Pete and Frank and everyone: When posting on CVO Talk, it is best to avoid using URLs that begin mail.google.com, mail.yahoo.com, or mail.anything-at-all.com.
They are links to someone’s email account. So it is only under special circumstances that such URLs work for anyone except the user of that account. This is why a URL that works for some users of Substack in some circumstances may not work for anyone else.
Frank, if you try to use a URL beginning mail.google.com, google may ask you to sign in, which it may phrase as “sign in with Gemini”. Even if you had done this, the URL probably wouldn't have taken you to the intended reference. For example, it takes me to my gmail account.
Another January 6th
Re: Another January 6th
I posted this on Marxmail as a contribution to the thread "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"
Re: Another January 6th
Pete, I disagree with how your last post is stated. It's one thing to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to oppose the looming danger of a Trumpist dictatorship. This is only one part of what needs to be done to fight the Trumpist offensive, but it is important to support defeating the Trumpists in the election. We are all agreed on that.
It's another to lecture the left over the "progressives and self-proclaimed socialists" who are running for office on the Democratic ticket. Yes, *you* don't say that these candidates are a "vibrant" rebirth of part of the Democratic Party; you just cite something in that direction *from others*. Without refuting it. Such a presentation is not the same thing as asking one to vote for the lesser of two evils. And, as far as how others will read it, it doesn't create a realistic impression about what to expect from the Democrats.
The development of the left-wing of the Democratic Party is a reflection of a leftward trend among a major section of the masses. As is the growth of DSA. But it is still just a reformist left-wing of the Democratic Party. And how effectively they campaign still largely depends on the stand of a section of the bourgeoisie. One shouldn't be sectarian towards it and those who believe in it, but it would be the death knell of a truly effective radical left to close one's eyes to what is really happening in the country.
You cite John Reimann, saying he has drawn the correct conclusion. But where has he ever said that the issue is simply to vote Democratic? He stresses that one should vote for the Democrats against the Trumpists in this election, but he repeatedly raises that something else must also be done to oppose a possible Trumpist coup. He talks about what the left needs to do, and how the left needs to change, and the truly deep flaws of the DSA, and the tragedy of what's happening in the unions. He doesn't simply prescribe doing electoral work for the Democrats, not even during this period of hot electoral campaigning. In his own way, he deals repeatedly with the crisis of the left.
The fact is that no large section of the radical left is going to make a big shift before November. So what is the effect that, at this time, a correct stand in the election debate can have? It can help one do such things as keep among the masses; contribute to and be part of the mass anti-Trump effort; it will help prepare for what happens in a mass struggle against an attempted election coup; it can help prepare for what will need to be done after the election; and it can help develop some consciousness of the crisis of the radical left among at least a few activists.
It's another to lecture the left over the "progressives and self-proclaimed socialists" who are running for office on the Democratic ticket. Yes, *you* don't say that these candidates are a "vibrant" rebirth of part of the Democratic Party; you just cite something in that direction *from others*. Without refuting it. Such a presentation is not the same thing as asking one to vote for the lesser of two evils. And, as far as how others will read it, it doesn't create a realistic impression about what to expect from the Democrats.
The development of the left-wing of the Democratic Party is a reflection of a leftward trend among a major section of the masses. As is the growth of DSA. But it is still just a reformist left-wing of the Democratic Party. And how effectively they campaign still largely depends on the stand of a section of the bourgeoisie. One shouldn't be sectarian towards it and those who believe in it, but it would be the death knell of a truly effective radical left to close one's eyes to what is really happening in the country.
You cite John Reimann, saying he has drawn the correct conclusion. But where has he ever said that the issue is simply to vote Democratic? He stresses that one should vote for the Democrats against the Trumpists in this election, but he repeatedly raises that something else must also be done to oppose a possible Trumpist coup. He talks about what the left needs to do, and how the left needs to change, and the truly deep flaws of the DSA, and the tragedy of what's happening in the unions. He doesn't simply prescribe doing electoral work for the Democrats, not even during this period of hot electoral campaigning. In his own way, he deals repeatedly with the crisis of the left.
The fact is that no large section of the radical left is going to make a big shift before November. So what is the effect that, at this time, a correct stand in the election debate can have? It can help one do such things as keep among the masses; contribute to and be part of the mass anti-Trump effort; it will help prepare for what happens in a mass struggle against an attempted election coup; it can help prepare for what will need to be done after the election; and it can help develop some consciousness of the crisis of the radical left among at least a few activists.
Re: Another January 6th
[Below is a Facebook post on the coming U.S. election by Croation Domagoj Franic, who spends 7 days a week collecting and posting things about what is happening with the Russian aggression against Ukraine. He points out a number of things that Trump could do in November, which I don't think are wild fantasies.]
I've been thinking for a while about something that isn't good at all and concerns all of us.... I have a feeling that most people aren't even aware of what a complex and turbulent part of history we're living in. But, not to ramble on (as usual), I'll get straight to the point.....
The US midterm elections are coming up in just 66 days. What will happen if Trump doesn't accept defeat?
Polling models for summer 2026. showing an extremely unfavourable environment for the Republicans — Trump's approval ratings have fallen to 33 per cent, the party-level polling shows a Democratic advantage, and historical models project a loss of 20 to 35 seats for the Republicans in the House of Representatives, with the possibility of an outright loss of the Senate.
This means there is a real political motive for the administration to approach the November 2026 election defensively, perhaps even attempting to delegitimise the result if it is unfavourable....... a pattern that Trump already demonstrated in 2020, but now with substantially more powerful tools at his disposal – control over the Department of Justice, the FBI, the DHS, ICE as a de facto paramilitary force with tens of thousands of agents, the military, the police.....
Although there is currently no documented signal that the administration would formally refuse to certify the 2026 election results, the question remains open – a matter worth considering precisely because of the risk.
What is proven is that the tools for escalation are ready and have been tested. ‘Federalisation’ of the National Guard without the governor's consent, the threat of the Insurrection Act, a court order for racially motivated raids, and an executive framework for declaring dissenters a terrorist threat.
ICE's raid and detention infrastructure, already ‘normalised’ through the summer of 2026, could be expanded from the immigrant population to a wider circle of citizens if political opposition is formally labelled as part of ‘domestic terrorism’ – a mechanism that has no clear legal safeguards precisely because the domestic terrorism designation did not exist before 2025 and has no case law to limit its application.
The reality is that the main barriers against such an escalation are currently the federal courts, which have already partially slowed National Guard deployments and have partly ruled against the raids. But not the Supreme Court, which is under the control of Donald Trump....
What else is left? Public resistance and protests?
The combination of waning popularity, a growing institutional tool for repression, and the absence of a clear legal ceiling for new categories of “threats” creates a real risk that the autumn of 2026 could test the limits of the US constitutional order in a way that goes beyond immigration policy and targets the democratic transfer of power.
Not presidential but Congressional, and in these relations, even more important, authority.....
What I fear is an escalation of violence......whether as a reaction to ICE actions, or as unrest over election results. The main tool Trump could use to bypass constitutional limits is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which is explicitly exempt from the law that otherwise prohibits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement.
Unlike previous deployments of the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, the Insurrection Act would give soldiers direct law enforcement powers – making arrests, searches, pursuits and detaining civilians.
The law can be invoked by Trump himself without anyone else's consent. The US President can use the military as a police force and his own private army, without any restriction. The law itself does not define what exactly ‘insurrection’ or ‘illegal association’ means.......this is left to the interpretation of the President himself, without a clear judicial text to limit it.
I fear a scenario in which Trump would not accept the election results, which would very likely lead to unrest or protests that would be characterised as “organised political violence” or directly linked to the “domestic terrorism” label, thereby automatically assigning protesters to a more serious legal category without the need for individual proof of guilt.
This would be followed by a formal presidential order to disband the “insurgents”, and if the protests do not subside within a short timeframe, the Insurrection Act would be invoked, thereby granting the active military and federalised National Guard the authority to directly arrest civilians. At this stage, ICE's already-established network of raids and detention centres could serve as an operational template for a wider application to domestic protesters.
Limitations to such a scenario do, of course, exist.... but they are very uncertain. The courts could challenge the interpretation of “insurrection”, governors of Democratic states could refuse to cooperate legally and politically, and public and international pressure would grow in proportion to the images of soldiers arresting civilians on American streets. But the key fact that personally worries me is that the legal framework for such a scenario already exists and is legally “ready to use”.
The difference between the current situation and this scenario is not a lack of tools, but, for now, a lack of a formal decision to use them to their full capacity. And frankly, I am convinced that Trump and his lackeys will exploit them.
And finally, I'm not reinventing the wheel, which is already known to the Chinese, the Russians and other world dictators for whom this is a historic “win-win” opportunity to help the Americans trigger the “collapse” of the Republicans in the mid-term elections, so that Trump would incite riots and a dictatorship, thereby achieving their historic goal of overthrowing the democratic United States of America, which would be left without partners, without NATO, without the EU, without influence in the Middle East....... or..........if Trump accepts the negative election results, the Republicans lose Congress and Trump's downfall and prosecution begins, they are certainly the winners.....
Think a little about the bubbling cauldron of interests that will very soon, in just two months' time, show us what it has all cooked up for us......
I've been thinking for a while about something that isn't good at all and concerns all of us.... I have a feeling that most people aren't even aware of what a complex and turbulent part of history we're living in. But, not to ramble on (as usual), I'll get straight to the point.....
The US midterm elections are coming up in just 66 days. What will happen if Trump doesn't accept defeat?
Polling models for summer 2026. showing an extremely unfavourable environment for the Republicans — Trump's approval ratings have fallen to 33 per cent, the party-level polling shows a Democratic advantage, and historical models project a loss of 20 to 35 seats for the Republicans in the House of Representatives, with the possibility of an outright loss of the Senate.
This means there is a real political motive for the administration to approach the November 2026 election defensively, perhaps even attempting to delegitimise the result if it is unfavourable....... a pattern that Trump already demonstrated in 2020, but now with substantially more powerful tools at his disposal – control over the Department of Justice, the FBI, the DHS, ICE as a de facto paramilitary force with tens of thousands of agents, the military, the police.....
Although there is currently no documented signal that the administration would formally refuse to certify the 2026 election results, the question remains open – a matter worth considering precisely because of the risk.
What is proven is that the tools for escalation are ready and have been tested. ‘Federalisation’ of the National Guard without the governor's consent, the threat of the Insurrection Act, a court order for racially motivated raids, and an executive framework for declaring dissenters a terrorist threat.
ICE's raid and detention infrastructure, already ‘normalised’ through the summer of 2026, could be expanded from the immigrant population to a wider circle of citizens if political opposition is formally labelled as part of ‘domestic terrorism’ – a mechanism that has no clear legal safeguards precisely because the domestic terrorism designation did not exist before 2025 and has no case law to limit its application.
The reality is that the main barriers against such an escalation are currently the federal courts, which have already partially slowed National Guard deployments and have partly ruled against the raids. But not the Supreme Court, which is under the control of Donald Trump....
What else is left? Public resistance and protests?
The combination of waning popularity, a growing institutional tool for repression, and the absence of a clear legal ceiling for new categories of “threats” creates a real risk that the autumn of 2026 could test the limits of the US constitutional order in a way that goes beyond immigration policy and targets the democratic transfer of power.
Not presidential but Congressional, and in these relations, even more important, authority.....
What I fear is an escalation of violence......whether as a reaction to ICE actions, or as unrest over election results. The main tool Trump could use to bypass constitutional limits is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which is explicitly exempt from the law that otherwise prohibits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement.
Unlike previous deployments of the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, the Insurrection Act would give soldiers direct law enforcement powers – making arrests, searches, pursuits and detaining civilians.
The law can be invoked by Trump himself without anyone else's consent. The US President can use the military as a police force and his own private army, without any restriction. The law itself does not define what exactly ‘insurrection’ or ‘illegal association’ means.......this is left to the interpretation of the President himself, without a clear judicial text to limit it.
I fear a scenario in which Trump would not accept the election results, which would very likely lead to unrest or protests that would be characterised as “organised political violence” or directly linked to the “domestic terrorism” label, thereby automatically assigning protesters to a more serious legal category without the need for individual proof of guilt.
This would be followed by a formal presidential order to disband the “insurgents”, and if the protests do not subside within a short timeframe, the Insurrection Act would be invoked, thereby granting the active military and federalised National Guard the authority to directly arrest civilians. At this stage, ICE's already-established network of raids and detention centres could serve as an operational template for a wider application to domestic protesters.
Limitations to such a scenario do, of course, exist.... but they are very uncertain. The courts could challenge the interpretation of “insurrection”, governors of Democratic states could refuse to cooperate legally and politically, and public and international pressure would grow in proportion to the images of soldiers arresting civilians on American streets. But the key fact that personally worries me is that the legal framework for such a scenario already exists and is legally “ready to use”.
The difference between the current situation and this scenario is not a lack of tools, but, for now, a lack of a formal decision to use them to their full capacity. And frankly, I am convinced that Trump and his lackeys will exploit them.
And finally, I'm not reinventing the wheel, which is already known to the Chinese, the Russians and other world dictators for whom this is a historic “win-win” opportunity to help the Americans trigger the “collapse” of the Republicans in the mid-term elections, so that Trump would incite riots and a dictatorship, thereby achieving their historic goal of overthrowing the democratic United States of America, which would be left without partners, without NATO, without the EU, without influence in the Middle East....... or..........if Trump accepts the negative election results, the Republicans lose Congress and Trump's downfall and prosecution begins, they are certainly the winners.....
Think a little about the bubbling cauldron of interests that will very soon, in just two months' time, show us what it has all cooked up for us......
-
philwest44
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:14 pm
Re: Another January 6th
Just to add my .02 cents here, I think this guy has a pretty clear-headed view of where we are headed. He is very likely correct in his speculations.
Re: Another January 6th
I'll add one cent's worth: Franic seems to have a good grasp of the situation and is knowledgeable about the legal landscape. In general, nothing is new: the possibilities of a fascist takeover have been there for a long time -- see Jack London's The Iron Heel. But under Trump, the bourgeoisie seems to be driving toward some kind of desperate resolution of issues. I recently heard an NPR broadcast about billionaires' push for private cities. Some billionaires have bought up large tracts of land for their own private cities -- like gated communities, only with industry, data centers, housing, and their own environmental rules, all under the direct control of the city owners, with no elected government. These fellows have close ties to Trump and are demanding federal legislation to authorize the go-ahead, so they can break ground on their new cities. Trump is hesitating, however, and so some billionaires have threatened to go elsewhere -- Canada, Australia, or some place. I thought this indicates the kind of competitive pressure Trump is under from members of his own class.
The only thing I question about Franic's piece is his last thought, that a Democratic victory in the elections would be a "win" for the Russians and Chinese. Having Trump tied up by investigations and prosecutions would be a win for the Russians and Chinese? How so? Well, I guess it would weaken the American presidency, perhaps force a step back from American attempts to control the Middle East. But impeding the slide toward authoritarianism in the U.S. would, I think, only impede the interests of Putinesque and Xi-esque politics.
The only thing I question about Franic's piece is his last thought, that a Democratic victory in the elections would be a "win" for the Russians and Chinese. Having Trump tied up by investigations and prosecutions would be a win for the Russians and Chinese? How so? Well, I guess it would weaken the American presidency, perhaps force a step back from American attempts to control the Middle East. But impeding the slide toward authoritarianism in the U.S. would, I think, only impede the interests of Putinesque and Xi-esque politics.