The Fallen: Republicans Disavowed

[TheDrake]

Ted Cruz, champion of the Big Lie and unabashed Trumpian had this to say and now he's in hot water with the zealots.

The Texas senator called Jan. 6 "an anniversary of a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol, where we saw the men and women of law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage."

"Anyone who commits an act of violence should be prosecuted, and anyone who assaults a law enforcement officer should go to jail for a very long time," Cruz added.

In response to Cruz, Sebastian Gorka, who was a deputy assistant to former President Donald Trump, stated on Twitter, "I'm so done with Ted Cruz."

Here's a sentiment from Breitbart comments:

It's not about the Democrats and can never be about the Dems until the Republican Party has been totally purged of everyone like Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul.

For us, these Republicans are no different than Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. When they are all purged and we have 100% control of the Republican party then it can be about the Dems.

Teddy tried to save himself, but its going to prove more difficult getting out of this than it was when he abandoned his state during the freeze and power outages.

Carlson began the interview by positing that Cruz had “lied” about the events being a terrorist attack. And Cruz instantly signaled contrition.

“The way I phrased things yesterday — it was sloppy, and it was, frankly, dumb,” Cruz began.

Carlson cut him off, though. He said he didn’t believe Cruz and that Cruz — a highly trained lawyer — couldn’t possibly have been so sloppy with his choice of words.

“I don’t buy that,” Carlson said. “Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I don’t buy that.”

[msquared]

Maybe they are TINO's? Trumpist in name only?

[Fenring]

Looks like both parties have started to realize that free discourse is toxic to power consolidation. Back in 2016 the DNC had become the Hillary Clinton party, and I suppose a little bit later the RNC was becoming the Trump party (surprisingly). It seems to me to be the start of a very bad trend. Or maybe it's an exposing of what was really normal for a while, but covered over.

[alai]

Maybe they are TINO's? Trumpist in name only?

Tip jar's on the left side (naturally!) on the counter, remember your friendly server.

Carlson began the interview by positing that Cruz had “lied” about the events being a terrorist attack. And Cruz instantly signaled contrition.

See, now we're sucking "Orwellian" diesel.  But liars gonna lie about who's lying, that much is axiomatic.  I guess Lyin' Ted Cruz has it priced into his brand, so felt he might as well just take that on the chin.  I don't know who Brianna Keilar is, and (resident Trumpkins will no doubt again call me a liar to my face for stating the simple fact that) I very rarely watch CNN content by any means, but I can't improve on her "nightswimming in Tucker's cesspoll of BS" as a description of this exchange, as happened across from quick google.  (OMG big tech elites.)

"By no definition was it a terrorist attack."  Other than by, well, all of them?

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Check, check, check, and check.

So the primaries in 2024 to be between the Republican's "moderate" wing, who say that Jan 6 was a terrible thing, but all the fault of The Left, somehowbecausereasons, and the Seb Gorka crazies, who'll glazedly bark out that such violent extremism is no vice in the defence of enraged gammon^W^Wfreedom?

Looks like both parties have started to realize that free discourse is toxic to power consolidation. Back in 2016 the DNC had become the Hillary Clinton party, and I suppose a little bit later the RNC was becoming the Trump party (surprisingly). It seems to me to be the start of a very bad trend. Or maybe it's an exposing of what was really normal for a while, but covered over.

Now that was quite the overworked bit of relativism and false equivalence, right there.  "Ah yes, but whaddabouddademocrats."

[Fenring]

Now that was quite the overworked bit of relativism and false equivalence, right there.  "Ah yes, but whaddabouddademocrats."

Yes, "whataboutism" is the new catchall "nya nya" answer to everything, isn't it.

[rightleft22]

Now that was quite the overworked bit of relativism and false equivalence, right there.  "Ah yes, but whaddabouddademocrats."

Yes, "whataboutism" is the new catchall "nya nya" answer to everything, isn't it.

But isn't that what you did?

[NobleHunter]

Yes, "whataboutism" is the new catchall "nya nya" answer to everything, isn't it.

Did you really mean to suggest that Clinton's and Trump's position within their party is equivalent?

Or that the internal machinations Clinton used to secure her position inside the Democratic Party is equivalent to what the GOP and its adherents are doing to try and stay in office?

[alai]

Yes, "whataboutism" is the new catchall "nya nya" answer to everything, isn't it.

Nope, it's pretty specific.  Maybe if you're hearing it a lot, you're doing it a lot?

[Fenring]

Did you really mean to suggest that Clinton's and Trump's position within their party is equivalent?

It sounds like you're trying to get me to agree to something more specific than what I said. I doubt their literal positions are equivalent since they don't do things the same way, and they type of sway is probably different. Do you not see a parallel between the DNC being completely in service to Hillary personally in the prior election, and between the RNC apparently being under Trump's thrall now? The reasons may be different. I know Hillary financially bailed the DNC out, in addition to whatever insider connections with industry she's accumulated over the years. I have no idea how Trump swung this, personally, so maybe it's a totally different mechanism. In both cases the parties appear to be in service to a single person's goals, rather than merely being clearinghouses of large groups of people sharing a political goal. Do you really disagree? I'm not even addressing whether one side is better than the other, merely that this phenomenon is happening.

Or that the internal machinations Clinton used to secure her position inside the Democratic Party is equivalent to what the GOP and its adherents are doing to try and stay in office?

I know only a little of the internal machinations Clinton used, mostly due to leaks. I know really nothing at all about what Trump is doing on the inside-side. The public facing "overturn the election" thing is obviously his own little game. But I will remind you that for all intents and purposes "not our President" has been going on since 2016. The precise mechanism of trying to undermine the election result is 'novel' this time, since last time it was done behind closed doors.

[NobleHunter]

I'm saying the Democrats would have dropped Clinton like a hot potato for less than half of what Trump has done. While Clinton may still have a great deal of influence with insiders, voters are basically done with her. You can't say the same about Trump. Nor would I say the Democrats where particularly in service to her goals except insofar as they matched theirs. It's nothing like how the GOP has devoted itself to Trump.

People have been attempting to game election results behind closed doors since democracy was invented. There is a great deal of difference between trying to find a way within current rules to change the outcome and to publicly and repeatedly throw out the rules and declare yourself the victor regardless.

[TheDrake]

Do you not see a parallel between the DNC being completely in service to Hillary personally in the prior election

Not even close to a parallel. A parallel would be a previously respected member of the Democratic Party being turned on for not supporting Hillary. The closest parallel I can think of is Manchin, but he's had a significant impact on the agenda, as opposed to just expressing an opinion like Cruz did.

The actions taken by the DNC to put a thumb on the scales don't even come close to being in service to Hillary as a demagogue, most analysis suggests that they hedged to Hillary because they decided Sanders couldn't win against Trump.

[Fenring]

I'm saying the Democrats would have dropped Clinton like a hot potato for less than half of what Trump has done. While Clinton may still have a great deal of influence with insiders, voters are basically done with her. You can't say the same about Trump. Nor would I say the Democrats where particularly in service to her goals except insofar as they matched theirs. It's nothing like how the GOP has devoted itself to Trump.

I think I see a possible source of the confusion. You are talking about "Democrats" which presumably means voters. I was talking about the parties, not about Joe voter. How the public has responded to each of the two taking over their respective party is different, yes. In Hillary's case it didn't help her enough to win, in Trump's it seems to have gotten him more popular support. So how effective this tactic is may be different between the two of them. From the perspective of my comment, that level of detail is irrelevant, however. I was merely pointing out that it happened with both parties at this point.

[NobleHunter]

I don't think the distinction helps you. While we can't say for certain since Clinton accepted that she lost her election, I don't think we'd see the same slavish devotion to her that most Republican officials are showing to Trump. There's a significant qualitative difference in how each party was "taken over."

[Fenring]

I don't think the distinction helps you.

I can see it's not helping me communicate this to you...not sure what else it's suppose to help me with.

While we can't say for certain since Clinton accepted that she lost her election

Depends what you mean by "accepted". It's really an equivocational use of the word in this context. If you mean, did she publicly state "I did not lose", then no of course that didn't happen. If you mean she accepted it in the sense of settled for the result and left it alone, we know for a fact that is false. She took immediate action to begin combatting Trump's presidency when he won. So is that 'accepting' the result? I'm sure you can define it any way you like and answer accordingly.

I don't think we'd see the same slavish devotion to her that most Republican officials are showing to Trump. There's a significant qualitative difference in how each party was "taken over."

Since here you seem to only be talking about officials rather than the voters, then yeah it seems to be different. Like I said I'm sure the details are divergent on internal structure, etc. That's sort of irrelevant to my point, again. Why are you trying to compare item by item in order to simply agree (or disagree) that each party seems to have been taken over by one person? I didn't mention anything else beyond that fact, nor any other equivalence.

[NobleHunter]

By help, I mean help your argument.

There is no meaningful equivalence in Clinton's "take over" of the Democrats and Trump's take over of the Republicans. I'm going item by item to support that claim.

[msquared]

Who got primaried  because they did not support Clinton?  Who got removed from their local/state group because they did not support Clinton? who has been called DINO because they did not support Clinton?

[Fenring]

Heh, if you're deadset on not seeing something fairly self-evident then I won't be able to talk you out of it. That's ok.

[Wayward Son]

If you mean she accepted it in the sense of settled for the result and left it alone, we know for a fact that is false. She took immediate action to begin combatting Trump's presidency when he won. So is that 'accepting' the result?

If you go with that definition, there has probably never been a President that was accepted! 

Remember McConnell's statement that he would everything he could to oppose the Obama presidency?  Are you saying McConnell never acknowledged that Obama was president? 

Trump never conceded the election, something that has never happened since candidates started doing it.  He has further, repeatedly, consistently told everyone that the election was stolen from him by fraud.  Not from undue influence or any of the other unprovable excuses.  By saying that the American voting system was tampered with so that illegitimate votes were given to his opponent.  That, AFAIK, has never been done before.  It's one thing to say that the American voters were fooled; it entirely another thing to say that voting system is so corrupt that it doesn't matter who you voted for. 

Motte and bailey.

[alai]

Who got primaried  because they did not support Clinton?  Who got removed from their local/state group because they did not support Clinton? who has been called DINO because they did not support Clinton?

Who got killed in a riot/coup attempt/terrorist act (delete as appropriate) seeking to install HRC as president?  What Democrat senator got drug onto a political talk show to be called a liar to their face, ritually abase themself for "misspeaking" after making a(n uncharacteristically!) straightforward observation?

I'm sure that all gets filed as "not the comparison Fenring is seeking to make", but it seems to me that leaves very little in the way of actual points of comparison.  If any.  And very little reason for bringing it up in comparison, beyond some sort of "why this is all the Democrats' fault" or "I don't care for this line of discussion, let's talk about the Democrats instead" exercise.

Heh, if you're deadset on not seeing something fairly self-evident then I won't be able to talk you out of it. That's ok.

It's self-evident, despite copious well-made points as to why it's not the case at all.  Source:  trust me.

[alai]

If you go with that definition, there has probably never been a President that was accepted! 

Possibly (electoral-college-)losing female candidates are under particular obligation to get themselves to a nunnery, and never take part in political public life again at all?  Certainly as many unsuccessful nominees have been serving senators, for example, that would be quite the crimp on their careers if they were bound not to "combat" (to continue the unfortunate choice of words in the context) the victor in any way.

I think I see a possible source of the confusion.

"The confusion".  So that's what you kids are calling it these days.

[TheDrake]

Just as an analogy exercise:

Trump is to Cheney as Biden is to... __________

Trump is to Cruz as Clinton is to... __________

There's lots more examples of people who got scorched for not toeing the MAGA line. I've never seen anything like that in the Democratic Party poltiics. This point was made by alai, but I'm making the exercise more pointed.

[alai]

I've never seen anything like that in the Democratic Party poltiics.

Or really before in Republican politics!  OK, the Tea Party's zeal for "primarying" people up the wazoo is maybe a tiny bit of a precedent, but on a vastly different scale from what we see at present.

[Grant]

Do you not see a parallel between the DNC being completely in service to Hillary personally in the prior election, and between the RNC apparently being under Trump's thrall now?

I see more differences than similarities, given that the DNC was NOT in complete service to Clinton AFTER she lost the election.  AFTER she lost the election, there was a whole bunch of weeping and "oh woe is me", and some spite from Bernie Bros, but her star faded quite quickly and the DNC was definitely not in complete service to her in the same way the RNC now bows to His Holy Tiny Grabbyhands.

In both cases the parties appear to be in service to a single person's goals, rather than merely being clearinghouses of large groups of people sharing a political goal. Do you really disagree? I'm not even addressing whether one side is better than the other, merely that this phenomenon is happening.

   

Hmmm.  No.  Because of a number of reasons, the Democratic party was never really consolidated around Clinton the way Trump consolidated the RNC. 1st, Clinton was never really forgiven or forgotten for running against Obama by some.  2nd, Clinton had a single strong opponent in 2016 in the form of Bernie Sanders, who only swallowed the Clinton pill in some numbers because she was seen as infinitely better than L'Orange.  Trump's greatest opponent was Ted Cruz, who immediately began to suck up to him after he won the primary, and is still sucking away. 

As for the situation today, I don't really see Biden or the DNC starting to back challengers of Manchin or Cinnamon.  That's the major difference.  There are plenty of demo pundits out there calling for this, but nothing official from Biden or the DNC.  Crossing Biden isn't the same as crossing Der SheiBkerfuhrer. 

[cherrypoptart]

"Who got killed in a riot/coup attempt/terrorist act (delete as appropriate) seeking to install HRC as president?"

Not to install HRC as President, but as for who got killed in the refusal to accept Trump as President, everyone who died in the year or more of deadly terrorist anti-Trump BLM riots that the Democrats supported and encouraged, that's who. The left didn't accept Trump as their President and were quite violent about it for a very long time too. Quick, let's just throw all that down the memory hole. Now that our guy won, we all need to come together and kumbayah.

As for Hillary Clinton, and Jimmy Carter too while we're at it, "accepting the results of the election":

“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories – he knows that – there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”

In June, former president Jimmy Carter used similar language to diminish Trump’s presidency. Carter said that in his view Trump lost the 2016 election and was put in office by the Russians. Asked if he considered Trump to be illegitimate, Carter said, “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract.”

https://bangordailynews.com/2019/09/26/national-politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/

[cherrypoptart]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/corporations-donating-millions-to-election-objectors-220800151.html

"Election objectors..."

Gotta love that.

How would every single Democrat in power who for more than the entirety of Trump's Presidency, starting before he took office and continuing even to this day, objected to his election and undermined the office and our entire democratic system by lying about Russian collusion helping a treasonous person like Trump steal the election not qualify as election objectors?

And when you ask how that was different the answer amounts to of course it was totally different because that was us and this is you.

[TheDeamon]

Do you not see a parallel between the DNC being completely in service to Hillary personally in the prior election, and between the RNC apparently being under Trump's thrall now? The reasons may be different. I know Hillary financially bailed the DNC out, in addition to whatever insider connections with industry she's accumulated over the years. I have no idea how Trump swung this, personally, so maybe it's a totally different mechanism. In both cases the parties appear to be in service to a single person's goals, rather than merely being clearinghouses of large groups of people sharing a political goal. Do you really disagree? I'm not even addressing whether one side is better than the other, merely that this phenomenon is happening.

Uh. The Republican situation is far less clear than you want to make it. Numerous Republicans won election this past year by pretending Donald Trump doesn't exist. Those guys are unlikely to feel particularly beholden to Trump going forward. The "problem" a lot of Republicans have is they have not clued into that. The best fix for Republicans when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump is to ignore him, and ignore any and all media attempts to give him attention. Because that's when they get in trouble.

[NobleHunter]

Uh. The Republican situation is far less clear than you want to make it. Numerous Republicans won election this past year by pretending Donald Trump doesn't exist. Those guys are unlikely to feel particularly beholden to Trump going forward. The "problem" a lot of Republicans have is they have not clued into that. The best fix for Republicans when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump is to ignore him, and ignore any and all media attempts to give him attention. Because that's when they get in trouble.

That's a little reassuring.

[Grant]

Uh. The Republican situation is far less clear than you want to make it. Numerous Republicans won election this past year by pretending Donald Trump doesn't exist. Those guys are unlikely to feel particularly beholden to Trump going forward.

Hmmmm.  Not sure who you are referring to, or what you mean by "past year". 

The "problem" a lot of Republicans have is they have not clued into that.

I'm unsure which Republicans you are referring to.  Are you referring to McCarthy?  "Is this story going to be all about Trump?".  I'm sure McCarthy would LOVE to ignore TRUMP, but he feels like he cannot if he is going to become Speaker of the House.  A bunch of other Republicans feel the same way.  They can't get elected without kissing the ring. 

Some other Republicans have cut him off, like McConnel, Sasse.  Other do attempt to ignore him, like Youngkin, and manage to get elected in a tight race, but that's the only major example I can think of. 

Greene, Gaetz, Nunez, and their ilk certainly are not ignoring Lord Cheetoh. That's their ticket. 

Kinzinger and Cheney are definitely not ignoring him.  But they tend to represent the faction of Republicans who believe that Trump actually ::GASP:: did something wrong.  I mean, a bunch of other Republican lawmakers believe that too, but they'd just like to take your advice and ignore that, because they're afraid. 

It sounds to me like you're advocating cowardice because it is politically expedient.  Maybe that isn't exactly cowardice.  Maybe it's simply chicken*censored*.  That's the conservative nationalist plan:  "ignore it so you can get elected".  SOK.  Cowardice and ignoring problems seem to be endemic these days on the right. 

The best fix for Republicans when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump is to ignore him, and ignore any and all media attempts to give him attention.

How are you going to manage that when media is the number one gateway that Republicans have for speaking to the public?  The media isn't going to abandon Trump.  He's gold.  He brings out the crazies on both sides, and the crazies are the most motivated.  There's your base.  He's a golden goose that just keeps giving. 

[TheDrake]

Yes on Youngkin. There have been a handful of Republicans who have done something similar, hardly numerous. Not sure how to quantify that exactly, I'd love to hear about other examples.

[alai]

There's a fairly obvious psephological logic to cases like cases Youngkin's.  Not much point in running to the hard right in a state that's centrist (or at least, somewhat poised between the bimodal loves).  You could see Manchin's case as essentially the flipside of that;  run a Green New Deal candidate, and watch them go down in flames.  Add to which that power in the Democratic Party is clearly less centralised (as well as more centrist) than in the Republicans.

[TheDrake]

Except Youngkin most definitely didn't run centrist. He was all about critical race theory and other right side terrors. He just didn't want the Trump to go with his Trumpism. I think his avoidance of nationalizing the race was more about letting McAuliffe destroy himself, especially on education issues. Famously he handed Youngkin a gift in the form of a soundbite claiming that parents shouldn't tell educators what to teach.

[alai]

Except Youngkin most definitely didn't run centrist. He was all about critical race theory and other right side terrors. He just didn't want the Trump to go with his Trumpism. I think his avoidance of nationalizing the race was more about letting McAuliffe destroy himself, especially on education issues. Famously he handed Youngkin a gift in the form of a soundbite claiming that parents shouldn't tell educators what to teach.

Isn't that the republican "centre" these days?  The BBC had some twerp on recently that was boasting about all the school-board elections his organisation had swept in Democrat districts by running on -- his own supposed theories on! -- Critical Race Theory.  He's vaguely "moderate" on abortion, on same-sex marriage, believes in climate science, and he's not even NRA-endorsed.  Seems a long way away from Peak Trumpkin to me.

[msquared]

I wonder how soon Trump will call him weak.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senator-says-trump-election-161705377.html

[TheDrake]

Didn't take too long.

“‘Senator’ Mike Rounds of the Great State of South Dakota just went woke on the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020,” the 45th president said in a statement released by his Save America PAC. “He made a statement this weekend on ABC Fake News, that despite massive evidence to the contrary, including much of it pouring in from Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states, he found the election to be ok—just fine. Is he crazy or just stupid?”

“We simply did not win the election, as Republicans, for the presidency,” Sen. Mike Rounds said.

Trump then expressed regret for endorsing Rounds in the senator’s 2020 re-election effort, saying the senator “thinks he has time.”

“Even though his election will not be coming up for 5 years, I will never endorse this jerk again,” he added.

Trump went on to accuse Rounds of being a “RINO” — Republican in name only — who is “allowing Democrats to destroy” the US.

“Our Borders, our Military, our Economy, Inflation, the horrible handling of the China Virus and Afghanistan, and rampant crime throughout our Democrat-run cities are ripping our Country apart,” he said. “We are a laughingstock throughout the world when we were respected and even feared just 1 year ago. There were no thoughts of Russia with Ukraine, China with Taiwan, Iran with nuclear weapons, or North Korea with nasty statements.”

Trump repeated his vow to never endorse Rounds again, saying, “The Radical Left Democrats and RINOS, like ‘Senator’ Mike Rounds, do not make it easy for our Country to succeed. He is a weak and ineffective leader, and I hereby firmly pledge that he will never receive my Endorsement again!”

[Grant]

I wonder how soon Trump will call him weak.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senator-says-trump-election-161705377.html

Already did.  This morning. 

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1480550045552369672

"Senator" Mike Rounds of the Great State of South Dakota just went woke on the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020.  He made a statement this weekend on ABC Fake News, that despite massive evidence to the contrary, including much of it pouring in from Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states, he found the election to be ok--just fine.
Is he crazy or just stupid?  The numbers are conclusive, and the fraudulent and irregular votes are massive.  The only reason he did this is because he got my endorsement and easily won his state in 2020, so now he thinks he has time, and those are the only ones, the weak, who will break away.  Even though his election will not be coming up for 5 years, I will never endorse this jerk again. 

It's RINOs like this that are allowing the Democrats to destroy our Nation!  Our Boarders, our Military, our Economy, Inflation, the horrible handling of the China Virus and Afghanistan, and rampant crime throughout our Democrat-run cities are ripping our Country apart.  We are a laughingstock throughout the world when we were respected and even feared just 1 year ago.  There were no thoughts of Russia with Ukraine, China with Taiwan, Iran with nuclear weapons, or North Korea with nasty statements. 

The Radical Left Democrats and RINOS, like "Senator" Mike Rounds, do not make it easy for our Country to succeed. He is a weak and ineffective leader, and I hereby firmly pledge that he will never receive my Endorsement again!

Yeh, it's definitely him.  Classic Trump.  Capitalizing every other word. 

[alai]

Yeh, it's definitely him.  Classic Trump.  Capitalizing every other word.

These "press releases" started off looking a little bit more...  well, edited originally, didn't they?  As in by a person with at least a loose grasp of the distinction between "borders" and "Boarders".  I understand that "realLiz" used to be some sort of approximation of a journalist, before she was reduced to just being Trump's twitter sockpuppet, who's now actually also cutting and pasting this drivel into multiple tweets, uncopyedited.  To be reduced to that!  But, I suppose like the Wages of Sin, the hours are good and there's perks.

[msquared]

The claim that Trump only punches back when people are mean to him first, is set to rest with this.   Trump attacks someone who does not call him any thing disrepsectful.

Trump is a bully and this is proof.

[alai]

The claim that Trump only punches back when people are mean to him first, is set to rest with this.   Trump attacks someone who does not call him any thing disrepsectful.

Trump is a bully and this is proof.

Alas, proves nothing to those that won't see.  For Trump, anything short of the most preposterous forms of sycophancy is "disrespect".  Conversely, his most lurid and mendacious vituperations are, somehow, "modern presidential".  And as for Trump, so for the Trumpkins.

[TheDrake]

The claim that Trump only punches back when people are mean to him first, is set to rest with this.   Trump attacks someone who does not call him any thing disrepsectful.

Trump is a bully and this is proof.

Alas, proves nothing to those that won't see.  For Trump, anything short of the most preposterous forms of sycophancy is "disrespect".  Conversely, his most lurid and mendacious vituperations are, somehow, "modern presidential".  And as for Trump, so for the Trumpkins.

How dare they imply that I'm not wearing clothes! I am the emperor!

[alai]

Incidentally, on laughingstock-watch...  The New Year satirical TV show here did have a token pop or two at Biden (masked, mumbling, ineffectual, that sort of thing)...  but no, mainly we're still laughing at The Former.  To quote from the same programme, "I invented the vaccine but don't take it, it's a deep-state hoax!"

[TheDrake]

Pencewatch.... predictions?

I see an angry tweet sometime later tonight, when the Commander in Grief sits down to watch Fox news.

Mike Pence, who was nobody until I made him my running mate.

But what will his nickname be? Something to portray him as week. Mousy? Micro? Mini?

[msquared]

I knew there was a thread like this somewhere.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pence-says-trump-wrong-saying-204453145.html

I give it 2 days.  I guess Pence does not want to be second banana again.

[ScottF]

Looks like both parties have started to realize that free discourse is toxic to power consolidation.

Understatement of the year (it's early).

It's largely what's behind the Rogan kerfuffle. Nobody is publicly demanding equal time in front of Rogan's audience to counter/debunk anything that was said (which he would likely grant quickly as evidenced by his multi-hour session with Gupta), they simply want it shut down - period.

I'd personally love to see 3 hrs of Fauci and any scientist from his team openly debate counterparts from the "other side". Of course we'll never see that exchange. Not because millions wouldn't love to see it and not because Rogan wouldn't book it in a heartbeat, but because...reasons.

I realized I've ventured into the covid stuff again, but the premise of information control overlaps about 4 active topics right now and is, IMO a the heart of the matter.

[msquared]

Even the National Review is disgusted with what the RNC is doing to Cheney and Kinzinger and how they are trying to describe Jan 6 as "legitimate  political discourse".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservative-national-review-calls-gop-150557741.html

[Wayward Son]

I'd personally love to see 3 hrs of Fauci and any scientist from his team openly debate counterparts from the "other side". Of course we'll never see that exchange. Not because millions wouldn't love to see it and not because Rogan wouldn't book it in a heartbeat, but because...reasons.

Here are the reasons (in case you're actually curious to really know):

Challenges to “live debates” from science deniers are challenges that scientists should, with only the rarest of exceptions, generally decline. Nothing good comes of them, as they are theater, not science. Their purpose is not even really to persuade anyone. Rather, it is to represent pseudoscience as being worthy of being on the same stage (or Zoom meeting) as science, quacks as worthy of having their beliefs presented as being of similar credibility to science-based medicine presented by real doctors, pseudoscientists as worthy of being considered equally with scientists, and conspiracy theorists as worthy of being considered equally with real experts in a field. They are a tool of propaganda and almost never a tool to get at valid science. That’s exactly why cranks love “live public debate” so much, even when faced with criticism from an even crankier crank, and, even better for them, these forums allow them to puff up their egos by convincing themselves that they’ve bested a real expert.

If that doesn’t demonstrate why scientists should politely decline such requests, I don’t know what will. To paraphrase Scott Weitzenhoffer, such debates are like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. Depriving them of that opportunity not only drives them up the wall, but it prevents them from using you, as a scientist, physician, or science communicator as a tool to foil to use to spread their misinformation.

(Emphasis mine.)

If anyone wants to debate scientists, they can debate them on scientists' playing field:  journals.  Of course, you have to do your homework, almost certainly do some actual research, and have a board of knowledgeable people review your paper and judge it worthy for discussion before it being published.  And then you have to answer the criticisms it generates.  Or get a spot at some conference and present your criticisms in a paper.  But that is how debates in science, including medical science, happen.

And if anyone tells you that won't work because "the system is prejudiced against us and won't listen to what we say," well, he's just trying to con the $$$$ of out of you and doesn't really know what he is talking about. 

[Fenring]

If anyone wants to debate scientists, they can debate them on scientists' playing field:  journals.  Of course, you have to do your homework, almost certainly do some actual research, and have a board of knowledgeable people review your paper and judge it worthy for discussion before it being published.  And then you have to answer the criticisms it generates.  Or get a spot at some conference and present your criticisms in a paper.  But that is how debates in science, including medical science, happen.

No, this is totally wrong and actually a dangerous idea. Public policy often doesn't require knowledge of science. Whether physicists should be funded is a particular concern that doesn't require the informed public to make a decision. In a rare area like covid policy the public definitely has to know some stuff to make informed choice, mainly when voting I suppose. They can't just 'keep it in science journals', which regular people would never read. That ends up being an elitist cloistered body hoarding knowledge that right now everyone needs. It is absolutely required that there be good science reporting, especially in areas involving the public's consent. And if the journalists are not doing a good enough job, for whatever reason (which is often the case in science journalism) then it is totally a propos to have a bone fide expert on a talk show giving at minimum a redux of their findings. That is literally what the public needs - exposure to expert opinion in a manner that's digestible. Most interview formats are in fact terrible at doing fact-oriented investigation, either because they are (a) fundamentally comedy shows, or (b) partisan hack shows. A format that allows for long-form discussion is exactly what (forgive the pun) the doctor ordered. If they are too cowardly or elitist to appear then they are betraying the public, as far as I'm concerned.

[Wayward Son]

Scientists should definitely appear on popular shows and explain what they know, how much they know, the limitations and uncertainties of what they know, as often as possible.  We do need an informed public, and we can't expect everyone to be an expert on everything.  Only then can we balance what society needs and wants with what our best understanding of science allows us to actually do, and to weigh the consequences of what happens if or when we don't do those things.

"Debates" don't do any of that.

"Debates," especially with pseudo-scientists who are not experts and have half-@ssed ideas, will only confuse the public with half-truths and ill-conceived thoughts and ideas.  They will dispute proven and standard concepts, just for the novelty and for self-aggrandizement.  They make people believe that there are no consequences to our actions; that their own biases are as legitimate as hard-fought knowledge;  and that we have no certainty about anything, and so can do anything we please.  Instead of having a single view of reality that can be modified as the facts require, we have multiple views which are subject to personal whims and misunderstandings, constantly changing back and forth, with no boundaries and no direction.  Decisions cannot be made because we can't agree on the consequences. 

Individuals can't live like that.  Neither can societies.

[Fenring]

"Debates," especially with pseudo-scientists who are not experts and have half-@ssed ideas, will only confuse the public with half-truths and ill-conceived thoughts and ideas.  They will dispute proven and standard concepts, just for the novelty and for self-aggrandizement.  They make people believe that there are no consequences to our actions; that their own biases are as legitimate as hard-fought knowledge;  and that we have no certainty about anything, and so can do anything we please.  Instead of having a single view of reality that can be modified as the facts require, we have multiple views which are subject to personal whims and misunderstandings, constantly changing back and forth, with no boundaries and no direction.  Decisions cannot be made because we can't agree on the consequences. 

Individuals can't live like that.  Neither can societies.

I know you were responding to ScottF's comment about how he'd love to see scientists debate their counterparts, but I think it should be noted that his comment was also seemingly made in context of mentioning how people are trying to shut down Joe Rogan. I can't read minds but I'm not sure ScottF meant 'debate' in the sense of a formal debating structure. Joe Rogan, for instance, does not run a debate show, but rather a conversation show. So having Dr. Fauci on his show, as an example, would be putting up a 'debate' in the sense of having Fauci act as a potentially defensive interlocutor, but it wouldn't be a debate in the sense that Rogan would be inviting him on just to unleash prepared statements and 'defeat him' in a battle of rhetoric. At least I've never seen Rogan do that so far.

As far as whether individuals and societies can run efficiently when every fact is simply countered with opposite facts nonstop, that seem to me to describe American politics to a T. Now science isn't supposed to be part of this partisan hack warfare, but anything can be. In terms of reaching the public, science, like anything else, requires information dissemination, and whoever is doing that messaging is going to affect what comes out the other side. Nothing can really get free of this. If the system of communication is hopelessly mired in partisan warfare you can be sure that anything going through those media channels will get mixed up in it. I'm not sure there's a solution to this so long as half the country is constantly trying to do little more than undermine the other half. The truth has no hope of surfacing in an arena like that; there's not much room for anything but power grabs.

[msquared]

So with Cheney and Kinzinger censured I wonder if they will censure McConnel next since he agrees with them that Jan 6 was a violent insurrection after a legitimate election?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mcconnell-breaks-rnc-jan-6-194744770.html

Or will they censure him now?  Maybe Pence?

I mean your voting record on policies does not matter to the RNC now.  Just your loyalty to Trump.  They should rename themselves the TNC. I am sure Boebert and Greene and Hawley and Gaetz and the others would be all for that.

[msquared]

I do not think Mo Brooks was in Trump's good graces but now Mo is telling it like he sees it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-mo-brooks-says-195130919.html

Of course Mo was always a Never Trumper (TM) except when he wasn't.