Biden Address (9/1/2022): MAGA extremism is a threat to democracy (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

This will be controversial. It appears tailored to appeal to independent and Republican voters who don't approve of what the MAGA movement has become - an attempt to try to further isolate the Trump wing.

Will it work? Or will it have the opposite effect sort of like what we saw with the "deplorables" remark from Hillary?

One thing working for Biden's timing is that some Trump support in the media has clearly been pealing away, he's at a weak point - and could get weaker as the criminal case against him builds. But Biden is definitely throwing down the gauntlet.

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Joe Biden delivered a landmark speech Thursday night, warning of the perils of political violence and squarely identifying the threat “MAGA Republicans” pose to the Republic.

Right-wing figures, sobered by the message and compelled, for the first time, to introspection, disavowed their old ways, condemned the Republican Party’s creep into authoritarianism and thrust Donald Trump from his golden throne.

Ha.

Adopting the argument favored by five-year-olds the world over, these Trumpist characters rebutted that “no, you’re the fascist,” lamenting the speech as snuffing out the last gasp of American freedom delivered by a deranged dictator poised to kill people and stomp out their rights…or something.

On the one hand, they sought to paint Biden as a brutally dangerous tyrant.

“President Biden tonight gave the speech of a dictator in the style of a dictator in the visual of a dictator using the words of a dictator,” said former Trump White House aide Stephen Miller.

The “outrageous” speech was delivered before a “blood-red Nazi background,” said a scowling Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

“A speech that denigrates those that didn’t vote for him as [sic] a threat to democracy and the rule of law,” chimed in Gov. Ron DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, photoshopping a hammer and sickle onto Biden’s lectern.

But they also built atop the years of work they’ve done to paint Biden as rapidly aging and losing his grip on reality.

“If you look at the words and meaning of the awkward and angry Biden speech tonight, he threatened America, including with the possible use of military force. He must be insane, or suffering from late stage dementia!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“Joe Biden’s hate-filled and menacing rhetoric tonight was disgraceful. His behavior is increasingly erratic. And his threats against half the country – his fellow citizens – are dangerous,” added Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). (Yes: that Josh Hawley.)..............

No You’re The Fascist: Right-Wingers Claim To Be Appalled At Biden’s Speech Warning Of Political Violence

 

[DaveXA]

Yes the marines are bad! Wait...both sides?? But she didn't seem to mind it back then. This is a good short thread about this both sidism.

Well, fwiw, I did call Trump out on using them as props, and I'll call out every president doing the same. And you can say Biden's speech wasn't political until you're blue in the face, but it was political. That doesn't take anything away from what he said, at all. But it's still election cycle speech.

 

[DaveXA]

Its been done before by all 4 previous Republican presidents. And with more troops in the background. I don't recall the prop criticism back then.

I've criticized Presidents both Democarat and Republican in the past for doing such. Trump was the worst of them, but he's not alone in doing it.

 

[DaveXA]

Sorry, it's political, and divisive. It's supposed to be. Political because you're saying that Trump and MAGA should have no place in politics. It's divisive because he states unequivocally that if you're a MAGA, there's no room for you in American politics. And I agree, fork every last MAGA and the Trump they rode in on.

 

[UriUT]

Well, fwiw, I did call Trump out on using them as props, and I'll call out every president doing the same. And you can say Biden's speech wasn't political until you're blue in the face, but it was political. That doesn't take anything away from what he said, at all. But it's still election cycle speech.

Right. If every president does it, I just don't see a point in focusing on it. And I don't believe that I said his speech isn't political. Of course it is. He is yelling from the bully pulpit to warn us of the dangers of a political movement. A path that FDR walked. And this may well be an election cycle speech, but someone needs to point that out. He could've made his speech about abortion. But in light of J6 and the fake electors, I applaud him for taking the fight on. Take on this bull double standards that the right toys around. I won't worry about 2 marines in the background.

 

[DaveXA]

Presidents routinely make speeches in front of military. He didn’t “use” them apart from their standing there - I don’t think it’s a big deal.

It's probably not a big deal in the big picture, but I still don't like using the military to make a President look more Presidential. It's bad precedent imo. That said, whether he does it or doesn't doesn't really matter. Trump and his ilk will do so unapologetically. So maybe what's good for the goose and all that.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...eech-took-place-front-marines-here-s-n1298589"

"Why Biden had Marines stand behind him during his speech​

Biden aimed to showcase his faith in the military apparatus and its ability to back the democratic order.​

Sept. 2, 2022, 1:23 PM ED

.........................................snip...................................

But while it’s true that the presence of military members was not unprecedented, it's also not the norm. And it was intentional — stagecraft is a major part of political oratory. So it’s worth contending with why the administration chose to have Marines so prominently displayed.

The White House said in a statement on Friday that it was a gesture of "respect" for these service members. But that doesn't really explain why they were at this specific event. The speech itself provides clues. Biden focused in his remarks on identifying Trump and his most hardcore supporters as a danger to the republic, with their disregard for democratic rule and their propensity for political violence. By placing Marines in his periphery, Biden aimed to showcase his faith in the military apparatus and its ability to back the democratic order — to defend against future attacks on the Capitol.

“For a long time, we’ve told ourselves that American democracy is guaranteed, but it’s not,” Biden said. “We have to defend it, protect it, stand up for it.” He implied those Marines, who stood with him in front of Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence was approved and where the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, are a key part of protecting democracy."

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

It's probably not a big deal in the big picture, but I still don't like using the military to make a President look more Presidential. It's bad precedent imo. That said, whether he does it or doesn't doesn't really matter. Trump and his ilk will do so unapologetically. So maybe what's good for the goose and all that.

No, it's an interesting question and a good one in my opinion.

 

[MT15]

Sorry, it's political, and divisive. It's supposed to be. Political because you're saying that Trump and MAGA should have no place in politics. It's divisive because he states unequivocally that if you're a MAGA, there's no room for you in American politics. And I agree, fork every last MAGA and the Trump they rode in on.

Okay. What I meant is that it wasn’t really directed at a political party so much as at a cult-like group of people threatening our country. It’s sort semantics at this point.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Okay. What I meant is that it wasn’t really directed at a political party so much as at a cult-like group of people threatening our country. It’s sort semantics at this point.

I think it's both. Was it political, sure, I guess. Was it a warning to Americans? Of course it was.

 

[B4YOU]

The smart move by most 2024 Demo hopeful would be to basically say nothing but just keeping talking about local and popular national issues. If they win their reelections, I see Mark Kelly and Raphael Warnock being two strong contenders that might have a shot against DeSantis. Both of the latter have inspiring backgrounds/vocations. DeSantis is just another young-ish political hack who never shuts up about the culture war. Perhaps people in the battle ground states will get tired of hearing anti-woke whining and listen to a candidate who talks issues. Then you can have ol' Joey B (if he's still alive) hammer the anti-MAGA message. I can't see a path where Biden runs again. He would be 81. He's not particularly sharp as it is now and it's only going to get worse. He would have to have a string of major economic victories in the interim.

I'm against conventional-wisdom on Abrams. People are basically crowning her some rock star but I don't see it. The hype is reminding me of Hillary Clinton. Reality is she probably loses again in the governor's race. Georgia is doing fairly well economically and Kemp, while not overtly repudiating Trump, largely ignores him and stands on his own.

Agree. You don’t run election losers for higher office. Prove you can win first.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Agree. You don’t run election losers for higher office. Prove you can win first.

It's not necessarily that, although it's a good point, but I just think that Abrams appeals way more to the those who are already guaranteed Democrat votes versus independent/undecided voters (there are apparently still middle of the road people left in this country). Again, similar fallacy as to how the establishment Dems thought everyone would just accept Hillary Clinton as their President. It doesn't matter how popular Abrams is in New York or California, it matters how popular she is in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

 

[UriUT]

Sorry, it's political, and divisive. It's supposed to be. Political because you're saying that Trump and MAGA should have no place in politics. It's divisive because he states unequivocally that if you're a MAGA, there's no room for you in American politics. And I agree, fork every last MAGA and the Trump they rode in on.

While you are inherently right with calling it divisive, I don't think it is the proper tone for biden's speech. By your standards, calling out the KKK would be divisive as we would be severing them from our politics. Yet we dont because their brand of politics doesn't represent our society or where a vast majority of us want go be. Similarly, these magas are outright antidemocratic and worse they are against our constitutional ideals. We dont refer attacks on our enemies as divisive. And we can easily label maga as such when they attacked our capitol for the sole purpose of undermining our constitutional order. This isnt anything like trump calling on democrats because of a policy disagreement. These nazis are actively subverting our republic and continue to call for its destruction.

 

[coldseat]

It's not necessarily that, although it's a good point, but I just think that Abrams appeals way more to the those who are already guaranteed Democrat votes versus independent/undecided voters (there are apparently still middle of the road people left in this country). Again, similar fallacy as to how the establishment Dems thought everyone would just accept Hillary Clinton as their President. It doesn't matter how popular Abrams is in New York or California, it matters how popular she is in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

I'm just curious, but what is it about Abrams that is unappealing to people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan? Is it just the simple fact that she's seen as/assumed to be too progressive/liberal? Does she have other unlikable qualities?

I wasn't really considering her popularity in my prior comments. I was more so thinking the qualities she poses that would make her a good governor or president.

 

[MT15]

Ironically, the true left wing of the Democratic Party has called out Abrams for not being as left as they would like.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good article
==============
There are two views of who President Biden was excoriating in his speech on Thursday night.

To Biden and his team, the group was clearly delineated: “MAGA Republicans,” a group of Americans who support former president Donald Trump, reject the outcome of the 2020 election and are open to political violence as a tactic. To Biden’s critics — a group that includes but isn’t limited to Trump supporters — he was speaking more broadly, using the term “MAGA Republicans” as cover for attacking the right broadly.

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake has walked through what Biden said and the context in which he said it, both on Thursday and last week, when he used the label “semi-fascism” to describe that group’s worldview. But what if we went one step further, trying to assign an actual numeric value to the group Biden is describing? It’s not “half the country” as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and others have insisted. But how much of the country is it?

We’ll start with Biden’s description of the group:

“MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state, to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself. ... They promote authoritarian leaders and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country. They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, brutally attacking law enforcement, not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger at the throat of our democracy, but they look at it as patriots.”

This is a subset of what Biden said, certainly, but, with four categories, it captures the heart of what his speech was focused on: rejection of the 2020 election, embrace of candidates who similarly reject the results, approval of the Capitol riot and a willingness to consider violence as a political tool.........

This question of how people view the 2020 election is asked regularly. Just last month, for example, YouGov asked the question on behalf of the Economist. They determined that nearly 7 in 10 Republicans believed Biden didn’t legitimately win. So how much of the country is that?

Well, about 20 percent of the country is under age 18, so we will ignore them. How many adults are Republicans? Gallup polls on this regularly. In its most recent iteration of the poll, it found that 28 percent of the country identifies as Republican while 41 percent identify as independent. Of those independents, though, more than a third lean Republican. So 45 percent of American adults are Republican or Republican-leaning independent.

Now we just do some math, applying percentages to the total population pool. The result? About 15 percent of the country (and 19 percent of U.S. adults) are Republicans who think Biden didn’t legitimately win in 2020. About 50 million MAGA Republicans, per Biden...........

MSN

 

[DaveXA]

Ironically, the true left wing of the Democratic Party has called out Abrams for not being as left as they would like.

Well, they do that with just about everyone.

 

[MT15]

These are some good points. And the media is failing again by acting like MAGA Rs are legitimate political players rather than nihilists trying to burn down our system of government.