ex-President Trump

Actual crime vs slap on the hand.

It's not insurrection if it's a slap on the hand.

I am suggesting it's possible Trump suggested.some people to commit technical violations of the law that aren't severe.

If it's insurrection, all the people implied get life no parole/death depending on the jurisdiction, there is no deal, they get destroyed and so on.

Just like all those Confederates.

I am still confused. You believe that Trump was encouraging Pence to violate the law in a way that wasn't particularly consequential?

If you are a Bolsonaro fan, then you truly have lost your way in life.

Thinking bolsonaro a moderate , obv he should see the rest of world as extremist left .
Now the next question is who’s a far right politician for him ….

He thinks King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain was a leftist. Seriously.

fan is too big of a word for someone who is still collectivist a lot, but he is certainly exceptionally better as a human being than Lula or the other Marxist he went up against in the previous election which he won.

I am not sure how you could even try to argue that Lula is a better person

Far right would be the AfD politicians in Germany who are explicitly asking for the deportation of citizens of colour who only recently got their citizenship and they consider "not integrated" for example.

On other culture war topics far right is every politician who wants to keep homosexuality illegal (so a lot of people in the Arab world and in subsahariana africa), people who want complete abortion bans (so approx one american adult every 8, many in Philippines and other countries) with no or close to no exceptions.

On the economy there are no far right politicians that I know of, I know no party leader in any country who asks for a constitutional ban on the government to own assets or for a constitutional ban on the power of government to regulate the economy (but they might exist, I just don't know any).

Why do I have to be a Lula fan in order to think that Bolsonaro is terrible?

I linked to the legal advice that Pence received from his own lawyers.

Why do you think Bolsonaro is terrible? which Bolsonaro policies (implemented, or that he would have liked to but didn't have to vote for) do you think were terrible? Because i can't think of one terrible policy by him

So if it isn't Bolsonaro's economic policies that you like, then what is it?

Is it his penchant for outrageous public statements, such as the time when he told another government official that she wasn't worth raping because she was too ugly, or the time when he said that he would never have a gay child, but if he did, he would prefer the child to die in an accident?

Or maybe you like his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change?

Pence lawyer didn't tell him "it would be a crime for you to do so".

He told him "you would likely be sued and lose in court" about this novel procedural interpretation, which is not the same as suggesting attempting that would be a crime.

You said it's proper to consider Trump an insurrectionist because he told people to commit crime to distort the result of the elections.

Maybe he did, but what he suggested Pence to do doesn't qualify imho

I like that he stands against marxism in a country, and a continent, where marxism already inflicted untold damages.

Being against marxism already makes him a beacon of hope, when opponents are actual marxists and they can win election (as it unfortunately happened with Lula, again).

Haddad (the candidate Bolsonaro was against in 2018) is an actual marxist (he self defines as an "open marxist" as opposed to "dogmatic marxists", whatever that might mean).

Because against marxism is one of the most moral actions a politician can ever do, and that supersedes anything a person can say, and many of the things a person could do.

Whenever communism exists and has actual political power, being anticommunist already makes you a better person (morally, and in terms of likeability) than anyone who even just flirts tangentially with communism, with very few exceptions.

I already mentioned some things i really liked , in absolute not relative terms, about Bolsonaro: he is anti tariff (again in a country, and a continent, where that is very rare). Being pro free trade is really really really really important for me (and it's possibly the worst thing about Trump and maga people in general).

I also liked a lot that he hated green and environmental policies and worked against them, as i mentioned in other thread i think the whole environment regulatory complex is a terrible collectivist endeavour with obscene negative consequences for society in general. Anyone who stays strongly and without shame or fear of repercussion against green non sense gains a lot of points in my book.

He significantly reduced bureaucracy (not that hard in a country that had an insane amount of useless layers, but it means being willing to do so, and to go against public administrators and professionals who made a living thanks to that useless bureaucracy), another very very very very good set of actions.

As for the "disgusting language": most politicians are sociopaths. You can very rarely get to the pinnacle of political power without being extremely different than normal people in regards to how you view other people.

Politics select for some of the darkest traits in human personality, because the pressure of being in the spotlight and having to constantly watch your back and think of your every move with the eyes of voters, allies, and enemies, on otherwise normal people would be too much for just about everyone. You also make choices affecting millions of people many times when you have that kind of power and it's strange to believe that wouldn't corrupt your soul.

If you accept the idea that most if not all leading politicians will be sociopaths at least partially, ie they will be emotionally detached from other people much more than a normal mentally healthy person can ever be, then it's just about who finds it ok to let it be known outside, and who tries hypocritally to keep up a facade (because he thinks he gains by doing so).

And in that case why should i lower my consideration of someone who "makes it open", given i already believe the same is true for most of them anyway? at least those in the open are more honest

Your unwillingness to distinguish between "unlawful" and "criminal" is truly a two-fisted head grabber. At a minimum, Trump was encouraging Pence to act unlawfully for Trump's benefit.

I don't accept that all politicians are sociopaths. And if all politicians had a similar personality to Bolsonaro, then presumably they would behave more like Bolsonaro. But most don't behave like Bolsonaro.

"trump was encouraging Pence to act procedurally in a way that courts would have plausibly considered irregular".

I mean if you write a piece of legislation, or an executive order, that your lawyers tell you will probably not pass court muster, and that will plausibly be considered unconstitutional, and you still do that, is that an attempted insurrection? because in that case almost every politician is an insurrectionist...

Look at what he said about Italy, that he wants no garbage migrants who make his life worse or he has to subsidize in the immediate term. If that means Italy goes to hell in the future he would leave and have 0 concern for anyone who was left behind. How do you think he feels about any kind of choice between economic costs in the present versus pollution or used up resources for the future?

Re Bolsanaro though... Dude is a thief. He's imperialism in action. He's King Ferdinand only he's stealing land for ranchers instead of for gold or sugar.

I think unethically would describe it better .

If a President places an executive order in place knowing its constitutionally unsound and even admits that I would call that unethical not criminal

Unless pences lawyer was a criminal defense attorney , I wouldn’t see it as a negative if a civil lawyer said you’re gonna get sued

The memo explicitly noted that even the proponent of the Trump's plan, John Eastman, acknowledged that his plan violated several provisions of statutory law.

It was so clear and obvious that congress had to rewrite it with the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, in which they had to clarify the very limited role of the Vice President

Yes. When the stakes are this high and the conduct the president is urging is this egregious, it makes sense to change the law to be extremely explicit. Maybe you aren't accomplishing anything other than turning a 95% certainty into a 100% certainty, but that's still very much worth doing when the tail risk is so grave.

Can't stop the grift. Wallets out boys!