republicans seemingly supported the attacks, and in the process acted prematurely before things settled.

And you are certain that this one is correct and the other one incorrect, or the actual level of support of somewhere in between, because....?

Incidentally, as one of those individuals you refer to, I don't see how this changes the analysis of how to act in this matter what I owe, nor does it change my analysis whatsoever oh, other than it creating the tiniest glimmer of hope that maybe there is hope for at least tepid changes away from trumpism in the Republican Party

I think that it's relevant in regards to what language we use when referring to Trump voters/supporters overall. There was substantial underestimation of just how normal their views actually were, and it contributed to the rather silly-in-retrospect panic over how GOPers, as a group, think and are willing to behave.

We have no idea yet which poll is "correct," and considering the problems we have seen with regard to polls underestimating support for Trump and his politics in now two presidential elections, rushing to declare that anything about the reaction to Wednesday's events is "silly-in-retrospect" (what retrospect? it's been two days) is itself silly. Given how quickly the situation has developed in the last 36 hours, it's possible that both polls are correct, and people who initially approved of the insurrection have changed their position as more prominent Republicans speak out against Trump. (I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is one plausible interpretation of the available data.) It will be months if not years before we know how Trump voters respond to these events. In the meantime, while I don't endorse every #hottake in this thread (if for no other reason than I have not read them all), presuming that a plurality of Americans who voted for Trump after he suggested his political opponents should be shot and said he would "accept the results of the election if I win" in fact support shooting his opponents and overturning the results of the election is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

My personal view is that many, many rank-and-file Republicans were uncertain what actually happened and a great many felt it likely simply the left trying to screw Trump over. (see: Mo Brooks' tweet cautioning against a rush to judgement) They changed their views as key Republicans spoke out on the matter.
As such, thinking 45% of Republicans ever actually supported storming the Capital strikes me as an imprudent conclusion.

That may be, and I hope you are proved correct, as the alternative is indeed a grave prognosis for our country. The fact remains, however, that the attack on the Capitol did not come out of nowhere: Trump has been spreading conspiracy theories and giving his implicit support (or at least refusing to condemn) political violence against his rivals, so until we know more, we cannot discount the possibility that many or most of his supporters do in fact support these actions.

I suppose on narrow grounds this is completely agreeable. I do agree it was something that indeed could have been the case, and I don't like using absolutes.
It's just all the actual evidence, imo, hints to perhaps 10-15% of Trump backers finding this a good idea, and the rest, 85%, are generally average joe schmoes in Lima, OH or Wichita, KS or some other place, driven by suprisingly normal motivations that we in fact see quite often on both sides of the partisan divide, just in different iterations and degrees.

This should in fact be cause of alarm to some degree - as evidence of what excessive partisan division can bring about in the right circumstances. Say things further detoriated due to mutual overreach on parts of Ds and Rs. You don't need to be some person who is inherently a radical extremist in order to get brainwashed into doing something terribly desctructive. You'd simply be defending your political tribe and defending your way of life, or so you are thinking.

We've gone that path for years. Trump was likely to lose re-election many months ago. The moment Trump actually lost for good, something like this was bound to happen because Trump had by then lost true control of his most radical supporters. Extreme right-wingers, residing in their partisan bubbles, would have come to believe a raft of things that would encourage them to take action the way they knew best, in circumstances that were more high-stake than ever. Yet the supposed ringmasters suspected nothing until it actually happened. "oh, just another Maga protest" nope, not this time. This was legit terrorism.

I realize this is a odd mixture of fatalism and some other elements. But I think it's the most realistic way of looking at it. A lot of disturbing trends have been occuring beneath the surface that together have made our politics more toxic on a cultural level than the 10 or 20 years ago (among them, the death of local news). And worst is, there is no easy way to just cure it. We just have to manage it, preferably carefully.

>.> Apparently it's a lot more than 10-15%.

[7,052,770]

Do you guys really think that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski would jump ship, become an Independent and side with the Dems?

I'm not convinced, but it appears to be a real possibilty. The longer she goes without denying, the more likely it is.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

>.> Apparently it's a lot more than 10-15%.

Ok, I suppose it is a understatement. But not a lot more either. Only 22% of Republicans feel they were "Mostly right".
The rest of my point still stands.
Also: the poll started taking surveyers on the 6th, so that makes it less weighty.