Election Aftermath

[sggatecl]

Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

(Reuters) - Dozens of former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump and his attempts to undermine U.S. democracy, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of “principled conservatism,” including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law - ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also to endorse center-right candidates in others, be they Republicans, independents or Democrats, the people say.

Evan McMullin, who was chief policy director for the House Republican Conference and ran as an independent in the 2016 presidential election, told Reuters that he co-hosted the Zoom call with former officials concerned about Trump’s grip on Republicans and the nativist turn the party has taken.

Three other people confirmed to Reuters the call and the discussions for a potential splinter party, but asked not to be identified.

Among the call participants were John Mitnick, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; former Republican congressman Charlie Dent; Elizabeth Neumann, deputy chief of staff in the Homeland Security Department under Trump; and Miles Taylor, another former Trump homeland security official.

The talks highlight the wide intraparty rift over Trump’s false claims of election fraud and the deadly Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. Most Republicans remain fiercely loyal to the former president, but others seek a new direction for the party.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

Just take the party back.

“Trump is the greatest president since Ronald Reagan...” for the love of Pete - there have been only four others!

Two were Dems - obviously no conservative will see them as great - and who’s left?

George HW Bush, who became POTUS the way this new old guy J’Biden did - a back bencher that a “rock star” nominee put on the ticket - and then his moronic idiot son W.

Had any other Republican candidate been nominated and won the election in 2016, that person probably would also have been “the greatest president since Ronald Reagan.”

And that person would probably have been reelected

Just take back the fucking party.

Don’t relinquish the party to a bunch of fucking yahoos who would storm the Capitol and try to take over the government by way of a coup.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Just take back the fucking party.

Don?t relinquish the party to a bunch of fucking yahoos who would storm the Capitol and try to take over the government by way of a coup.

Maybe they would if we had ranked choice voting or if we overhauled primaries somehow. But they can't. There are reports of there still being plenty of support for crazy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rep...-private-standing-ovation-reports-2021-2?op=1
Republicans privately gave conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene a standing ovation in a caucus meeting, according to reports

 

[Michchamp]

So... they want the party to ignore all the pissed off, economically destitute supporters it has, and focus on the more well-off & better educated ones?

Taking a cue from the Democrats...

 

[Gulo Blue]

So... they want the party to ignore all the pissed off, economically destitute supporters it has, and focus on the more well-off & better educated ones?

Taking a cue from the Democrats...

Former officials. Probably on teams I voted for, feeling like they didn't leave the party, the party left them. I doubt there's much they can do from retirement, but they have to know splitting the conservative vote will hand a win to the liberals. So if that's the plan, maybe they think it would be worth it to hit a reset button. The goal wouldn't be for the new party to win, just for the broken party to lose.

 

[Gulo Blue]

https://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-lindsey-graham-mike-025400678.html
Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Mike Lee met with Trump's defense team

Why not? Defense and jurors talk legal strategy all the time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That in no way indicates that Trump issued any.

I agree with regard to the literal meaning of the word absent context. This is the same thing we've seen over and over. What's his name, the fixer, testified he doesn't tell you to do the thing, but you know what he wants you to do. If it was just one thing out of the blue it would be different, but it been there the whole time. People get this message and I think it would be naive to think Trump doesn't do it on purpose.

https://twitter.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1350805556269821955

No, they are their own brand of riotous. Unless you mean they were following AOCs orders to stand down, but I am not aware if she gave any such orders.

She did WRITE this, however:

“The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the 'polite language' policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.”

“The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.”​

So, it seems that both ANTIFA and the Capitol rioters took her advice.

When we're talking about influencing mobs to riot, there's a big difference between 1 quote about making people uncomfortable and persistent messaging that goes on an on for years. Even MLK made a statement about rioting being the language of the unheard once in response to some question.

 

[Michchamp]

Where does this idea that AOC has anything to do with people who consider themselves "ANTIFA," let alone command them, come from?

From what I know, people who consider themselves "ANTIFA" are a loose group of left-minded people who organize to oppose Neo-nazi marches, and militant Right wing groups... it's not a card-carrying organization. There's no centralized leader

 

[Gulo Blue]

Where does this idea that AOC has anything to do with people who consider themselves "ANTIFA," let alone command them, come from?

From what I know, people who consider themselves "ANTIFA" are a loose group of left-minded people who organize to oppose Neo-nazi marches, and militant Right wing groups... it's not a card-carrying organization. There's no centralized leader

I thought it was a difference so stark that nobody would disagree. I think it evolved out of equating the Capitol riot to the summer's race riots.

 

[Michchamp]

I thought it was a difference so stark that nobody would disagree. I think it evolved out of equating the Capitol riot to the summer's race riots.

Yeah, I assumed it was just a clumsy way of claiming "the other side does it too," and AOC being the most visible and upsetting person on the Left to them, they picked her.

I wasn't sure if there was actually a time where she went and spoke to a violent mob or "ANTIFA" that then attacked the US Capitol and beat a cop to death, or something like that I might have missed.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yeah, I assumed it was just a clumsy way of claiming "the other side does it too," and AOC being the most visible and upsetting person on the Left to them, they picked her.

I wasn't sure if there was actually a time where she went and spoke to a violent mob or "ANTIFA" that then attacked the US Capitol and beat a cop to death, or something like that I might have missed.

I understand the slippery slope here. Any time a riot has a political element you could go back and accuse the aligned politicians with incitement, but the difference in this case is that it's not some giant nebulous political issue where there are many facets that people can align to difference degrees (like the racial issues of the summer.) The political issue here is one specific thing (the election being stolen) based on lies clearly led by one politician and the actions were specific to disrupting the election process. Trump is responsible for this narrative entirely. Nobody can own racial injustice narratives - it's too big.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think another reason this would have to be resolved with the more politically vague standard of impeachment (rather than legal specificity of a criminal case) because somewhere tied up in the question of intent is the likelihood that Trump actually believes it. We need a political mechanism to protect ourselves from a delusional President that surrounds himself with yes men that play along as he convinces himself that he was robbed and our normal Constitutional rules shouldn't apply.

 

[byco42]

I agree with regard to the literal meaning of the word absent context. This is the same thing we've seen over and over. What's his name, the fixer, testified he doesn't tell you to do the thing, but you know what he wants you to do. If it was just one thing out of the blue it would be different, but it been there the whole time. People get this message and I think it would be naive to think Trump doesn't do it on purpose.

I do not for a minute conclude that Trump was intending to encourage rioters to breach the capitol and seek out legislators with the intent of harming or intimidating them.

When we're talking about influencing mobs to riot, there's a big difference between 1 quote about making people uncomfortable and persistent messaging that goes on an on for years. Even MLK made a statement about rioting being the language of the unheard once in response to some question.

I'm reminded that AOC and her colleagues made no overtures to these groups to curb the rioting and violence. "Silence is Violence" ... some say ... and that persists.

 

[Michchamp]

Even less abstract than all of that: Trump was in DC actually speaking to the Mob in question and told them to march on the capitol.

We have audio of his speech. I even posted a link to some of it here.

He may not have called for violence directly, but he certainly should have known that was a possibility, and he definitely did not do anything to defuse it.

He had previously praised violent actions by his supporters... (one example). whether or not he should be impeached over this (I think he should have been impeached for all the corruption, but this is probably going to set bad precedent)

Regardless he was knowingly playing with fire while standing in a powder keg...

 

[Gulo Blue]

I do not for a minute conclude that Trump was intending to encourage rioters to breach the capitol and seek out legislators with the intent of harming or intimidating them.

That's possible. When you get that specific, I hope that's not what he was planning or thinking about. But they established yesterday that Trump knew Pence was being relocated around the time, roughly 10 minutes before, he tweeted "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution. ... USA demands the truth!"

That's a level of recklessness we that we need to make clear is unacceptable. We need to establish precedent here that this can't be tolerated.

I'm reminded that AOC and her colleagues made no overtures to these groups to curb the rioting and violence. "Silence is Violence" ... some say ... and that persists.

So criticize her for it, fine, but that's not a politician doing anything to threaten our democratic process and therefore not relevant to the thing that I think we need to condemn here.

 

[byco42]

Even less abstract than all of that: Trump was in DC actually speaking to the Mob in question and told them to march on the capitol.

Which members of the "mob" that was present at the rally marched to the capitol and committed a crime? I'd like to know that.

He may not have called for violence directly, but he certainly should have known that was a possibility, and he definitely did not do anything to defuse it.

Not even the capitol police was prepared for this level of intrusion, apparently because it was unaware that it was a possibility. A lot of people here knew about the planned rally: did we show concern that it would turn violent? Did the media do so in advance?

Regardless he was knowingly playing with fire while standing in a powder keg...

I disagree, but you are a lawyer. Can you prove this?

 

[byco42]

That's possible. When you get that specific, I hope that's not what he was planning or thinking about. But they established yesterday that Trump knew Pence was being relocated around the time, roughly 10 minutes before, he tweeted "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution. ... USA demands the truth!"

That's a level of recklessness we that we need to make clear is unacceptable. We need to establish precedent here that this can't be tolerated.

Yeah, I can't defend that action, either. Let's be sure to be as scrupulous with all Federal Officials in the future, because I expect this level of recklessness is just getting started.

So criticize her for it, fine, but that's not a politician doing anything to threaten our democratic process and therefore not relevant to the thing that I think we need to condemn here.

I consider AOC as a threat to our democratic process, but in additional ways not related to rioting. Now that she's in congress, she can afford to make statements like this:

"Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world." I mean, she'll never again want for anything, unless she squanders her money.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Not even the capitol police was prepared for this level of intrusion, apparently because it was unaware that it was a possibility. A lot of people here knew about the planned rally: did we show concern that it would turn violent? Did the media do so in advance?

This should be investigated. Virginia FBI said they issued an internal warning about it, but what happened with that warning, how did they arrive to that conclusion, and why didn't others?

 

[byco42]

This should be investigated. Virginia FBI said they issued an internal warning about it, but what happened with that warning, how did they arrive to that conclusion, and why didn't others?

Depends who's reporting. Some think that the FBI didn't want to expose its plants. Seems to me that that's the purpose pf plants; to bust the real criminals, and this was a great opportunity to circumvent the rioting, except the FBI claims that they didn't know the identity of the people making the threats.

 

[Gulo Blue]

"Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world."

If I had them, I'd wager 10 bars of gold=plated latinum that it will.

The main reason I don't react stronger to all the anti-capitalism talk I see is because I think we are so far removed from any weakness in the private sector it's just not a plausible threat. The balance of power is so in favor of corporations, I'm not surprised people are so bothered by it they want to overcorrect and I'm not afraid they are close to having the power to do it.