Trump is now threatening to lock up people for their political donations if he regains the Whitehouse.

Literal threats to lock up US citizens engaging in politics.

Listen to him and reflect on exactly what's at stake.

#USPolitics

@FantasticalEconomics

So?

I mean he can't. EVEN IF you think he is actually threatening people like that, which sounds like sensationalized nonsense from special interests trying to mislead you, it doesn't matter, because presidents don't have that sort of power.

So he can't.

You're being lied to, and you should stop listening to whoever you're listening to because they are lying to you.

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics The post is up on his social media site for all to see. Who do you think is lying to us here?

@mikeash I mean everybody?

If Trump is saying he's going to lock up these people, he's lying, he doesn't have that authority. If other people are saying Trump is going to lock up these people they're lying too.

When you see all these groups wrestling in the mud, none of them are clean, and it's worth calling them all out for really antisocial stuff.

@FantasticalEconomics

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics History is full of presidential acts that exceeded the authority of the office. “If Roosevelt is saying he’s going to lock up people with Japanese ancestry, he’s lying, he doesn’t have that authority.” Whats the difference between your statement and that one?

Which groups are you talking about when you say “all these groups wrestling in the mud”? And how are they relevant here?

Follow

@mikeash The difference is a compliant federal institution.

Trump would have neither buy in from the federal bureaucracy nor the sanction of the courts. He would likely even be slapped down by Congress. Again.

We know his track record. He's a loser. He lost over and over again, and if he tried to do such things next year he would lose again. Because the guy is just that much of a loser.

Roosevelt knew how to win, how to operate within in the system. Trump's whole schtick is that he doesn't, and that's why he failed over and over, and he'll continue to fail, even if elected, if he tries to do stuff like that.

@FantasticalEconomics

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics I agree that it’s less likely to happen because the guy is a useless idiot. But that doesn’t mean it can’t and that we should just ignore it. He did plenty of damage last time. Sending a mob to the Capitol to try to block certification of the election is also beyond the President’s authority. It failed, but that’s far from guaranteed.

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics I’m struggling to understand your broader point here. Are you saying we shouldn’t worry about the possibility of another Trump administration? Or that we should only worry about it in terms of total incompetence, but not malice?

@mikeash we should worry about the entire federal government, especially the representatives that we elect to Congress.

There's not much the president can do without Congressional authorization, so I would be way more worried about the idiots that we keep reelecting and re-empowering to Congress.

@FantasticalEconomics

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics Trump has almost total control over his party. They wouldn’t even vote to impeach him after he trashed their building, and his grip has only strengthened since. A Trump victory likely comes with a Trumpist Congress.

@mikeash you really don't understand the party.

If you watch how Republicans actually act, they bash him anytime he gets out of line. Conservative media starts talking about their issues weeks before Trump figures out what he's supposed to talk about, and he babbles because if he says substantial things he runs the risk of crossing the party. So it's safer for him not to say anything at all.

For the past week the party has been raking him over the coals because he did so bad at the debate. They've been bashing him mercilessly.

No, it makes for good headlines to say that Trump has that kind of control, but he doesn't. He's subservient to them. And honestly the best way to oppose Trump is to point out what a loser he is, not build up his brand by saying he has that level of control.

@FantasticalEconomics

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics If you watch how they *act*, they’re behind him 100%. Those who oppose him get primaries. They voted in lockstep with him when he was in power. (Remember the single Republican vote that sank the Obamacare repeal? And what happened to that guy?) They refused to impeach him even after he physically attacked them. “Bash him” falls under the category of “talk,” not “act.”

@mikeash again I am saying that if you watch how they act they are not 100% behind him, as they rake him over the coals very often.

No they didn't vote with him in lockstep when he was in power, there was a lot of his legislative agenda that they voted against.

The story you're trying to tell just doesn't match the record either now or when he was president. Again, we should be emphasizing what a loser he is because this story about him being such a strong leader is part of what puts him on the precipice of being re-elected.

We should have been emphasizing for the last couple of years that this guy was a loser that couldn't even hold his own party together. And if he's reelected now he's going to be just as weak.

To paraphrase Archer, do you want Trump? Because talking about him as a strong leader like this, that's how you get Trump.

The guy is a fuck up, with a long record of failure, and rejection by his own party, with legislators voting against him and promises that he didn't fulfill to his own constituents. THAT is what we needed to be emphasizing.

@FantasticalEconomics

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics “I’m right because you’re not allowed to state your position because it elects fascists.” That argument is both completely unconvincing and extremely annoying so I’ll go ahead and disengage from this now.

@mikeash I mean good thing I'm not making that argument then.

What are you talking about? I honestly don't know what that response is going on about.

@FantasticalEconomics

@volkris @FantasticalEconomics “To paraphrase Archer, do you want Trump? Because talking about him as a strong leader like this, that’s how you get Trump.“

Like seriously, you’re going to tell me to shut up because I’m so wrong that merely stating my opinion will elect a fascist, then deny you said it? Fuck entirely off.

@mikeash

Oh, no, not at all. I'm glad to clarify. I'm not telling you to shut up at all. Speak all you want.

Your position doesn't match with the facts. You can definitely keep promoting that perspective if you want, this is social media, you can say all you want.

What you're saying doesn't match the facts, but you're still absolutely welcome to say what you want.

But there is the consideration that not only is what you're saying easily debunked by the record, but it does help support Trump. If you want to support Trump, go for it. I wouldn't want to do that, but you are perfectly right to play his game if you want to, and help get him reelected.

Just be aware that it's what you're doing.

If you want to help get Trump reelected by promoting factually false narratives, your call.

@FantasticalEconomics

@mikeash or to put it simply, Trump's whole thing is lying to his supporters about how strong and effective he was, that's what he's running on.

You're free to promote that propaganda if you want, just keep in mind that you are promoting his presidency, promoting his own messages, as you do.

Do what you want though, just be aware of that you are playing his game, promoting his candidacy, reinforcing his messaging.

If you're comfortable with that, have at it. It makes it more likely that he will win, but you do what you're going to do, just keep in mind that you are reinforcing his messaging.

@FantasticalEconomics

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.