David Brooks, flat out wrong on recommendation to bar Trump from office.

[chriscan64]

Usually, when David Brooks says anything on his Friday night appearance on the PBS Newshour I take it with a mine of salt, and move on. Last night he came out against the January 6th Commission's recommendation that Trump be barred from future office. The jist of it was, "We have a way to bar office holders, with the vote". I read the report. Trump has proven that he won't let "the vote" stop him. No "politician" with such disregard for the results of elections should be allowed to participate in one. Trump would attempt to turn his next presidency into a lifetime appointment by and for himself. Hitler never ran a reelection campaign for dictator. That is what we are up against.

The part about these comments is toward the end of the video.

[Turbineguy]

1. Brooks underestimates the number of self-destructive idiots

who will vote for trump.

[chriscan64]

4. That's right.

And the destruction will extend beyond themselves to all of us.

[Raven123]

2. Starts at about the 9 minute mark. The problem is that per the voters, Clinton won in 2016

Between the electoral college and hyper gerrymandering, the voters are not the deciders. The argument is not valid

[AZSkiffyGeek]

10. Gerrymandering had zero effect on state vote totals

[Raven123]

15. Gerrymandering is toxic

It depresses the vote. People who believe their vote won’t make a difference may not come out even for presidential election.

It has created an environment that enabled the extremists, who enabled TFG, created a monster, and hide in fear of criticizing him.

It contributed to Trump’s plan. He would have loved to have the election tossed to the House.

[Ocelot II]

3. Brooks is a tool. Always has been.

[Pachamama]

5. Would love to see David Brooks on a German Political Journalism argue this

The German journalists would pose some questions to him that would either leave him ashamed or looking like a sympathizer of the the wrong sort.

[FakeNoose]

6. Jonathan Capehart doesn't hesitate to say it: "You're wrong!"

[rustbeltvoice]

7. Brooks has ALWAYS been terrible.

The one thing that has separated him from the mouthfoamers is that he speaks politely. PBS does a disservice to itself, and especially to its audience by giving air time to Republicans committed to the conspiracy of ridiculousness, and mendacity. Both sides nonsense, they too often get some lying reprobate scoundrel like Schlapp. or Gingrich, or other candidate for a backpfeifengesicht, or a whack-a-doodle Congress critter to go at length into bizarre falsity. They ought to stop bothsiderism and get people who speak honestly sans delusions.

[chriscan64]

9. I agree, he always has.

This particular comment got under my skin, and I could not let it pass with the rest of his nonsense.

[CTyankee]

11. The term "bothsiderism" makes me crazy angry. Those so deeply corrupt to use it anymore is living

in some dream world. I have noticed that the term itself has been derided more and more in the last few years, with people who are on Morning Joe (maybe other MSNBC political shows, I don't know because I can't watch it all day long). I thought DU was the only place I could find it.

The best we can hope for, in the case of David Brooks, is having someone give strong responses such as Capehart's.

Learn from history or be condemned to see it repeated.

[gulliver]

8. If Trump is ever debates again, opponents should read him the relevant article from the Constitution

No reason you can't ask the voters to do the enforcing of Article 14, Section 3. Just read it to the voters with Trump right there on camera. And ask Trump why he wanted to "terminate" the Constitution at the same time.

We've already seen that Republican leaders, when faced with a choice between the Constitution and Trump, choose Trump. Trump survived two impeachments when he was clearly guilty. Why put the Constitution on the line again only to have it subjected to disgrace by Republicans in Congress? Plus, my understanding is that Article 14, Section 3 is murkier in terms of enforcement than impeachment. No question Republicans would just laugh it off.

[Model35mech]

12. Voters vote, they cannot enforce the law or hold a person to legal punishments

Once again we are subjected to a predictable rhetorical dodge from a GOP loyalist.

Not re-electing really would have no down stream legal consequences, and the potential downstream legal consequences of a guilty verdict is precisely what the United States needs to prevent more occurrences of trying to overthrow the Constitution.

Strange that 'conservatives in congress and the media' who research has shown to be pushed by cognitive motivators such as fidelity to written authority (I refer to research by Jost et al) choose to turn the attempted coup into a game of weasel words and thus dismiss its gravity

How does one get around such a curiosity... well one hypothesis would be that the supposed 'Conservatives' really are not philosophically 'conservative', but rather are simply rowdy obstructionist thugs seeking power in order to deny power to others (i.e. democrats) so that the imposter conservatives can achieve the sort of ends which are preferred by powerful imposter conservative thugs.

[CTyankee]

13. I don't think Brooks is a "conservative thug." But he serves their interests by not looking more

closely at the effect of his words on those thugs. They need "window dressing." Brooks gives it to them. I think Capehart is a wonderful foil for him.

[Model35mech]

16. Actually I was referring to Brooks when I wrote 'GOP loyalist' which IMHO he is

I was referring to conservative thugs, like the asshole Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Democratic Congress Critters (MTG? Kevin McCarty, and a mystery cohort of others in various Republican positions of power around the country, as is the asswipe lawyer who thought up the Independent Legislature idea and 'Alternate Electors'.

[Hekate]

20. I agree with you. In many ways a sweet and sincere man, but armored in denial.

[RockRaven]

14. Brooks's entire career is based on pushing the lie that cons/Repukes are reasonable people

who just have different opinions and experiences than libs/Dems. His whole reason for existing is to dupe liberals into seeking bipartisanship and compromises with cons by whitewashing/laundering abhorrent conservative ideas into something slightly more palatable and less crazy-sounding. Fuck him and his entire project.

"We don't need to bar TFG from office because we can just vote against him, hurr durr" LIKE WE VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2020, DAVID? DO YOU REMEMBER HOW HE, AND REPUBLICANS, REACTED TO HIM LOSING -- THE THING WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT FROM RECURRING?

[CTyankee]

23. Hmm, I never thought about him that way, but it does make sense.

You make a good and smart argument about him. I hadn't thought that through but it sounds possible. I just thought he was goofy on his own but what you've figured out is that he is a "useful idiot" for the RW. He doesn't seem like he knows exactly what he's doing. Capehart is a good foil for him. He's got this figured out, like you have.

[LiberalFighter]

17. By that logic the age requirement and USA residency should be abolished.

[chriscan64]

18. How are those things comparable to overturning the results?

Unless you were responding to someone else above about something else?

[LiberalFighter]

21. Brooks saying that it should be up to the voters even there is a law that says otherwise.

[chriscan64]

22. Sorry, misunderstood.

You are right. I don't think my brain even computed that part of his comments. How ludicrous of him to even suggest it.

[Hekate]

19. I know -- I yelled at the tv. Some people are in absolute denial.