POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath [Archive] - Page 3

Hooahguy

11-09-2020, 05:14

Hey Hooah, I hear that signing a lease (for even $1) in Georgia 30 or more days before an election confers eligibility to vote there. Just saying!

I just checked my registration in GA and it says Im inactive which Im not really sure what it means since I was told I would be kicked off the voter rolls last year but if Im inactive it shouldnt take much to reactivate in time for the runoff! Guess its time to hit up that Fair Fight website and understand whats going on because Im registered in DC now so I realllllllllllly dont want to be accused of voter fraud (understandably).
Edit: looks like I cant reactive without a GA driver's license. Oh well, bummer.

In transition news, we are seeing the first examples (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gsa-letter-biden-transition/2020/11/08/07093acc-21e9-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html#click=https://t.co/ptAsi0YhRD) of Trumpists doing damage to the Biden administration:

A Trump administration appointee is refusing to sign a letter allowing President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team to formally begin its work this week, in another sign the incumbent president has not acknowledged Biden’s victory and could disrupt the transfer of power.
The administrator of the General Services Administration, the low-profile agency in charge of federal buildings, has a little-known role when a new president is elected: to sign paperwork officially turning over millions of dollars, as well as give access to government officials, office space in agencies and equipment authorized for the taxpayer-funded transition teams of the winner.

It amounts to a formal declaration by the federal government, outside of the media, of the winner of the presidential race.

But by Sunday evening, almost 36 hours after media outlets projected Biden as the winner, GSA Administrator Emily Murphy had written no such letter. And the Trump administration, in keeping with the president’s failure to concede the election, has no immediate plans to sign one. This could lead to the first transition delay in modern history, except in 2000, when the Supreme Court decided a recount dispute between Al Gore and George W. Bush in December.

“An ascertainment has not yet been made,” Pamela Pennington, a spokeswoman for GSA, said in an email, “and its Administrator will continue to abide by, and fulfill, all requirements under the law.”

The GSA statement left experts on federal transitions to wonder when the White House expects the handoff from one administration to the next to begin — when the president has exhausted his legal avenues to fight the results, or the formal vote of the electoral college on Dec. 14? There are 74 days, as of Sunday, until the Biden inauguration on Jan. 20.

“No agency head is going to get out in front of the president on transition issues right now,” said one senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. The official predicted that agency heads will be told not to talk to the Biden team.

The decision has turned attention to Murphy, whose four-year tenure has been marked by several controversies involving the president, an unusually high profile for an agency little known outside of Washington.

“Her action now has to be condemned,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who leads a House oversight panel on federal operations. “It’s behavior that is consistent with her subservience to wishes of the president himself, and it is clearly harmful to the orderly transition of power.”

The delay has implications both practical and symbolic.

By declaring the “apparent winner” of a presidential election, the GSA administrator releases computer systems and money for salaries and administrative support for the mammoth undertaking of setting up a new government — $9.9 million this year.

Transition officials get government email addresses. They get office space at every federal agency. They can begin to work with the Office of Government Ethics to process financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest forms for their nominees.

And they get access to senior officials, both political appointees of the outgoing administration and career civil servants, who relay an agency’s ongoing priorities and projects, upcoming deadlines, problem areas and risks. The federal government is a $4.5 trillion operation, and while the Biden team is not new to government, the access is critical, experts said.

This is all on hold for now.

drone

11-09-2020, 05:34

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/the-other-four-seasons-trump-team-holds-press-conference-at-suburban-garden-centre

I heard about this Saturday, and the question of "How does this even happen?" has been swirling in my head all day long. Yes, Rudy is obviously off the rails, yes the campaign has been run fairly incompetently so far, but there hasn't been any kind of official explanation/blame shift for this embarrassment. But it finally hit me tonight: after this election is put to bed and all the campaign paperwork filed, there will be a line item in the Trump campaign expense report that says something like "Four Seasons - press conference room rental: $10000". The campaign org is broke, and he is still soliciting donations for the legal fight (60% of which are going towards campaign debt payoff). This is either a way to hide money already grifted from the campaign coffers, or a fresh grab. Whoever gets to audit the books is going to have a maze of these shenanigans to cut through. I hope all the lawyers working to "stop the steal" got paid in advance...

Montmorency

11-09-2020, 06:07

As a purely technical matter, I imagine every state issues non-driver's ID (I have one myself), which they should also accept as a valid ID for voting registration.

Also, no one who doesn't have a residence or other connection to Georgia should actually move there to vote in one election. It's a high-cost measure that could bring legal scrutiny.

Hooahguy

11-09-2020, 06:43

Yeah I sent an email over to Fair Fight to see what I can do, but my resources are probably better phone and text banking.

Trump's defeat hasnt fully sunk in yet, and probably wont for a while. Its been an extremely long four years and while the end of this chapter is in sight I know that we have a ton of new battles to fight. I kind of envy those who do not bother themselves with politics as this is exhausting at times. I feel like Trump has broken something in American politics and it will be a generation before it is fixed, if even possible.

(someone remind me why I picked this as a career? :dizzy2:)

ReluctantSamurai

11-09-2020, 07:40

From the NPR link above (referring to 68 of the top 100 counties hardest hit by the pandemic voting predominantly for Trump):

[...] "it's not the case that people are totally unresponsive to death and bad things happening in their area." But "if you are someone who already trusts the president and you trust him to handle the crisis, then you are both not as concerned as Democrats are and you're more willing to trust that he is the person who can keep you safe and keep the country safe from COVID," she says.

Keep the country safe from COVID? I'm starting to lean more towards ACIN's evaluation that people are just fucking stupid and are easily swayed by media. It so reminds me of Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule [People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.]

Given the results in the House and Senate, it is not surprising Dems did poorly in the state legislative races.

This is an area that the Democratic Party needs to start paying more attention to...politics at the grass-roots level. If we want to see such things as voter suppression, gerry-mandering, and the like put into recession, then the party needs to oust as much Republican control at the state level as is possible. Otherwise we will continue to see things like court-packing (I referenced this earlier---the GOP has mounted 20 efforts in the last 10 years to pack state supreme courts, and succeeded twice in Arizona and Georgia), or the ability to control the narrative (as in Texas where Gov. Abbot limited polling places to one per county in an obvious attempt to suppress Democratic voting areas like Houston's Harris County).

Also I kinda resent the pundits who are saying that we now need to play nice with Trumpists. Like yeah we shouldn't needlessly antagonize them but for four years they were all "cry more libtards" and now we are supposed to pretend none of that has happened?

Something former NJ governor Chris Christie and a guest GOP senator (can't remember exactly who) on ABC's Roundtable Discussion said when posed the question of how to reach a more bi-partisan agreement on policy issues, was all about the Dems need to do this and the Dems need to that. Screw THAT kind of elitist talk, folks. Bi-partisan talks go both ways. This is why I have little hope that Biden/Harris will get anything meaningful done that requires Congressional approval unless both senatorial seats in Georgia are taken by the Dems. The Grim Reaper isn't going to budge an inch on anything that doesn't benefit the GOP.

So Trump is going to try to drag this out as long as possible

They know they're screwed. Even if they manage to get a few ballots here and there thrown out, it won't be enough to change the outcome. Many on the White House staff know this and are already applying for other jobs:

https://www.axios.com/trump-defeat-inner-circle-3ed6ab0f-677d-4dce-a2d0-e348e38b74c9.html

rory_20_uk

11-09-2020, 12:47

Hooahguy

11-09-2020, 16:12

Something former NJ governor Chris Christie and a guest GOP senator (can't remember exactly who) on ABC's Roundtable Discussion said when posed the question of how to reach a more bi-partisan agreement on policy issues, was all about the Dems need to do this and the Dems need to that. Screw THAT kind of elitist talk, folks. Bi-partisan talks go both ways. This is why I have little hope that Biden/Harris will get anything meaningful done that requires Congressional approval unless both senatorial seats in Georgia are taken by the Dems. The Grim Reaper isn't going to budge an inch on anything that doesn't benefit the GOP.

Exactly this. Republicans use bipartisanship to cudgel Dems about and then laugh all the way to the bank when they are in power. Whenever Dems act in good faith (ACA debate anyone?), the GOP just stonewalls. No reason to do the same unless theres no other choice.

Now the Donald is almost certainly on the way out and as a consequence will loose his Presidential Immunity, what should happen next?

One article I've read is that Biden should give him a pardon to put a line under the last 4 years. As he'd the quietly fade into history...

Personally I think, if only to demonstrate that such actions have consequences and the whole "rule of law" thing there should be an investigation and charges at Federal level where appropriate along with the State charges.

Either way I imagine The Donald will start the election campaign for 2024 in February 2021 which is after all his favourite part of being president.

What do other think is going to happen?

~:smoking:
Absolutely no pardon for Trump. Not saying he should direct the DOJ to investigate Trump, but he needs to let the investigations take their course, no matter where they might lead. IIRC his plan is to do exactly that, stand back and let justice go its course. Pardoning Trump would result in a repeat of what happened to Ford (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/04/democrats-impeach-trump-accountability-watergate-gerald-ford-richard-nixon-column/2762361002/).

Ford, who was cheered during an appearance in Philadelphia the days before the pardon, was booed when he arrived at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport the Monday after it. Californian Lee Davis, quoted in The Washington Post at the time, called the pardon “dirty politics.” In Pittsburgh, demonstrators yelled out, “Jail Ford! Jail Ford!” Protesters soon gathered outside the White House holding a banner that read: “Promise Me Pardon and I’ll Make You President.”

[...]

Ford’s approval ratings plummeted, from 71 percent after taking office to just 42 percent by the end of 1974. Worse yet, the decision to let Nixon go fueled the distrust of government that had become so pronounced as a result of Watergate and the Vietnam War.

Even Nixon seemed emboldened. When interviewed by David Frost on television a few years later, Nixon defiantly insisted: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

The nation has continued to pay for its failure to hold Nixon accountable. The divisions that Ford had hoped to paper over with his pardon have only continued to widen. Moreover, the general trend — toward a vague sense of “healing” instead of holding specific wrongdoers accountable — has only continued to erode the public’s faith in government over the ensuing decades. High-level officials in the Reagan administration clearly subverted the law in the Iran-Contra scandal but escaped any real punishment thanks to pardons from President George H.W. Bush. War crimes committed during the George W. Bush administration, meanwhile, were swept under the rug when the Obama White House refused to insist on accountability there.

The lessons are clear: If an administration commits crimes without being held accountable, the next commander in chief feels emboldened to keep skirting the rules and violating the public trust. It should not be a total surprise that Trump, who came of age in the decades surrounding the pardon, believes that he can skirt the formal limits of power without having to fear any sort of real blowback.

Turning a blind eye to abuses of power might heal the political careers of individual partisans, but it does nothing to heal the nation. Indeed, a lack of accountability only makes the popular resentment over Washington more pronounced and the partisan divide more deeply felt.

drone

11-09-2020, 17:01

Now the Donald is almost certainly on the way out and as a consequence will loose his Presidential Immunity, what should happen next?

One article I've read is that Biden should give him a pardon to put a line under the last 4 years. As he'd the quietly fade into history...

Personally I think, if only to demonstrate that such actions have consequences and the whole "rule of law" thing there should be an investigation and charges at Federal level where appropriate along with the State charges.
I think the smart move would be to not go after Trump at the federal level, but also not pardon him. Let New York State proceed with the tax/insurance fraud case and not interfere at all. By all means, make an accounting of all possible federal charges, but not act on it unless he starts getting frisky. Meanwhile Biden should clean out any Trump IGs, and instruct his Cabinet to start building cases against anyone in the executive branch that broke the law either enabling Trump or doing their own side scams. If for no other reason than to keep them out of federal employment from now on. Neither Trump nor his rabid redhats will care if some rando former undersecretary gets nailed for fraud, Hatch act violations, or human rights abuses, and accountability is important. Maybe start with DeJoy, but this is a long, long list.

On a related note, I'm curious to see who he will pardon. Himself and his kids for sure, but I would guess nobody else unless they offer cash. Promising not to testify won't do it, promises are cheap. A lot of loyalists are going to get left holding the bag. :yes:

Either way I imagine The Donald will start the election campaign for 2024 in February 2021 which is after all his favourite part of being president.
He likes to campaign because he likes ripping people off. He raided his inauguration fund for cash, and started his 2020 campaign as soon as he got in office so the donations could continue to pour in. He had raised a huge sum by the GOP convention, but couldn't afford ad buys by the end of the race. The smart Republicans knew that the best way to help his campaign financially was not to donate to him, but to GOP superPACs he couldn't get his grubby little hands on. His rallies were "free" since we paid for his travel and he stiffed the locals for police work and transportation. The "Stop the Steal" fund will be used in the same way, it's not that he thinks it's going to work, but he needs the money.

Hence my comment on Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Deutsch Bank will be calling in a huge loan in 2021, he will have to pay for his rallies now, and I imagine most locales will be asking for money upfront, which might curtail his public appearances. Also, on Jan 21st he may find himself kicked off Twitter for violations of the TOS. His days of free publicity may be over, and he's broke.

Montmorency

11-09-2020, 17:40

Valuable African perspectives:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/africa-reacts-us-presidential-election

Fatma Karume, Tanzanian Lawyer (@fatma_karume)
As someone who has witnessed the death of a transitional democracy in Tanzania, I am bemused by the often repeated description of the 2020 U.S. election as “critical for the survival of democracy.” I am not disputing Trump’s authoritarian tendencies and his strongman persona. He may not like to display his pectoral muscles like Vladimir Putin, but he does not shy away from exercising his presidential hire-and-fire powers. He has been through four chiefs of staff in four years compared to Barack Obama’s five chiefs of staff in his eight years in the White House. The rate at which Trump dispenses key staff, his unfiltered language, and his disregard for science in favor of bleach in the fight against Covid-19 is reminiscent of presidential behavior on a continent he reportedly described as being comprised of “shithole countries,” including my own, but let’s give the devil his due.

Coincidentally Tanzania had a general election on October 28, 2020. The National Electoral Commission (NEC) stuffed the rafters with presidential appointees, ensuring the ruling party won seats by disqualifying opposition candidates before a single ballot was cast. Police teargassed opposition campaigns, opposition candidates were injuncted from campaigning, and others were arrested and imprisoned. On election day, ballot stuffing in favor of the incumbent was de rigueur. The NEC announced Magufuli had won 84 percent of the popular vote, and his party 99 percent of parliamentary seats. The opposition refused to recognize the results and the general public looked on in quiet astonishment, as the army and police force took over our streets. No Tanzanian can challenge Magufuli’s presidency in a court of law as the Constitution bars such a challenge. Magufuli is our president for the next five years, evidence of ballot stuffing or not.

A world away, Joe Biden has his lawyers primed to challenge Trump, and Trump stands at the ready to fire. Biden’s campaign was not punctured with teargas or sabotaged by the state. The fact that Trump is refusing to say he will concede defeat does not pose an existential threat to American democracy. He is just posturing, and it means nothing in a system in which Trump does not control the people who count the votes, nor the courts. When it comes to destroying democracies, Trump is definitely not the most effective; he has much to learn from leaders of some of our “shithole countries.”

Wednesday, November 4, 3:11 p.m. ET
Aanu Adeoye, Mail & Guardian (@aanuadeoye)
Just a day before the United States went to the polls, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tanzanian authorities to "fully address" election irregularities. At the time it seemed rich given President Donald Trump had not committed to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose to Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The tweet looked even worse a few hours after that, when Trump declared victory and falsely claimed the election was being stolen. If this happened elsewhere around the world, the United States would be the first to admonish a leader going rogue, as Pompeo just did. Even as it seems like Biden is about to win, the United States’ standing over the last four years has taken a battering, and it remains to be seen just how an incoming Biden administration would mend relations across the world, especially in Africa, where the Trump administration has not paid much attention to issues on the continent.

Wednesday, November 4, 3:45 p.m. ET
Mwanahamisi Singano, FEMNET, African Women's Development and Communication Network (@MSalimu)
Coming from witnessing and participating in elections in Tanzania, where all state apparatus were deployed to secure a win for president seeking reelection, it is refreshing to see the opposite in United States: the president seeking reelection constantly claiming rigging against him.

While there is still optimism that Biden might win, I am personally surprised that the race is so close. I would have assumed, with all Trump has displayed and done the past four years, it would have been a clear choice, a consensus of some sort that Americans and the world deserve better. What we are seeing and learning is how deep and engrained extreme right-wing beliefs are embedded in American society and a clear desire and commitment to make those beliefs part of public policies and public life.

Americans are not only voting for presidents as individual candidates, they are voting for fundamental issues: human rights, climate change, equality, anti-racism, gender equality, and the list goes on. For Americans to call themselves leaders of the free world, these issues should not be up for debate. It is sad to see millions of Americans voting for leaders who stand against these fundamental issues.

Last, the U.S. election reminds us, one more time, that strong man politics and populist leadership are happening in developed countries, not just the developing world.

Friday, November 6, 3:25 a.m. ET
David Hundeyin, Nigerian Journalist (@DavidHundeyin)
My biggest impression is that of a country suffering from a fundamental divide that may not actually be bridgeable. The turnout is the largest in at least two generations, and yet the result does not look to be in any way decisive.

Taking into account the reality that the election was largely fought on the basis of racial identity politics of the sort I am very familiar with over here in Nigeria, this speaks to a division that is no longer just political or cultural, but also civilizational. The United States is now essentially two different countries struggling against each other to impose their vision of what it should be.

From an African and specifically Nigerian point of view, President Trump's insistence on using a scorched earth approach to politicking is very bad news indeed. The United States has always been a very important moderating influence on the excesses of Africa's existing and budding dictatorships. By discrediting the independent electoral system and all but openly inciting his supporters to violence, Trump's actions serve to legitimize the worst parts of Africa's struggles with electoral democracy. Ultimately, I hope that Joe Biden, if he does win, will reassert the United States’ global commitment to promoting democracy and will ignore the predictable wall of faux indignation from the usual suspects accusing it of hypocrisy.

I also hope that the United States’ legal and regulatory systems will actually take on Donald Trump and ensure that he pays for at least some of the very open illegalities he has been responsible for, because that in itself would send a very powerful message to the developing world about the primacy of systems and processes over individuals.

Now the Donald is almost certainly on the way out and as a consequence will loose his Presidential Immunity, what should happen next?

One article I've read is that Biden should give him a pardon to put a line under the last 4 years. As he'd the quietly fade into history...

Personally I think, if only to demonstrate that such actions have consequences and the whole "rule of law" thing there should be an investigation and charges at Federal level where appropriate along with the State charges.

Either way I imagine The Donald will start the election campaign for 2024 in February 2021 which is after all his favourite part of being president.

What do other think is going to happen?

~:smoking:

See Mr. Hundeyin above.

Those who seek from liberals a token of submission in earth and water will find plenty of both in a sewer. Donald Trump is veritably one of the most criminal Americans ever, and his administration has been similarly lawless. We cannot simply permit unlimited lawbreaking - and not just in service of personal venality but for open sedition! - from those in power or rule of law has no meaning and we're living in a Purge society that anyone can take advantage of so long as they have the position. It is a very sick society that affords impunity to the powerful by the measure of their power. We can't prosecute all the thousands of people who 'deserve' it, but Trump, his family, Barr - there's a minimum.

One Congressman has proposed something like a Presidential Crimes Commission. That would be less than the bare minimum. (Amusingly, it was announced immediately after the election that the US govt is investigating the Trump campaign for campaign law violations this year. Less amusing would be for these investigations not to be pursued in the criminal justice system.)

In a year with so many confounding turns, I am still confident the point is partially-mooted by Trump's inevitable pardon for himself/family/close associates.

He likes to campaign because he likes ripping people off. He raided his inauguration fund for cash, and started his 2020 campaign as soon as he got in office so the donations could continue to pour in.

It happens to be in our best interest if as many Republicans as possible funnel as much of their money as they can into his hole-ridden pockets.

I think the smart move would be to not go after Trump at the federal level, but also not pardon him.

As we discussed a year or so ago, it will be almost impossible to find a jury to convict properly, but it should be possible in an omnibus of charges to get at least some to stick (Manafort's skin was saved by a single dissenting juror, but only then on something like half the charges; even many redcaps have a limit). Such an omnibus case will take years to put together, and understandably a Biden admin may want to keep a lid on it (though such pressure from the top would be inappropriate in itself!) if a trial would be commencing and proceeding through the 2024 primaries and election season. The process would be acrimonious, draw a lot of media attention, and could well lead to a mistrial and do-over which wouldn't enhance public confidence. Worst case scenario the feds muck it up on some technical matter like they did with the Malheur Refuge/Bundy situation. So... maybe. Maybe it would be best to wait for if and when a Dem is reelected, even if many offenses fall through the floor of limitations by that time.

We can at least go after Don Jr, Kushner, and Ivanka - right?

ReluctantSamurai

11-10-2020, 01:09

Only in America:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/four-seasons-total-landscaping-trump-gardening-merchandise

“MAKE AMERICA RAKE AGAIN”, read one sticker on sale on the company website on Monday. It also featured the phrase “LAWN AND ORDER!” The stickers were selling for $5 each.

:bounce:

Hooahguy

11-10-2020, 04:26

Hey ho, hey ho, off to an attempted authoritarian coup we go (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/barr-elections.html)!

Attorney General William P. Barr, wading into President Trump’s unfounded accusations of widespread election irregularities, told federal prosecutors on Monday that they were allowed to investigate “specific allegations” of voter fraud before the results of the presidential race are certified.

Mr. Barr’s authorization prompted the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, to step down from the post within hours, according to an email Mr. Pilger sent to colleagues that was obtained by The New York Times.

Mr. Barr said he had authorized “specific instances” of investigative steps in some cases. He made clear in a carefully worded memo that prosecutors had the authority to investigate, but he warned that “specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries.”

Mr. Barr’s directive ignored the Justice Department’s longstanding policies intended to keep law enforcement from affecting the outcome of an election. And it followed a move weeks before the election in which the department lifted a prohibition on voter fraud investigations before an election.

My next guess is that this is used to persuade electors to be faithless. I hope not but considering most Republicans are spineless cowards who are going along with this to keep Trump's base agitated, I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.

ReluctantSamurai

11-10-2020, 05:45

And seeing as how the GOP election committee is hurting for funds, "let's use taxpayer money to fund this bogus investigation." There is hardly a legal expert in the country that gives any of these lawsuits any chance. Even CoviDon's personal attorney Jay Sekulow has said:

[Addressing the prospect of the litigation reversing the result in favor of Biden, Sekulow was circumspect:] “You have to line up a lot of dominoes, as we say, would have to fall in the right direction for that to happen.”

Sekulow did not predict victory in the legal battle over the election, but he did say he expected the Supreme Court to wind up being the arbiter of whether Trump is reelected or defeated.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/gop-states-back-trump-election-challenge-435437

Anyone really surprised that all of this is simply a smokescreen for the real show, which is, as has been pointed out, getting electors to go rogue?:mask:

Hooahguy

11-10-2020, 06:14

Not surprised. The electors vote on December 14, meaning that the next 35 days will be the most dangerous in our history since the Civil War.

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2020, 07:06

Hey ho, hey ho, off to an attempted authoritarian coup we go (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/barr-elections.html)!

My next guess is that this is used to persuade electors to be faithless. I hope not but considering most Republicans are spineless cowards who are going along with this to keep Trump's base agitated, I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.

Not surprised. The electors vote on December 14, meaning that the next 35 days will be the most dangerous in our history since the Civil War.

Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania all have legislatures controlled by GOP.

Barr will 'find' widespread voter fraud.
The above states will vote to send their own electors.
Congress will be split on which to pick. Lawsuit entails.
SCOTUS will either directly hand Trump the victory OR force the HoR to decide.
HoR split by state delegations will result in GOP win.

Watch it happen, prepare for the worst now.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/election-2020-nightmare_n_5f65163fc5b6de79b674a9d5

spmetla

11-10-2020, 08:38

Not surprised. The electors vote on December 14, meaning that the next 35 days will be the most dangerous in our history since the Civil War.

My father and I agree on this whole heartedly. Once there are no legal options for retaining power he and his kids will likely run rampant. As a man who has no sense of patriotism I worry what he'd be willing to sell and to whom. If personal bankruptcy and prison look likely on the horizon I don't think it impossible for him to flee to Russia and perpetually rile his base from abroad though that'd be an extreme end.

As for Trumpism, I don't think it will go away, it was just a further evolution of the Tea Party movement. The Republican Party seems likely for the near future to be a rural christian nationalist party.

Montmorency

11-10-2020, 14:21

From the NPR link above (referring to 68 of the top 100 counties hardest hit by the pandemic voting predominantly for Trump):

Keep the country safe from COVID? I'm starting to lean more towards ACIN's evaluation that people are just fucking stupid and are easily swayed by media. It so reminds me of Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule [People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.]

With this kind of narrative I always ask myself, why hasn't everyone bought into these lies?

When Trump called Mexicans rapists and gangbangers, why wasn't there unanimous agreement that this is good and right?

Certain stupidities are correlated, and it has to do with group affiliation, which has to do with things other than stupidity. Many idiots have good hearts. What we're seeing in our timeline, you need a dangerous combination of sheer malice with delusion. There are some people who have so much enmity for their fellow man that they will suffer anything, believe anything, for the sake of those who (ostensibly) fight to destroy their enemies. I am of the ever-calcifying opinion that the majority of Trump supporters are so, with no more than a quarter being individuals of unfathomably-limited awareness of politics and current events. There is a small, small, minority who understand what Trump is, but to remain supporters they must be all the more consciously-motivated by will to power and the desire to see liberals driven before them and hear the lamentation of their women. Being merely wealthy or interested is no longer enough, as the Trump and Republican regime is actively bad for business, unless you're the sort of predator or disaster capitalist who thinks they can get rich quick and leave the invoice to someone else.

No, to be a Republican and a Trump supporter demands much more than common-clay stupidity. And that, unfortunately, is what imbues American carnage with the quality of a civilizational struggle: Lincoln's house divided.

(I can't emphasize enough that the disease known as FuStu (Fucking Stupid) is still a great epidemic plaguing the country though.)

Not surprised. The electors vote on December 14, meaning that the next 35 days will be the most dangerous in our history since the Civil War.

https://twitter.com/AmyArgetsinger/status/1325988818550358016

“'What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change,' said one senior Republican official."

1. Permanently damages American norms and institutions
2. Weakens the American government
3. Further polarizes the population with potential violent externalities
4. Gives license to authoritarians around the world to seize or consolidate power without regard to American or Western notices/rhetoric

Could be a few more downsides.

Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania all have legislatures controlled by GOP.

Barr will 'find' widespread voter fraud.
The above states will vote to send their own electors.
Congress will be split on which to pick. Lawsuit entails.
SCOTUS will either directly hand Trump the victory OR force the HoR to decide.
HoR split by state delegations will result in GOP win.

Watch it happen, prepare for the worst now.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/election-2020-nightmare_n_5f65163fc5b6de79b674a9d5

I think they're still playing around, the Republican elites around Trump, but there is actually a serious risk now that things go too far. Once you get the ball rolling without safeguards, in the context of one man with unbounded will to power (if feeble) among a bunch of craven bootlickers, opportunists, and party hacks and flacks... an unpredictable cascade of events and double-downs is not out of the question.

This is indeed dangerous.

Important thread
https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1324908316548493313

As a former conservative activist and journalist, it has been so frustrating to see my former compatriots spreading wild and unchecked claims about "voter fraud." @jacknicas of the NYT took a deep look at claims of "dead" people in Michigan voting. Link in next tweet.
While examining claims made by right-wing activists who are not credible individuals is a thankless task which elite media editors despise, this is vital and important work in this age of fake news. Here's the link:

How Claims of Dead Michigan Voters Spread Faster Than the Facts
Journalists have debunked most claims of voter fraud, but President Trump’s supporters have not seemed to notice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/technology/false-dead-michigan-voter-claims.html
As the co-creator of NewsBusters, the most prominent anti-media website, I was part of a decades-long tradition of complaining about media elites being "unfair" to conservative views. There is still much to that argument, but eventually I saw that I was missing context.
What I did not realize until I began expanding my work into creating actual media and reporting institutions such as the Washington Examiner (I was the founding online editor) was that U.S. conservatives do not understand the purpose of journalism.
This became evident to me as I saw that conservative-dominated media outlets were MUCH more biased than outlets run by liberals. The latter had flaws that arose from a lack of diversities (note plural) but they operated mostly in good faith. That's not how the former operated.
I eventually realized that most people who run right-dominated media outlets see it as their DUTY to be unfair and to favor Republicans because doing so would some how counteract perceived liberal bias.
While I was enmeshed in the conservative media tradition, I viewed lefty media thinkers like @jayrosen_nyu as arguing that journalism was supposed to be liberally biased. I was wrong. I realized later that I didn't understand that journalism is supposed to portray reality.
This thought was phrased memorably by @StephenAtHome as "reality has a well-known liberal bias" which is an oversimplification but is more accurate than the conservative journalist view which is that media should promote and serve conservative politicians.
I also discovered as I rose through the right-wing media ranks that most conservative media figures have no journalism training or desire to fact-check their own side. I also saw so many ppl think that reporting of info negative to GOP pols was biased, even if it was true.
If you would like to get a great look at the tensions and origins of conservative journalism, there is a wonderful, fabulous book by my friend @pastpunditry which I cannot commend enough. My career was an updated version of what she chronicled. amazon.com/Messengers-Rig…
People ask sometimes if conservative media figures like Sean Hannity or anyone associated with the Federalist could actually be so credulous as to believe unfounded and non-specific allegations of "voter fraud." But the reality is that they don't actually even think that far.
Truth for conservative journalists is anything that harms "the left." It doesn't even have to be a fact. Trump's numerous lies about any subject under the sun are thus justified because his deceptions point to a larger truth: that liberals are evil.
This assumption is behind all conservative media output. They never tell you what their actual motives are. Most center-left people don't realize just how radical many conservative elites are, largely because they don't wear it on their sleeves.
Just as a for-instance of this point, most people have no idea that the top two Trump White House figures, Mike Pence and Mark Meadows, think that biological evolution is a lie.

Exclusive: Far-Right Creationists Are Setting Trump’s Virus Response | Right Wing Watch
AnalysisIn a packed Sunday rally filled with thousands of unmasked supporters in Miami, President Trump hinted to the crowd that he was considering firing Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National I…
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/exclusive-far-right-creationists-are-setting-trumps-virus-response/
This is an extraordinarily dangerous viewpoint in light of the SARS2 coronavirus epidemic because the entirety of virology and epidemiology is based on evolution. If you think it's "fake" then you'll believe ludicrous nonsense like "herd immunity."
The same thing is happening with right-wing media and specious claims of voter fraud. Conservatives are willing to believe them even if there is no evidence, simply because anything negative about liberals is true. This mentality extends to the very highest ranks.
Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, and a bevvy of GOP elected officials have no problem parroting unverified rumors as fact because conservative journalism is not about supporting conservatives, not about finding facts.
I tried for over a decade to inculcate some standards of independence and professionalism among conservative writers but my efforts made me enemies, especially when I argued that the GOP should be neutral on religion instead of biased toward Christians.
I began work on a manuscript in 2012 fearing that Mitt Romney would lose his election because conservatives had not learned how politics actually works and that we should adapt to serve public needs and make peace with secular people.
I showed my manuscript to several people who I thought were my friends because I wanted to get the perspective of religious conservatives. Instead of helping me, some of them began trying to expel me from the conservative movement.
I eventually realized that many conservative activists were committed to identity rather than ideas. One of my friends literally told me in 2016 that he would support Cruz bc "that's what the Christians are doing."
We're at a critical moment in U.S. politics right now because the Christian identity politics that is the edifice of Republican electioneering is teetering. Millions of Americans have for decades thought that their countrymen are evil.
You can watch this play out right now on a television stage when you tune into Fox News as they cover the election. Fact-based journalists have finally realized that the identity rage of the GOP is going into a raging crescendo.
On an hourly basis now outside of the rage-filled lie-fests of primetime, Fox reporters are gently trying to explain to guests that they need actual evidence before accusing people of crimes. The guests, such as Gingrich, have NEVER been challenged like this on Fox.
Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, Martha MacCallum, and others are trying to save conservatism from itself. It's like watching a modern-day adaptation of Aeschylus or Sophocles. Sadly, the rest of us are not just spectators in this tragedy.
How American conservatism dies is the most important story, by far, of this moment. Conventional media will never tell this story because their business is built on the lie that Trump is an aberration rather than apotheosis. That NeverTrump is righteous rather than venal.
At the same time, the tens of millions of people who vote Republican are not deplorable. They are misled. And the mocking and tribalistic coverage that lefty media often engage in only makes things worse. Only love can defeat hate.
I will be undertaking several projects address these and other large subjects including: a memoir of my youth in a fundamentalist Mormon household and a new magazine called Flux that will cover politics, data, sociology, and religion. Please follow to join me!
And just to clarify my point about people who are "misled."

It's the people that Trump referred to when he said "I love the poorly educated." They are the people who work hard, go to church, and feel they have no future in a secular America.

Not the leaders but the led.
Thanks for reading my rant.

If you would to see some of my writing that explores this topic at greater length, here is an older piece I wrote about the vulnerability of "own the libs" conservatism to reaction.

Another one.
https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1325979632244420609

People are worried about coups, but the thing causing me real despair is the prospect of living for decades in an ever-tightening vice of right-wing gerrymandering and court packing, in which there is no election victory large enough to permit anyone left of center to govern

Self-styled moderates in the political class see this as salutary, because they think it forces compromise. But it doesn’t, even in the most optimistic rendering, because the right has no such limitation. The right can easily secure governing trifectas with a minority of the vote

The undemocratic structure of our government has created a one-way ratchet: Republicans win total control and further clamp down on civil society, then government becomes divided, creating an interregnum in which they block any swing in the other direction. Republicans are able to always win either total control or divided control despite barely ever winning a majority of votes. Democrats are only able to win either divided control or lose all control, despite almost always producing a majority of votes.

Only a couple oscillations of this one-way pendulum since 2000 has produced four catastrophic years of Donald Trump. What is going to happen on the next swing?

And don’t let it go unnoticed that in addition to the majority of voters, the disadvantaged side of the electorate contains the vast majority of nonwhite Americans, including almost all black Americans.

In order to ensure that conservative white men never leaves the driver seat of US politics, Republicans are reducing us to one-party minority rule.

And so we’re rebuilding an apartheid state, election by election, one four-year cycle at a time.

And what’s truly shocking is that so many people in our politics don’t even see it. To them, it’s simply the natural order that men like McConnell have permanent voice in government.

They never think to question how it is that a party that wins so few votes never leaves power.

This is going to go loud someday, if I have the terminology right. Doesn't it always in these circumstances?

spmetla
Do you think the polling was accurate that the US military active service demographic decisively rejected Trump at ballot?

As a man who has no sense of patriotism I worry what he'd be willing to sell and to whom.

Is this what they call a dangling modifier? :P

Hooahguy

11-10-2020, 15:38

https://twitter.com/AmyArgetsinger/status/1325988818550358016
“'What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change,' said one senior Republican official."

1. Permanently damages American norms and institutions
2. Weakens the American government
3. Further polarizes the population with potential violent externalities
4. Gives license to authoritarians around the world to seize or consolidate power without regard to American or Western notices/rhetoric

Could be a few more downsides.

Flashback to 2015 when people said the same thing about Trump when he tossed his hat into the ring.

ReluctantSamurai

11-10-2020, 16:16

The undemocratic structure of our government has created a one-way ratchet: Republicans win total control and further clamp down on civil society, then government becomes divided, creating an interregnum in which they block any swing in the other direction. Republicans are able to always win either total control or divided control despite barely ever winning a majority of votes. Democrats are only able to win either divided control or lose all control, despite almost always producing a majority of votes.

Isn't this an argument for a more "radical" approach for Democrats? Yes, I know it's not that simple in a political environment where a more radical approach gets labeled as socialism, which scares the hell out of people. I'm also shifting my thinking that such "radicalism" has to happen at the state level rather than the federal level. When you ask yourself how the above agenda gets implemented time and time again, the answer seems to be that Republican control resides in state legislatures and courts continually stacking the system in favor of themselves by voter suppression, and getting state courts packed with conservative judges that more often than not rule in favor of that agenda. It's why Republicans have tried 20 times in the last 10 years to pack state supreme courts, and will continue to do so. When a Democrat does succeed in breaking through that "Red Wall" they get hamstrung by a hostile legislature and unfavorable court rulings. Until Republican power is broken at the state level, it will be nearly impossible to get anything done at the federal level, IMHO.

The perfect example is what we are discussing here about the possibility of rogue electoral voting.

Could be a few more downsides.

Yeah like another 100,000 deaths from COVID-19 by the inauguration date, because there is a refusal of the Trump Administration to transition, leaving our pandemic response still hopelessly adrift. Do not be surprised to see a big military show by China to try to intimidate Taiwan. Especially now that CoviDon has temporarily kneecapped the DoD by firing Mark Esper. I'll be surprised if they don't try and take advantage of the current chaos.

I'm fully expecting some sort of terrorism act by the right-wing. It's been uncannily quiet so far, and that makes me nervous. The longer this horse-shit about a fraudulent vote goes on, the more likely the opportunities for violence. Also, I expect there will be more firings which will likely include Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield, and any other medical expert that contradicted the President at one time or another. We have a 4 year old that is not picking up his toys and going home, he's breaking all the toys in a temper tantrum.

edyzmedieval

11-10-2020, 16:36

I guess the Georgia runoff campaign will receive as much airwave as the election night, so get ready for more John King and Steve Kornacki telling us every nook & cranny of Georgia's counties.

rory_20_uk

11-10-2020, 16:48

Am I correct that, even with the two Senate seats in Georgia, most things would be open to being fillibustered?

So even if Biden wanted to undertake significant change there's a pretty good change it might be stymied by even a small handful of Senators.

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

11-10-2020, 17:15

Well Senator Manchin (D-WV) said he isnt open to getting rid of the filibuster so it would be difficult no matter what. But with a 50 seat majority other things become possible, such as confirming judges and cabinet positions which is also very valuable.

Montmorency

11-10-2020, 17:19

https://i.imgur.com/e7T2pMB.jpg

Isn't this an argument for a more "radical" approach for Democrats? Yes, I know it's not that simple in a political environment where a more radical approach gets labeled as socialism, which scares the hell out of people. I'm also shifting my thinking that such "radicalism" has to happen at the state level rather than the federal level. When you ask yourself how the above agenda gets implemented time and time again, the answer seems to be that Republican control resides in state legislatures and courts continually stacking the system in favor of themselves by voter suppression, and getting state courts packed with conservative judges that more often than not rule in favor of that agenda. It's why Republicans have tried 20 times in the last 10 years to pack state supreme courts, and will continue to do so. When a Democrat does succeed in breaking through that "Red Wall" they get hamstrung by a hostile legislature and unfavorable court rulings. Until Republican power is broken at the state level, it will be nearly impossible to get anything done at the federal level, IMHO.

I think it comes down to blue states pursuing a shared regulatory agenda, among other things, which leads to nullification of Supreme Court rulings IMO (if the Democrats can't achieve a trifecta anytime this decade - and 2020 was our very best shot). Nullification would present itself not as some kind of appeal to state's rights or legal philosophy or constitutional formalism, but simply according to an emerging and explicit Democratic consensus against the legitimacy of Republicans to rule over us. If and when that happens, red states will rapidly regress into hybrid regimes, freedom of movement between the states will become a quaint notion, and worst of all upon taking the presidency Republicans will proceed to eviscerate blue states by drawing up the fiscal strings.

The old world is dead but the new can't be born yet.

I guess the Georgia runoff campaign will receive as much airwave as the election night, so get ready for more John King and Steve Kornacki telling us every nook & cranny of Georgia's counties.

Can you say more about these names?

Am I correct that, even with the two Senate seats in Georgia, most things would be open to being fillibustered?

So even if Biden wanted to undertake significant change there's a pretty good change it might be stymied by even a small handful of Senators.

~:smoking:

The filibuster would almost certainly be terminated with 50 Democratic senators (the alternative would be a crime against the people). On the other hand, one way or another any given Democratic senator would have sole veto over legislation on the floor.

EDIT: Actually, I would like to retract that. Previously, I had said it would take ~52 senators for a Democratic Senate to be comfortable with filibuster abolition. Given the Pyrrhic victory we've endured, attaining 50 would be a miraculous boon but it's hard to argue that the Senate wouldn't be more conservative than under a landslide scenario. I just hope the senators will recognize the greater urgency of the situation the election has revealed.

ReluctantSamurai

11-10-2020, 22:34

I think it comes down to blue states pursuing a shared regulatory agenda, among other things, which leads to nullification of Supreme Court rulings IMO

No idea what you mean by "shared regulatory agenda." You've got Democrats already bickering amongst themselves one week after the election. In fact, I dare say Democratic moderates are going harder after the left-wing portion of the party then they did their GOP opponents. It's no wonder they lost ground to Republicans. Can't imagine there being some kind of unified front to "nullification of Supreme Court rulings."

I just hope the senators will recognize the greater urgency of the situation the election has revealed.

There are, of course many aspects to why it's critical to take both senatorial seats, but the immediate one is the most crucial, IMHO.

Yes, I'm crying wolf here, and the plausibility of the "Faithless Elector" can certainly be overstated---which I admit I'm doing. But....

.....putting what my perception of the deranged individual called the 45th President is, and various other clues, I truly believe "The Steal" is in play and it's not the Democrats. I'll repost this link, but without all the copy/paste I did the last time. Note the eerie prescience of some of the authors statements (made back in September):

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Trump hates to lose. He HATES to lose more than anything else. He stated during the campaign that Biden was the weakest candidate in US history, and there was no possible way he could lose to such a weak candidate....until he did....in front of the entire world. He is seething at the moment, and has not made a public appearance in a week. In keeping with his spoiled brat mentality, he's knocking over the chess board by refusing to concede and by firing people. And there will be more firings to come.

Now there's the smoke screen of fraudulent voting currently ongoing. He knows that isn't going anywhere, but that's not the endgame. Part I of the endgame is the Rogue Elector gambit. If you read The Atlantic link, the author was in contact with GOP representatives in Pennsylvania who were, back in September, having conversations with the Trump election committee about doing just that. There is now just under a month before states have to certify their electoral votes and send them to Congress. The current bluster over fraudulent votes will take at least several weeks to resolve (given that the DoJ is now involved, Barr can use any number ways to drag it out that long).

That gives Trump the time to make deals with the Republican legislatures in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona....all crucial to Biden's victory. In Arizona, the GOP has the trifecta...GOP governor, legislature, and a conservative state Supreme Court. Easy pickings. In Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the Republicans lack only the governors seat. No worries. Electoral appointments have to be submitted by Dec 8 giving Congress 6 days to verify their credentials. For the three, and possibly four states mentioned, there will be two sets of electoral votes. Which ones are the ones to be counted? Well:

The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president. (I lied about no copy-and-paste, so sue me:laugh4:)

Furthermore:

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

Enter this cryptic statement by Pennsylvania's Republican Party Chairman:

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.

Jake Corman, the state’s Senate majority leader, preferred to change the subject, emphasizing that he hoped a clean vote count would produce a final tally on Election Night. “The longer it goes on, the more opinions and the more theories and the more conspiracies [are] created,” he told me. If controversy persists as the safe-harbor date nears, he allowed, the legislature will have no choice but to appoint electors. “We don’t want to go down that road, but we understand where the law takes us, and we’ll follow the law.”

The next crucial date comes on Jan 6 when the new Congress gets sworn in. Hence the absolutely crucial two seats in Georgia that, should they go to the Dems, crushes this strategy, there and then. If they split, or the GOP gets both, Endgame Part II begins, and the law is extremely murky....extremely murky.

If electoral votes from one or more states get disqualified, and in doing so, shorts Biden from getting the required 270, voting now goes back to the House with one vote per state. Guess what? The GOP holds a majority and hands the presidency to Donald Trump. But there is an endgame Part III....Nancy Pelosi expels all Senators from the House floor, and Pence cannot complete the vote "in the presence of" the House as required by the Constitution. So Pence gets all GOP House members together and holds a separate vote, and all hell breaks loose.

One last item here....why fire Secretary of Defense Mark Esper now? Why not sooner? Think back on "the" singular issue that Esper pissed off the President about....oh yeah, sending federal troops out to quell protesters. Trump got around that for awhile by sending DHS agents into the field under the guise of "protecting Federal buildings." Why not put another lap dog in place that has no qualms about sending in the National Guard to deal with the inevitable riots that will be happening during all of this. I expect there will be more DoD firings to completely secure the acquiescence of military force.

Am I just being paranoid? Yeah, probably. Can you folks just poke fun at me later? OF COURSE! I never take my self that seriously. But these words from the article is what prompted this whole rant:

Let us nothedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward. If compelled in the end to vacate his office, Trump will insist from exile, as long as he draws breath, that the contest was rigged.

Trump’s invincible commitment to this stance will be the most important fact about the coming Interregnum. It will deform the proceedings from beginning to end. We have not experienced anything like it before.

Maybe you hesitate. Is it a fact that if Trump loses, he will reject defeat, come what may? Do we know that? Technically, you feel obliged to point out, the proposition is framed in the future conditional, and prophecy is no man’s gift, and so forth. With all due respect, that is pettifoggery. We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend.

BTW, a cryptic statement today from the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo:

“The world is watching what’s taking place. We’re gonna count all the votes. When the process is complete, there’ll be electors selected. There’s a process – the constitution lays it out pretty clearly. The world should have every confidence that the transition necessary to make sure that the state department is functional today, successful today and successful with a president who’s in office on January 20 a minute after noon, will also be successful.”

:shrug:

Montmorency

11-11-2020, 01:08

One hitch in the scenario, Samurai: It would require total unity within the Republican Party to commit to an auto-coup. As in, an unequivocal declaration of insurgency that can only be adjudicated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or perhaps the individual consciences of mobilized unit commands. To the extent that remains an open question, replacing a few bureaucrats

I expect there will be more DoD firings to completely secure the acquiescence of military force.

will not be dispositive.

Given the numerous ranking Republicans who have at least tacitly recognized Biden's victory, I think the weight of priorities is to cut Trump loose while continuing to cultivate the base with paranoid delusions. A coup needs unanimity. It needs, for example, a supermajority of Republicans in the state legislatures named to not only condone, but implement, the Trumpian strategy.

I'm not saying it can't happen. Certainly communications like this are more than ominous (expanding on your quote):
https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/status/1326226043246694402

NEW: Pompeo asked whether the State Department will cooperate with the Biden transition, says:

"There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration"

"We're in good shape," Pompeo says. He adds that the world is watching

I'm just saying that so far we have reason to believe such an eventuality will not reach fruition on its own. It's a heavy lift, though one that Democrats should respond to by univocally establishing that there is no coming back from this, and that if establishment Republicans do not repudiate Trump - invoke the 25th already - then... (ah, who am I kidding, Dems aren't willing to go that far).

I basically track with the following perspective, though a little more optimistic on the inevitable Untergang.
https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1326178439716610048

People keep asking whether Trump and the Republicans attempt to steal the election is legitimate, if it's a coup, if it's a fundraising scheme, if it's posturing, if it's actually all that dangerous.

The answer is yes. All of these things and so much more.

1/
The first thing we have to establish is that Trump is erratic. He flails and rages. But that flailing and raging, paired with his shamelessness, exposes weaknesses in our system.

When Trump finds a weakness, he exploits it until he breaks through.

2/
Right now Trump is defeated. He has no legitimate means of winning this election and so he's throwing everything at it in hopes something will stick. At times, it's laughable, but all he needs is ONE THING to work.

3/
And yes, Trump is using this crisis as a means of fundraising. Sending out alarming emails and messages raises money from angry supporters desperate for hope, but it also continues to establish an escalating crisis.

It does multiple things at once.

4/
Trump is a gambler playing multiple hands. He's a terrible gambler, but his entire life he's just trying so many angles at so many times that he waits until he finds something that even halfway works.

This? Right now? This is multiple hands of badly played poker.

5/
So what are the possible outcomes?

Trump loses but saves face.

Trump loses but raises money.

Trump manages to break through, subvert democracy, and steals the election.

These are all "wins" for him even if it means radicalizing people and a coup.

6/
This is how Trump sees the world. He's not worried about inspiring violence, destroying democracy, hurting the nation or anyone in it.

He's looking for his best possible outcome and doesn't care what he does in the process.

It's a COUP AND A SCAM. Both things at once.

7/
Meanwhile, and this is important, the Republicans are playing their own games.

Some are true believers, nuts who believe the election was stolen. But most understand Trump lost and are playing their own game.

We have to understand why they're doing it.

8/
People like McConnell and Graham are giving voice to Trump for multiple reasons. They need to keep Trumpists active in the GOP, they need to win the special elections in GA, the controversy creates passion, and it leads to fundraising.

But...they're also fine with a coup.

9/
If Trump manages to break through and actually steals the election, the Republicans would be fine with it. That would mean power, and that's their only concern.

This willingness to harness a fascist strongman is why they cannot be trusted with power.

10/
As I mentioned in my article this morning, Fox News is now vying to keep its audience as Trumpists reject it for actually reporting Biden's win.

They'll cover these conspiracy theories to keep viewers loyal if at all possible.

11/

Fox News Created a Monster. And Now That Monster Wants Revenge.
Fox News now “sucks,” election-denying Trumpkins say. And so it’s a race to the bottom for other outlets to appeal to an audience hoping to further remove themselves from reality.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-created-a-monster-and-now-that-trump-worshipping-monster-wants-revenge?ref=home

The whole point is this: Trump and the GOP are playing a dangerous game. The coup might not work, but they see an advantage at flirting with a coup.

The coup might work and they see an advantage with grasping power for themselves.

It's a win-win for them while we lose.

12/
I don't think Trump or the GOP truly believe they're going to manage to overturn the election, but peddling these conspiracy theories help them regardless.

But the frightening thing? If it does work and they carry out a coup? They're more than happy to accept that.

13/
This has been theater from the very beginning. Trump played an authoritarian on TV until he BECAME ONE.

You play the role until you are the role. In this case, they're posturing for power and profit until they gain power and profit, one way or another.

14/
Again, this doesn't mean the coup will work. It's haphazard, lazy, and stupid.

But...it COULD work. That's the danger here we have to take seriously.

Not to mention the fact that these people are more than willing to endanger lives and threaten democracy.

15/
If the coup works, we're in a whole world of trouble.

If it doesn't, Trump and the GOP have turned the temperature up, radicalized numbers of supporters, and possibly inspired terroristic acts by their supporters.

It's unconscionable and dangerous on a whole other level.

16/
People are going to tell you there's nothing to worry about. That's absolutely wrong and irresponsible.

You can recognize there's no legal ground here while understanding these people are bad faith actors who rage until they find weakness in the law and systems.

17/
This thing isn't a joke. Trump and the GOP are playing a game, but there's nothing funny about it. We're all in incredible danger right now and pretending like it isn't dangerous, win or lose, only empowers and enables them to continue destroying democracy.

TLDR: Steiner's divisions will probably not relieve Berlin, and Republicans know this, but they're fine with trying and failing. Because to be Republican is to reject the legitimacy and sovereignty (and possibly humanity) of humanswho vote Democratic.

https://i.imgur.com/LlZ0lal.jpg

ReluctantSamurai

11-11-2020, 04:50

One hitch in the scenario, Samurai: It would require total unity within the Republican Party to commit to an auto-coup.

No, it doesn't. All it requires is the Republican legislatures from 4 states to participate. Doesn't involve Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, or any other deep red state. If any three of those four decide to buy in, it becomes possible...not a certainty, but it's possible. And as you might have read from the article, the GOP legislature from one of those four states, Pennsylvania, was already in conversation with the White House about participating in The Big Steal as far back as September. You've got to figure that Arizona, having the trifecta of control, might be interested, considering Deucy was bold enough to fire three commissioners on the candidate approval board that validates the governor's Supreme Court nominees when they turned down one of his appointees. He appointed three new commissioners, and resubmitted the declined candidate who was then promptly approved to the court. Not a man who gives a crap about the law.

Look, I've already admitted this can be simply fear-mongering, as a lot of things have to fall the Republicans way. But the authors closing statement rings true, and all of us sane people here in the States know it to be true: "We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend [otherwise]." He's unhinged enough to try it because he hates to lose, and he needs the office to protect him from jail for four more years until he can figure out an exit strategy.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-11-2020, 05:37

Montmorency

11-11-2020, 06:59

No, it doesn't. All it requires is the Republican legislatures from 4 states to participate. Doesn't involve Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, or any other deep red state. If any three of those four decide to buy in, it becomes possible...not a certainty, but it's possible. And as you might have read from the article, the GOP legislature from one of those four states, Pennsylvania, was already in conversation with the White House about participating in The Big Steal as far back as September. You've got to figure that Arizona, having the trifecta of control, might be interested, considering Deucy was bold enough to fire three commissioners on the candidate approval board that validates the governor's Supreme Court nominees when they turned down one of his appointees. He appointed three new commissioners, and resubmitted the declined candidate who was then promptly approved to the court. Not a man who gives a crap about the law.

Look, I've already admitted this can be simply fear-mongering, as a lot of things have to fall the Republicans way. But the authors closing statement rings true, and all of us sane people here in the States know it to be true: "We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend [otherwise]." He's unhinged enough to try it because he hates to lose, and he needs the office to protect him from jail for four more years until he can figure out an exit strategy.

Here is a rundown of what it would mean, per "supermajority of Republicans" (and of course we're assuming state leges can appoint slates of electors without executive approval because it's all Calvinball at this point):

Arizona: State Senate - 17 R, 13 D
State House - 31 R, 29 D

Pennsylvania: State Senate - 28 R, 21 D
State House - 109 R, 93 D

Georgia: State Senate - 35 R, 21 D
State House - 103 R, 75 D

Michigan: State Senate - 22 R, 16 D
State House - 58 R, 52 D

Wisconsin: State Senate - 19 R, 14 D
State Assembly - 63 R, 35 D

And yet (https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/10/pa-electoral-college-popular-vote/):

For months, there has been talk swirling that if Joe Biden wins Pennsylvania, Republicans in the state legislature could bypass the popular vote and appoint electors who are favorable to President Trump.

The electors award Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.

On Friday, State Senate majority leader Jake Corman said Republicans will honor the wishes of the voters.

“Our role is to monitor the process, our role is to provide oversight and call out questions where they might need asked, but certainly want to stay with the tradition of the popular vote winner getting the electors,” Senator Corman said.

Corman says the vote is certified by the state and the governor appoints the electors.

He says the legislature will follow the law.

If you're telling me that we're at the point where in the coming weeks at least: 16/17 + 31/31 Arizona Republican legislators; 16/30 + 102/108 Pennsylvania Republican legislators; 29/35 + 91/103 Georgia Republican legislators; 20/22 + 56/58 Michigan Republican legislators; 17/19 + 50/63 Wisconsin Republican legislators - all agree to go all in on overthrowing our ancient and established form of government, we must presuppose near-unanimity among the Republican party to go through with the thing.

IF there were near-unanimity among a major political party to seize power in such a manner, and they had a good chance of success once they started going through with it, then while dispreferred to civil disobedience it would in fact be morally justified to

[Communicated]

Wouldn't even be as extreme as what John Brown did, and John Brown did nothing wrong. National integrity and self-determination are not to be abandoned easily. :brood:

ReluctantSamurai

11-11-2020, 09:06

An interesting conversation with Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTU5ruzEyO0

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTU5ruzEyO0)It's roughly a 25 min watch and it makes heavy reference to The Atlantic article by Barton Gellman. Ironically, Lessig represented the plaintiffs in the recent cases this year of Chiafalo v. Washington and Baca v. Colorado, arguing FOR "Faithless Electors." SOB, you might think, until you understand why:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/supreme-court-faithless-electors-electoral-college.html

Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig, who represents the plaintiffs, is aware of that possibility. Indeed, it seems to be his goal. Lessig wants to make the Electoral College so wacky and unpredictable (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/electoral-college-supreme-court-lessig-faithless-electors.html) that the entire country turns against it, then adopts a constitutional amendment creating a nationwide popular vote for president. The justices appeared to be aware of this end goal on Wednesday. And they had no apparent interest in facilitating Lessig’s master plan.

And then there's this site prepared by his law students, which, although pre-election day is fun nevertheless:

https://ec-faqs.us/

(https://ec-faqs.us/)

Idaho

11-11-2020, 13:58

Reuters poll shows that currently 3% of Americans think that trump won:

The Reuters/Ipsos national opinion survey, which ran from Saturday afternoon to Tuesday, found that 79% of U.S. adults believe Biden won the White House. Another 13% said the election has not yet been decided, 3% said Trump won and 5% said they do not know.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/nearly-80-of-americans-say-biden-won-white-house-ignoring-trumps-refusal-to-concede-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Q3ED

Seeing as 10% of Americans believe the moon landing were fake, this result is actually very encouraging.

edyzmedieval

11-11-2020, 14:11

President-Elect this morning had a whole list of meetings with world leaders, particularly in Europe - he discussed with Boris Johnson and with leaders in Ireland, per the campaign managers.

Europe's leaders I guess are more than eager to work with him.

Montmorency

11-11-2020, 17:41

Crandar, we found some McCarthyism.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rnc-chair-says-11000-people-have-come-forward-with-voter-fraud-claims/ar-BB1aTwyF
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1326394667542441987

On Tuesday night, Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) [Ed. Mitt Romney's niece], told FOX News commentator Sean Hannity that she has 234 pages containing 500 sworn affidavits alleging 11,000 incidents of various types of voter fraud.

Briefly listing the allegations on Hannity's show, McDaniel said that a person in Wayne County, Michigan alleged that 60 percent of a batch of voter ballots had the same signature on them, that another affidavit claimed to have seen 35 ballots counted despite not being cast by registered voters, that 50 ballots were counted multiple times in a tabulation machine elsewhere, that one woman's dead son somehow voted in one election and that Democrats handed out documents on how to distract Republican vote challengers.

"It's been rigged from the beginning," McDaniel told Hannity, "rigged from the laws that were being passed in the name of COVID to create a porous election, rigged in the sense that they kicked Republicans out of poll watching and observing... and now you have a media that's rigging it again by saying we're not going to even listen to these stories."

"That's why the RNC is going to pursue this to the very end," McDaniel continued. "We can never let this happen again.... These men and women matter their voices will be heard."

McDaniel claimed that Republican-led "data teams" still need time to conduct their investigations into various allegations.

At least five Supreme Court justices (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/supreme-court-obamacare-aca.html), including two members of its conservative majority, indicated on Tuesday that they would reject attempts by Republicans and the Trump administration to kill the Affordable Care Act.

It was not clear whether the court would strike down a provision of the act that initially required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, a requirement that was rendered toothless in 2017 after Congress zeroed out the penalty. But the bulk of the sprawling 2010 health care law, President Barack Obama’s defining domestic legacy, appeared likely to survive its latest encounter with the court.

Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said striking down the so-called individual mandate did not require the rest of the law to be struck down as well.

“Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero,” Chief Justice Roberts said.

Justice Kavanaugh made a similar point. “It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place — the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and the rest,” he said.

[...]

Chief Justice Roberts said that adjusting the penalty while leaving the rest of law in place was telling. “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down,” the chief justice told Mr. Hawkins, “when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.”

Justice Kavanaugh also said that the whole law was not tied to the fate of the mandate. “I tend to agree with you,” he told Mr. Verrilli, “that it’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents.”

The Republicans are deeply committed to dissolving liberal democracy, but we've already known that and it's not tantamount to stealing this office now.

If the Supreme Court won't even terminate the ACA right now when Democrats can't do anything to stop them, why would they go even further in affirming a coup? The game here is longer, to the extent you can name it that.

Reuters poll shows that currently 3% of Americans think that trump won:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/nearly-80-of-americans-say-biden-won-white-house-ignoring-trumps-refusal-to-concede-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Q3ED

Seeing as 10% of Americans believe the moon landing were fake, this result is actually very encouraging.

Add it up and it's about 1/5, which is thorny but better than I hoped.

Let's see how it stands after years of agitprop from the top. Few Republicans believed Obama was born in Kenya at first. After a few years, most did. Now, almost all do.

Hooahguy

11-11-2020, 18:37

Crandar, we found some McCarthyism.

It gets worse!
(https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1326530952487702528?s=20)

A sign of the loyalty-oath atmosphere now at DOD: When Jim Anderson was fired yesterday as Acting Under Secretary for Policy, he was given a "clap-out" as he left the building. The WH called to request names of any political appointees who joined in so they could be fired.

Unsure if its true, but its par for the course.

ReluctantSamurai

11-11-2020, 19:05

Ronna McDaniel and the rest of the GOP need to go back to grade school and redo their math classes. Irregardless of some of the procedural claims (the 'not-zero' BS), the number of votes that they can eventually get invalidated won't be within warp distance of what's required to alter results. Much of the "irregularity" claimed in that 234 page document is nothing but anecdotal. I can't wait to see comments from judges who have to sift through all crap:rolleyes:

Here's a thought...if the voting process is so fraudulent, does this mean that the first time the House of Representatives convenes, that Nancy Pelosi can point to all the newly elected Republicans and order them out of the chamber because their seat hasn't been validated yet?

I'm a bit suspicious of the Reuter/Ipsos poll. If 93% of registered Republican voters votes for Trump, now a week after the election, somewhere north of 40% now agree that it's a Biden win?:inquisitive:

spmetla

11-12-2020, 02:30

Do you think the polling was accurate that the US military active service demographic decisively rejected Trump at ballot?

I can believe it, the institutionalists in the military don't like seeing their allies abandoned, NATO undercut, and major training exercises stopped. I think the Enlisted continue to overwhelming support Trump and some of the Officers but I think most Officers oppose Trump. The military is inherently conservative so I could see many Enlisted and Officers voting for a third party before they'd ever vote for a Democrat. For the junior enlisted, this would probably be the first time voting and if they haven't done it before they may not know how to do an absentee ballot in their home state. There's also a lot of military members that extend their view of having an apolitical military to the extend that they don't vote as they don't think it their business.

Edit: I also wouldn't discount the effect of firing Mcmaster, Kelly, and Mattis. Mattis's book "Call Sign Chaos" is one I've had BDE Commander's and Heads of Staff recommend for reading on leadership. Not to mention Mattis is highly respected by the Marine Corps to almost "Chesty" Puller levels. McMasters's books are excellent for discussions of civil-military relations and roles in the US. The "Professional" core of the military takes leadership seriously and a man who says "I don't take responsibility at all" is much harder to get behind than even a controversial President like Truman whose ethos of "The Buck Stops Here" is far more respectable.

Hooahguy

11-12-2020, 03:33

Firing Mattis definitely had an impact. I personally know a couple of former Marines who were really pissed that Mattis was fired and they became pro-Biden because of what Mattis wrote during the BLM protests.

rory_20_uk

11-12-2020, 15:12

I can believe it, the institutionalists in the military don't like seeing their allies abandoned, NATO undercut, and major training exercises stopped. I think the Enlisted continue to overwhelming support Trump and some of the Officers but I think most Officers oppose Trump. The military is inherently conservative so I could see many Enlisted and Officers voting for a third party before they'd ever vote for a Democrat. For the junior enlisted, this would probably be the first time voting and if they haven't done it before they may not know how to do an absentee ballot in their home state. There's also a lot of military members that extend their view of having an apolitical military to the extend that they don't vote as they don't think it their business.

Edit: I also wouldn't discount the effect of firing Mcmaster, Kelly, and Mattis. Mattis's book "Call Sign Chaos" is one I've had BDE Commander's and Heads of Staff recommend for reading on leadership. Not to mention Mattis is highly respected by the Marine Corps to almost "Chesty" Puller levels. McMasters's books are excellent for discussions of civil-military relations and roles in the US. The "Professional" core of the military takes leadership seriously and a man who says "I don't take responsibility at all" is much harder to get behind than even a controversial President like Truman whose ethos of "The Buck Stops Here" is far more respectable.

The military is conservative - OK. But republican...?

They have government jobs, are literally ordered what to do by the Federal Government
They have government backed healthcare after leaving military service
They often receive housing paid for by the state.
They rarely get to work on US soil, unless owned by the Federal Government

If they were mercenaries I can understand that - privatise away - but people whose every waking moment is controlled by the government vote for the party that is supposedly against government.

The Democrats have increased the military budget almost as enthusiastically as the Republicans and have continued America's proud tradition of extra-judicial assassinations, supplying weapons to repressive regimes and committing war crimes as Republicans.

Do people in the military chew on the lead bullets?

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

11-12-2020, 15:20

The military is conservative - OK. But republican...?

They have government jobs, are literally ordered what to do by the Federal Government
They have government backed healthcare after leaving military service
They often receive housing paid for by the state.
They rarely get to work on US soil, unless owned by the Federal Government

So I do have some insight into this, from conversations with my friends who are in the military (I myself was planning to join as an officer before an injury took me out of training), they see the role of national defense as a critical part of government that's embedded in the constitution (whereas healthcare is not in their eyes) so they accept the "socialist" aspects of the job like healthcare and housing since its part of their job. And then after they accept the free healthcare because it is "owed" though VA healthcare is mediocre at best and many use it as an example of "see this is why socialized medicine wouldn't work!"

Montmorency

11-12-2020, 17:17

Whoa (https://www.inquirer.com/news/woman-who-called-gisele-fetterman-n-word-wont-face-charges-20201015.html), this is the ethnically-ambiguous Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania with Brazilian wife. NGL they have a certain cinematic look.
https://i.imgur.com/viRobfS.jpg

I can believe it, the institutionalists in the military don't like seeing their allies abandoned, NATO undercut, and major training exercises stopped. I think the Enlisted continue to overwhelming support Trump and some of the Officers but I think most Officers oppose Trump. The military is inherently conservative so I could see many Enlisted and Officers voting for a third party before they'd ever vote for a Democrat. For the junior enlisted, this would probably be the first time voting and if they haven't done it before they may not know how to do an absentee ballot in their home state. There's also a lot of military members that extend their view of having an apolitical military to the extend that they don't vote as they don't think it their business.

Edit: I also wouldn't discount the effect of firing Mcmaster, Kelly, and Mattis. Mattis's book "Call Sign Chaos" is one I've had BDE Commander's and Heads of Staff recommend for reading on leadership. Not to mention Mattis is highly respected by the Marine Corps to almost "Chesty" Puller levels. McMasters's books are excellent for discussions of civil-military relations and roles in the US. The "Professional" core of the military takes leadership seriously and a man who says "I don't take responsibility at all" is much harder to get behind than even a controversial President like Truman whose ethos of "The Buck Stops Here" is far more respectable.

Well, some Republicans are surprised enough to see decisive active-duty support for Biden that they assert that it constitutes ipso facto evidence of voter fraud.

https://i.imgur.com/XGHv1ju.png

Voter fraud per their "234 pages containing 500 sworn affidavits alleging 11,000 incidents of various types of voter fraud" (which entails each affidavit embodying efficiency by describing dozens of incidents in just half a page each). Not the first time they've come with receipts (https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1318981063595708417) of course:

https://i.imgur.com/1NEsw2q.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/DCS7TL6.jpg

Anyway, for reference here is the last known poll of active-duty troops (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/) (plus veterans (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/26/poll-trump-backed-by-majority-of-veterans-but-not-younger-ones/)) before the election.

https://i.imgur.com/eqsl1uc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KyJJhTi.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5CWh0u4.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4nNsx3g.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8i6vdou.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/WlIOpz5.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wducEnw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rV3xsAe.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnsP1zhpNxE

Fake. I've never heard Trump laugh.

rory_20_uk

11-12-2020, 18:20

So I do have some insight into this, from conversations with my friends who are in the military (I myself was planning to join as an officer before an injury took me out of training), they see the role of national defense as a critical part of government that's embedded in the constitution (whereas healthcare is not in their eyes) so they accept the "socialist" aspects of the job like healthcare and housing since its part of their job. And then after they accept the free healthcare because it is "owed" though VA healthcare is mediocre at best and many use it as an example of "see this is why socialized medicine wouldn't work!"

A permanent Navy is embedded in the Constitution, not Army or Airforce. The individual State's National Guard is probably OK.

Interesting that the bits that they directly benefit from are just part of the job and so are ok whereas the same for others is clearly going OTT.

VA healthcare is probably not first rate. But given how the average American would be financially crippled for pretty much any hospital care they are in this regard fortunate.

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

11-12-2020, 18:51

A permanent Navy is embedded in the Constitution, not Army or Airforce. The individual State's National Guard is probably OK.

Interesting that the bits that they directly benefit from are just part of the job and so are ok whereas the same for others is clearly going OTT.

VA healthcare is probably not first rate. But given how the average American would be financially crippled for pretty much any hospital care they are in this regard fortunate.

~:smoking:
It has to do with it being "earned" or not. To them, if you serve in the military then you deserve to get the free healthcare and college after you complete service. Which is partly why I think a national civil service program (like a new Civilian Conservation Corps or a larger AmeriCorps program) might be a good segue to make the idea of universal healthcare or free college more palatable to parts of the population that previously arent so into the idea. You shouldn't have to risk your life to afford college and get healthcare. But I think it could be a great idea, especially with an infrastructure program to go along with it. Like a program where 18 year olds spend a year after graduating college to help rebuild crumbling roads and bridges or clear underbrush from forests to reduce forest fire intensity. And then after their year of service they get free state college tuition. Something like that.

rory_20_uk

11-12-2020, 21:33

It has to do with it being "earned" or not. To them, if you serve in the military then you deserve to get the free healthcare and college after you complete service. Which is partly why I think a national civil service program (like a new Civilian Conservation Corps or a larger AmeriCorps program) might be a good segue to make the idea of universal healthcare or free college more palatable to parts of the population that previously arent so into the idea. You shouldn't have to risk your life to afford college and get healthcare. But I think it could be a great idea, especially with an infrastructure program to go along with it. Like a program where 18 year olds spend a year after graduating college to help rebuild crumbling roads and bridges or clear underbrush from forests to reduce forest fire intensity. And then after their year of service they get free state college tuition. Something like that.

Very interesting. If they were in the IDF I would have some acceptance for that point of view, but given that the USA hasn't been at risk of invasion in oh, 200 years (the War of 1812 when the USA attacked Canada) as I don't really think killing Indians was so much defence as genocide, serving in the military entitles people to a lot of state handouts. The speed with people with entitlements feel that they are all deserved is amazing.

Whereas being a nurse / healthcare assistant - yes indeed, construction workers - and a massive number of other less prestigious jobs which are also generally more poorly paid aren't. All they do is make the country better for Americans. Perhaps these people deserve support.

Perhaps, given the USA's fetishism with the armed forces, the easiest way would be to use the Army Corps of Engineers to do the construction - by hiring the workers and the Army Medical Corps can hire poorly paid healthcare workers and so on and so forth. So the "eeeeevil" perils of Socialism can only go to those who deserve it - those that kill foreigners for business interests and those who help Americans.

~:smoking:

Montmorency

11-13-2020, 01:07

As I figured, more establishment Republicans are beginning to gesture at coming out of the cold with respect to Biden's legitimate status.

Don't believe them of course, they're domestic enemies of the Republic and the Constitution.

It has to do with it being "earned" or not. To them, if you serve in the military then you deserve to get the free healthcare and college after you complete service. Which is partly why I think a national civil service program (like a new Civilian Conservation Corps or a larger AmeriCorps program) might be a good segue to make the idea of universal healthcare or free college more palatable to parts of the population that previously arent so into the idea. You shouldn't have to risk your life to afford college and get healthcare. But I think it could be a great idea, especially with an infrastructure program to go along with it. Like a program where 18 year olds spend a year after graduating college to help rebuild crumbling roads and bridges or clear underbrush from forests to reduce forest fire intensity. And then after their year of service they get free state college tuition. Something like that.

You're actually more conservative than Biden (https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/) here.

Make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all families with incomes below $125,000. Biden has long said that when it comes to public education in America, we’re starting too late and ending too soon — and that if we were building the public education system in America today it would extend from pre-k, starting with 3 and 4 year olds through ensuring 16 years of education is affordable. Biden has added to his education beyond high school agenda by adopting Senator Sanders’ proposal to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all students whose family incomes are below $125,000. This proposal, part of Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal’s College for All Act of 2017, will help roughly 8 out of every 10 families.

If there is to be a national service program let's have it such as will directly meet some need.

Perhaps, given the USA's fetishism with the armed forces, the easiest way would be to use the Army Corps of Engineers to do the construction - by hiring the workers and the Army Medical Corps can hire poorly paid healthcare workers and so on and so forth. So the "eeeeevil" perils of Socialism can only go to those who deserve it - those that kill foreigners for business interests and those who help Americans.

This has long been known as "military Keynesianism."

Army's in the Constitution though, right before the the navy.

Hooahguy

11-13-2020, 02:54

You're actually more conservative than Biden (https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/) here.

I do agree with his plan, I was just thinking of a way to perhaps make the concept more palatable to the anti-free college crowd. Regardless, I do think that a national civil service program is an excellent idea, and has usually found bipartisan support as well. God knows we need the help to rebuild the country. As I recall the American Society of Civil Engineers gave America's infrastructure a D+ rating back in 2017 and I doubt its improved since then.

Idaho

11-13-2020, 09:47

Why do Americans begrudge others from having basic benefits of modern life? It's so weird. I mean, we have a strong strand of it here too - and I don't understand that either. That people should have a certain amount of misery in their lives - unless they are rich, in which case they are sacred magic people and deserve all the benefits the earth can provide. It's like the dark reflection of the politics of envy.

I honestly can't understand why someone would want someone else to either have no healthcare, or be made destitute for it - as a desirable moral outcome. It's f#(k3d up.

ReluctantSamurai

11-13-2020, 15:48

I honestly can't understand why someone would want someone else to either have no healthcare, or be made destitute for it - as a desirable moral outcome. It's f#(k3d up.

That "someone else" can often be identified as black people. Take Jared Kushner's comments earlier this fall about the Trump Administration's policies aimed at blacks: "But he can't want them to be successful more than they want to be successful." Straight out of the "welfare queen" rhetoric of the 70's and 80's. White supremacy anxiety.

Hooahguy

11-13-2020, 19:08

This is a very interesting, albeit dismaying, article that is definitely worth a read:

How 2020 Killed Off Democrats’ Demographic Hopes (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/12/2020-election-analysis-democrats-future-david-shor-interview-436334)

Montmorency

11-14-2020, 02:20

Long-awaited, now finalized at 306-232: A mirror universe version of the 2016 election

Hooahguy

11-14-2020, 06:23

My home state going blue is something I never thought would happen for another generation at least. :book2:

Montmorency

11-14-2020, 07:28

This lieutenant governor is in his 50s yet he tweets with the panache of a Millenial.
https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1326852291182419969

Hmmm (https://www.local10.com/news/local/2020/11/11/evidence-suggests-several-state-senate-candidates-were-plants-funded-by-dark-money/)

Why would candidates for Florida Senate seats do no campaigning, no fundraising, have no issue platforms, nor make any effort to get votes?

Local 10 News has found evidence to suggest three such candidates in three Florida Senate district races, two of them in Miami Dade County, were shill candidates whose presence in the races were meant to syphon votes from Democratic candidates.

Comparisons of the no-party candidates' public campaign records show similarities and connections that suggest they are all linked by funding from the same dark money donors, and part of an elaborate scheme to upset voting patterns.

In one of those races, District 37, a recount is underway because the spread between the Democratic and Republican candidates is only 31 votes. The third party candidate received more than 6300 votes.

That third party candidate is Alexis Rodriguez, who has the same last name as the Democratic incumbent senator Jose Javier Rodriguez. The Republican challenger is Ileana Garcia.

Alexis Rodriguez falsified his address on his campaign filing form last June. The couple who now live at the Palmetto Bay address say they have been repeatedly harassed since then by people looking for Rodriguez, who hadn’t lived there in five years.

Local 10 visited Rodriguez’s place of business Tuesday, where Rodriguez lied about his identity. Pretending to be a business partner, Rodriguez shed little light on his sudden candidacy in the District 37 race and lack of fundraising or campaigning.

What was the term for this?

ReluctantSamurai

11-14-2020, 07:47

What was the term for this?

:shrug:

Alex Rodriguez received 3% of the D37 vote, more than 6300 votes. The race, currently in recount, has a margin of .02 between the Democrat incumbent and Republican challenger.
The race for D39 was decided by 12.3 percent, a large enough margin to make Celso Alfonso’s 1.5 percent of the vote moot.

What I want to know is: a) is A. Rodriguez an invalid candidate, requiring a run-off between Garcia and J.J. Rodriguez? and b) how the eff can somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 people vote for candidates they've never seen or heard speak?

Foreign interference, or GOP scam?

ReluctantSamurai

11-14-2020, 14:30

All is not necessarily well in MAGA World:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/14/trumps-media-battles-for-maga-436502

While MAGA World will certainly carry on without it's "Golden Goose", the infighting will be interesting to watch as contenders for the "Throne" start lining up....:shrug:

Hooahguy

11-14-2020, 15:06

b) how the eff can somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 people vote for candidates they've never seen or heard speak?
Because people are stupid and some want to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Foreign interference, or GOP scam?
I wager the latter. Its well known that the GOP donates to third parties (such as the Greens and Kanye this year) in an effort to siphon off potential Dem voters.

Gilrandir

11-14-2020, 16:23

Hooahguy

11-14-2020, 17:57

I wonder at the naivete of Americans (both here and those I see in TV footages) who calculate votes in states, number of electoral colleges' members, mock Trump calling him Covidon and generally rejoice in his discomfiture.

All of you fail to realize (or choose to disregard) the fact that Trump isn't the core of your troubles. Half of your nation are covidons who want to see him in the White House again. Trump just impersonates the trend. He will eventually step down, but millions of covidons will not, and they will continue living next door to you or across the street. This is what you should be more concerned about.
Yeah I dont think anyone here believes that just getting rid of Trump is the solution to the core issue.

Crandar

11-14-2020, 18:28

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-elect-tommy-tuberville-botches-225708676.html
Evaporating commies on Normandy aside, there is one branch of government, the executive and the Senate. I mean there are two branches of government, the executive, the Senate and the House. Scrap it, there are three, the executive, the Senate, the House and... Yeah that must be it, just like that Jean-Paul Sartre said.

ReluctantSamurai

11-14-2020, 18:33

All of you fail to realize (or choose to disregard) the fact that Trump isn't the core of your troubles. Half of your nation are covidons who want to see him in the White House again. Trump just impersonates the trend. He will eventually step down, but millions of covidons will not, and they will continue living next door to you or across the street. This is what you should be more concerned about.

I don't think that anyone with a brain thinks that firing CoviDon is the end of trouble here. That nearly 73 million voted for him sez it all on that account. However, if he hadn't been fired now, another four years of his chaotic leadership would've seen America slip further and further into an authoritarian state. The real work begins now.

Yeah that must be it, just like that Jean-Paul Sartre said.

What'd you expect from Tuberville? He's been a football coach all of his life. Understanding anything more than the three phases of football (offense, defense, special teams) is probably a bit too much to expect. Don't be too surprised if he doesn't start describing legislation in terms of football plays, like a weak-side jet sweep.....:stupido:

Montmorency

11-15-2020, 00:17

I wonder at the naivete of Americans (both here and those I see in TV footages) who calculate votes in states, number of electoral colleges' members, mock Trump calling him Covidon and generally rejoice in his discomfiture.

All of you fail to realize (or choose to disregard) the fact that Trump isn't the core of your troubles. Half of your nation are covidons who want to see him in the White House again. Trump just impersonates the trend. He will eventually step down, but millions of covidons will not, and they will continue living next door to you or across the street. This is what you should be more concerned about.

Bet you feel pretty silly once you realize that just this question has been plastered all about the thread already since before the election.

It's good that you're interested though (https://www.vox.com/21562116/anne-applebaum-twilight-of-democracy-gop-trump-election-fraud-2020-biden-the-ezra-klein-show), the Republican degeneration is the inescapable tragedy of American life (among others) in the 21st century.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-15-2020, 00:21

Pannonian

11-15-2020, 00:55

This transition is petulance at its worst.

There is, I strongly suspect, NOBODY in the administration that believes the Biden win in the election will now be overturned. Trump keeps playing to his coterie of ignorant supporters and the racists they cohere with and the only loser is ALL of us.

Constitutionally, he can string this out until Congress meets in January to open and accept the vote of the Electoral College. Thus preventing a smooth transition and guaranteeing screw ups above and beyond the Washington DC norm.

Petulant and classless.

All it would take is quiet statement allowing the transition office to function as designed.

What an asshat.

What do you think will happen with the Republican-dominated institutions from now? A couple of the supposedly conservative supreme judges have reportedly backed the legitimacy of the election result. Is this because it's an easy thing to say with little further consequence? Or will sections of the Republican-friendly institutions distance themselves from the Trumpian hardcore?

Montmorency

11-15-2020, 03:46

What do you think will happen with the Republican-dominated institutions from now? A couple of the supposedly conservative supreme judges have reportedly backed the legitimacy of the election result. Is this because it's an easy thing to say with little further consequence? Or will sections of the Republican-friendly institutions distance themselves from the Trumpian hardcore?

Why would they?

kek (https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1327652287519596549)

Today in horrible but unsurprising quotes: in Obama's memoir, he recalls he and Biden trying to explain the policy merits of a bill to Mitch McConnell, who responds "You must be under the mistaken impression that I care”

Ice

11-15-2020, 03:51

This transition is petulance at its worst.

There is, I strongly suspect, NOBODY in the administration that believes the Biden win in the election will now be overturned. Trump keeps playing to his coterie of ignorant supporters and the racists they cohere with and the only loser is ALL of us.

Constitutionally, he can string this out until Congress meets in January to open and accept the vote of the Electoral College. Thus preventing a smooth transition and guaranteeing screw ups above and beyond the Washington DC norm.

Petulant and classless.

All it would take is quiet statement allowing the transition office to function as designed.

What an asshat.

What an asshat indeed, although would anyone really expect him to act differently after a lifetime of well, being an asshat?

Gilrandir

11-15-2020, 05:50

Bet you feel pretty silly once you realize that just this question has been plastered all about the thread already since before the election.

No I don't. Even if such issue came to the focus of attention, you still continue to count votes and guess who will take what position after Trump. But it doesn't really matter. The division within the nation won't disappear whoever steps in.

Montmorency

11-15-2020, 05:58

No I don't. Even if such issue came to the focus of attention, you still continue to count votes and guess who will take what position after Trump. But it doesn't really matter. The division within the nation won't disappear whoever steps in.

Not only are the bolded statements not in opposition, one would naturally seem to heighten the importance of the other. Or are you saying we should lie down and bare our throats?

a completely inoffensive name

11-15-2020, 08:16

I feel a bit embarrassed. My whole life I have always been frustrated at how easy a divided Congress can halt any action and now that I am looking at yet another 2 years of no Federal action whatsoever, I realized I don't even know how Congress operates.
So I bought a book about Congressional Procedure, stuff hooahguy probably already knows but reading it I am at a loss at how ignorant I have been.

Gilrandir

11-15-2020, 09:02

Not only are the bolded statements not in opposition, one would naturally seem to heighten the importance of the other. Or are you saying we should lie down and bare our throats?

Are you saying that your opponents are predators ready to rend to pieces? That's what division within the society makes people say. It seems that you are ready to do the same to them. Biden's victory won't mend anything. You are in for years of Two Americas.

ReluctantSamurai

11-15-2020, 12:33

Biden's victory won't mend anything. You are in for years of Two Americas.

This comment shows that you know little about America. We have already been "Two Americas" for years. It's been decades of white anxiety keeping people of color suppressed as much as possible. The divide between the wealthy and the poor has been getting wider for many years. The political divide between Republicans and Democrats has gotten more radical and confrontational for the last 20 years.

America's problems won't be solved during the course of one presidential term. That will likely not happen during the course of the next four or five presidential terms, if it happens at all. While you are entitled to your opinion, I would appreciate that if you are going to bloviate about the state of affairs here in the States, you at least educate yourself about what is actually going on here.

If the man can correct the utter chaos and madness that's characterized America's pandemic response, and get our economy headed in the direction of a recovery, that alone would be a huge success. Whether he can get some of the other things on his agenda accomplished, isn't entirely within his control. Biden is no Golden Child that's going to instantly heal the very sick patient that is America, but to condemn the man before he's had a chance to do anything...well, keep that BS to yourself until you actually have something to comment on.

Pannonian

11-15-2020, 15:48

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
1h
He won because the Election was Rigged. NO VOTE WATCHERS OR OBSERVERS allowed, vote tabulated by a Radical Left privately owned company, Dominion, with a bad reputation & bum equipment that couldn’t even qualify for Texas (which I won by a lot!), the Fake & Silent Media, & more!

Does this count as conceding the election? Do the constitutional mechanisms have the go ahead to move?

Also, for your amusement (https://twitter.com/LeonaLioness6/status/1327460599366868993).

Gilrandir

11-15-2020, 17:27

This comment shows that you know little about America. We have already been "Two Americas" for years. It's been decades of white anxiety keeping people of color suppressed as much as possible. The divide between the wealthy and the poor has been getting wider for many years. The political divide between Republicans and Democrats has gotten more radical and confrontational for the last 20 years.

America's problems won't be solved during the course of one presidential term. That will likely not happen during the course of the next four or five presidential terms, if it happens at all. While you are entitled to your opinion, I would appreciate that if you are going to bloviate about the state of affairs here in the States, you at least educate yourself about what is actually going on here.

You may not believe, but I'm somewhat aware of the divides you speak about. But in the last four years all of them deepened. And mending them isn't Biden's responsibility, but the one of all Americans.

If the man can correct the utter chaos and madness that's characterized America's pandemic response, and get our economy headed in the direction of a recovery, that alone would be a huge success. Whether he can get some of the other things on his agenda accomplished, isn't entirely within his control. Biden is no Golden Child that's going to instantly heal the very sick patient that is America, but to condemn the man before he's had a chance to do anything...well, keep that BS to yourself until you actually have something to comment on.

First of all, it is always a privilege to communicate to a polite person.

Second of all, I would like you to cite my post where I condemn Biden. I think that in the situation that you have he is the least evil (for Ukraine especially). So I advise you to read carefully what I write and keep YOUR BS to yourself until you do have something to bitch about.

ReluctantSamurai

11-15-2020, 19:30

I'm somewhat aware of the divides you speak about. But in the last four years all of them deepened. And mending them isn't Biden's responsibility, but the one of all Americans.

Somewhat being the key word....in the last four years places the deepening burden on the jack-wagon that just got fired....the office of the presidency does matter...and it goes without saying that the ultimate responsibility lies with the American people themselves.

First of all, it is always a privilege to communicate to a polite person.

Our discourses have never been polite....

Biden's victory won't mend anything.

That's declaring a fail before the man has had a chance to do anything. You have absolutely no idea what he's going be able to do, and stating that "Biden's victory won't mend anything" is BS 'fail' rhetoric which I will call out every time.

a completely inoffensive name

11-15-2020, 20:20

Maher beating the same drum, but I think it's time to concede this may well be the issue holding back the Dems now that we know voters are not choosing based on any sort of policy identification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA

And to be clear, it's the progressives mainly pushing this angle. I remember hooahguy talking during the primaries about how Bernie's followers are just so toxic online and it's hurts his credibility and chances of winning. I think the same is happening to dems across the board and it makes the difference between the turn out for a known candidate like Biden and the rest of the party.

spmetla

11-15-2020, 20:51

The far left of the Democrats don't want to recognize that Biden's win was a win for centrist policies. Trumps biggest successes in the last few months have been associating Democrats (Biden) as socialist/communist, anti-law enforcement, and anti oil/industry. Just like rioters and trouble makers disrupted and destroyed the base message of the whole BLM protests, the expansion of that to the "cancel" culture makes a lot of center-right people vote Republican. I think Maher was spot on.

If the Democrats position themselves as the solid centrist party then they'll actually be able to get things done, both parties going to the extreme is what has led the government system swinging like a pendulum.

It's the same with what happens after Trump is out of office. I'm all for the GAO, DOJ and FBI investigating him for things he may have done, especially in the realm of emoluments and Hatch Act violations not to mention the potential political things. The danger of sitting politicians calling for the jailing of the predecessors becoming normal is something that must be tread carefully. Trump should be called to account but it needs to look legitimate and not like a hit job otherwise this will be the norm when Republicans take back the presidency and house as will happen again someday.

All this makes me really wish we had Ranked Choice voting at all levels of Government. That would allow people to vote for their extreme ideals without having to throw their votes away while at the same time not making it necessary for the two parties to be such "Big Tent" parties that have such strong internal debates about what makes a true R or D.

rory_20_uk

11-15-2020, 21:37

Montmorency

11-15-2020, 23:19

Are you saying that your opponents are predators ready to rend to pieces? That's what division within the society makes people say. It seems that you are ready to do the same to them. Biden's victory won't mend anything. You are in for years of Two Americas.

I don't understand your position. Ukraine is similarly divided, yet there remains such a thing as (from your perspective) good and bad - no?

There is a clear difference between an autocratic far-right regime in power and one that will: attempt to repair America's international standing and regain lost ground in trade policy; reverse Trump's environmental and labor deregulation and add new regulations; halt some of the crimes against humanity at the southern border and restore refugee and immigrant inflows to pre-Trump levels (they have reached near-zero under Trump); stop fomenting division by actively encouraging sedition and paranoia among police, militias, and reactionary whites as a political tactic and cult of personality; rebuild the professional civil service; limit and prosecute past and future corruption in government; organize a more proficient pandemic response...

Among other things. Elections have consequences, among which is never utopia or nash posledny reshitelny boy.

The far left of the Democrats don't want to recognize that Biden's win was a win for centrist policies. Trumps biggest successes in the last few months have been associating Democrats (Biden) as socialist/communist, anti-law enforcement, and anti oil/industry. Just like rioters and trouble makers disrupted and destroyed the base message of the whole BLM protests, the expansion of that to the "cancel" culture makes a lot of center-right people vote Republican. I think Maher was spot on.

If the Democrats position themselves as the solid centrist party then they'll actually be able to get things done, both parties going to the extreme is what has led the government system swinging like a pendulum.

It's the same with what happens after Trump is out of office. I'm all for the GAO, DOJ and FBI investigating him for things he may have done, especially in the realm of emoluments and Hatch Act violations not to mention the potential political things. The danger of sitting politicians calling for the jailing of the predecessors becoming normal is something that must be tread carefully. Trump should be called to account but it needs to look legitimate and not like a hit job otherwise this will be the norm when Republicans take back the presidency and house as will happen again someday.

All this makes me really wish we had Ranked Choice voting at all levels of Government. That would allow people to vote for their extreme ideals without having to throw their votes away while at the same time not making it necessary for the two parties to be such "Big Tent" parties that have such strong internal debates about what makes a true R or D.

How do you figure that this Pyrrhic victory for Democrats indicates a preference for centrist policy? You might as well argue that Biden's adoption of left policies helped him rather than not, since he ran so far ahead of more conservative Democrats.

After all this time, it should be abundantly clear that centrist approaches are inadequate to either the scale of our problems or even securing mere electoral success.

Furthermore, the idea too that ranked choice voting would lead to either a multi-party system or to Republican moderation is not supported. In almost all of the country except NY we have election results that are close to certifiable, and they have a story to tell...

I think below may have been a factor in split-ticket voters deciding to punish Trump while rewarding Republicans.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/220/10a/e92e101743ab3c5425166b02e8b06c7a23-income-chart-1.w710.jpg
https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/b3e/ebf/3f75402c12a11dbcae35da54e11bfd1467-income-chart-2.w710.jpg

spmetla

11-16-2020, 00:30

How do you figure that this Pyrrhic victory for Democrats indicates a preference for centrist policy? You might as well argue that Biden's adoption of left policies helped him rather than not, since he ran so far ahead of more conservative Democrats.

After all this time, it should be abundantly clear that centrist approaches are inadequate to either the scale of our problems or even securing mere electoral success.

Furthermore, the idea too that ranked choice voting would lead to either a multi-party system or to Republican moderation is not supported. In almost all of the country except NY we have election results that are close to certifiable, and they have a story to tell...

My view is that the his siphoning off Republican votes that were variations of never-Trumpers and center-right voters gave him that edge. The ability of Trump to paint all Democrats as socialist/communist anarchists despite it being false was a way to motive his base. The more progressive wing of the Democratic party was of course not a big fan of Biden and would have preferred Warren or Sanders but thankfully turned out well as more of an anti-Trump vote than pro-Biden. Would Warren or Sanders have done better than Biden? It's possible but I honestly think that fewer Republicans would have voted for the Democratic ticket if either of them had the top billet, though we'll never know.

My support for Ranked Choice isn't with the illusion that it would result in large multi party systems like in continental Europe. I live in Hawaii and voting for anything other than Democrat is pretty much a protest vote beyond our county councilmembers and district representatives. I see it as more that it would allow for a third party option to not be a throw-away vote. I know plenty of people that prefer the Green Party or Libertarian policies and would like to vote for those but know that it's really just a throw away vote. Looking at the swing states that decided the election Jo Jorgensen seemed to have consistently gotten 1-1.5% of the vote which is about the margin that won it for Biden. If those voters could have had a second choice who knows how the election would have gone, perhaps it would have been solidly pro Trump or pro Biden. Ross Perot's run in 1992 is argued as one of the reasons Bush Sr lost and Clinton won.
Additionally there'd be more people that wouldn't mind voting for those third party options which would make them more viable and acceptable. If people could have a first choice candidate that might actually represent their ideals and then the compromise centrist candidate it is possible we'd get more voter turn out. I don't think this would make much of a difference for the POTOS position as it would likely remain R or D for the future but in the House and Senate and local legislatures third party options would be viable and possibly lead to no parties having a clear majority in the legislatures and having to form coalitions with all those ups and downs we see in Europe. Either way it'd likely stop the current trend of take power and dictate.

I agree a centrist approach will not resolve our issues alone, the solutions needed are usually 'extreme' but because of that it is difficult to actually get the majorities needed to implement them, not to mention if there are any downsides there's a reactionary movement to undo them completely. Radical change seems to not go over well in the US, even when it's absolutely necessary, incremental steps in the right direction seem to work well here though it's infuriatingly slow. The pendulum swing of each party gaining control and then dictating terms has made our domestic politics too partisan and our foreign policies fickle and unreliable.

I hope that Biden is able to get some Republican legislators to work with him on some of our pressing issues because if his turn in office is just years of filibusters and foot dragging until the mid-terms then I fear for the future of this nation.

Montmorency

11-16-2020, 01:23

My view is that the his siphoning off Republican votes that were variations of never-Trumpers and center-right voters gave him that edge. The ability of Trump to paint all Democrats as socialist/communist anarchists despite it being false was a way to motive his base. The more progressive wing of the Democratic party was of course not a big fan of Biden and would have preferred Warren or Sanders but thankfully turned out well as more of an anti-Trump vote than pro-Biden. Would Warren or Sanders have done better than Biden? It's possible but I honestly think that fewer Republicans would have voted for the Democratic ticket if either of them had the top billet, though we'll never know.

My support for Ranked Choice isn't with the illusion that it would result in large multi party systems like in continental Europe. I live in Hawaii and voting for anything other than Democrat is pretty much a protest vote beyond our county councilmembers and district representatives. I see it as more that it would allow for a third party option to not be a throw-away vote. I know plenty of people that prefer the Green Party or Libertarian policies and would like to vote for those but know that it's really just a throw away vote. Looking at the swing states that decided the election Jo Jorgensen seemed to have consistently gotten 1-1.5% of the vote which is about the margin that won it for Biden. If those voters could have had a second choice who knows how the election would have gone, perhaps it would have been solidly pro Trump or pro Biden. Ross Perot's run in 1992 is argued as one of the reasons Bush Sr lost and Clinton won.
Additionally there'd be more people that wouldn't mind voting for those third party options which would make them more viable and acceptable. If people could have a first choice candidate that might actually represent their ideals and then the compromise centrist candidate it is possible we'd get more voter turn out. I don't think this would make much of a difference for the POTOS position as it would likely remain R or D for the future but in the House and Senate and local legislatures third party options would be viable and possibly lead to no parties having a clear majority in the legislatures and having to form coalitions with all those ups and downs we see in Europe. Either way it'd likely stop the current trend of take power and dictate.

I don't like counterfactuals, so I would frame it as: By now we should acknowledge that from the beginning of the year Biden had the strongest case for being a successful party leader. I am not of the opinion that simply making an open, detailed, and passionate case on policy merits to the American public is sufficient to "win" votes. We know that it's perfectly possible for someone to want a $20 minimum wage and universal healthcare while hating Democrats. Status grievance is determinative. Although, again, it will take a year to do a proper post-mortem; exit polling suggests, contrary to so many expectations set by pre-election polling, that WHITE MEN swung hard toward Biden while other demographics either kept static or moved marginally toward Trump. We need to figure out what the best facts of the matter are.

I support ranked choice btw, or more precisely ranked pairs. I don't know about Libertarian voters deciding anything (except maybe Georgia or Arizona, and almost certainly the Ossof-Perdue runoff ramp), because in this election they constituted only 1% of the national vote. That is to say, as expected the third party vote share collapsed to its usual level in high-salience elections, meaning that most of the people voting Libertarian now are not poached Republicans but the hard core of the third party vote. On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine with the Republican Party going to war with the Libertarians.

A more important factor than third party voters this election (and they're not typically impactful) was, as I mentioned earlier, the Undecided vote share that split a little more evenly in 2016 going almost entirely to Trump/Republicans in this election. (Speaking of Clinton and Perot, the work I'm familiar with has indicated that Perot voters were about evenly-split in their secondary preferences).

Tangentially, if there's ever going to be an electoral structure for third parties in this country, they have to stop being joke organizations that seemingly only exist to grift followers or troll/hinder the major parties. At least, say, the Working Families party has some local existence in the Northeast, in contrast to the Greens or Libertarians.

Either way it'd likely stop the current trend of take power and dictate.

One thing I will push back against is the idea that even more gridlock in Congress would somehow produce compromise and good governance. It never has in history; meanwhile our backlog of crippling problems is just accumulating. I believe this country would have a clarifying experience, and be much better off, with a cycle under each party of total majoritarian control. Well, not under Republicans, simply because there is a serious chance of them implementing a single-party dictatorship. But if that impulse could be contained I would relish the opportunity for, say, a Democratic government to implement Medicare for All, only for a subsequent Republican government to abolish it and Social Security.

Because I believe such a rampage would permanently exhaust the Republican Party and finally end the interregnum before the birth of a new progressive age.

Again, in theory. Republicans can no longer be counted on to peacefully transfer power so that's kind of a dealbreaker. Ultimately this halfway-accelerationist argument for majoritarianism is not the actual case for majoritarianism, I'm just saying it would be preferable to the current arrangement. The argument for majoritarianism is the same as in the rest of the world, namely that majorities should have the opportunity to govern. If Clinton and Obama had had an opportunity to govern without Republican obstruction, I believe it would be much more difficult for Republicans to make the case for government dysfunction. Because it's been a cycle, right? Republicans blow shit up, the pendulum swings and Dems take power and can barely begin cleaning up the mess, before long Republicans regain power with an ever-more-radical bent and wreck even more shit...

I agree a centrist approach will not resolve our issues alone, the solutions needed are usually 'extreme' but because of that it is difficult to actually get the majorities needed to implement them, not to mention if there are any downsides there's a reactionary movement to undo them completely. Radical change seems to not go over well in the US, even when it's absolutely necessary, incremental steps in the right direction seem to work well here though it's infuriatingly slow.

Here's the thing: I'm only a socialist because of the self-evident failures of the centrist establishment. That part of the problem was that establishment's permanent and deepening siege under the forces of Reaction only emphasizes the failure to protect us.

Take climate change as an example. An international, incremental, US-led effort from the HW Bush admin on could have given us a smooth transition that hardly anyone would even have noticed. Now, however, it's the analog of facing a German front at the gates of Moscow without any national defense yet organized. Every delay or failure of what could have been productive incremental change only makes radical change increasingly necessary. I recognize this not because I love radical change for its own sake, but because I can grasp simple causality.

Constant incremental change may even be preferable to violent upheaval, but violent upheaval only becomes available/necessary because reform was lacking or absent! When there is a revolutionary regime change, sometimes one is sad to see the new regime. One is never sad to see the old one go.

Sink or swim. :shrug:

I hope that Biden is able to get some Republican legislators to work with him on some of our pressing issues because if his turn in office is just years of filibusters and foot dragging until the mid-terms then I fear for the future of this nation.

The divergent and self-contained environment of the Georgia runoffs will be an interesting comparison point and testing ground. IMO Democrats should strive to make it very explicitly clear that Biden's ability to act as President is limited by control of the Senate. I would go so far as to promise that, if Republicans retain control their state will go bankrupt and schools will close, whereas if Democrats win then the country (and Georgia) will get bailouts and stimulus checks. Put everything else on the backburner for 2 months besides the immediate material consequences for Georgia and Georgians of this election.

The only other hope, laughable as it is, would be to try to bribe Susan Collins on the theory that her position is secure enough that she can go rogue from the GOP. This theory will fail, if only because by all accounts Collins is well-committed to the Republican project.

ReluctantSamurai

11-16-2020, 03:18

whereas if Democrats win then the country (and Georgia) will get bailouts and stimulus checks.

Perhaps....but then there's Sen. Joe Manchin (D) W. Virginia to consider:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/joe_manchin/412391

And he's already gone on record as opposing ending the filibuster, court-packing, Medicare-for-All, and Green New Deal. The only Democrat to vote yes on the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination:

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/11/09/joe-manchin-kills-dreams-of-expanding-supreme-court-eliminating-the-filibuster/

50/50 may not be sufficient against a man who considers Robert C. Byrd the man who "wrote the rules of the Senate"---the same Robert C. Byrd who organized a KKK chapter in W. Virginia in the early 1940's, voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and supported the Vietnam War. :shrug:

spmetla

11-16-2020, 04:43

I support ranked choice btw, or more precisely ranked pairs. I don't know about Libertarian voters deciding anything (except maybe Georgia or Arizona, and almost certainly the Ossof-Perdue runoff ramp), because in this election they constituted only 1% of the national vote. That is to say, as expected the third party vote share collapsed to its usual level in high-salience elections, meaning that most of the people voting Libertarian now are not poached Republicans but the hard core of the third party vote. On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine with the Republican Party going to war with the Libertarians.

Tangentially, if there's ever going to be an electoral structure for third parties in this country, they have to stop being joke organizations that seemingly only exist to grift followers or troll/hinder the major parties. At least, say, the Working Families party has some local existence in the Northeast, in contrast to the Greens or Libertarians.

Wouldn't you like it if it was okay for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to run as independents or lead one of the many progressive/socialist parties in existence without it gleaning votes away from the primary Democrat running? I think one of the reasons the third parties are jokes is exactly because they to grift followers and hinder major parties. A the local levels is where they can make a difference before taking things nationally.
That's why the new Republican tactic of running a third party candidate with a simliar last name to glean off votes from the competition is dangerous, will likely be repeated elsewhere and only a ranked voting system could totally mitigate.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article247132821.html

NO-PARTY CANDIDATE IS A FACTOR
Much mystery remains around the network of unknown candidates with no party affiliation (NPA) who ran in three competitive Senate districts, most notably in Senate District 37, where the third-party candidate netted more than 6,300 votes and likely influenced the outcome.

Voters in Senate Districts 9, 37 and 39 were targeted by similar-looking political mail ads funded by a mystery donor that aimed to confuse voters in an apparent effort to shave votes from Democratic candidates.

One thing I will push back against is the idea that even more gridlock in Congress would somehow produce compromise and good governance. It never has in history; meanwhile our backlog of crippling problems is just accumulating. I believe this country would have a clarifying experience, and be much better off, with a cycle under each party of total majoritarian control. Well, not under Republicans, simply because there is a serious chance of them implementing a single-party dictatorship. But if that impulse could be contained I would relish the opportunity for, say, a Democratic government to implement Medicare for All, only for a subsequent Republican government to abolish it and Social Security.

Constant incremental change may even be preferable to violent upheaval, but violent upheaval only becomes available/necessary because reform was lacking or absent! When there is a revolutionary regime change, sometimes one is sad to see the new regime. One is never sad to see the old one go.

The divergent and self-contained environment of the Georgia runoffs will be an interesting comparison point and testing ground. IMO Democrats should strive to make it very explicitly clear that Biden's ability to act as President is limited by control of the Senate. I would go so far as to promise that, if Republicans retain control their state will go bankrupt and schools will close, whereas if Democrats win then the country (and Georgia) will get bailouts and stimulus checks. Put everything else on the backburner for 2 months besides the immediate material consequences for Georgia and Georgians of this election.

I don't want more gridlock but as each party becomes more extreme it means that daring to work with the opposition loses you your own re-election against a competitor from your own party. The idea of making medicare for all and then it being repealed a few years later is dangerous to fabric of the nation. I'd prefer that we edge the ACA toward that option, creating a public option would be a step in that direction, after people see that it's not the end of the world then take another step.

I agree on the Georgia runoffs, will be very interesting testing ground.

Gilrandir

11-16-2020, 07:05

Our discourses have never been polite....

Most denizens of this forum try to keep civil otherwise they are reminded to do that. Or do you mean "our" as '"my" and address yourself in the second person plural (as monarchs do)?

That's declaring a fail before the man has had a chance to do anything. You have absolutely no idea what he's going be able to do, and stating that "Biden's victory won't mend anything" is BS 'fail' rhetoric which I will call out every time.

Probably you are right. I should have been more explicit and have used the "existing division within the country" instead of "anything". But I had thought that the context made it clear what "anything" I meant.

I don't understand your position. Ukraine is similarly divided, yet there remains such a thing as (from your perspective) good and bad - no?

Correction: not good or bad but worse and the worst (as far as Ukraine is concerned).

Among other things. Elections have consequences, among which is never utopia or nash posledny I reshitelny boy.

In my view, this utopia is what I sense coming from elated crowds in the streets and some people here. And you seem to partake in it with your metaphors of tearing opponents' throats and not taking things lying down. Add to it вставание с колен and the electoral rhetoric practiced by Americans will be remerkably close to the one used in current Russia.

Montmorency

11-16-2020, 07:23

Something that occurs to me: Biden at times made it a plank of his campaign that conservatives should split their tickets against Trump in order to hold both parties accountable.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/biden-sharing-power-with-republicans-is-a-good-thing-923669/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/joe-biden-dismisses-2020-critics-of-bipartisan-approach/index.html

I can't find it now, but I recall reading of one Biden talk in which he stated directly a recommendation that Republicans vote for him for President while voting Republicans downballot to keep him in check.

Might that have had some effect? Seems like suboptimal messaging at any rate.

Perhaps....but then there's Sen. Joe Manchin (D) W. Virginia to consider:

Regarding Manchin, from what I've been able to gather he has never opposed the caucus on a vote that really mattered. Although West Virginia's finances (https://www.wvpublic.org/news/2020-08-03/west-virginia-ends-fiscal-year-2020-with-surplus-in-state-budget) appear to be relatively-good in the short term, so that might remove some incentive.

Wouldn't you like it if it was okay for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to run as independents or lead one of the many progressive/socialist parties in existence without it gleaning votes away from the primary Democrat running? I think one of the reasons the third parties are jokes is exactly because they to grift followers and hinder major parties. A the local levels is where they can make a difference before taking things nationally.
That's why the new Republican tactic of running a third party candidate with a simliar last name to glean off votes from the competition is dangerous, will likely be repeated elsewhere and only a ranked voting system could totally mitigate.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article247132821.html

Maybe if we transitioned to a parliamentary-type system, but in our social and political environment we work better as a Popular Front. Remember, this is not a normal country and won't be one for our lifetimes probably. These lights aren't coming on anytime soon.

I don't want more gridlock but as each party becomes more extreme it means that daring to work with the opposition loses you your own re-election against a competitor from your own party. The idea of making medicare for all and then it being repealed a few years later is dangerous to fabric of the nation. I'd prefer that we edge the ACA toward that option, creating a public option would be a step in that direction, after people see that it's not the end of the world then take another step.

For sure. But would such an undisguised legislative confrontation be worse than the current - Cold War?

As for polarization, bipartisanship will spring eternal among liberals. It's the psychology. Meanwhile, think about McConnell's posture toward Obama/Biden as published in Obama's memoir (see above). If there were a Republican with ideas worth hearing, to whom we could impute a good-faith willingness to collaboratively address identified issues, they wouldn't be a Republican in the first place. How many times do I have to post that Mars Attacks clip?

In my view, this utopia is what I sense coming from elated crowds in the streets and some people here. And you seem to partake in it with your metaphors of tearing opponents' throats and not taking things lying down. Add to it вставание с колен and the electoral rhetoric practiced by Americans will be remerkably close to the one used in current Russia.

I don't understand how any of those sentences relate to each other or to the contents of this thread.

Now for a rant directed at the idea that leftist ideas or activism are damaging vulnerable elected Democrats.

Here is an ad that Sen. Loeffler's (R-GA) campaign aired. (Further proof that American reactionaries outpace European ones btw.)
https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1308102428240359424 [VIDEO]

Sen. Kelly Loeffler's new spot is all about how she's "more conservative than Attila the Hun," and includes an actor portraying a grunting Attila who delivers orders to, among other things, "eliminate the liberal scribes."

Why is it that Republicans can run on how conservative they are, and paint their opponents as socialists, and that works, but when Democrats run on how moderate they are, and correctly label all the reactionary and harmful things their opponents want to do, moderate voters get angry because they think Dems are overreacting and being hyperbolic about Republicans?
Something tells me this isn't the fault of community organizers in Minneapolis or Louisville. It's that branding and messaging thing again.

Can you imagine if a Democratic candidate in a purple district ran unironically with this as a platform?

https://i.imgur.com/ykFKHTK.png

And it received no negative attention from either party?

One lesson is becoming clear: Liberals need to be taught to resent and fear these reactionaries, so that they too can be mobilized at ever-higher rates.

Because White Evangelicals (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/13/trumps-racist-appeals-

powered-white-evangelical-tsunami/), who make up ~15% of the population, MAY have formed up to half of all Trump voters.

I was startled this week when, during a conversation with a prominent figure in Democratic circles, he blurted out to me: “People who want to live in a white supremacist society vote Republican. Those who don’t vote Democrat.”

Yes, those Evangelicals, the voting bloc who emerged in the 1970s as a reliable Republican base, forged as they were in reaction to the Democrats' civil rights turn in the 1960s, who vote for Republicans at rates comparable to the Democrats' vote share among African Americans.

https://i.imgur.com/jPqP7kB.jpg

Notice that Republicans (though not just evangelicals) have finally come round to abandoning the American flag, because their abstracted instincts outpace the symbolic content of it.

Many of us over the past 4 years have had to come to terms with it, but the truth is that at least 1/3 of the population is a hardcore fascist element that is spiritually animated by the Confederate mindset - which was never defeated, but rather prevailed for a century and is still in contention!

As this prescient post (https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/) from 2014 says,

The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.

... The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change. When in the majority, Confederates protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, then beatings and fires, and, if that fails, murder.

Why do Republicans and Democrats get disparate reception and treatment in the media and their audiences? Well, Republicans by and large know what they want in a way that liberals don't. It maps onto Yeat's quotable formulation that "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Painful as it is, we can't fight an invisible war against those who have mastered the art of insurgency on American soil and in the American mind for 150 years. The people must be apprised of the threat.

ReluctantSamurai

11-16-2020, 16:03

Regarding Manchin, from what I've been able to gather he has never opposed the caucus on a vote that really mattered.

Not so fast...:creep: His voting record on environmental issues is abysmal, and he now stands to chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/joe-manchin-iii/

Voted against S.J.Res. 53 which would have rescinded Trump's relaxation of emission standards for power plants; voted for the appointment of Andrew Wheeler (a former coal industry lobbyist) to head the EPA (W. Virginia is the 2d largest producer of coal in the US); voted against H.J.Res. 36 which would have relaxed regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas industry operations (a +1 for Manchin); voted for the approval of Scott Priutt as Administrator of the EPA (who later had to resign amid a slew of ethics scandals); and who voted for nearly every one of Trump's government appointees.

A mixed bag to say the least, but his stance on energy production is quite clear----he won't do anything to piss off his corporate donors in the coal industry. If he gets to chair the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get any clean air proposals through the Senate even if the Dems pick up the two seats in Georgia.

Hooahguy

11-17-2020, 00:47

Excellent interview (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-fears-for-our-democracy/617087/?fbclid=IwAR2C4oY8Vmc_J408lvBLBNqs8yO1bXPw439Hs4x5IwcM9b5dvCHEl14MFh4) with Obama in The Atlantic, talking about how American democracy is in trouble:

I come out of this book very worried about the degree to which we do not have a common baseline of fact and a common story. We don’t have a Walter Cronkite describing the tragedy of Kennedy’s assassination but also saying to supporters and detractors alike of the Vietnam War that this is not going the way the generals and the White House are telling us. Without this common narrative, democracy becomes very tough.

Remember, after Iowa my candidacy survives Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright, and two minutes of videotape in which my pastor is in kente cloth cursing out America. And the fact is that I was able to provide context for that, and I ended up winning over a huge swath of the country that has never set foot on the South Side of Chicago and was troubled by what he said. I mean, that’s an indicator of a different media environment.

Now you have a situation in which large swaths of the country genuinely believe that the Democratic Party is a front for a pedophile ring. This stuff takes root. I was talking to a volunteer who was going door-to-door in Philadelphia in low-income African American communities, and was getting questions about QAnon conspiracy theories. The fact is that there is still a large portion of the country that was taken in by a carnival barker.
[..]
If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis.

I can have an argument with you about what to do about climate change. I can even accept somebody making an argument that, based on what I know about human nature, it’s too late to do anything serious about this—the Chinese aren’t going to do it, the Indians aren’t going to do it—and that the best we can do is adapt. I disagree with that, but I accept that it’s a coherent argument. I don’t know what to say if you simply say, “This is a hoax that the liberals have cooked up, and the scientists are cooking the books. And that footage of glaciers dropping off the shelves of Antarctica and Greenland are all phony.” Where do I start trying to figure out where to do something?

Well worth the read.

Montmorency

11-17-2020, 02:26

Not so fast...:creep: His voting record on environmental issues is abysmal, and he now stands to chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/joe-manchin-iii/

Voted against S.J.Res. 53 which would have rescinded Trump's relaxation of emission standards for power plants; voted for the appointment of Andrew Wheeler (a former coal industry lobbyist) to head the EPA (W. Virginia is the 2d largest producer of coal in the US); voted against H.J.Res. 36 which would have relaxed regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas industry operations (a +1 for Manchin); voted for the approval of Scott Priutt as Administrator of the EPA (who later had to resign amid a slew of ethics scandals); and who voted for nearly every one of Trump's government appointees.

A mixed bag to say the least, but his stance on energy production is quite clear----he won't do anything to piss off his corporate donors in the coal industry. If he gets to chair the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get any clean air proposals through the Senate even if the Dems pick up the two seats in Georgia.

But that's what I mean when I speak of votes that really matter. On confirmation votes, Manchin never seems to have been a deciding vote because the Republicans had a majority anyway. On Kavanaugh he was the 50th vote, but it was widely contextualized at the time as not being worth the prospective damage to his imminent reelection (the confirmation was a month before the midterms) to go out on a limb to force Republicans to choose a slightly-less reprehensible candidate for Supreme Court. Manchin being, of course, an idiosyncratically-tolerated Democratic holdout in what had become the most Republican state in the country*. For the named resolutions on environmental regulations, I believe they too will fall into the pattern of being symbolic votes from a minority position. If the strategy is to shore up his centrist bona fides in West Virginia, probably no use in visibly voting with a minority to no effect.

Let's see what happens with Manchin (hopefully) among 50+. Of course, with a razor thin margin , the thing we had always hoped to avoid with a fat buffer in the majority, there will be hard limits on what one can demand of him or a number of other frontline Dems. But I find it hard to believe Manchin would flatly oppose a handful of Dem priorities on electoral reform and pandemic relief, to start.

Get the man some pork.

An executive jubilee for most student debt wouldn't depend on Manchin though, and it would be pretty high-impact. I bet it also spurs productive electoral participation among people in their 20s and 30s, as well as those currently in their teens.

*Before 2008, West Virginia had been a swing state. Suddenly, it became the most Republican state in the country, or at least alongside Idaho and Wyoming. I wonder what happened... :thinking: :thinking:

ReluctantSamurai

11-17-2020, 03:23

But that's what I mean when I speak of votes that really matter. On confirmation votes, Manchin never seems to have been a deciding vote because the Republicans had a majority anyway.

Let's say, for sheer fantasy sake, that the Dems take both Georgia seats making it a 50/50 split in the Senate. Now let's imagine a vote comes up on a key clean energy bill in Congress. Which way do you think Manchin will vote? I have no doubts based on his voting record (nevermind that the GOP already had more than enough votes for a particular bill) for putting not one but two fossil fuel advocates as head of the EPA (the first, Scott Pruitt had to resign amid ethics scandals). And he's already come out as philosophically against "Green Energy". This man is really a corporate Republican in the disguise of a Democrat.

And you are overlooking the damage he can cause as a potential chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A quick look at what that committee does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Energy_and_Natural_Resources

Coal production, distribution, and utilization; energy policy; energy regulation and policy; energy research and development; oil and gas production and distribution; solar energy systems......

This senator, who is most obviously beholden to his coal industry donors, is possibly going to be in a position to be the next Dr. No when it comes to Biden trying to get clean energy legislation passed. We can reference this conversation for later where I can say 'I told you so', or you will be saying the same to me. It's a moot point if the Dems don't take both Georgia seats as far as the chair position is concerned.....:shrug:

Montmorency

11-17-2020, 06:26

Let's say, for sheer fantasy sake, that the Dems take both Georgia seats making it a 50/50 split in the Senate. Now let's imagine a vote comes up on a key clean energy bill in Congress. Which way do you think Manchin will vote? I have no doubts based on his voting record (nevermind that the GOP already had more than enough votes for a particular bill) for putting not one but two fossil fuel advocates as head of the EPA (the first, Scott Pruitt had to resign amid ethics scandals). And he's already come out as philosophically against "Green Energy". This man is really a corporate Republican in the disguise of a Democrat.

And you are overlooking the damage he can cause as a potential chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A quick look at what that committee does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Energy_and_Natural_Resources

Coal production, distribution, and utilization; energy policy; energy regulation and policy; energy research and development; oil and gas production and distribution; solar energy systems......

This senator, who is most obviously beholden to his coal industry donors, is possibly going to be in a position to be the next Dr. No when it comes to Biden trying to get clean energy legislation passed. We can reference this conversation for later where I can say 'I told you so', or you will be saying the same to me. It's a moot point if the Dems don't take both Georgia seats as far as the chair position is concerned.....:shrug:

You have to set what we know of an individual lawmaker's characteristics against the context of the agenda and operating environment. With a razor-thin 50-50 (+VP) majority, it would be widely accepted that there is only political capital for one or two significant legislative items. One of them would have to be pandemic response, though we could finesse that through the reconciliation process (without filibuster abolition) if we stripped out regulatory changes and new programs. And if we could put pandemic response through reconciliation, there would almost certainly be no unanimous appetite to scrap the filibuster and move on. Therefore, sadly, there are almost no circumstances where a serious climate bill would be allowed onto the floor. I imagine everyone would agree it's not getting through ahead of more immediate necessities. If the case sounds dire, it is, but Biden and Schumer and the rest will be privately making all these calculations about priorities and sequencing and how much of their designs can survive - unless they're Republican-tier incompetent.

But stipulating that somehow Biden actively and vocally made a climate bill his top priority out of them all, while I believe Manchin would put out I agree that his baseline tells us he would be given free rein pick it clean until it was threadbare and not comparable even to Biden's paper designs.

ReluctantSamurai

11-17-2020, 13:29

Therefore, sadly, there are almost no circumstances where a serious climate bill would be allowed onto the floor. I imagine everyone would agree it's not getting through ahead of more immediate necessities.

Obviously, the pandemic takes front and center. A vaccine production and distribution system will need to be set up, and a relief package of some kind will need to be hashed out. Then...comes the PR blitz that will be necessary to convince enough people to actually take the vaccine to make it effective in controlling the virus. This probably takes the entire first year of Biden's presidency. Climate bills will have to be entertained at some point....

spmetla

11-17-2020, 20:04

True, there is a danger of the new team looking into crimes the last team did... although I would have thought that the rule of law is more important and such behaviour would encourage, y'know, not breaking the law in the first place. I am sure there is a theoretical risk of such machinations looking like a "hit job" but here we have a President who quite cheerfully enriched himself to an extent that has never occurred before as assets were not put in a blind trust. The last time was Nixon and personally I think that pardoning him was the wrong thing to do as again... he Broke The Law. Standards should be higher in the highest offices, not some mumbling about loss of reputation is somehow itself enough.

The last thing most politicians want is what the voters want - a system of government where every politician has to do what the voters want else they get voted out. What politicians want is what voters do not want - a career that could last for decades with little if any competition. First Past The Post ensures that there are two big parties in charge and makes it almost impossible for any other parties to get in on the action.

~:smoking:

Just to be clear, I really REALLY dislike Trump and think he deserves some fines and jail for the things he and his family have done (Emoluments, Hatch Act, personal political favors from foreign powers, nepotism, interfering in the courts). With a third of the country believing everything that Trump says though it is a dangerous time to go after him even though totally legitimate. If the Republican party stood for rule of a law with no exemptions for the POTUS it could be soothed over but I fear for a future where Graham and McConnell decry any investigation into Trump and his family and call it out as a political hit job, they are both set for six years so will suffer no consequences for their actions during the next four years.
The precedent must be set that a POTUS that violates the rules will face the law, but the method must be delicately done. Ford pardoning Nixon was bad for the country. Trump giving himself and his family a blanket pardon for all their crimes would be something that must be sent to the Supreme Court to establish the limitations on pardon power.

I do hope though this Trump presidency leads to truly codifying some 'norms' into law, tradition cannot be relied upon anymore. I also think everyone sees the danger of the influence in the Justice department and the various inspector generals of all parts of the executive branch. Stronger legal protections and a bigger wedge between the Presidency and these people must be sought. Perhaps the Attorney General should be unable to be fired without house and senate judicial approval. The combination of Barr and Trump have definitely strained the system when the checks and balances cannot be relied upon if even one house of congress is part of the problem.
There certainly needs to be some real legal standards for contempt of congress and setting down in stone what constitutes executive privilege. Just as I think that both houses of congress need to agree to a set of laws about how impeachment should be done, honestly it should be a more frequently used tool in checking presidently appointed positions as they have a lot of power. Having each impeachment be a 'sandbox game' of the political environment of the time is ridiculous.

ReluctantSamurai

11-17-2020, 21:05

With a third of the country believing everything that Trump says though it is a dangerous time to go after him even though totally legitimate. If the Republican party stood for rule of a law with no exemptions for the POTUS it could be soothed over but I fear for a future where Graham and McConnell decry any investigation into Trump and his family and call it out as a political hit job, they are both set for six years so will suffer no consequences for their actions during the next four years.

And yet there needs to be an accounting for the murder, madness, and mayhem of the last four years. This country (at least the sane part of it) cannot move on from Trump unless there is some sort of accountability, yet that cannot be the dominant topic either. There are so many atrocities and wrong doings that need redressing, that it boggles the mind that they happened under a single presidents watch.

It isn't just the president that needs to be held accountable, but all of his enablers, appointees, and staff that gleefully went along on his coattails. Even if Trump finds a way to get pardoned from federal crimes, his cronies don't have such immunity, unless, of course, he just starts a mass pardon campaign, which will, of itself, be a form of indictment.

A special council position should be set up at the DoJ to investigate:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/10/the-right-way-to-investigate-trump-once-he-leaves-office-435876

Biden will have one tool, however, that allows him to pursue justice while also ensuring that the process doesn’t appear to be tainted by politics. That tool is the special counsel—a prosecutor appointed not by Biden, but by his attorney general, who has a measure of independence from the administration. The special counsel should be a career prosecutor who has no connection to Biden or his team, and the Attorney General should publicly state in advance that he or she does not intend to place any restrictions on the special counsel and will follow his or her recommendation.

It is, of course, impossible to make a decision regarding the prosecution of Trump in a manner that won’t be criticized by Trump and his allies, short of pardoning him or giving him a pass altogether. But appointing a special counsel takes the power away from Biden appointees and puts it in the hands of someone who is non-partisan and is not tied to the administration. That is the best move for the country, and the best realistic outcome Republicans could expect.

Regardless of the decisions made by the special counsel, Democrats will learn that even in a Biden administration, there are limits to what the criminal justice system can or should do. Some of the most objectionable actions taken by the Trump administration, such as the separation of children from their parents, don’t obviously fit into the four corners of a federal criminal statute.

That doesn’t mean that the Trump administration’s abuses should not be examined closely. The public deserves to know what their government did in their name and with their tax dollars, and Biden should consider the creation of a commission to conduct a non-criminal investigation to consider matters that the Special Counsel declines to prosecute, and publish a report that details what happened and makes recommendations for reform.

a completely inoffensive name

11-18-2020, 00:53

You have to set what we know of an individual lawmaker's characteristics against the context of the agenda and operating environment. With a razor-thin 50-50 (+VP) majority, it would be widely accepted that there is only political capital for one or two significant legislative items. One of them would have to be pandemic response, though we could finesse that through the reconciliation process (without filibuster abolition) if we stripped out regulatory changes and new programs. And if we could put pandemic response through reconciliation, there would almost certainly be no unanimous appetite to scrap the filibuster and move on. Therefore, sadly, there are almost no circumstances where a serious climate bill would be allowed onto the floor. I imagine everyone would agree it's not getting through ahead of more immediate necessities. If the case sounds dire, it is, but Biden and Schumer and the rest will be privately making all these calculations about priorities and sequencing and how much of their designs can survive - unless they're Republican-tier incompetent.

But stipulating that somehow Biden actively and vocally made a climate bill his top priority out of them all, while I believe Manchin would put out I agree that his baseline tells us he would be given free rein pick it clean until it was threadbare and not comparable even to Biden's paper designs.

Just look at Manchin's submitted bills and see what can be passed which makes both the Senator more amenable to passing climate change bill but also works to make Dems look good.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4515/text?r=3&s=1
Here is a good one, expand internet connectivity into more communities, make this a message to the people of WV that Dems got them internet, not GOP.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3172/text?r=16&s=1
Continue funding Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2431/text?s=1
Require voice service providers to to provide call blocking programs for free.

I mean, these are all good PR type stuff and all Sponsored by Manchin.

This is a situation where we can't be thinking so big that we do nothing with a 50 seat Senate. Just pass safe bills that are PR friendly and most importantly help people. Even if it is not the biggest most bestest thing we could pass.

Pannonian

11-18-2020, 01:16

Just look at Manchin's submitted bills and see what can be passed which makes both the Senator more amenable to passing climate change bill but also works to make Dems look good.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4515/text?r=3&s=1
Here is a good one, expand internet connectivity into more communities, make this a message to the people of WV that Dems got them internet, not GOP.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3172/text?r=16&s=1
Continue funding Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2431/text?s=1
Require voice service providers to to provide call blocking programs for free.

I mean, these are all good PR type stuff and all Sponsored by Manchin.

This is a situation where we can't be thinking so big that we do nothing with a 50 seat Senate. Just pass safe bills that are PR friendly and most importantly help people. Even if it is not the biggest most bestest thing we could pass.

Lots of little good things under your watch works better than grand fights that result in deadlock. And learn from Labour in the UK; doing lots of little good things is not a betrayal of the left. Highlight all the little good things that are being done, all in the spirit of motherhood and apple pie.

Hooahguy

11-18-2020, 02:23

Back to authoritarian watch 2020, Trump has fired (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/chris-krebs-fired-by-trump/index.html) the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency because he didnt like how he kept stating that there was no widespread voter fraud.

Trump announced on Twitter he was firing Chris Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and directly tied it to Krebs' statement that said there "is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

"The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud," Trump said in a tweet before repeating multiple baseless conspriacy theories about the election. "Therefore, effective immediately, Chris Krebs has been terminated as Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency."

CNN reported that Krebs, who ran the cyber arm of the Department of Homeland Security, expected to be fired.

In the lead-up to the election, Krebs had often quietly disputed the President's repeated false claims about mail-in ballots but went out of his way to not get drawn into criticizing his boss for spreading lies.
But in the days that have followed, Krebs has adopted a more forceful approach regularly posting on Twitter -- often with blaring red siren emojis -- fact checks of the claims and conspiracy theories being pushed by Trump, his allies and supporters around the country.
I guess Keitel, Jodl, and Burgdorf get to stay in the bunker then.
:creep:

In local GOP fuckery, the the board of canvassers in Wayne County, Michigan refused (https://twitter.com/nancykaffer/status/1328836317137022976) to certify the election results unless votes from Detroit are excluded. Something something racism is alive and well. Thankfully the Michigan Sec of State can bypass (https://twitter.com/JocelynBenson/status/1328849110619840513) them to certify the results.

And thats not to mention that ol' Lindsey called (https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-elections-head-says-graham-questioned-absentee-rejections/PDXXOV4EURGZTGBRCPYNEEYRMQ/) the Georgia Sec of State to try to get him to toss ballots. Ugh, absolutely shameless.

Oh and the Nevada GOP is trying (https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1328832941309513729?s=20) to overturn the election there too via lawsuit.

At what point does the media stop tiptoeing around this and call a spade a spade? This is blatant fascism.

ReluctantSamurai

11-18-2020, 03:26

This is a situation where we can't be thinking so big that we do nothing with a 50 seat Senate. Just pass safe bills that are PR friendly and most importantly help people. Even if it is not the biggest most bestest thing we could pass.

I've always been in the 'think big' crowd, so guilty as charged:embarassed: However, the climate change issue is of paramount importance to me, as it is to many others. Having earned a degree in Forestry and worked extensively in conservation and forest management, preserving what's left of our fragile ecosystems is dear to my heart, and of decisive importance to the well being of the human race.

Internet connectivity, providing health care to coal workers, and other such "feel good" issues are important and nothing but good comes from promoting them. I'm looking down the road at what will move voters in the future, and what provides the Democratic Party with a solid footing to take away some of the power the GOP has gathered in the last several decades. How many people outside of those receiving direct benefit from said 'little good things' will actually know about them? Not as many as would be aware of eco-friendly legislation that could get passed...:shrug:

I'm looking at the next generation of voters in this country, and what gets them motivated. It isn't going to be internet connectivity, or continued health care for coal miners. It's going to be broad brush legislation like climate change, abortion, reducing or eliminating student debt, etc.

In local GOP fuckery, the the board of canvassers in Wayne County, Michigan refused to certify the election results unless votes from Detroit are excluded.

Yep...brought to you by the state that gave you guns in the state legislative house, and a plot to kidnap and kill Gov Whitmer. These people should be prosecuted for sedition against democracy:smash:

Hooahguy

11-18-2020, 04:56

Yep...brought to you by the state that gave you guns in the state legislative house, and a plot to kidnap and kill Gov Whitmer. These people should be prosecuted for sedition against democracy:smash:
If you guys havent watched the amazing response (https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1328882122724155393?s=20) by one of the Dem members of the committee, I highly recommend you take the two minutes and watch it.

Dems need to be like this all the time.

And after this the committee reversed (https://twitter.com/adam_brew/status/1328882544348180483?s=20) course and certified the results.

Montmorency

11-18-2020, 06:11

"It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the barnyard. Imagine a gentleman and you have imagined everything he was not. What animated him from end to end of his grotesque career was simply ambition- the ambition of a common man to get his hand upon the collar of his superiors, or failing that to get his thumb into their eyes. He was born with a roaring voice, and it had the trick of inflaming half-wits. His whole career was devoted to raising those half-wits against their betters so that he himself might shine"

Some apt in translation, though bracingly elitist, flames from noted misanthrope HL Mencken (on William Jennings Bryan).

I do hope though this Trump presidency leads to truly codifying some 'norms' into law, tradition cannot be relied upon anymore. I also think everyone sees the danger of the influence in the Justice department and the various inspector generals of all parts of the executive branch. Stronger legal protections and a bigger wedge between the Presidency and these people must be sought. Perhaps the Attorney General should be unable to be fired without house and senate judicial approval.

Big problem: I'm confident the Supreme Court believes, and has ruled to such effect during Trump's term, that executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President and therefore Congress cannot place restrictions on the office's authority over personnel.

Lots of little good things under your watch works better than grand fights that result in deadlock. And learn from Labour in the UK; doing lots of little good things is not a betrayal of the left. Highlight all the little good things that are being done, all in the spirit of motherhood and apple pie.

Of course, zero little good things getting done is no better than zero grand things done, and perhaps offers less to leverage in the future.

Tangentially, Labour in the UK has the major advantage of having the opportunity to pass almost anything it desires should it acquire a comfortable (say, 55%) majority of seats in the Commons. The real trick is getting into power as I understand. In America, there are as many stages of power as there are veto points.

I guess Keitel, Jodl, and Burgdorf get to stay in the bunker then.

Damn writers. Well, we still have "Barr"-gdorf.

And thats not to mention that ol' Lindsey called the Georgia Sec of State to try to get him to toss ballots. Ugh, absolutely shameless.

That would be the surprisingly-honest Georgian government ostensibly opting for surrender to the Americans. Or what's going on with this snitching?

https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1325893672777510912

Georgia's two Republican U.S. Senators [Ed. Perdue and Loeffler] are calling on the Republican Secretary of State to resign because they believe - without evidence - that he "failed to deliver honest and transparent elections."

Internet connectivity, providing health care to coal workers, and other such "feel good" issues are important and nothing but good comes from promoting them. I'm looking down the road at what will move voters in the future, and what provides the Democratic Party with a solid footing to take away some of the power the GOP has gathered in the last several decades. How many people outside of those receiving direct benefit from said 'little good things' will actually know about them? Not as many as would be aware of eco-friendly legislation that could get passed...:shrug:

It's always difficult to promote legislation that doesn't have a large and direct effect on many voters' lives.

Student debt jubilee would be felt without mistake or mediation by tens of millions of young-skewed Americans, so it offers a fairly direct answer to that mugwumpian challenge, "What has the government ever done for me?"

BTW, these pre-election noises from Schumer might be reassuring, though they won't have the outlet we hoped for.
https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1323709500419956737

ReluctantSamurai

11-18-2020, 06:36

BTW, these pre-election noises from Schumer might be reassuring, though they won't have the outlet we hoped for

As in, you don't get legislation passed on Twitter, Chuck.....:gorgeous:

Hooahguy

11-19-2020, 00:57

In previous years, when Democrats were elected in states with GOP legislatures, they would pass a bunch of laws in the lame duck session to hobble the incoming governor. The GOP cant do that to Biden, so instead they are purposely mucking up foreign policy, as they themselves admit:

President Donald Trump's order of a further withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq is the latest foreign policy move on a growing list in his final weeks in office that are meant to limit President-elect Joe Biden's options before he takes office in January.

The White House has directed newly installed acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller to focus his attention in the remaining weeks on cyber and irregular warfare, with a focus on China in particular, an administration official tells CNN. It is contemplating new terrorist designations in Yemen that could complicate efforts to broker peace. And it has rushed through authorization of a massive arms sale that could alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

The Trump team has prepared legally required transition memos describing policy challenges, but there are no discussions about actions they could take or pause. Instead, the White House is barreling ahead. A second official tells CNN their goal is to set so many fires that it will be hard for the Biden administration to put them all out.

It's a strategy that radically breaks with past practice, could raise national security risks and will surely compound challenges for the Biden team -- but it could also backfire. Analysts and people close to the Biden transition argue the Trump team may act so aggressively that reversing some of its steps will earn Biden easy goodwill points and negotiating power with adversaries.

Sociopaths. I'm glad that that the generals were able to dissuade him from launching a strike against Iran, but its going to be a very long two months.

Pannonian

11-19-2020, 10:42

Wow. There's already an article in the Independent by a 25 year old journalist (young enough to know everything) saying that Biden has screwed the left, warning that he must attend to issues valued by the young (citing vote percentages in that demographic) as the winning margins are narrow enough for the young to swing it the other way if he does not offer radical change.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the left lose more often than not.

Idaho

11-19-2020, 14:57

The left lose because young journalists, anxious for clicks and search returns, write dramatic articles based on very little?

Hmm.. and there was me thinking it was to do with challenging the establishment, economic and media elites. You learn something every day.

Hooahguy

11-19-2020, 15:42

Imagine being paid to write about politics and not seeing the danger in nominating two senators from states with Republican governors.

ReluctantSamurai

11-19-2020, 17:20

GOP character assassination has already begun in the Georgia Senate run-off:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/19/raphael-warnock-georgia-republicans-438027

Republicans are taking to the airwaves and social media to frame the pastor as a radical and tool of the "extremist" left. Using sound bites from his past sermons, they’re making the case to Georgia voters that the Democrat is anti-police and anti-military. TV ads play up his criticisms of police officers and try to connect him to polarizing figures like Fidel Castro, who visited Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1995 while Warnock was a youth pastor there. Taking several pages out of the 2008 playbook, they’ve also tried to tie him to Jeremiah Wright, the former senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Chicago, whom Republicans used to try to sink Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Last week, Republicans also hammered Warnock over allegations that he hindered a child abuse investigation that took place at the church where he was working in Baltimore in 2002. Warnock said he simply wanted police to interview the suspect, a juvenile, with an adult present. Police later dropped charges against him.

So now religion=radicalism.....except where the Republican Party is concerned, then it's the bedrock of democracy.:no:

We will soon see how much the Dems learned since Nov 3. If they expect to win at least one of the two seats, they better start hammering Loeffler on this:

https://www.dscc.org/news/dscc-statement-on-scandal-plagued-unelected-senator-kelly-loeffler-advancing-to-georgia-runoff/

Even though the DoJ dropped its' investigation of Loeffler, you'd have to suspect that Uncle Barr had something to do with that:rolleyes: And an issue should be made of Loeffler's connections to QAnon. I expect the usual timidity that Democrats conduct a campaign with, but maybe they'll surprise me....:shrug:

Then of course there's Perdue:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=david-perdue

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-sonny-perdue-agriculture-235982

Montmorency

11-19-2020, 17:24

Two Republican county commissioners for the Wayne County canvassing certification tried to deny certification of the tally this week, on the basis that all votes from Detroit, Michigan, should be tossed out (implicitly flipping the state to Trump). Massive public outcry caused them to walk back their attitude and certify.

Last night, Donald Trump contacted them directly and the commissioners now wish to rescind their reversal.

Latest polling (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/half-of-republicans-say-biden-won-because-of-a-rigged-election-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Y1AJ) on Republicans and the election:

About half of all Republicans believe President Donald Trump “rightfully won” the U.S. election but that it was stolen from him by widespread voter fraud that favored Democratic President-elect Joe Biden, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

...Altogether, 73% of those polled agreed that Biden won the election while 5% thought Trump won. But when asked specifically whether Biden had “rightfully won,” Republicans showed they were suspicious about how Biden’s victory was obtained. Fifty-two percent of Republicans said that Trump “rightfully won,” while only 29% said that Biden had rightfully won. Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election was “rigged,” while only 16% of Democrats and one-third of independents were similarly worried.

...Altogether, 55% of adults in the United States said they believed the Nov. 3 presidential election was “legitimate and accurate,” which is down 7 points from a similar poll that ran shortly after the 2016 election. The 28% who said they thought the election was “the result of illegal voting or election rigging” is up 12 points from four years ago. The poll showed Republicans were much more likely to be suspicious of Trump’s loss this year than Democrats were when Hillary Clinton lost four years ago. In 2016, 52% of Democrats said Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump was “legitimate and accurate,” even as reports emerged of Russian attempts to influence the outcome. This year, only 26% of Republicans said they thought Trump’s loss was similarly legitimate.

Yeah, we're going to need an Iron Front, Dems.

In 2016 (https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1329196297056817157), Chad Mizelle, a 29-year-old first-year associate volunteered for the Trump campaign. Four years later:

- He’s DHS Acting General Counsel
- His wife is a federal judge
- One law school friend and groomsman is Deputy General Counsel at DHS. Another has a DOJ job.

All good gravy trains come to an end. (Tangentially, I wonder if Trump will order the Congressionally-authorized subsidy for post-presidential office space to go toward a lease from a Trump property.)

In new intv with me (https://twitter.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1328782492913033219),
@GaSecofState
says 24,000 GOPs who voted absentee in primary did not vote in General - says Donald Trump cost himself the election by sowing distrust in absentee: "he would have won by 10 thousand votes he actually suppressed, depressed his own voting base"

Anyone have an explanation for the Georgia Secretary of State's unusual candor for a Republican? And yeah, this was mentioned before the election as a potential blowback of Trump's strategy.

The left lose because young journalists, anxious for clicks and search returns, write dramatic articles based on very little?

Hmm.. and there was me thinking it was to do with challenging the establishment, economic and media elites. You learn something every day.

It is inherently, almost definitionally, harder to move an agenda by the proportion of its divergence from the status quo.

Imagine being paid to write about politics and not seeing the danger in nominating two senators from states with Republican governors.

All discussion on merits is moot because Sanders or Warren would never be confirmed by the Senate even following a total victory in Georgia.

I wonder if there's a theory of (American) governance for when and under what circumstances to nominate federal electeds to the Cabinet, since as a rule it creates undesirable complications among a limited pool. In a parliamentary system I am given to understand cabinet officials are (almost?) always also MPs. But we don't have a parliamentary system.

ReluctantSamurai

11-19-2020, 17:42

Last night, Donald Trump contacted them directly and the commissioners now wish to rescind their reversal.

They can't. The deadline for results certification expired on Wed. It's already gone to the Board of State Canvassers:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/11/19/gop-canvassers-attempt-rescind-votes-certify-wayne-county-vote/3775246001/

State law sets a deadline of 14 days for every county to certify its election votes and Wayne County's 14-day clock expired Wednesday.

"There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote," said Tracy Wimmer, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. "Their job is done, and the next step in the process is for the Board of State Canvassers to meet and certify."

Board Vice Chairman Jonathan Kinloch, a Democrat, said the affidavits have no meaning, given that the deadline for certifying results in Wayne County has passed. Further, he said, all members of the board approved a motion to waive additional consideration after the certification vote, cementing their decisions.

I seriously doubt the State Republican Committee is willing to risk a racial war trying to overturn election results here, which, even if it were to succeed, wouldn't change the outcome of the presidential election.

Montmorency

11-19-2020, 18:05

They can't. The deadline for results certification expired on Wed. It's already gone to the Board of State Canvassers:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/11/19/gop-canvassers-attempt-rescind-votes-certify-wayne-county-vote/3775246001/

I seriously doubt the State Republican Committee is willing to risk a racial war trying to overturn election results here, which, even if it were to succeed, wouldn't change the outcome of the presidential election.

I know, that's been my shtick so far. But the episode highlights both the spiraling degeneracy of rank and file Republicans, as well as the vulnerability of most of our institutions to deliberate monkey wrenching by committed partisans. It'll be worse next time.

Idaho

11-19-2020, 20:58

I seriously doubt the State Republican Committee is willing to risk a racial war trying to overturn election results here, which, even if it were to succeed, wouldn't change the outcome of the presidential election.

The weak, passivity of republicans in the face of frothing mania and delusions from their leader and their base are enough to make them utterly complicit. Yes politicians are often craven, but conceding defeat is so fundamental to a functioning democracy and we've all overlooked it's significance. And now America is hostage to frankly barking fringe nutjobs.

ReluctantSamurai

11-19-2020, 23:16

The weak, passivity of republicans in the face of frothing mania and delusions from their leader and their base are enough to make them utterly complicit.

I think Republicans are anything but weak. They've managed minority rule for the last 20 years despite winning the popular vote only once. They get their conservative judges appointed, they get gerrymandering done (and with this election cycle that's only going to get worse), and they've consistently blocked the majority of legislation Democrats try to enact.

I think rank and file Republican complicity is just due to utter stupidity, and because the Republican Party has no real platform to advance, other than screwing Democrats, and would be ecstatic if the US was a single party autocracy headed by Republicans.

Hooahguy

11-19-2020, 23:44

I think Republicans are anything but weak. They've managed minority rule for the last 20 years despite winning the popular vote only once. They get their conservative judges appointed, they get gerrymandering done (and with this election cycle that's only going to get worse), and they've consistently blocked the majority of legislation Democrats try to enact.

I think rank and file Republican complicity is just due to utter stupidity, and because the Republican Party has no real platform to advance, other than screwing Democrats, and would be ecstatic if the US was a single party autocracy headed by Republicans.

To quote David Frum, "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

And we are seeing them them reject democracy right now.

Montmorency

11-20-2020, 00:39

The weak, passivity of republicans in the face of frothing mania and delusions from their leader and their base are enough to make them utterly complicit. Yes politicians are often craven, but conceding defeat is so fundamental to a functioning democracy and we've all overlooked it's significance. And now America is hostage to frankly barking fringe nutjobs.

Your grievous mistake here - and I'm not trying to be unfriendly - is that you assume this is outside the Republican mainstream, that Republicans in any number or of distinct rank somehow privately condemn or detest fascism but are unwilling to confront it.

This is what they want. It is the ideology of 40% of the country, give or take a few percent of badly underinformed or truly passive individuals. (If you're wondering at my neglect of the plutocratic faction, the Krupps (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-big-business-bailed-out-nazis) of the world are too few in number to count as a voting bloc and are basically fascists themselves. Look at the Murdochs, Kochs, and Thiels and tell me otherwise.)

Foreigners please understand, there is a VERY strong fascist movement here from the grassroots, one of the most feral in history, and we are fighting for our lives.

It can happen to you too.

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 06:10

Your grievous mistake here - and I'm not trying to be unfriendly - is that you assume this is outside the Republican mainstream, that Republicans in any number or of distinct rank somehow privately condemn or detest fascism but are unwilling to confront it.

This is what they want. It is the ideology of 40% of the country, give or take a few percent of badly underinformed or truly passive individuals.
Foreigners please understand, there is a VERY strong fascist movement here from the grassroots, one of the most feral in history, and we are fighting for our lives.

This attitude in no way deepens the division within the country. Us or them. The winner takes it all. Squash the bastards. Mop them on the flat. A surefire recipe to stitch the country together. Way to go!

Montmorency

11-20-2020, 06:43

This attitude in no way deepens the division within the country. Us or them. The winner takes it all. Squash the bastards. Mop them on the flat. A surefire recipe to stitch the country together. Way to go!

If your concern is division you might want to take it up with Republicans, kind sir. I hope your commitment to the oppression of Russian-speaking Ukrainians won't prove a disqualifying conflict of interest.

a completely inoffensive name

11-20-2020, 07:02

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 10:46

If your concern is division you might want to take it up with Republicans, kind sir. I hope your commitment to the oppression of Russian-speaking Ukrainians won't prove a disqualifying conflict of interest.

This is a pefect debate tactics. Instead of playing the ball you play the man.

Yet whatever my concerns might be, I realize that Russian-speaking Ukrainians that are so much oppressed (as you think) are a part of our society and will be for quite a time. And we have to win them to our side. While you speak of life-or-death fight. Feel the difference.

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 13:30

Concern troll

A completely inoffensive attitude.

ReluctantSamurai

11-20-2020, 14:09

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/504966176945711259/

Just here to piss in your cornflakes.....:gorgeous:

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 14:44

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/504966176945711259/

Just here to piss in your cornflakes.....:gorgeous:

I may be mistaken, but you offer no solutions either, except of legging it from the fascist state. And my solution is starting to map out a strategy to stitch the nation together.

ReluctantSamurai

11-20-2020, 15:34

And my solution is starting to map out a strategy to stitch the nation together.

Currently there are two representatives from my home state that are in Washington presumably to discuss with the President how to subvert democracy by going against the will of the people here in Michigan by submitting our 16 electoral votes for him instead of for Joe Biden. Go ahead and try to map out a strategy for THAT....:rolleyes:

Montmorency

11-20-2020, 17:16

https://i.imgur.com/iy3JVKT.png

The polling (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_111820.pdf/) of Republicans is increasingly ominous (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/02yn0jg6d7/econTabReport.pdf). Within just half a month an overwhelming consensus has emerged that Trump won, or did not lose, the election. I actually supposed it would take at least months to reach this level. Say goodbye to hopes of a Republican turnout slump in Georgia?

While 60% of Americans believe Biden won the election fair and square, 32% say he only won it due to voter fraud. Three-quarters (77%) of Trump backers say Biden’s win was due to fraud
[...]
A majority (54%) of Americans believe we have enough information on the vote count to know who won
the presidential election, but a sizable minority (44%) feel we, in fact, do not. Fully 88% of Trump voters
believe we need to wait for more information on the count before we know for sure. They are joined by
38% of voters who backed a third party candidate or refused to reveal their vote choice and 46% of nonvoters.
Just 4% of Biden supporters say more information is needed before we can be certain of the election’s outcome.
[...]
Before the election, 55% of Republican voters expressed confidence in the process. That has dropped to just 22% now.
In fact, a majority (61%) of Republicans are not at all confident in the election’s fairness and accuracy now.
Only 13% expressed that sentiment in late September. Confidence in the election’s fairness went up among
both independents (from 56% to 69%) and Democrats (from 68% to 90%) pre-election to post-election.
“It’s not unusual for backers on the losing side to take a while to accept the results. It is quite another thing
for the defeated candidate to prolong that process by spreading groundless conspiracy theories. This is
dangerous territory for the Republic’s stability,” said Murray. Most Americans (61%) disapprove of how Trump
is handling the presidential transition process. Just 31% approve. One in four (25%) Republicans join
67% of independents and 92% of Democrats in voicing disapproval of the incumbent’s behavior.

How much confidence do you have that the 2020 presidential election was held fairly?
[Trump voters]: Only a little/none at all - 80%

Mail ballots are being manipulated to favor Joe Biden
[Trump voters] Definitely/probably true - 91%

Illegal immigrants voted fraudulently in 2016 and tried again in 2020
[Trump voters] Definitely/probably true - 89%

We will never know the real outcome of this election
[Trump voters] Definitely/probably true - 80%

How much voter fraud do you think occurred in this election?
[Trump voters]: A lot - 79%

Do you think the amount of voter fraud in the election caused Donald Trump to lose any of the states he lost in the election this year, or did it not change who won those states?
[Trump voters]: Enough fraud - 91%

How much voter fraud do you think occurred in this election?
[Trump voters]: Enough to influence - 89%

How much voter suppression do you think occurred in this election?
[Trump voters]: A lot - 33%; A little - 31%
: A lot - 37%; A little - 42%

Do you think the amount of voter suppression in the election caused [B]Joe Biden to lose any of the states he lost in the election this year or did it not change who won those states?
[Trump voters]: Enough suppression - 40%
: Enough suppression - 23%

[Ed. [B]HOW THE :daisy: :daisy: DO MORE REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS BELIEVE VOTER SUPPRESSION COST JOE BIDEN STATES?]

Would you say that Joe Biden legitimately won the election, or not?
[Trump voters]: Biden legitimately won - 12%
[Biden voters]: Biden legitimately won - 98%

At the moment it appears that the Senate and the President may be of different parties and favor different policies. Would you rather they...
[Trump voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 94%
[Biden voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 54%

Imagine what Trump and Republicans had in mind for a scenario in which we didn't hold those bridgeheads in Arizona and Georgia, and the margin in Pennsylvania were 0.1% rather than 1%. We're speaing of party-wide war to the hilt. The only good outcome of this scrimmage would be if Republicans are tricked into mistrusting the Electoral College as an institution: In the closest tipping states* of Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, Biden's cumulative balance of votes is less than 44K, about half of Trump's margin in 2016.

*Awarding those states to Trump results in a 269-269 tie, which would be decided by the House either on terms favorable to Republicans or by Nancy Pelosi going rogue and seating herself as president. To make it an outright Trump victory at 270-268 we would have to account for the Nebraska CD2 single vote, where Biden won by 23K votes. (Add that to the 44K and you more or less reproduce Trump's winning balance in 2016.)

I saw an interesting point made, though I don't fully agree, to the effect that Democrats and Biden should remain low-key and dismissive toward Trump's efforts to overthrow the government because to make a big deal would lend Trump's messaging more power and salience. That, in the absence of concrete progress on one of his schemes, or the finalization of the EC conclave, the Democrats don't have anything concrete to oppose or inveigh against, and that treating everything as normal and Republicans as powerless will redound to our advantage.

There's certainly a logic there, but I've consistently struggled with this ever-present theme that Democratic passivity or - at best - cautious vigilance will win out. At some point the Dem establishment needs to unite in making the case to its own base that we are living in a permanent crisis and that our lives need to shift accordingly. Now seems as good a time as any. It's not just about this election, and it's not just about Trump, it's that this election and Trump are the analytic lens by which public consciousness of our peril can begin to be potentiated. Sure, a sudden ramping up of rhetoric will make Dems look unhinged to an unfriendly media (though they've been doing a better job of covering the profound lawless and tyrannical nature of what Trump and Republicans have been doing anyway), but that's only a transitory artifact and something we need to break in one way or another.

Even David Frum (https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1329416197117505537) though acknowledges by now that the Republican Party has been grooming itself for authoritarianism and more for decades (generations really, and let's not forget the outright - if sputtered - autocratic impulses of Bush 2 and 2000s Republicans).

No more happy talk about the "uniquely American transition of power." Trump presidency and this post-election period confirm that the US is *less* committed to democratic norms - and has *weaker* institutional safeguards for democracy - than peer wealthy democracies.
I asked a German diplomat friend to detail the safeguards against, say, a German chancellor trying to extend her tenure despite losing an election. He replied that such a thing was utterly impossible, he couldn't begin to enumerate the reasons why. And he was right of course.
Nobody wondered, "Will Gordon Brown or Theresa May leave office if defeated?" Ditto the Netherlands, New Zealand, and newer democracies like Portugal or South Korea. Democratic culture is deep, and election law is administered impartially. For all the boasting, not true in USA
Normally, inauguration day is a day of self-congratulation. This next one should be a day of self-reflection - and commitment to self-improvement. The US not only lags other democracies - it has regressed even by its own standards. Time for a new era of reform.
And reform begins with acceptance of some grim and unwanted realities.

The problems are not "on both sides."

The illiberal authoritarianism of some dean of students somewhere is not equivalent to illiberal authoritarianism by the Attorney General of the United States.
Renewal of democratic institutions in the United States should be *non*-partisan - outside the everyday work of government - but cannot be *bi*-partisan when one party is so committed to (or frightened of) the individual leading the attack on democratic institutions.
And of course it's not just Trump.

As I detail in these 3 related articles

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

even the non-Trump Republican party has committed itself to a program of minority rule

It's hard thus to imagine that Congress can effectively conduct an investigation into Trump-era abuses by itself - since so many Republicans in Congress accepted, protected, and even connived in those abuses - and since so many Republicans in the states are now adding to the list
An independent commission with subpoena power is what is needed instead - tasked to recommend reform measures - and supported by a citizen movement outside the party system to pressure for state and federal reforms for voting rights, fair elections, and an honest Executive branch

A reader registers the below objection to the foregoing.

https://i.imgur.com/zn3hlHi.png

Now counter-question

How does "liberty" - or more exactly the democratic idea of regulating state power by impartial law - get into the hearts of men and women in the first place?

It's not innate! By nature, we prefer that our tribe dominate. The democratic idea is learned.
Learned how?

Learned by practice, and practice based upon laws and institutions.

(Remember Tocqueville's astute remarks on the importance of jury duty to self-government?)

So we have to build our institutions fair and strong to foster individual commitment to democracy
The Republican thralldom to Trump followed 20 years of undoing voting rights and civil rights. Republicans became acculturated gradually first to minority rule, then to authoritarian rule. Trump's false allegations of fraud rest on carefully nurtured prejudices.
I'm going on too long. But if anybody is still bearing with me, one last point ...
If I've had any one message in everything I've written about Trump and Trumpism since 2015 ... it's that the direct involvement of the people in elections is democracy's LAST line of defense, not its first.

Joe Biden summoned 80 million Americans to defend democracy. Great, but
that massive collective undertaking only followed the internal failure of the checks and balances erected to protect democracy in the long intervals between elections. And as we saw in 2020, malign actors can corrode voting rights during those long intervals between elections
80 million people voted to eject Trump and replace him. One official at the General Services Administration has successfully defied that vote for some 2 weeks. In a more democratic culture, she'd say No. The story of the Trump years is how many like her have said Yes.

This is a pefect debate tactics. Instead of playing the ball you play the man.

Yet whatever my concerns might be, I realize that Russian-speaking Ukrainians that are so much oppressed (as you think) are a part of our society and will be for quite a time. And we have to win them to our side. While you speak of life-or-death fight. Feel the difference.

You don't have a ball. I'm just saying that Russian-speaking Ukrainians merely want a life free from the violent interference of the domineering Ukrainian-speakers, but you won't let them have it, whether as a function of prejudice or jealousy. That strikes me as rather divisive. It's like Abraham Lincoln used to say, when a robber accosts you and you make them shoot you dead, you become a murderer.

I may be mistaken, but you offer no solutions either, except of legging it from the fascist state. And my solution is starting to map out a strategy to stitch the nation together.

You straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy. As for my part, you are mistaken; the goal I have consistently promoted is to maximize Democratic power and relegate Republicans to as low a sociopolitical profile as is manageable.

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 17:21

Currently there are two representatives from my home state that are in Washington presumably to discuss with the President how to subvert democracy by going against the will of the people here in Michigan by submitting our 16 electoral votes for him instead of for Joe Biden. Go ahead and try to map out a strategy for THAT....:rolleyes:

I like that "presumably". And doesn't your electoral law forbid it? Or are those two empowered to do that?

But even if they do, what is your solution? Smash all those who support Republicans to pieces? Take their citizenship from them? Settle them all in Texas? If not, then you are doomed to co-exist with them. As well as to map strategies.

Montmorency

11-20-2020, 17:23

I like that "presumably". And doesn't your electoral law forbid it? Or are those two empowered to do that?

But even if they do, what is your solution? Smash all those who support Republicans to pieces? Take their citizenship from them? Settle them all in Texas? If not, then you are doomed to co-exist with them. As well as to map strategies.

They are not doomed to coexist with us.

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 17:36

You don't have a ball. I'm just saying that Russian-speaking Ukrainians merely want a life free from the violent interference of the domineering Ukrainian-speakers, but you won't let them have it, whether as a function of prejudice or jealousy. That strikes me as rather divisive.

I applaud your persistent attempts to derail the thread about America.

But if you think that Ukrainian-speakers dominate in Ukraine it shows that you have even less understanding of Ukraine than I do of the USA.

You straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.

:laugh4: You thought that foreigners should conceive any strategy for YOUR country? :laugh4:

I readily admit the absence not only of knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it. It is your compatriots that must come up with one. And preferably those who realize that you can't just neglect the sentiment of nigh on half of the nation.

As for my part, you are mistaken; the goal I have consistently promoted is to maximize Democratic power and relegate Republicans to as low a sociopolitical profile as is manageable.

Even if you succeed in it (which will eventually result in the USSR-type of ONE RULING PARTY, won't it?), it can't cancel the senseless American ritual of whole states "traditionally voting" for a candidate of a particular party even if this candidate is a raccoon or a groundhog.

Gilrandir

11-20-2020, 17:37

They are not doomed to coexist with us.

You think they will leave? Or secede?

ReluctantSamurai

11-20-2020, 17:49

I like that "presumably". And doesn't your electoral law forbid it? Or are those two empowered to do that?

I agree with Monty....you 'straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.'

First off, I was simply being nice by saying "presumably" What other reason would they be going there other than to talk strategy on how to subvert the Michigan vote? Certainly not to have coffee and shoot the shit on current world affairs...:rolleyes:

As to the electoral law....this is the reason you simply don't have a clue on how the Republican Party operates today. THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THE LAW! Republicans would rather risk civil war by subverting democracy and our constitution, than give up power.

As to whether they have the authority to assign rogue electors, you need to back and read post #524. Read the link to The Atlantic article. Then read post #525. Then read post#530. Watch the whole video. Do these things and you will have accumulated enough information to answer the question yourself. Don't do those things and you can just continue to troll without a clue as to how Republicans are trying to subvert democracy...:inquisitive:

Pannonian

11-20-2020, 19:49

I agree with Monty....you 'straightforwardly lack the requisite knowledge or sense about the country to conceive of any relevant strategy.'

First off, I was simply being nice by saying "presumably" What other reason would they be going there other than to talk strategy on how to subvert the Michigan vote? Certainly not to have coffee and shoot the shit on current world affairs...:rolleyes:

As to the electoral law....this is the reason you simply don't have a clue on how the Republican Party operates today. THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THE LAW! Republicans would rather risk civil war by subverting democracy and our constitution, than give up power.

As to whether they have the authority to assign rogue electors, you need to back and read post #524. Read the link to The Atlantic article. Then read post #525. Then read post#530. Watch the whole video. Do these things and you will have accumulated enough information to answer the question yourself. Don't do those things and you can just continue to troll without a clue as to how Republicans are trying to subvert democracy...:inquisitive:

"Own the libs". That sums up the Right in the US.

spmetla

11-20-2020, 19:58

Each state has it's own laws about faithless electors and deals with it separately. For Trump to 'win' the electoral college he'd need all the electors of three states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and anything else) to 'flip' toward him.

In Michigan a faithless electors will essentially be ignored:

Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.47 No penalty Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector

Pennsylvania and Georgia have no laws about faithless electors unfortunately so those are Trump's best shots.

Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona have similiar laws to Michigan:

Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat § 16-212 No penalty Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector

Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § 298.075(2) (Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act) No penalty Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. § 7.75(2) No penalty Vote counted as cast

https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws

It is still 'possible' for the electors and state legislatures to go rogue and put all the electoral votes for Trump though it is highly unlikely. If that happens though in several states then it may take a Supreme Court ruling after all though that's a long shot for happening. Trump only caring about himself will probably still try for this long shot because it's clear he wants to remain in office, norms and elections be damned.

We each made a similar argument to the Supreme Court in May when, in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca, we defended the Framers’ plan for presidential electors. Electors, as we argued—though selected in the “manner” that the state legislatures directed—were given their power by the Constitution, not state legislatures. That power, we argued, could not be constrained by state law, for precisely the same reason that state law could not constrain state legislatures. Electors were above state regulation, just as state legislatures were.

This is not the only context in which the Supreme Court has recognized that state legislatures have superpowers granted to them by the federal constitution. In Leser v. Garnett (1922), the court had held that even a state constitution could not constrain a state legislature when that legislature was ratifying an amendment to the federal constitution. When exercising that ratifying power, the legislature performed a “federal function.” That function could not be constrained by the state in any way, whether by its constitution or, as the Supreme Court had held in an earlier case, Hawke v. Smith (1920), by an express vote of its people.

Such cases do support the theory of legislative superpower birthed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and echoed by Justice Kavanaugh. But that superpower is to the end of selecting electors. The Framers expressly rejected the idea that the state legislatures themselves should choose the president. The corruption of post-election bargaining was obvious to them. They therefore expressly avoided giving any existing entity the power to select a president, so as to avoid that obvious corruption. Instead, the entity that was to make that choice was to be one that was free of any obligation to anyone —that is, the electors themselves.

In Chiafalo, however, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved that history had overtaken the Framers’ design. Nine justices agreed that even if the Framers had assumed that “electors” would be free to cast a vote however they chose, an emerging presumption of democratic control had displaced that original design. Whatever they originally expected, the court held, there was nothing in their words that constrained the power of the state to ensure that it was the choice of the people that would ultimately decide how the electors would vote. Elector discretion had been displaced by democracy. “Here,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the closing line of her opinion, “[w]e the people rule.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-legislatures-cant-ignore-popular-vote-appointing-electors

Hooahguy

11-21-2020, 02:13

Some encouraging news (https://twitter.com/Jordanfabian/status/1329927673104248833) out of Michigan. Coming from Michigan lawmakers, presumably GOP as they met with Trump today:

We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and as legislative leaders we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan's electors, just as we have said throughout this election.

Although the "threats and intimidation" bit really stands out here. To have been a fly on the wall during that meeting with Trump...

Montmorency

11-21-2020, 02:25

Florida Governor Rick Scott's daughter has some thoughts about his COVID diagnosis. [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1329844449426468865

spmetla
Electoral slates are all hardcore partisans, so I'm pretty sure if a Joe Biden slate is certified for each of those states then all the electors will be partisan Democrats. I don't think faithless electors are a factor here, though they would be a sliver of a factor if Republicans overthrew the Biden slates and tried to ram through their own. In that case some, but not enough, Republican electors might manifest a conscience. Also, as a historical matter the EC electors have never had or wielded discretion in a practical way. Recall that the Electoral College in its original form was such an unwieldy contraption that it had to be remade in just a decade. Lessig's arguments have rightly been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. To the extent that a state can act unconstitutionally in exercising its authority over electors, it would be in subverting the other constitutionally-enumerated rights of individuals and process, not because electors are wizards. At any rate, even such a paper unconstitutionality is irrelevant to a Republican supermajority, as demonstrated in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) when the Roberts majority acknowledged that gerrymandering imposes injuries to the constitutional rights of citizens and yet declined to do anything to remedy that for raisins. Bottom line: Biden-pledged electoral slates would never want to defect in the first place because they are selected for loyalty, making abstract questions of constitutionality beside the point.

Michigan Republicans (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/20/us/joe-biden-trump?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#michigan-lawmakers-after-meeting-with-trump-reaffirm-that-they-will-honor-the-states-vote) reject Trump's entreaty for him a mulligan.

You know, any Republican senators who want to earn major institutional cred and probably the uncritical admiration of the more centrist half of the Democratic Party could just announce, privately or publicly, that unless Republicans unite against Trump they will caucus with Democrats and McConnell will lose his majority and his leadership role. The few milquetoast criticisms we've seen, of the same tenor as have suppurated throughout Trump's term - to no effect - is therefore telling on those who level them without concomitant action. Of course, we knew how this would turn out. Besides impeachment Romney has voted with Trump on pretty much everything. BTW Samurai, this is the kind of lens that might be applied to some of Manchin's record, but in reverse.

https://i.imgur.com/48c2EjN.png

On the flipside, I can't shake the feeling that a very loud and persistent alarum from Biden and others about what Republicans have become is needed in both the short and long term, to mobilize the base. Not just mobilize, but prime and educate.

If Donald Trump and Fox News can turn tens of millions of - admittedly psychologically divergent - Americans into raving minions, then arguably an aggressive repudiation of 'disloyal' Republicans by the Dem establishment could help liberals be less complacent.

I applaud your persistent attempts to derail the thread about America.

But if you think that Ukrainian-speakers dominate in Ukraine it shows that you have even less understanding of Ukraine than I do of the USA.

:laugh4: You thought that foreigners should conceive any strategy for YOUR country? :laugh4:

I readily admit the absence not only of knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it. It is your compatriots that must come up with one. And preferably those who realize that you can't just neglect the sentiment of nigh on half of the nation.

Even if you succeed in it (which will eventually result in the USSR-type of ONE RULING PARTY, won't it?), it can't cancel the senseless American ritual of whole states "traditionally voting" for a candidate of a particular party even if this candidate is a raccoon or a groundhog.

You think they will leave? Or secede?

You are an intensely and appallingly-obtuse person.

You are the one derailing the thread and I'm bringing it back home. The purpose of the analogy to Ukraine was to throw back your logic in your face. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians are not obligated to allow foreign-backed seditionists to dominate them on some bad faith theory of equity that misrepresents the nature of the conflict. In Ukraine's case you cannot neglect their sentiment (and operationalization of it) inasmuch as it presents a looming threat to your way of life, but you naturally will oppose and resist it. And you would be right to do so.

The hell of the thing is that the analogy is by design overly generous to you since Republicans hold much more power in America than Russian-speaking Ukrainians do in Ukraine, and a Russian-hostile Ukrainian government poses more of a hindrance to the interests of Russian-speaking Ukrainians than Democratic-led governments do to the interests of Republicans (though in both cases we would expect an erosion of cultural influence, which is probably the sticking point in these types of conflicts).

You think they will leave? Or secede?

Russian-speaking Ukrainians have prioritized the exit option, because they are a minority (in terms of those clearly more loyal to a Russian identity than a Ukrainian one) and geographically-concentrated. American political demographics are not as stable as linguistic ones are, but Republicans are not less than 40% of the population and are well-dispersed throughout the country. The option I am very obviously (obvious enough to be derogatory toward your competence at parsing and reflecting on information that you would overlook it) alluding to is the one where they impose an apartheid regime against us, subjugating us or forcing us out of the country. In the contemporary operation of such schemes it is rarely necessary to kill more than a few thousand of the target groups.

A one-party Democratic state for a generation is a clearly-preferable outcome for those who prioritize stability, human rights, the resolution of collective problems and challenges to the common weal, and not promoting the rise of mafia-like autocracies around the world. Most other democracies have functioned as one-party states for extended periods anyway.

ReluctantSamurai

11-21-2020, 02:27

Some encouraging news out of Michigan.

I reserve opinion until I see what they actually do. Rhetoric is pretty cheap these days.

Meanwhile, through all of this, including what Lindsey Graham did, the Democrats are sitting calmly at the dinner table while the house is burning.....:zzz:

@Monty

Not worth the effort to try and carry on a dialogue. The man has clearly stated his intentions:

1.
I readily admit the absence not only of knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it.

2.
You thought that foreigners should conceive any strategy for YOUR country?

3.
Even if you succeed in it (which will eventually result in the USSR-type of ONE RULING PARTY, won't it?), it can't cancel the senseless American ritual of whole states "traditionally voting" for a candidate of a particular party even if this candidate is a raccoon or a groundhog.

#1 shows absolutely no intention of trying to understand the workings of this country (same lack of intention shown back when we were discussing the BLM movement, and systemic racism)
#2 shows a lack of understanding and a certain arrogance over what this thread is about...as if ANYONE of us here in the States was asking for someone outside the country to "figure it all out for us"
#3 shows exactly where his sentiments lie concerning Americans...a bunch of rodents. However, he did get one thing right---if Trump succeeds in subverting democracy, we will get a USSR-type of "ONE RULING PARTY"....Republicans.

But hey, it's all cool. I'll revisit discussions with Gilrandir when QAnon shows up in his backyard......:cthulhu:

Gilrandir

11-21-2020, 12:47

Gilrandir

11-21-2020, 13:58

You are an intensely and appallingly-obtuse person.

And you still claim you don't play the man?

But if you resort to giving personal characteristics I believe that gives me the right to respond in the like manner: you are getting increasingly hysterical. Emotions dim your wit (as it was the case with the previous argument of ours).

You are the one derailing the thread and I'm bringing it back home.

So your mentioning Ukraine for the third time in the POTUS thread brings it back home? :dizzy2: Now your logic fails you again.

The purpose of the analogy to Ukraine was to throw back your logic in your face. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians are not obligated to allow foreign-backed seditionists to dominate them on some bad faith theory of equity that misrepresents the nature of the conflict. In Ukraine's case you cannot neglect their sentiment (and operationalization of it) inasmuch as it presents a looming threat to your way of life, but you naturally will oppose and resist it. And you would be right to do so.

It's a fallacious analogy since in the USA there is no foreign meddler.

The hell of the thing is that the analogy is by design overly generous to you since Republicans hold much more power in America than Russian-speaking Ukrainians do in Ukraine, and a Russian-hostile Ukrainian government poses more of a hindrance to the interests of Russian-speaking Ukrainians than Democratic-led governments do to the interests of Republicans (though in both cases we would expect an erosion of cultural influence, which is probably the sticking point in these types of conflicts).

Russian-speaking Ukrainians have prioritized the exit option, because they are a minority (in terms of those clearly more loyal to a Russian identity than a Ukrainian one) and geographically-concentrated.

You are so wrong (at least about Ukraine) that I don't know where to begin.

You believe that Russian-speakers hold small power in Ukraine. The fact: 4 out of 6 Ukrianian presidents were Russian-speakers (including the current one). They typically brought to power with them their teams of Russian-speakers (including the current one). Most mayors and local authorities in the south and east of Ukraine are Russian-speakers who hold all the power there.

Yet the very term "Russian-speaker" is an ambiguous one, since most Ukrainians (especially under 40) are bilingual and can switch languages (some more easily, some with certain difficulty) at will. Moreover, there are numerous cases when in a conversation one person speaks Ukrainian and the other - Russian. Generally, language isn't an issue in most situations.

The same irrelevance is mostly true as to the identity. Most Ukrainians (both what you call Russian- and Ukrainian-speakers) consider themselves Ukrainians and don't associate themselves with Russia and don't want to move there or secede.

https://www.international-alert.org/sites/default/files/Ukraine_RussophoneIdentity_RU_2017_1.pdf

For instance, my wife is predominantly Russian-speaker (since she is the daughter of a military man who served in military bases all over the USSR and even in GDR, so she had no chance to learn Ukrainian well - which she now does little by little), but she is very critical (to put it mildly) of Russia and its policy towards Ukraine.

The events of 2014 showed that the majority of Russian-speakers in the East and South rooted for Ukraine when Russians invaded. Now about two thirds of the Ukrainian military in Donbas are Russian-speakers. Moreover, there are Ukrainian-speaking people who take the side of Russia in the conflict (at least verbally). So the fact that someone predominantly or exclusively speaks Russian in Ukraine doesn't automatically make him the supporter of the Russian cause. The opposite is true as well.

So before drawing any analogies it is good to learn the subject deeper.

American political demographics are not as stable as linguistic ones are, but Republicans are not less than 40% of the population and are well-dispersed throughout the country.

Not that well since some states are "traditionally" red, and others are "traditionally" blue. A very stupid tradition.

The option I am very obviously (obvious enough to be derogatory toward your competence at parsing and reflecting on information that you would overlook it) alluding to is the one where they impose an apartheid regime against us, subjugating us or forcing us out of the country. In the contemporary operation of such schemes it is rarely necessary to kill more than a few thousand of the target groups.

Unlike you regarding Ukraine, I never pretend to have a deep understanding of current divisions and sentiment in the USA. Yet, I don't have to. Even the most ignorant onlookers can see the almost equal distribution of votes and conclude that about half of the population doesn't like Democrats. But this half will NOT DISAPPEAR after the elections are over. And your talks of subjugating, apartheid, killing, biting throats are too bellicose to let me believe that the peaceful co-existence of the two political Americas looms or is promoted by the winners.

You may be exasperated at my unsolicited opinion, yet you (like in Americans) should try to heal the division not because some ignorant foreigner says so, but for the sake of your own country (and preferably, by sober-minded and less emotional people). What I think or say doesn't matter. And your reaction looks like:
-Excuse me, you have some dirt on your sleeve.
- Who are you to tell me about my clothes? Are you a dry cleaner? Are you a sanitary engineer? Do you live in my neighborhood? If not, beat it and don't poke your nose into the issues that are beyond your understanding.

A one-party Democratic state for a generation is a clearly-preferable outcome for those who prioritize stability, human rights, the resolution of collective problems and challenges to the common weal, and not promoting the rise of mafia-like autocracies around the world.

You are idealizing Democrats. Do I have to remind you what epithets Hillary Clinton has earned even among those who "traditionally" vote for Democrats? "Liar" was the mildest of them.

Most other democracies have functioned as one-party states for extended periods anyway.

Example, please.

ReluctantSamurai

11-21-2020, 16:22

Read spmelta's post on electoral laws. Since no punishment is imminent, there is no law violation.

It's not that simple, with all due respect to spmelta. And judging from your statement, and your self-admitted lack of not only knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it, you didn't read The Atlantic article linked in post #525. So I'll give you a bonus turn to rectify that, by giving you a link to a paper published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (which was the basis for The Atlantic article):

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj

It's a very, very long read and I'll cut to the chase for a couple of important points (Pennsylvania is being used as a test case, and Elizabeth Warren as the President-elect):

Thus, in the 2020 scenario we are contemplating—where the President of the Senate has received two submissions from Pennsylvania, one with the governor’s certificate and the other based on the purported legislative appointment—if both the Senate and the House accepted the electoral votes bearing the governor’s certificate as the proper ones (because they were cast by electors duly appointed pursuant to an accurate count of the state’s popular vote according to the canvassing and other electoral laws of the state),the controversy would end in terms of what the statute provides.

But what if the Senate and House disagree? What if, in other words, the Pelosi-led House votes to accept the electoral votes for Warren, while simultaneously the McConnell-led Senate votes to accept the electoral votes for Trump?

[...]once the Senate and House have diverged on which submission of electoral votes from Pennsylvania should be counted, the operation of 3 U.S.C. § 15 requires that the submission bearing the governor’s certificate is the one that must be accepted.The Democrats would quote this sentence in the statute: “But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”

It is harder, but not impossible, to make the counterargument that the proper reading of the statute as applied to this specific situation requires the rejection of both submissions of electoral votes from Pennsylvania.This counterargument takes the position that a gubernatorial certificate does not act as a tiebreaker when two (or more) certificates of submission of electoral votes from the same state claim “safe harbor” status under another section of the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

It goes on for quite a way explaining all the possible outcomes, but the thing to bear in mind is that CoviDon needs the best case scenario to happen in not just one, but three of the disputed states. Remotely possible, but not likely.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2020, 16:52

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2020, 17:14

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Trump's efforts to have state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors. Most states have enacted laws that obviate "faithless" electors link (https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws), including AZ and MI, making it impossible for the college itself to be "gamed" simply by bribing electors or what not. Only by getting the legislatures to obviate the vote and select electors of their choice -- which would violate state laws in many cases, regardless of constitutionality -- would allow the College vote to be shifted to a Trump win or a tie vote (also a Trump win as the GOP controls 26 of the 50 states in the US HofR).

So far, the legislatures appear to be telling Trump to 'piss up a rope.' As they should. Trump's efforts along this line are anathema.

The Electoral College -- enacted to minimize tyranny of the majority and to work against Demagoguery -- is being subverted into a tool to do precisely the opposite. Trump's blind ambition will, I hope, create the impetus needed to amend the College back to its original concept (one elector from each federal HofR district selected by majority from that district; two votes designated by the legislature as they deemed fit). That version never quite made it into the document and though they did attempt to improve the early inanities with the 12th amendment, they sowed the seeds for the potential debacle we see today).

I like the concept of the college to prevent the problems associated with a tyranny of the simple majority (which could well devolve into "Cities rule, country-folk should stfu.") Yet it is clear that, as framed, a would-be dictator has a chance to not merely game the system of EC votes but to suborn it entirely. This is unacceptable.

spmetla

11-21-2020, 20:18

It's not that simple, with all due respect to spmelta. And judging from your statement, and your self-admitted lack of not only knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it, you didn't read The Atlantic article linked in post #525. So I'll give you a bonus turn to rectify that, by giving you a link to a paper published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (which was the basis for The Atlantic article):

I agree, it's not that simple and as Montmorency has pointed out it'll be partisan electors. So if the State legislatures do no shenanigans then the Democratic electors will be voting on 14DEC20. With Michigan's GOP reps stating yesterday that they'll do the 'normal' procedures that's pretty it for Trump's trying to fenagle the electoral college system.
I'm glad you pointed out the Atlantic article again because it's actually something I'd wanted to cite in my earlier post (but didn't know how far back it was) on the electoral college because of the the thin possibility that a State legislature send to a separate "Certificate of Vote" to the joint session of congress in January and contest the one cast by the normal electors.

Rival slates of electors could hold mirror-image meetings in Harrisburg, Lansing, Tallahassee, or Phoenix, casting the same electoral votes on opposite sides. Each slate would transmit its ballots, as the Constitution provides, “to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” The next move would belong to Vice President Mike Pence.

Thankfully yesterday's news from the Michigan folks though has made all the above just a mental exercise as without them then there's zero chance for trump doing anything. I'm just glad the electoral vote count is a large a difference as it is, if it were down to one state like in 2000 then the above scenarios might play out.

I'm looking forward to Monday and what reasons Emily Murphy will give for not ascertaining the election results yet. The leaks and rumors of her friends of course have been circling about on CNN and MSNBC about "just following orders" and other piss poor excuses. It better not be the usual round of "I cannot recall" and "that's subject to executive priviledge." The GSA procedures, or lack there of definitely show yet another thing that needs to be codified into law so as to not allow any sitting president to stop the transition process.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-chairs-summon-gsa-head-on-refusal-to-grant-biden-harris-team-access-to

ReluctantSamurai

11-21-2020, 21:29

state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors

That statement requires that the meaning of the word "Legislature" as stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 is perfectly clear....which it appears that it is not.

Does this use of “Legislature” refer specifically to the lawmaking body or does it refer to a state’s entire lawmaking process? In the latter case, the legislature and governor must act together to determine the manner for appointing electors. Also, voter referendums would be able to override the legislature in some circumstances. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question. This vagueness has allowed room for individual states to determine the meaning of the word "Legislature". Each state has differing certification laws, most require the governor's seal:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjf_ZTCu5TtAhXsqlkKHYRXDrkQFjAYegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uniformlaws.org%2FHigherLogic%2FSystem%2FDownloadDocumentFile.ashx%3FDocumentF ileKey%3Dcb6e88c2-bc7a-f602-c253-24013fd08f3d%26forceDialog%3D1&usg=AOvVaw2kunrW2UPTtruZJHXfH_pQ

I agree, it's not that simple

After reading my comments again, what came after wasn't directed at you, but at the individual that I was quoting.

So if the State legislatures do no shenanigans

Aye, there's the rub. We'll just have to wait and see if the legislators in the contested states do as they say they will.

Pannonian

11-21-2020, 22:26

Trump's efforts to have state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors. Most states have enacted laws that obviate "faithless" electors link (https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws), including AZ and MI, making it impossible for the college itself to be "gamed" simply by bribing electors or what not. Only by getting the legislatures to obviate the vote and select electors of their choice -- which would violate state laws in many cases, regardless of constitutionality -- would allow the College vote to be shifted to a Trump win or a tie vote (also a Trump win as the GOP controls 26 of the 50 states in the US HofR).

So far, the legislatures appear to be telling Trump to 'piss up a rope.' As they should. Trump's efforts along this line are anathema.

The Electoral College -- enacted to minimize tyranny of the majority and to work against Demagoguery -- is being subverted into a tool to do precisely the opposite. Trump's blind ambition will, I hope, create the impetus needed to amend the College back to its original concept (one elector from each federal HofR district selected by majority from that district; two votes designated by the legislature as they deemed fit). That version never quite made it into the document and though they did attempt to improve the early inanities with the 12th amendment, they sowed the seeds for the potential debacle we see today).

I like the concept of the college to prevent the problems associated with a tyranny of the simple majority (which could well devolve into "Cities rule, country-folk should stfu.") Yet it is clear that, as framed, a would-be dictator has a chance to not merely game the system of EC votes but to suborn it entirely. This is unacceptable.

What is the rationale behind faithless electors, and has it happened in the past and why? If the vote count in the electoral college is just a formality, why can't they be virtual votes that are just tallied without an need for flesh and blood electors physically voting? It's not like a Parliamentary system where there is a regular need to prove authority with lawmaking votes (as that part is played by your Houses).

a completely inoffensive name

11-21-2020, 22:31

spmetla

11-21-2020, 22:57

What is the rationale behind faithless electors, and has it happened in the past and why? If the vote count in the electoral college is just a formality, why can't they be virtual votes that are just tallied without an need for flesh and blood electors physically voting? It's not like a Parliamentary system where there is a regular need to prove authority with lawmaking votes (as that part is played by your Houses).

The reasons why are because the system is from back horse transport days with no mass media, in a nation even as large as the 13 colonies with the poor roads and effects of weather from November to January the many steps of the electoral process are to help accommodate that.

Changing things in the US Constitution require Constitutional Amendments which require strong majorities in either Congress or the State Legislatures to enact. With our ever increasing deadlock and failure to compromise even updating things that both sides agree on is very difficult.

As for the history, here's just the 2016 ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Recorded_faithless_electors
24030

Pannonian

11-21-2020, 23:08

It would be blatantly unconstitutional to change the rules of how the electors are picked after the election has already been held. Constitution is pretty clear on ex post facto laws being prohibited.

EDIT: Literally 5 seconds after I posted this a Cornell law review told me this actually only applies to penal and criminal statues. Oh well, i am leaving this up as a lesson to everyone.

A criminal statue (https://qz.com/work/1244355/how-to-recover-from-failing-spectacularly-at-your-dream-job/)

ReluctantSamurai

11-21-2020, 23:35

What is the rationale behind faithless electors, and has it happened in the past and why?

It was argued just this past May in SCOTUS:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/supreme-court-faithless-electors-electoral-college.html

The plaintiffs in Chiafalo and Baca are “faithless electors” who sought to buck these laws in 2016 and select a different candidate than the one chosen by voters of their state. They argue that the Constitution grants electors the right to vote for whomever they want. In their view, the statewide vote is essentially advisory and states have no power to punish electors who go their own way.

“Those who disagree with your argument,” Justice Samuel Alito told Lessig, “say that it would lead to chaos”—that in a close election, “the rational response of the losing political party” would be “to launch a massive campaign to try to influence electors, and there would be a long period of uncertainty about who the next president was going to be.” Lessig told Alito he did not “deny it’s a possibility,” but it’s one that hasn’t happened yet—and even if it does, that’s the Constitution’s fault.

Which is pretty much what's occurred six months later.....

As to the why? Hooaguy put it best...."GOP Fuckery."

Montmorency

11-22-2020, 01:47

An important parable for our time.

the marketplace of ideas has once again delivered us some real winner ideas; love to see Republicans these days having spirited civic debates on ideas like "should we count the black votes?" and "what if no elections?" and "seize government buildings and execute Democrats on TV?"
It's important to know that while some Republicans are for all these ideas, other Republicans are NOT for these ideas, and intend to cluck their tongues and shake their heads *very* firmly while allowing all these things to happen, and also quietly helping out where they can.
Also very important to remember that many of the Republicans who want to do these harmful things aren't doing it because they want to harm people, but only because they want money and feel anxious about it.
"What you need to understand about me," said The Strangler, tightening his grip, "is that I'm killing you for an *economic* reason. Calling me 'The Strangler' is just increasing the sort of resentment that got you strangled in the first place."
"You need to stop struggling and fighting so much," the Strangler murmured, "and understand my motivations, so we can work together on solutions."

"Acckkkkkkk" said The Strangler's victim.

"Hmm," said The Strangler, "you really need to do better at convincing me."
"Glllllkkkk," said The Strangler's victim.

"That's all very well and good in a *perfect* world," said The Strangler. "But we don't live in a perfect world. You're not taking human nature into account. Stranglings are going to happen."
"nnnnngk," said The Strangler's victim.

"But how will you PAY for that?" the Strangler chuckled, strangling away, strangling away.

"Both sides are fighting," said the pundit, from the armchair.

"We sure ARE!" said The Strangler. "Good point!"
"It's hard to imagine anything more disturbing and violent than this strangling," said The Strangler's partner.

"Get his wallet," snapped The Strangler.

"Okee doke," said The Strangler's partner, obeying.

"The Strangler's partner offered a sharp rebuke," observed the pundit.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "We become as bad as the Strangler himself."

"How true," said another man in the room, one of a large crowd.

"I would simply have not put myself in a position to be strangled," said another.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "that would be very unfair to all the people he's already strangled."

"And their families!" the man in the room said.

"My father got strangled," said another. "And I turned out fine."
"I've got the wallet, boss," the Strangler's partner said.

"Bless your brave statement a minute ago, in favor of civility," said the pundit.

"I'm going to write a book about civility!" the Strangler's partner said.

"I will give it a glowing review!" cried the pundit.
"You are still strangling that man," came a voice from the back of the room. "You're taking his life."

"That is the most divisive thing I've ever heard," The Strangler huffed. "ALL lives matter."
"Join me on my show this Sunday," said the pundit, "when my topic is strangling and the politics of divisiveness practiced by a growing anti-strangling crowd whose rhetoric of fighting strangulation has suburban voters nervous. My guest will be three Stranglers and nobody else."
"The real problem is not the stranglings," said The Strangler. "What concerns me is the violent extremists in Antistra."

"Antistra?" exclaimed the pundit. "Who are they? They sound violent and extreme."

"They are," the Strangler insisted, in a terrified hush. "They really are."
"How do you feel when people call you a 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"Strangling mad!" The Strangler cried.

"You feel aggrieved," the pundit said. "Demonization is no way to win you over. People should appeal to your better angels."

"They also strangle," said The Strangler.
"Being called a 'strangler' is the worst thing you can be called nowadays," said The Strangler.

"The problem with it," enjoined the pundit, "is that it just shuts down conversation."

"Exactly!" said The Strangler. "It's reverse strangulation—the worst kind of strangulation."
"If somebody calls you a 'strangler' it's all over for you," the Strangler complained.

"It's a very scary time to strangle," the pundit intoned.

"VERY scary!" said the Strangler. "You can't say ANYTHING."

"nnkk" said the Strangler's victim.

"Shut up, you!" the Strangler said.
"What's the worst part about being called 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"It's so reductive," said The Strangler. "They write me off by calling me a name. I love my family and my friends and I'm a very nice person."

"You've certainly never strangled *me,*" the pundit offered.
"THANK YOU!" exclaimed The Strangler. "The truth is I haven't strangled *most* people."

"Statistically speaking, you've basically strangled nobody at all," the pundit suggested.

"YES! It's the people who call me 'strangler' who are the REAL stranglers," said The Strangler.
"Well, that's all the time we have today," said the pundit. "This has been very enlightening, and you've given us a lot to think about."

"I love to teach," said The Strangler. "Aaaaand strangle!"
"What do you want me to do with this?" The Strangler nudged his victim's body with his toe.

"Hmm?" the pundit asked.

"This one," the Strangler said. "I think it's all done."

"Oh, I never even saw her," said the Pundit. "Just put her anywhere. Anywhere at all."

It's a fallacious analogy since in the USA there is no foreign meddler.

You will recall there is, and the same entity, but that is beside the point as to the implications of your attitude across contexts.

You are so wrong (at least about Ukraine) that I don't know where to begin.

So before drawing any analogies it is good to learn the subject deeper.

This would be my entire :daisy: point. Your premise relied on obdurate mischaracterization, so I showed you how it would manifest in Ukraine's context.

- Who are you to tell me about my clothes? Are you a dry cleaner? Are you a sanitary engineer? Do you live in my neighborhood? If not, beat it and don't poke your nose into the issues that are beyond your understanding.

It's not about who you are, it's not even that you don't know what the :daisy: you're talking about, it's that you're so smarmy, condescending, and self-assured about the drivel you say while refusing to learn anything that would lend some merit to your ideas.

Unlike you regarding Ukraine, I never pretend to have a deep understanding of current divisions and sentiment in the USA. Yet, I don't have to. Even the most ignorant onlookers can see the almost equal distribution of votes and conclude that about half of the population doesn't like Democrats. But this half will NOT DISAPPEAR after the elections are over. And your talks of subjugating, apartheid, killing, biting throats are too bellicose to let me believe that the peaceful co-existence of the two political Americas looms or is promoted by the winners.

The bold instantly outs you as unserious. The Democratic Party has consistently gone out of its way to affirm the principle and practice of power-sharing to the point of notoriety. That you take issue with them rather than Republican actions and rhetoric that genuinely offend the standards you wish to portray yourself as concerned about proves that you have no such interest. If one segment of society and its political representation is losing all restraint against the illegitimate use of power to enforce permanent political and economic control over the rest of the population, you do not "coexist" with that, precisely because the instigators do not permit mere coexistence - you either* win or lose. It takes minimal world-knowledge to successfully grasp this principle.

In a group of five deciding what to have for dinner, two cannibals demand the bodies of the rest. You titter at the non-cannibals' alarm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6oQUDFV2C0

*Low-grade instability and violence under indeterminate conflict are also possible for a time but it's not a durable equilibrium (see: much of the MidEast and Africa).

You are idealizing Democrats. Do I have to remind you what epithets Hillary Clinton has earned even among those who "traditionally" vote for Democrats? "Liar" was the mildest of them.

See above.

Example, please.

Major examples of single-party hammerlocks in rising democracies include:

US (pre-Wilsonian Republicans)
UK (Whigs, Tories)
Germany (CDU/CSU)
Japan (LDJ)
Mexico (PRI)

But if you resort to giving personal characteristics I believe that gives me the right to respond in the like manner: you are getting increasingly hysterical. Emotions dim your wit (as it was the case with the previous argument of ours).

Your personal characteristics are not relevant but you insisted on interjecting them. One can lead a dummy to reason but one can't make him think. :thinking:

This Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1329747996028891142) seems made for you:

the marketplace of ideas has once again delivered us some real winner ideas; love to see Republicans these days having spirited civic debates on ideas like "should we count the black votes?" and "what if no elections?" and "seize government buildings and execute Democrats on TV?"
It's important to know that while some Republicans are for all these ideas, other Republicans are NOT for these ideas, and intend to cluck their tongues and shake their heads *very* firmly while allowing all these things to happen, and also quietly helping out where they can.
Also very important to remember that many of the Republicans who want to do these harmful things aren't doing it because they want to harm people, but only because they want money and feel anxious about it.
"What you need to understand about me," said The Strangler, tightening his grip, "is that I'm killing you for an *economic* reason. Calling me 'The Strangler' is just increasing the sort of resentment that got you strangled in the first place."
"You need to stop struggling and fighting so much," the Strangler murmured, "and understand my motivations, so we can work together on solutions."

"Acckkkkkkk" said The Strangler's victim.

"Hmm," said The Strangler, "you really need to do better at convincing me."
"Glllllkkkk," said The Strangler's victim.

"That's all very well and good in a *perfect* world," said The Strangler. "But we don't live in a perfect world. You're not taking human nature into account. Stranglings are going to happen."
"nnnnngk," said The Strangler's victim.

"But how will you PAY for that?" the Strangler chuckled, strangling away, strangling away.

"Both sides are fighting," said the pundit, from the armchair.

"We sure ARE!" said The Strangler. "Good point!"
"It's hard to imagine anything more disturbing and violent than this strangling," said The Strangler's partner.

"Get his wallet," snapped The Strangler.

"Okee doke," said The Strangler's partner, obeying.

"The Strangler's partner offered a sharp rebuke," observed the pundit.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "We become as bad as the Strangler himself."

"How true," said another man in the room, one of a large crowd.

"I would simply have not put myself in a position to be strangled," said another.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "that would be very unfair to all the people he's already strangled."

"And their families!" the man in the room said.

"My father got strangled," said another. "And I turned out fine."
"I've got the wallet, boss," the Strangler's partner said.

"Bless your brave statement a minute ago, in favor of civility," said the pundit.

"I'm going to write a book about civility!" the Strangler's partner said.

"I will give it a glowing review!" cried the pundit.
"You are still strangling that man," came a voice from the back of the room. "You're taking his life."

"That is the most divisive thing I've ever heard," The Strangler huffed. "ALL lives matter."
"Join me on my show this Sunday," said the pundit, "when my topic is strangling and the politics of divisiveness practiced by a growing anti-strangling crowd whose rhetoric of fighting strangulation has suburban voters nervous. My guest will be three Stranglers and nobody else."
"The real problem is not the stranglings," said The Strangler. "What concerns me is the violent extremists in Antistra."

"Antistra?" exclaimed the pundit. "Who are they? They sound violent and extreme."

"They are," the Strangler insisted, in a terrified hush. "They really are."
"How do you feel when people call you a 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"Strangling mad!" The Strangler cried.

"You feel aggrieved," the pundit said. "Demonization is no way to win you over. People should appeal to your better angels."

"They also strangle," said The Strangler.
"Being called a 'strangler' is the worst thing you can be called nowadays," said The Strangler.

"The problem with it," enjoined the pundit, "is that it just shuts down conversation."

"Exactly!" said The Strangler. "It's reverse strangulation—the worst kind of strangulation."
"If somebody calls you a 'strangler' it's all over for you," the Strangler complained.

"It's a very scary time to strangle," the pundit intoned.

"VERY scary!" said the Strangler. "You can't say ANYTHING."

"nnkk" said the Strangler's victim.

"Shut up, you!" the Strangler said.
"What's the worst part about being called 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"It's so reductive," said The Strangler. "They write me off by calling me a name. I love my family and my friends and I'm a very nice person."

"You've certainly never strangled *me,*" the pundit offered.
"THANK YOU!" exclaimed The Strangler. "The truth is I haven't strangled *most* people."

"Statistically speaking, you've basically strangled nobody at all," the pundit suggested.

"YES! It's the people who call me 'strangler' who are the REAL stranglers," said The Strangler.
"Well, that's all the time we have today," said the pundit. "This has been very enlightening, and you've given us a lot to think about."

"I love to teach," said The Strangler. "Aaaaand strangle!"
"What do you want me to do with this?" The Strangler nudged his victim's body with his toe.

"Hmm?" the pundit asked.

"This one," the Strangler said. "I think it's all done."

"Oh, I never even saw her," said the Pundit. "Just put her anywhere. Anywhere at all."

The Electoral College -- enacted to minimize tyranny of the majority and to work against Demagoguery -- is being subverted into a tool to do precisely the opposite. Trump's blind ambition will, I hope, create the impetus needed to amend the College back to its original concept (one elector from each federal HofR district selected by majority from that district; two votes designated by the legislature as they deemed fit). That version never quite made it into the document and though they did attempt to improve the early inanities with the 12th amendment, they sowed the seeds for the potential debacle we see today).

You know I'll always have to come out strong against this, Seamus.

Why would we need elected delegates to mediate presidential selection, let alone state legislatures? What is the applicable argument in favor of it? What is the prospective benefit or principle of political philosophy satisfied? We know the EC was never intended to minimize tyranny of the majority except in the sense of white Southern m being a minority, and it was an instant failure in operation such that it had to be amended for the party system. Just eliminate it, one of the worst elements of constitutional design ever implemented anywhere and one no other country has subjected itself to, to my awareness.

I like the concept of the college to prevent the problems associated with a tyranny of the simple majority (which could well devolve into "Cities rule, country-folk should stfu.") Yet it is clear that, as framed, a would-be dictator has a chance to not merely game the system of EC votes but to suborn it entirely. This is unacceptable.

I'm afraid this is wrong coming and going though. It has always been! There has been tyranny of the majority in this country through all of its history, with the partial exception of the post-civil rights era. Moreover, cities rule right now because 80-90% of the American population is urbanized. Urban states like Texas, Michigan, Florida, and California determine the results of elections. Rural voters are largely ignored under this system because there is no incentive to campaign for them; the return on investment of resources and time isn't there. On the state level, the vast majority of states are ignored entirely, and as it turns out those states tend to be the most rural ones. Oops! Although we can see that the sitting president cares deeply for his rural constituents, having handed out billions in relief money to compensate their losses in the trade war. :creep:

All arguments for an electoral college I have ever seen presented are either wrong or Not Even Wrong, about the intent of the Framers, about the operation in practice then and now, and about any theoretical value of such an indefensible system. It's quite shocking, especially given that the Electoral College has basically always been unpopular (in terms of public sentiment). It's just another one of those shibboleths, like that abuse of language "a republic, not a democracy" which arose not out of any assertion of content but merely because Republicans = good, Democrats = bad, whereby the same valence must attend the morphology elsewhere.

The Electoral College is so profoundly unjustifiable on independent grounds that the Supreme Court in Reynolds v Sims implied that to establish one anew or in the states would be unconstitutional (despite the existing EC being 'grandfathered in'). Speaking of which, Mississippi voted in a referendum (https://ballotpedia.org/Mississippi_Ballot_Measure_2,_Remove_Electoral_Vote_Requirement_and_Establish_Runoffs_for_Gubernator ial_and_State_Office_Elections_Amendment_(2020)) this month to disestablish its own quasi-EC. It won with 80% of the vote. In Mississippi.

A "yes" vote supported the following:

*removing the requirement that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 House of Representatives districts (the electoral vote requirement);

*removing the role of the Mississippi House of Representatives in choosing a winner if no candidate receives majority approval; and

*providing that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote of the people to win and that a runoff election will be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote.

As for subversion of democracy, while our system is moribund there is none in abstract that can save a nation that has disavowed Liberty and Reason in great numbers. A good start in the medium term would be to allow majorities or pluralities to govern, since our entire trouble comes from a faction that has dedicated itself to preventing just that!!!

I'm looking forward to Monday and what reasons Emily Murphy will give for not ascertaining the election results yet. The leaks and rumors of her friends of course have been circling about on CNN and MSNBC about "just following orders" and other piss poor excuses. It better not be the usual round of "I cannot recall" and "that's subject to executive priviledge." The GSA procedures, or lack there of definitely show yet another thing that needs to be codified into law so as to not allow any sitting president to stop the transition process.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-chairs-summon-gsa-head-on-refusal-to-grant-biden-harris-team-access-to

This election has been a lesson in how those things that are chiefly regarded as structural or systemic, such as electoral administration, are ultimately instantiated by individuals. They are the bureaucrats and public officials we ought never to know anything about, but when they gum up the works...

All the harder to believe in Great Men when single no-account individuals among millions can, should they choose, bring an entire country to a standstill. The emergent ghasts of layers and knots of Authority and Law.

It was argued just this past May in SCOTUS:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/supreme-court-faithless-electors-electoral-college.html

Which is pretty much what's occurred six months later.....

As to the why? Hooaguy put it best...."GOP Fuckery."

Just as an example toward the question about faithless individual electors, people like Bill and Hillary Clinton are electors for this cycle. Literally. Hillary Clinton and her husband are going to meet for the Electoral College to vote for Biden as part of the NY delegation. Those are the sorts who get to be electors for a Democratic slate. I doubt they could be persuaded to defect to a Republican, and vice versa for Republican electors. 2016 was a special circumstance in which large swathes of the public and the political/media establishments felt comfortable treating both candidates as equally vile (an intensification of the 2000 dynamic in some ways) and it's unlikely to recur. Not to mention that the faithless votes cast in 2016 couldn't have affected the election and were purely symbolic individual gestures.

As for fuckery, I can't recall what I read but IIRC most of the relevant states here have explicit laws on the books that would preclude a legislative maneuver to override or interfere with certification. Unfortunately I can't be more specific and am not willing to go looking again, but the bottom line is that this election is not close enough to steal and by the winking and wheedling behavior of most Republicans (we should grant Raffensperger a sinecure just so that integrity can be seen to be rewarded btw), we can be sure that in a close election they would unite to steal it regardless of any Constitutional provision or state law. They're feeling out weak points for the next time; bet your sweet bottom the next election won't run as remarkably-smooth as it has happened to this time. So it's all academic.

Hooahguy

11-22-2020, 02:21

A sobering article from the point of view of a Sri Lankan: I Lived Through A Stupid Coup. America Is Having One Now (https://medium.com/indica/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-having-one-now-437934b1dac3).

Two years ago, I lived through a coup in Sri Lanka. It was stupid. The minority party threw chili powder at everyone in Parliament and took over by farce. Math, however, requires a majority and the courts kicked them out. They gave in. We’d been protesting for weeks and yay, we won.

No.

I didn’t know it at the time, but we had already lost. No one knew — but oh my God, what we lost. The legitimate government came back but it was divided and weak. We were divided and weak. We were vulnerable.

Four months later, on Easter Sunday, some assholes attacked multiple churches and hotels, killing 269 of us. My wife and kids were at church, I had to frantically call them back. Our nation was shattered. Mobs began attacking innocent Muslims. It was out of control. The coup broke our government, and four months later, that broke us.

The coup was a farce at the time but how soon it turned to tragedy. They called it a constitutional crisis, but how soon it became a real one. Right now, the same thing is happening to you. I’m trying to warn you America. It seems stupid now, but the consequences are not.

You’re being coup’d.

1 | You’re being couped

What is a coup? It’s literally a cut. Someone taking government power that doesn’t belong to them, and cutting legitimate power out. In our case it was occupying Parliament without a majority. In yours it’s denying the President-Elect after an election. This is a cut, it’s a wound. Whether it fails or not, deep structural damage is done. At the time, however, it just feels dumb.

Frankly, I expected more epaulets and tanks, but this is all you get. A bunch of dumbasses throwing chili powder. Someone at Four Seasons Total Landscaping, next to a dildo shop. What a fucking stupid century. This is what our coups look like.

As a recovering coup victim to another, let me tell you this. The first step is simply accepting that you’ve been coup’d. This is hard and your media or Wikipedia may never figure this out (WTF does constitutional crisis mean? Is murder a legal crisis?), but it’s nonetheless true. The US system is weird, but people voted for a change of power. One person is refusing to accept the people’s will. He’s taking power that doesn’t belong to him. That’s a coup.

What else do you call Donald Trump refusing to leave, consolidating control of the military, and spreading lies across the media? That, my friends, is just a coup. You take the power, you take the guns, and you lie about it. American commentators say “we’re like the third world now” as if our very existence is a pejorative. Ha ha, you assholes, stop calling us that. You’re no better than us. The third world from the Sun is Earth. You live here too.

America, in fact, is worse than us. America’s democracy is a lightly modified enslavement system that black people only wrested universal franchise from in 1965. It’s frankly a terrible democracy, built on voter suppression of 94% of the population, full of racist booby traps and prone to absurd randomness. For example, your dumbass founders left enough time to get to Washington by horse. Four months where a loser could hold power, later reduced to two. This is a built-in coup.

Think about it. Your system gives the loser all the power and guns for two whole months. Almost every modern democracy changes power the next day, to avoid the very situation you’re in.
America constitutionally coups itself every election and it only doesn’t go bad by custom. America is a shitty and immature democracy, saved only by the fact that they didn’t elect equally shitty and immature Presidents. Until now.

Here’s how you would describe the same events happening to us:
24031

Coups happen to white people too. As Ashton Kutcher would say:
You've been coup'd!

2 | You’ve already lost

It’s absurd, because the whole thing seems like a clown show. Coups are supposed to be orderly, authoritarian, not this dumb shit. It honestly seems like a grift to bilk supporters out of more money. You can just roll it back, right? Right?

No. No no no. Oh God no.

The tragic thing which you do not understand — which you cannot understand — is that you’ve already lost. You cannot know exactly what — that’s the nature of chaos — but know this. You will lose more than you can bear.

We lost our children, playing at church. We lost our friends, sitting down to brunch. Muslims lost their dignity and rights. Your Republicans have set forces into play they cannot possibly understand and certainly cannot control. And they don’t even want to. To them, chaos is a ladder.

This is the point. You have taken an orderly system balancing a whole lot of chaos and fucked with it. I don’t know how it’s going to explode, but I can promise you this. It’s going to explode.
This is precisely why we have elections, and why both sides accept the results. To keep the chaos at bay. The whole point is that you have a regular, ritual fight rather than fighting all the time. Once one side breaks ritual then you’re on the way to civil war. Once you break the rules then chaos ensues. What exactly happens? I don’t know. It’s chaos.
24032

This year America had fascism on the ballot and nonwhite people mercifully said no. The fascists, however, are now saying fuck ballots. And enough of the population is like fuck yeah!
This is a major problem, and it won’t just go away on a technicality. I’m telling you, as someone that’s been there, you’ve already lost. It doesn’t matter if you get Trump out. He and the Republican Party are destroying trust in elections in general. This is catastrophic. You have no idea.

Your media are covering this like a high school dance, but it’s not funny. See this headline in the NYTimes. It’s wildly irresponsible. All your local coverage is.
24033

Ha ha ha, they lede, who’s going to tell him? Bitch, who’s going to tell you? An illegitimate leader has got all the guns and 40% of your population is down to use them. And y’all got jokes.
What I can tell you — what anyone who’s experienced this can tell you — is that it’s going to be bad. I didn’t know that churches and hotels would blow up on Easter Sunday, but I know now. I’m trying to tell you in advance. You’ve opened up a Pandora’s box of instability. All kinds of demons come out.

I have lived through a coup. It felt like what you’re feeling now. Like watching something stupid and just waiting for it to go away. But it doesn’t go away. You can forget about it, but it doesn’t go away.
There’s a ticking bomb at the heart of your democracy now. Your government, the very idea of governance is fatally wounded. Chaos has been planted at its heart. I don’t know what this chaos will grow into, but I can promise you this. It won’t be good.

Please understand.

My wife and children were at church that day. Our regular church (where they hadn’t gone) had bombs on either side. I couldn’t understand the news when I first got it and you cannot understand the fear until they were safely home. I do not want you to understand but I fear one day you must. You have fucked with chaos and soon chaos will fuck with you. To quote Yeats,

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

I’ll close with the one thing that kept my own family safe.

Good luck.

edyzmedieval

11-22-2020, 02:56

Until the 14th of December, when the electors finally call out the election, this whole thing will not be done. Plus, the speculation is adding to the fire quite a lot and you can see a lot of splintering, doubts, agitation and straight up bizarre reactions from all sides.

Also - I learned in detail about Parler this week. A free-speech app apparently.

There will be faithless electors by the way on the 14th, you can be sure of that. Just like it has been in a lot of elections.

Montmorency

11-22-2020, 03:22

I need to correct an error in transcription I made in an earlier post. When referencing a recent YouGov poll and its findings on questions about the election, I printed

At the moment it appears that the Senate and the President may be of different parties and favor different policies. Would you rather they...
[Trump voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 94%
: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 54%

I mixed those up; it should read

[Biden voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 94%
[Trump voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 54%

Pennsylvania GOP (https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1330223667251441672) is suing against a state law expanding absentee balloting, alleging that it is unconstitutional and therefore the absentee votes (which gave Biden the state) must be invalidated in their millions.

This is the same law (https://twitter.com/Matt_Maisel/status/1330219624990957568) that Pennsylvania Republicans passed last year along party lines. Classic Orwellianism. I mean wow. The purpose is of course primarily to advance the degradation of public trust in the political and electoral process in a way that redounds to the benefit of the Republican "chaos is a ladder" Party.

Not only is consciously-vexatious litigation with no merit or standing or legal theory a sanctionable offense among the bar, it is criminal barratry (https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2010/title-18/chapter-51/5109) by Pennsylvania statute. Not that anyone will suffer consequences for the several dozens of fake lawsuits levied by Trump and Friends since the election.

But we should grasp by now that Republicans are by and large not "savvy" operators who know what's "really" up in the style of Orwell's Inner Party. They're all drunk on Kool-Aid (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/ron-johnson-hydroxychloroquine-senate-hearing-coronavirus-trump.html) by now. They're looking for harder stuff.

Not only did Rudy Giuliani direct a circus-like hearing to advance his theory that Zombie Hugo Chavez stole the 2020 election, but Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, also held a hearing to promote the benefits of hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19.

Johnson is one of Trump’s more energetic defenders in the Senate, and has used his committee to promote the president’s unfounded claims that Joe Biden was up to no good in Ukraine. He has also spent months assailing public-health officials for refusing to support the use of hydroxychloroquine.

If you have already forgotten the whole hydroxychloroquine thing, Trump used to tout it as a miracle cure, and members of the Trump cult fervently insisted he was correct, seizing on any scrap of positive evidence to support his case. But evidence piled up against its efficacy. By June, the FDA revoked emergency-use authorization for the drug, concluding it was ineffective. Trump hasn’t mentioned hydroxychloroquine in weeks and weeks.

Johnson, though, hasn’t forgotten. Yesterday’s hearing featured a stacked witness list, with three of the few remaining oddball supporters of the drug arguing against well-regarded Harvard public-health expert Ashish Jha. Johnson railed against “the disinformation, the scaremongering, and the prescription log jam that has been created by bureaucrats.”

One might wonder why Johnson, whose committee covers homeland security, would probe questions of medical efficacy that lie far beyond his realm of pseudo-expertise. One might also wonder why he would revive this claim long after Trump himself has walked away from it. (When the president contracted COVID-19, he did not bother to take, or even claim to take, hydroxychloroquine.)

One answer is that many Republican elites do not support Trump out of fear, or even merely out of a shared political interest, neither of which would be reasons for Johnson to hold a hearing after an election Trump has lost. In many cases, [B]they consume the same right-wing news sources and believe in the same conspiracy theories.

A sobering article from the point of view of a Sri Lankan: I Lived Through A Stupid Coup. America Is Having One Now (https://medium.com/indica/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-having-one-now-437934b1dac3).

I mentioned another post by the guy a couple months ago. It's also linked as suggested reading at the bottom of this one.
https://gen.medium.com/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-already-there-ba1e4b54c5fc

Until the 14th of December, when the electors finally call out the election, this whole thing will not be done. Plus, the speculation is adding to the fire quite a lot and you can see a lot of splintering, doubts, agitation and straight up bizarre reactions from all sides.

Also - I learned in detail about Parler this week. A free-speech app apparently.

There will be faithless electors by the way on the 14th, you can be sure of that. Just like it has been in a lot of elections.

It doesn't really happen, I can assure you. See for yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors) and consider the present environment. Wanna bet?

a completely inoffensive name

11-22-2020, 05:12

Gilrandir

11-22-2020, 06:46

It's not about who you are, it's not even that you don't know what the :daisy: you're talking about, it's that you're so smarmy, condescending, and self-assured about the drivel you say while refusing to learn anything that would lend some merit to your ideas.

Again playing the ball, as you believe? You are so arrogant, dismissive, and raving that I even won't bother to remind you that peaceful coexistence isn't my idea but the basic principle of democracy.

The bold instantly outs you as unserious.

If I'm so unserious and my opinion is just a drivel why are you getting so nervous trying to prove your point? And if it outs me, why do you keep answering at all?

Your premise relied on obdurate mischaracterization, so I showed you how it would manifest in Ukraine's context.

A nice weaseling out attempt. Instead of admitting it when your ignorance became patent you just say that your purpose of giving analogies didn't presuppose awareness of the subject.

The Democratic Party has consistently gone out of its way to affirm the principle and practice of power-sharing to the point of notoriety. That you take issue with them rather than Republican actions and rhetoric that genuinely offend the standards you wish to portray yourself as concerned about proves that you have no such interest.

You still don't understand. It is not about one party or the other doing this or doing that. It is about PEOPLE of the country who will still live side by side even if both parties miraculously disappear tomorrow. And the people will have to connect somehow. Fomenting hatred won't bring you anywhere.

And for your information, my concern is minimal. My life won't change even when highways in Georgia are lined with crucified Republicans and their voters. If you are fine with it, break a leg.

one segment of society and its political representation is losing all restraint against the illegitimate use of power to enforce permanent political and economic control over the rest of the population, you do not "coexist" with that, precisely because the instigators do not permit mere coexistence - you either* win or lose. It takes minimal world-knowledge to successfully grasp this principle.

So you don't wish to live next door to Republicans or traveling to Florida for a vacation to meet them in a roadside cafe. And? What are you gonna do about it? This is the question that you fail to answer. And this is the crucial question for those who believe that after Biden's victory Republican voters could be just disregarded, segregated, discriminated, and pushed into the background.

Major examples of single-party hammerlocks in rising democracies include:

US (pre-Wilsonian Republicans)
UK (Whigs, Tories)
Germany (CDU/CSU)
Japan (LDJ)
Mexico (PRI)

UK (Whigs, Tories) - two parties at least.
Japan (https://www.britannica.com/place/Japan/Political-parties)
Germany (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany)
Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Mexico)

And I hope you realize that steering towards a one-party system will automatically strike your country out from the list of democratic ones turning it into a Democratic one. Or hammerlock is what you are aiming for?

Your personal characteristics are not relevant but you insisted on interjecting them. One can lead a dummy to reason but one can't make him think. :thinking:

Like I insisted by being so stupid that you HAD to mention it? It's like a bully grabs an arm of his victim and hits him with the hand repeating "Why are you hitting yourself?" I thought that you were an adult person.

Evidently this, and your subsequent name calling makes any debate with you a waste of time. Go pack your rifle to hunt the evil Republicans across Midwest. Once it is over, the USA will have a new happy life "без козлов, которые мешают нам жить", as Yanukovych used to say.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-22-2020, 07:00

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 clearly notes "the legislature thereof" as part of a subordinate clause to the primary sentence components of "State" "appoint" and "electors." The term was and is not used as a reference to the process.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3 notes that the (outgoing) President of the Senate shall open the votes of the electoral college after they have been sent to the Senate.

The Electoral College was the compromise choice of the Constitutional convention, said convention having already voted down two proposals for direct election by popular vote and two proposals for election by Congress. It was flawed from the outset, lasting in its original version (highest vote getter POTUS, second highest VPOTUS) only very briefly when it was apparent that political parties were the new norm and that the old method guaranteed (in practice) the election of a VPOTUS who was the direct political opponent of the POTUS.

The direct election of a President/Veep team would beget a profound change. I am not sure where the consequences thereof would take us. It would certainly be a step towards pure democracy.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-22-2020, 07:22

You know I'll always have to come out strong against this, Seamus.

Why would we need elected delegates to mediate presidential selection, let alone state legislatures? What is the applicable argument in favor of it? What is the prospective benefit or principle of political philosophy satisfied? We know the EC was never intended to minimize tyranny of the majority except in the sense of white Southern m being a minority, and it was an instant failure in operation such that it had to be amended for the party system. Just eliminate it, one of the worst elements of constitutional design ever implemented anywhere and one no other country has subjected itself to, to my awareness.

I know you will, have, and will likely continue to do so unless and until the Electoral College is abolished.

Of course it wasn't generated as a result of clear and consistent political philosophy. It was a compromise put together -- in analogous fashion to the "Great Compromise" of Senate/HofR representation levels in the legislature -- as a means of power balancing. They'd already approved a representation basis that accounted for 60% of the enslaved population to count towards the total for each state, making the largest of the Southern states, Virginia, virtually equal to the next two combined. How the heck would they manage a national popular vote when Virginia had 169k or so worth of population that couldn't vote but were being "counted?" [Please note the bitter sarcasm with which I refer to counting people as .6 humans] The goal was to make each states slate of electors important enough so that you couldn't ignore very many of them and still secure election (more or less). It NEVER did this perfectly and certainly does not today.

Direct election of the President and Vice President would make only a modest difference now. The States are already something of a moribund concept in the eyes of many (most?). Taking away this element of State power -- however little exercised -- is only another step in the seemingly inevitable process of dismantling the republic we have in favor of a full democracy (for good and for ill).

a completely inoffensive name

11-22-2020, 08:15

Direct election of the President and Vice President would make only a modest difference now. The States are already something of a moribund concept in the eyes of many (most?). Taking away this element of State power -- however little exercised -- is only another step in the seemingly inevitable process of dismantling the republic we have in favor of a full democracy (for good and for ill).

To remove elected Congressmen and Senators is to basically re-write the Constitution entirely. If the president goes direct vote, that is where it will end. Never will Congress as a republican institution dismantle itself for pure democracy.

Idaho

11-22-2020, 10:57

America suffers from biblical fundamentalism when it comes to the Constitution. The faith that this was the word of God and can never be improved, only clarified. Ridiculous.

ReluctantSamurai

11-22-2020, 13:32

If I'm so unserious and my opinion is just a drivel why are you getting so nervous trying to prove your point? And if it outs me, why do you keep answering at all?

Turning that around, why do you continue to comment in this thread, when it's patently obvious you do nothing more than piss in everyone's cornflakes and then stonewall being called out for trolling?

And for your information, my concern is minimal. My life won't change even when highways in Georgia are lined with crucified Republicans and their voters

Good. Then you won't mind staying out of the conversation until you have something actually informative or constructive to say.

The term was and is not used as a reference to the process.

I'm no legal eagle, but it seems there is a question as to who 'legislature' refers to when the "State" appoints electors. As is currently implemented, most states require the governors seal to validate the results.

Hooahguy

11-22-2020, 22:07

Mod note: guys, lets tone it down. Please don't make me actually do my job.

a completely inoffensive name

11-22-2020, 22:58

America suffers from biblical fundamentalism when it comes to the Constitution. The faith that this was the word of God and can never be improved, only clarified. Ridiculous.

Three misconceptions here:

1. Generally every American thinks the Constitution can be improved, the difference is obviously in what people consider 'improved'. We have had 27 amendments after all.

2. For what it's worth, given the brevity and historical context, the document is a pretty big deal in the history of ideas. So there is a certain justification for why it should be revered.

3. Rule of law does not emerge from the strength of a text, but from the strength of people's belief in the text. Every country operating under a liberal democratic constitution would do well in the long run to treat their foundational laws as sacred. The difference between the collapse of other countries utilizing a similar Presidential systems and US is the fundamentalist attitude that underlines a civic spirit. Given the major flaws of the system, getting 250 years of democratic government before a credible threat of dictatorship is...not bad?

Idaho

11-22-2020, 23:29

My point is that, in any group of Americans, you will always have a few who consider the Constitution and it's creators to be sage fathers of the nation. In England, anyone who even knows the name of an 18th century politician, and has an awareness of the political laws of the time is merely considered as someone with a quaint interest in a particular patch of history.

Given the major flaws of the system, getting 250 years of democratic government before a credible threat of dictatorship is...not bad?

I think you've had only 50-odd years of credible democracy by any sensible reckoning.

a completely inoffensive name

11-23-2020, 00:44

I think you've had only 50-odd years of credible democracy by any sensible reckoning.

Don't conflate the liberal and democratic parts of liberal democracy. The liberal part has been brief, but as far as the structure is concerned voters have voted in elections between opposing parties which have transferred power peacefully with only two notable exceptions (1860, 2020).

Seamus Fermanagh

11-23-2020, 01:04

My point is that, in any group of Americans, you will always have a few who consider the Constitution and it's creators to be sage fathers of the nation. In England, anyone who even knows the name of an 18th century politician, and has an awareness of the political laws of the time is merely considered as someone with a quaint interest in a particular patch of history.

I think you've had only 50-odd years of credible democracy by any sensible reckoning.

Anything developed pre-internet is obsolescent at best then?

Idaho

11-23-2020, 15:22

Don't conflate the liberal and democratic parts of liberal democracy. The liberal part has been brief, but as far as the structure is concerned voters have voted in elections between opposing parties which have transferred power peacefully with only two notable exceptions (1860, 2020).
We had "peaceful transfers" throughout the 18th and 19th century, with voting and elections, but the UK wasn't a credible democracy until the 1920s.

ReluctantSamurai

11-23-2020, 21:40

Who knew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LedDTrWGWeg

“Unfortunately, Carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount, and we’re still fighting with Carrots,” he said. “I will tell you we’ve come to a conclusion. Carrots, I’m sorry to tell you the result did not change.” "This was a fair election… unfortunately, Carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount."

:inquisitive:

edyzmedieval

11-23-2020, 22:11

My point is that, in any group of Americans, you will always have a few who consider the Constitution and it's creators to be sage fathers of the nation. In England, anyone who even knows the name of an 18th century politician, and has an awareness of the political laws of the time is merely considered as someone with a quaint interest in a particular patch of history.

Sir Idaho, I will have to let you know, particularly on these terms, that Sir William Pitt was a remarkable politician and Prime Minister!

(couldn't abstain, British Constitutionalism is my study focus)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger

Hooahguy

11-24-2020, 00:36

So the head of the General Services Administration has finally formally (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1331013212377116673) started the transition process for Biden (right after which Biden's transition website (https://buildbackbetter.gov/) went from .com to .gov which was neat to see). And then Trump followed with a tweet about how he's not conceding but also sorta (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953?s=20) is?

Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.

My guess is that he is keeping up this charade to keep his options open for 2024. If he can keep up the "it was stolen" shtick he could lay the foundation for a 2024 run.

a completely inoffensive name

11-24-2020, 03:36

We had "peaceful transfers" throughout the 18th and 19th century, with voting and elections, but the UK wasn't a credible democracy until the 1920s.

What are you defining as a democracy? If it's the inclusion of universal suffrage, congrats, you did the exact thing I just said not to do.

Gilrandir

11-24-2020, 06:15

Turning that around, why do you continue to comment in this thread, when it's patently obvious you do nothing more than piss in everyone's cornflakes and then stonewall being called out for trolling?

Like "what do you care if my cornflakes have exorbitant amount of sugar in them and my milk is curdled. Let me have them and keep your nose out". Right?

Good. Then you won't mind staying out of the conversation until you have something actually informative or constructive to say.

With this attitude to your opponents you will only deepen the existing divides and war shall you have and hatred undying, as Feanor used to say.

Idaho

11-24-2020, 10:45

What are you defining as a democracy? If it's the inclusion of universal suffrage, congrats, you did the exact thing I just said not to do.

Yes universal suffrage is non negotiable as a tenet of democracy. Without it, you have oligarchy/plutocracy.

Pannonian

11-24-2020, 16:46

Yes universal suffrage is non negotiable as a tenet of democracy. Without it, you have oligarchy/plutocracy.

So Athens was not a democracy. BTW are we currently living in a democracy? Scots have a more universal vote than we do, as 16 year olds have the vote.

ReluctantSamurai

11-24-2020, 17:47

NEWS FLASH! GIULIANI MAKES CLAIM THAT OBELISK IS PART OF PLOT TO STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/23/helicopter-pilot-finds-strange-monolith-in-remote-part-of-utah

A mysterious monolith has been discovered in a remote part of Utah,, after being spotted by state employees counting sheep from a helicopter. The structure, estimated at between 10ft and 12ft high (about 3 metres), appeared to be planted in the ground. It was made from some sort of metal, its shine in sharp contrast to the enormous red rocks which surrounded it. [...] the object looked man made and appeared to have been firmly planted in the ground, not dropped from the sky.

And in related news, Sidney Powell now claims that it seems more likely that Stanley Kubrick is the true architect behind the mysterious disappearance of Trump votes rather than Hugo Chavez...

The monolith and its setting resembled a famous scene from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film, in which a group of apes encounter a giant slab.

Supporters of QAnon are now flocking to the remote desert location in the hopes of obtaining answers to the true identity of Q......:quiet:

[all tongue-in-cheek, of course]

rory_20_uk

11-24-2020, 22:29

"Pure" democracy is a dreadful idea. Should we let children vote? If not then there is an age where some just get to vote and others have to wait an additional 5 years.

Then who gets to be enfranchised? There are all sorts of differing ways of excluding people and some reasons are better than others (criminals / those who are demented / otherwise incapable of comprehending / those below a certain age / those below a certain wealth / citizenship / presence in the company).

California is a good case study why unfettered democracy has risks - generally taxes are lowered, and spending is increased.

I would argue that more important than who votes is what system of voting is used - or perhaps to put it better, it is more easy to see when the system is being rigged by disenfranchising voters but harder when choosing a system that facilitates this.

~:smoking:

Idaho

11-25-2020, 11:18

So Athens was not a democracy. BTW are we currently living in a democracy? Scots have a more universal vote than we do, as 16 year olds have the vote.

In the modern sense, Athens was not a democracy, no.

We are living in a democracy with some flaws and inconsistencies - if you think that's the same as denying half the population the vote, or tolerating slavery, then you have issues.

Pannonian

11-25-2020, 12:23

In the modern sense, Athens was not a democracy, no.

We are living in a democracy with some flaws and inconsistencies - if you think that's the same as denying half the population the vote, or tolerating slavery, then you have issues.

We are living in a modern democracy. Before that, we were living in a not so modern democracy. And so on. A large chunk of my history lessons at school covered the evolution of our modern democracy into what it is. I learned that there wasn't a specific cut off point between democracy and not democracy.

What do you think of the House of Lords? Do you think it needs to be democratised?

ReluctantSamurai

11-25-2020, 15:19

A well written piece, IMHO, on the recent vote certification fiasco here in Michigan:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/24/michigan-election-trump-voter-fraud-democracy-440475

A bit exaggerated on the Van Langevelde hero worship perhaps, but spot on for the skullduggery that now seems to pervade the Republican Party. I also don't buy in that Trump never asked that Michigan's GOP-dominated legislature just ignore the vote and send in the electors votes for him:

As a Republican, his mandate for Monday’s hearing—handed down from the state party chair, the national party chair and the president himself—was straightforward. They wanted Michigan’s board of canvassers to delay certification of Biden’s victory. Never mind that Trump lost by more than 154,000 votes, or that results were already certified in all 83 counties. The plan was to drag things out, to further muddy the election waters and delegitimize the process, to force the courts to take unprecedented actions that would forever taint Michigan’s process of certifying elections. Not because it was going to help Trump win but because it was going to help Trump cope with a loss. The president was not accepting defeat. That meant no Republican with career ambitions could accept it, either.

[...] Trump’s allies in Michigan proved to be more career-obsessed, and therefore more servile to his whims, than GOP officials in any other state he has cultivated during his presidency, willing to indulge his conspiratorial fantasies in ways other Republicans weren’t.

[...] the essential difference between Michigan and other states. However sloppy Trump’s team was in contesting the results in places like Georgia and Wisconsin, where the margins were fractional, there was at least some plausible justification of a legal challenge. The same could never be said for Michigan. Strangely liberated by his deficit of 154,000 votes, the president’s efforts here were aimed not at overturning the results, but rather at testing voters’ faith in the ballot box and Republicans’ loyalty to him.

After 24 hours of letting the democratic process work, Republicans around the country—watching Trump’s second term slipping through their fingers—began crying foul and screaming conspiracy. No state cornered the hysteria market quite like Michigan.

When Trump addressed the nation from the White House on Thursday night, insisting the election had been “stolen” from him, he returned time and again to alleged misconduct in Michigan’s biggest city. Detroit, he smirked, “I wouldn’t say has the best reputation for election integrity.” He said the city “had hours of unexplained delay” in counting ballots, and when the late batches arrived, “nobody knew where they came from.” He alleged that Republicans had been “denied access to observe any counting in Detroit” and that the windows had been covered because “they didn’t want anybody seeing the counting.”

All of this was a lie. Republicans here—from Ronna Romney McDaniel to Laura Cox to federal and local lawmakers—knew it was a lie. But they didn’t lift a finger in protest as the president disparaged Michigan and subverted America’s democratic norms. Why?

In the days following Trump's shameful address to the nation, two realities became inescapable to Michigan’s GOP elite. First, there was zero evidence to substantiate widespread voter fraud. Second, they could not afford to admit it publicly.

Honesty and decency have not been hallmarks of Republicanism during Trump’s presidency. They certainly are not priorities now. With Trump entering the anguished twilight of his presidency, all that appears to matter for someone like McDaniel—or Cox, the state party chair, who faces an upcoming election of her own—is unconditional fidelity to the president.

“The unfortunate reality within the party today is that Trump retains a hold that is forcing party leaders to continue down the path of executing his fantasy of overturning the outcome—at their own expense,” said Jason Cabel Roe, a Michigan-based GOP strategist who once worked as a vendor for McDaniel, and whose family goes back generations with hers. “But if they want a future within the party, it is required of them to demonstrate continued fealty. Principled conservatives who respect the rule of law and speak out suddenly find themselves outcasts in a party that is no longer about conservativism but Trumpism. Just ask once-conservative heroes like Jeff Flake, Justin Amash and Mark Sanford.”

As much as anything else, Trump's mark on the GOP is to resort to, not only spreading mis-information, but bullying:

Within minutes of Van Langevelde’s vote for certification—and of Shinkle’s abstention, which guaranteed his colleague would bear the brunt of the party’s fury alone—the fires of retaliation raged. In GOP circles, there were immediate calls for Van Langevelde to lose his seat on the board; to lose his job in the House of Representatives; to be censured on the floor of the Legislature and exiled from the party forever. Actionable threats against him and his family began to be reported. The Michigan State Police worked with local law enforcement to arrange a security detail.

The name Van Langevelde is already so infamous in Michigan Republican lore that those associated with him are at risk of being branded turncoats, too.

And what the GOP has devolved into:

That contours of that identity—what it means to be a Trump Republican—have gained clarity over time. The default embrace of nationalism. The indifference to ideas as a vision for governing. The disregard for institutional norms. The aversion to etiquette and the bottomless appetite for cultural conflict. Now there is another cornerstone of that identity: The subversion of our basic democratic process.

More than any policy enacted or court vacancy filled, Trump’s legacy will be his unprecedented assault on the legitimacy of the ballot box. And it will not be considered in isolation. Future iterations of the GOP will make casual insinuations of voter fraud central to the party’s brand. The next generation of Republicans will have learned how to sow doubts about election integrity in one breath and in the next breath bemoan the nation’s lack of faith in our elections, creating a self-perpetuating justification to cast suspicion on a process that by raw numbers does not appear conducive to keeping them in power.

And a conclusion that nearly 74 million Americans do not share:

“The people of this country really need to wake up and start thinking for themselves and looking for facts—not conspiracy theories being peddled by people who are supposed to be responsible leaders, but facts,” Thomas said. “If they’re not going to be responsible leaders, people need to seek out the truth for themselves. If people don’t do that—if they no longer trust how we elect the president of the United States—we’re going to be in real trouble.”

And perhaps a glimmer of hope in Georgia, as the GOP demonstrates that the Dems aren't the only party with ongoing infighting:

https://www.vox.com/2020/11/24/21612720/trump-election-fraud-conspiracy-theories-stop-the-steal-georgia-runoffs

Seamus Fermanagh

11-25-2020, 15:37

a completely inoffensive name

11-26-2020, 03:11

In the modern sense, Athens was not a democracy, no.

We are living in a democracy with some flaws and inconsistencies - if you think that's the same as denying half the population the vote, or tolerating slavery, then you have issues.

So you deny the existence of any 'illiberal democracies'? It's all or nothing? FYI, you live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy ya dum dum (your logic, not mine).

Idaho

11-26-2020, 12:53

So you deny the existence of any 'illiberal democracies'? It's all or nothing? FYI, you live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy ya dum dum (your logic, not mine).

The significant element of a democracy is that the public are consulted. If you exclude significant parts of that public, it ceases to be legitimate consultation. The existence of some old lady with the job of rubber stamping laws makes no significant difference to this. Consultation of the public is key.

So Israel is a democracy in it's borders, but in the land it occupies, it is not a democracy, but a military dictatorship.

1910s England was not a democracy because it entirely excluded women from public consultation. 1930s England was a democracy, with plenty of issues and flaws, but a democracy none the less.

1950s America didn't allow black people to vote in much of the country. That is, by any reckoning, undemocratic. 1830s America didn't even allow them basic human rights. It's a simple point, but Americans struggle with it.

rory_20_uk

11-26-2020, 22:28

The significant element of a democracy is that the public are consulted. If you exclude significant parts of that public, it ceases to be legitimate consultation. The existence of some old lady with the job of rubber stamping laws makes no significant difference to this. Consultation of the public is key.

Surely there's more to it than that - when the consultation is choosing one pre-selected person from a list where generally 3 or less have a hope and run on a "manifesto" which neither the individual nor the party they represent have to follow in the slightest, and there are even people called "Whips" to coerce party members to vote the "right" way; independents can of course stand, but the system is basically designed that party backing is required and to get a winnable seat requires doing what the party wants, not the populace. Parties never have more than one option in a given area, and rarely replace the current candidate, rendering this a weird permanent job with a 5 year farce.

Only in the last few years was there any way to recall any politician by the people - and even now this is extremely difficult to do, and viewed with horror by politicians.

And this is apparently the populace being "consulted"...? Well, yes, if only to exclude them from any meaningful choice as far as humanly possible.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

11-26-2020, 22:51

The significant element of a democracy is that the public are consulted. If you exclude significant parts of that public, it ceases to be legitimate consultation. The existence of some old lady with the job of rubber stamping laws makes no significant difference to this. Consultation of the public is key.

So Israel is a democracy in it's borders, but in the land it occupies, it is not a democracy, but a military dictatorship.

1910s England was not a democracy because it entirely excluded women from public consultation. 1930s England was a democracy, with plenty of issues and flaws, but a democracy none the less.

1950s America didn't allow black people to vote in much of the country. That is, by any reckoning, undemocratic. 1830s America didn't even allow them basic human rights. It's a simple point, but Americans struggle with it.

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do you think that democracy is a good thing in and of itself?
2. Do you think that more democracy is always better?

spmetla

11-27-2020, 20:58

My son and a few others with whom I have spoken believe that the GOP needs to rethink things. They do, but it will not happen.

The hard core of the GOP now is Trump supporters and the "Contours of Identity" you note from that article are pretty much what I am seeing as well. In Trump they finally have someone who will fight without ceasing against the evil left and they adore him for it.

I really suspect that, since the GOP was not trounced soup to nuts but held onto much of its control and made some small gains along the margins (aside from the White House), the lesson they draw is that they need to "Trump harder." This will distill the GOP further down into a party of Trumpism as they discard those who will not adopt the faith fully.

And many people ARE seeking the truth for themselves -- using the carefully honed analytical skills and rational evaluation process skills they have. Of course, since a shocking number of my fellow Americans are pig-ignorant (by choice, it is not difficult to acquire an education and such skills in our system if you even half-way bother) of such skills and never bother to retain the stuffed they learn to pass through their courses, they rely on listening to those who already share their views. Why suffer through cognitive dissonance when you can just revel in your own convictions?

AAAAAArgh. :shame:

I'm seeing the same with my circle of friends, they are repeating the matra of "the dems didn't accept Trump for four years why should I have to accept Biden" not understanding the difference between "not my president" and "not THE president." Not to mention the difference between Russian interference which did happen but didn't actually make Trump less legit compared to wanted to discount other peoples vote because of the method used. The loss being razor thing instead of a resounding defeat has many saying that the appeal of republican policies is strong and that the down ballot votes for R demonstrate that.

It's a shame that with Georgia's senate seats still up for grab that the fanatical mentality persists, the rhetoric is one of vote Republican to save the US from communist, socialist, social-justice-warrior anarchist totalitarianism. Pointing out that even if the President wanted to implement that, it'd be impossible without strong majorities in favor nationwide doesn't help. The rush to buy guns and ammo among friends is happening again, as if Biden wanted to or even could 'take our guns' which is just ridiculous.

I find it worrying that Biden's technocrat centrist (and of course solid Democrat) picks so far are being toted as swamp creatures again. The idea that any form of competence must been deep-state swamp creatures is distressing for me to hear. Hearing foreign policy experience and expertise being summed up as "the world first, america last" is so small minded and ignorant I have to walk away from conversations.

It's crazy being called an un-american democrat when this is the first time I've voted for a democrat for President, I treasure a strong US that is globalists in its policies.

Idaho

11-28-2020, 12:28

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do you think that democracy is a good thing in and of itself?
2. Do you think that more democracy is always better?

Well I'm an anarchist/Communist in terms of my long term politico/religious beliefs. In that fantasy scenario, there is more direct democracy and participation. So I suppose that counts as "more democracy", and I suppose I consider that better. Not sure if that really answers your question.

Idaho

11-28-2020, 12:37

The idea that any form of competence must been deep-state swamp creatures is distressing for me to hear. Hearing foreign policy experience and expertise being summed up as "the world first, america last" is so small minded and ignorant I have to walk away from conversations.
It's akin to the Chinese cultural revolution, or similar spasms of orchestrated political irrationality. Experts are counter revolutionary! Send the intellectuals to work the fields!

The right is triggered and motivated by loss aversion and fear of the other. The left isn't necessarily correct because this dynamic is absent. It might come to wrong decisions by a more rational method. However there is an absence of that fear mongering and vitriol - except in the cause of anti fascism, which, in my opinion, is fighting fire with fire.

Pannonian

11-28-2020, 15:41

Well I'm an anarchist/Communist in terms of my long term politico/religious beliefs. In that fantasy scenario, there is more direct democracy and participation. So I suppose that counts as "more democracy", and I suppose I consider that better. Not sure if that really answers your question.

If there is a repeat of the Indiana Pi Bill or something similar, do you think that democracy should prevail?

If you're not familiar with that incident, it was a (passed) Bill in the state of Indiana to set pi (the mathematical value) to 3.2.

Idaho

11-28-2020, 18:55

If there is a repeat of the Indiana Pi Bill or something similar, do you think that democracy should prevail?

If you're not familiar with that incident, it was a (passed) Bill in the state of Indiana to set pi (the mathematical value) to 3.2.

Not really sure what point you are groping for. Foolish legislation is not a valid contradiction to the principle of democracy.

Pannonian

11-28-2020, 20:24

Not really sure what point you are groping for. Foolish legislation is not a valid contradiction to the principle of democracy.

I was asking whether the principle of democracy is universal and omni-applicable. If democracy is good, then more democracy is better. Do you agree with this?

Idaho

11-28-2020, 21:53

I was asking whether the principle of democracy is universal and omni-applicable. If democracy is good, then more democracy is better. Do you agree with this?

You are trying to make a complex dynamic, in terms of semantics, power and possibility into some naive yes/no. Presumably in the hope of casting yourself Socrates and springing a fiendish rhetorical trap.

Pannonian

11-28-2020, 23:18

You are trying to make a complex dynamic, in terms of semantics, power and possibility into some naive yes/no. Presumably in the hope of casting yourself Socrates and springing a fiendish rhetorical trap.

You talked about a democracy without universal suffrage as not a worthwhile democracy, whereas I was taught that our democracy was progressively added to. In recent years I have learned more about democracy as a principle. If the winner of an election gets authority by virtue of winning, but is under no obligation to keep promises, is it still a worthwhile democracy? If the electorate supports the winner of an election by virtue of their winning the election, but do not hold them to their promises, is it still a worthwhile democracy? If the aim of the winner is to beat the loser, without any specific platform, is it still a worthwhile democracy? NB. all of this is with what even you would call universal suffrage.

Montmorency

11-29-2020, 07:18

For the comity-trolls of the world, there is a congenial dispensation on the horizon: Should Democrats win both Georgia Senate seats on the cusp of Biden's inauguration, they will have the power to begin legislating unilaterally, which unrestrained wickedness the Republican base will have the opportunity to behold for the first time since the earliest Obama days, galvanizing them to rout the Democrats in the 2022 midterms, thus paving the way for the triumphant return of the prodigal Trump in 2024, healing the divisions of the country and making it great forever and ever, amen.

Georgia finished counting its ballots fast enough that its recent recount was done in less than a week. Meanwhile, New York is the last state still counting at scale and has missed its expected deadlines for reporting certifiable results. A shitshow almost as bad as in the Democratic primary this summer, where it took a month and a half to complete the count. A large part of the problem, carried over to the late election, is that mail votes are not allowed to be counted until a week after the election. Hopefully we've identified another element of the byzantine New York Way to dispense with forever. At least there's progress: before 2018 our electoral laws and accessibility would have been shameful for a red state; now they're merely substandard.

Good guy Bernstein (https://twitter.com/carlbernstein/status/1330710304519405569) outed some of the ranking Republicans who privately badmouth Trump without sticking their necks out (some of them are already retired or defeated). Interesting contrast to his buddy Woodward (recall the exclusive Trump interviews).

I'm not violating any pledge of journalistic confidentially in reporting this: 21 Republican Sens–in convos w/ colleagues, staff members, lobbyists, W. House aides–have repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump & his fitness to be POTUS.

The 21 GOP Senators who have privately expressed their disdain for Trump are: Portman, Alexander, Sasse, Blunt, Collins, Murkowski, Cornyn, Thune, Romney, Braun, Young, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Rubio, Grassley, Burr, Toomey, McSally, Moran, Roberts, Shelby.

With few exceptions, their craven public silence has helped enable Trump’s most grievous conduct—including undermining and discrediting the US the electoral system.

Former counsel for the Watergate special prosecutor tells of his strong opposition to Ford's pardon of Nixon, and warns Biden to resist preemptive surrender.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/24/yes-biden-administration-should-hold-trump-accountable/

Remember when I mentioned the concept of Trump as a disjunctive president and promised to return to that? Well, this election has been hard to square with a label of Disjunctive for Trump.

Skowronek’s writing (https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/for-4-years-i-ve-written-that-trump-was-a-disjunctive-leader-now-i-m-not-so-sure) about political time casts disjunctive and preemptive presidents as different kinds of outsiders, lurking on the margins of their own parties. Disjunctive leaders come in as the old party coalition is falling apart, and their outsider status allows them to briefly transcend factional disagreements and offer the elusive promise of something new. Preemptive leaders, on the other hand, come in from the non-majority party, often by accident. These are presidents like conservative (Bourbon) Democrat Grover Cleveland, “third way” Bill Clinton and “modern Republican” Dwight Eisenhower. They come to office in three-candidate contests, with a plurality of the vote, or – as with Eisenhower – by way of personal popularity. They borrow ideas and policies from the other party, never quite establishing ideological authenticity either way.

I don't know if I would place Trump in the Preemptive category though. Biden obviously is from the perspective of the Left, but it's not clear what reigning orthodoxy Trump is assimilating. They could both be preemptive only in the sense of there no longer being a reigning orthodoxy to frame against, with both figures failing (I presume) to either reconstruct American politics or overturn the politics of the opposition. Hmmm....

I mean, there's always time for Biden to pull out a shocking transformation of American politics, and there have been multiple surprises in recent history, but I'm not hedging my bets for now.

On reparations for land theft from black farmers.
https://www.motherjones.com/food/2020/11/black-farmers-have-been-robbed-of-land-a-new-bill-would-give-them-a-quantum-leap-toward-justice/

After the US Civil War, newly emancipated Black growers won a share of the agricultural landscape. They did so despite fierce backlash and the ultimately failed promises of Reconstruction. By the 1910s, nearly a million Black farmers, a seventh of the nation’s total, owned an estimated 20 million acres of land, mostly in the South. * That turned out to be a peak. Since then, due largely to lingering white supremacy and racist machinations within the US Department of Agriculture, the number of Black farmers has plunged by 98 percent. The remaining few managed to hold on to just 10 percent of that hard-won acreage.

A new Senate bill, called the Justice for Black Farmers Act, set to be released November 30, would mount a long-delayed federal effort to reverse the “destructive forces that were unleashed upon Black farmers over the past century—one of the dark corners of shame in American history,” lead sponsor Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told Mother Jones.

Co-sponsored with senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the bill would, among other things, create an Equitable Land Access Service within the USDA, including a fund that devotes $8 billion annually to buying farmland on the open market and granting it to new and existing Black farmers, with the goal of making 20,000 grants per year over nine years, with maximum allotments of 160 acres. It would also fund agriculture-focused historically Black colleges and universities as well and nonprofits like the Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust to help identify land for the USDA to purchase, and “help new Black farmers get up and running, provide farmer training, and provide other assistance including support for development of farmer cooperatives,” the bill’s summary states.
[...]
The Justice for Black Farmers Act’s much more modest proposal would amount to an “equitable balancing of the scales after decades of systematic racism within the USDA that disadvantaged Black farmers, excluded them from loans and other programs, [and] prevented them from holding on to their land,” Booker said.

The 19th century’s great land transfers, which generated trillions of dollars in wealth for beneficiaries and their heirs, “effectively precluded African Americans from participating,” said Thomas Mitchell, a law professor at Texas A&M and 2020 MacArthur fellow, who participated in the bill’s drafting. Meanwhile, the near-complete wipeout of Black farmland ownership since the early 20th century—driven largely by racist federal and state policies—represents a transfer of wealth from Black to primarily white Americans “conservatively” worth $300 billion, Thomas added. That handover contributes to a persistent racial wealth gap—today, the median white family is 12 times wealthier than its Black counterpart.

Matt Yglesias has decided to go independent from Vox and started his own blog. In this post (https://www.slowboring.com/p/electoral-politics-on-an-unfair-playing), a contributor lays out some ideas for how Democrats can optimize their electoral tactics.

Here’s the executive summary:

Run on popular ideas. We already do this, and it’s a big reason we consistently win more votes! Our issues — like social security, increased wages, and most healthcare expansion — are very popular. But we need more than just a bare majority to govern effectively.

Keep innovating. In the past twenty years, we have greatly improved our ability to mobilize our voters to cast ballots. This is because we have learned from data and experience, and now have a better understanding of the best ways to get our voters to our polls (eg, plan-making, social pressure) and the best ways to use our volunteers’ valuable time (eg, talking to their friends).

Relational persuasion. Just as we’ve learned to leverage existing relationships between friends and family for turnout, so must we for persuasion. There’s a deep history of relational organizing through the Democratic and progressive infrastructure [unions and party machines], but we’ve lost that thread in the Facebook era. Now, Republicans have out-organized us — especially in pockets of Latino communities — and we need to catch up.

The Biden campaign’s most-run ad* promised affordable healthcare. Their most-run attack ad didn’t highlight Trump’s character flaws, but rather his threats to Social Security and Medicare. The campaign translated their policy plans into concrete benefits for Americans struggling in this pandemic-depressed economy. While the right-wing media takes pleasure in distorting issue positions, Biden’s platform worked. His popular stances, combined with Trump’s horrific handling of COVID (not to mention his character flaws), led to Biden unseating an incumbent by winning more than 80 million votes. The problem isn't that the message didn't appeal to the majority of voters; the problem is that a majority isn't enough.

West Virginia's Democratic Party continues its march to extinction (https://twitter.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1327828908759261196) in what has become the first or second-most Republican state in the country (again, before Obama it was a swing state).

Wow. By my count, it looks like Republicans picked up a whopping 19 seats in the West Virginia House of Delegates.

This brings Democrats down to 23 out of the 100 seats in the chamber. The chamber is partly MMD [multi-member district] and SMD [single-member district], but is going to be entirely SMD in 2022.

But... there is another (https://twitter.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1329472913154695169).

https://i.imgur.com/F05tuAW.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4nXhCd8i3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcAjLtzf3E

Montmorency

11-29-2020, 08:38

Again playing the ball, as you believe? You are so arrogant, dismissive, and raving that I even won't bother to remind you that peaceful coexistence isn't my idea but the basic principle of democracy.

Your accusation is the confession, but as I repeat I am not the one opposed to peaceful coexistence here. I'm not the one you should be accosting if you care about the things you profess to.

How do you not perceive any tension between on one hand implicitly treating Republicans as rabid animals who cannot possibly be expected to change their behavior (not that such a framing would suffer on the merits) and on the other demanding that liberals unilaterally navigate the resulting worldscape with an (inevitably deferential) eye toward supplicating said Republicans? It would be easier to interpret your comments as naivete alone if you didn't have the shameful record you do.

A nice weaseling out attempt. Instead of admitting it when your ignorance became patent you just say that your purpose of giving analogies didn't presuppose awareness of the subject.

It's what you did. I showed you what it looks like from another angle. You're being doubly foolish.

If I'm so unserious and my opinion is just a drivel why are you getting so nervous trying to prove your point? And if it outs me, why do you keep answering at all?

You're right, thanks. In the depths of your smarmy condescension bother to absorb what people other than yourself write; it is certain they will understand something you don't. If I refer to you a fatal error, oversight, or misapprehension in your offering but you double down without due regard and compound absurdities and untruths one with another, you terminate the possibility of meaningful communication.

So you don't wish to live next door to Republicans or traveling to Florida for a vacation to meet them in a roadside cafe. And? What are you gonna do about it? This is the question that you fail to answer. And this is the crucial question for those who believe that after Biden's victory Republican voters could be just disregarded, segregated, discriminated, and pushed into the background.

As Osita Nwanevu said, "In the end, our hopes should lie not in the dream of transcending our political battles but in the possibility that we might win them."

It's like a bully grabs an arm of his victim and hits him with the hand repeating "Why are you hitting yourself?" I thought that you were an adult person.

That would appear to be your own posture and preference, or like that of a teacher who rewards the bully and rebukes the victim for "fighting." But I reposted a long Twitter thread all about that, which you naturally didn't engage with. Let me know when Ukraine stops provoking Putin with its territorial aggression and becomes a good neighbor in the international community.

Называешься груздём, полезай в кузов

With this attitude to your opponents you will only deepen the existing divides and war shall you have and hatred undying, as Feanor used to say.

I can't resist reposting this one (https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-need-a-wizard-who-can-appeal-to-the-moderate-orc-voter) when you're almost literally asserting a duty on our part - the 'Men of the West' - to engineer coexistence with the ringwraiths, orcs, and goblins of the land. :sick:

I may be just an ordinary orc, but I wasn’t at all surprised when the Dark Lord Sauron became the leader of Mordor. A lot of my smart, liberal friends, though, reacted as if Middle-earth was coming to an end. Dwarves in the barroom of the Prancing Pony said it was the pride of the High Elves. Ravens twittering under the eaves of Mirkwood blamed the cunning of dragons. The Steward of Gondor, posting on FacePalantir, said it was because of Sauron’s hatred for the heirs of Isildur.

I’m here to tell you: it’s the economy, stupid.

It’s all very well for those of you who dwell in the Shire, the haven of Rivendell, or the quiet forests of Lothlórien. You live in a bubble. You don’t know what life is like for the average orc, in depressed areas like the Trollshaws, the Misty Mountains, or the Dead Marshes. Let me tell you, it’s hard out here for an orc. We experience tremendous insecurity, not knowing whether we’ll have a job, or be able to raid peaceful villages, or if our friends will eat us. Sauron appeals to us economically challenged goblins because he offers us the chance of a decent wage, respect for our values, and renewed pride in being the corrupted spawn of Morgoth.

If the Free People are going to defeat Sauron, you need to let go of your elitist attitudes and choose someone who can appeal to the moderate orc vote. That’s why I support Saruman the White to lead the Council of the Wise.

Now, I know there are a lot of orcs who won’t vote for any wizard. I get that. They’re blindly loyal to the Dark Lord, and nothing anyone does or says can change that. But those orcs represent no more than 10% of the Middle-earth electorate.

Gandalf has gotten a lot of attention by making the One Ring the center of his campaign. We all can agree that the Ring is important, but shouldn’t we also address the kitchen-table issues that moderate orcs — swing orcs — care about?

Destroying the Ring sounds appealing, but it’s naïve and simplistic. Much of Mordor’s infrastructure was built with the Ring. The building of the Dark Tower of Barad-Dûr and the Black Gate of Udûn employed thousands of trolls, goblins, and Haradrim. What are they supposed to do if it’s suddenly dissolved in the fires of Orodruin? Gandalf’s plan makes no provision for relocating and retraining thousands of Sauron’s minions.

Besides, Gandalf’s plan for dealing with the Ring just won’t work. It’s too far to the left to gain support from mainstream dwarves, and would vastly increase Hobbit immigration. If the Ring has to be dropped into Mount Doom, why can’t we have our own, native-born Great Eagles do the job?

Saruman the White supports a more gradual approach to destroying the One Ring. Under Saruman, Mordor will be transitioned away from a Ring-based economy, without the loss of thousands of orc jobs that Gandalf’s plan would entail. Saruman will work with the Ring, not against it, to gradually phase out the Shadow, the Eye of Fire, and the Nazgûl, and replace them with more sustainable alternatives.

Of course, Saruman’s record isn’t perfect. He said at one time that Rings of Power were good for Elves. We know that’s an outdated attitude. But that was more than a thousand years ago, before the Witch-King of Angmar destroyed the Northern Realm. Things were different then.

Saruman has repudiated his previous support for building engines of fire and doom beneath the tower of Isengard and breeding the Uruk-hai in its pits. But what’s done is done. We can’t go back and fix the past. Many radical Ents still oppose him for his one-time policy of “cutting down all the trees.” Saruman has acknowledged that he was wrong and says his position on Ents has evolved. But let’s be realistic. Sometimes you have to build hellish devices and generate foul orc-spawn to get things done. That’s just how politics works.

Saruman has received endorsements from the savage tribes of Dunland, the Great Goblin, and the King of Rohan (according to Theoden’s loyal advisor and spokesman, Gríma Wormtongue). He’s the wizard who can lead us into a bright new age.

And to those who say it’s time we choose someone like Lady Galadriel, forget it. There are still a lot of people who will never vote for an elf.

The direct election of a President/Veep team would beget a profound change. I am not sure where the consequences thereof would take us. It would certainly be a step towards pure democracy.

I mean... the Electoral College has in practice almost always served to ratify the popular vote winner in presidential elections, with all the nation-injuring conflicts emerging when the Electoral College comes out of step with that popular vote.

So leaving aside the inevitable, but unpredictable, shifts in political tactics and voter behavior attendant to a new system, in principle it seems like removing the Electoral College would change little other than to negate our current system's catastrophic fail-states. When phrased as 'keep everything but the very worst elements', abolishing the EC sounds downright conservative.

:creep:

I know you will, have, and will likely continue to do so unless and until the Electoral College is abolished.

Of course it wasn't generated as a result of clear and consistent political philosophy. It was a compromise put together -- in analogous fashion to the "Great Compromise" of Senate/HofR representation levels in the legislature -- as a means of power balancing. They'd already approved a representation basis that accounted for 60% of the enslaved population to count towards the total for each state, making the largest of the Southern states, Virginia, virtually equal to the next two combined. How the heck would they manage a national popular vote when Virginia had 169k or so worth of population that couldn't vote but were being "counted?" [Please note the bitter sarcasm with which I refer to counting people as .6 humans] The goal was to make each states slate of electors important enough so that you couldn't ignore very many of them and still secure election (more or less). It NEVER did this perfectly and certainly does not today.

My confusion is merely on the point of how one could come to invent an Electoral College as a worthwhile avenue of reform or constitutional design given the weight of two centuries' evidence. Let it not be enough that basically every society on the planet other than our own has rejected it, that it was unpopular from its inception in this country, that it is unpopular to this day (the latest manifestation being the referendum result I mentioned above), that its only contemporary function is to entrench the White Wing minority that constitutes the fascist-Republican base (and while I doubt the white Evangelicals who constitute up to a full half of Republican voters would seriously persecute Catholics if given the opportunity, your life wouldn't be easier under their thumb). Let it not be enough that the Electoral College produced a George W. Bush and a Donald Trump within a generation (reminder: up to the 2000 election it was a widespread concern that Al Gore would win the EC but lose the popular vote, which is OK if it's a Republican apparently).

But this fact alone should forever consign electoral colleges to the concrete sarcophagus of history: Both the 2016 and 2020 elections produced (ignoring faithless electors) the same 306-232 margins. In 2016, the EC winner lost by 3 million votes. In 2020, the EC winner won by up to 7 million votes. Exact same Electoral College result, popular vote difference of over 9 million.

How could such outcomes ever be justified in theory?

All in all a worse idea on paper than Indonesia's current controversial legislative push to introduce alcohol prohibition.

Direct election of the President and Vice President would make only a modest difference now. The States are already something of a moribund concept in the eyes of many (most?). Taking away this element of State power -- however little exercised -- is only another step in the seemingly inevitable process of dismantling the republic we have in favor of a full democracy (for good and for ill).

Perhaps you will be pleased to consider that the Trump era has dealt our unitary union a lasting blow. Radically-decentralized electoral administration was proven to be resistant to despotism (unlike that in so many unitary states with publics no more degraded than our own). The absence of the central state during the pandemic left a vacuum that was filled by cities and states variously coordinating with each other or levying regulations and restrictions against one another's residents, albeit low-grade and unenforceable for the most part. Besides such accomplished events, one doesn't need to be a savvy political analyst to realize that the extension of polarization into the loyalties of common citizens as well as the basic administrative functions of the civil service presages a new period of nullification starting this decade. As in the first such period, nullification will not be grounded in legalisms or residual sovereignties but in will to power, popular appetites, and the tolerance levels of partisan elites for the edicts of hostile/inimical authorities.

Three misconceptions here:

1. Generally every American thinks the Constitution can be improved, the difference is obviously in what people consider 'improved'. We have had 27 amendments after all.

2. For what it's worth, given the brevity and historical context, the document is a pretty big deal in the history of ideas. So there is a certain justification for why it should be revered.

3. Rule of law does not emerge from the strength of a text, but from the strength of people's belief in the text. Every country operating under a liberal democratic constitution would do well in the long run to treat their foundational laws as sacred. The difference between the collapse of other countries utilizing a similar Presidential systems and US is the fundamentalist attitude that underlines a civic spirit. Given the major flaws of the system, getting 250 years of democratic government before a credible threat of dictatorship is...not bad?

Seems like every other country goes through constitutions generation-by-generation. A Constitution is just a document. If a nation should have some sacred civic values and virtues, they should be external to a constitution, which would merely embody them.

In America there are indeed many people who, contrary to the original intent, honestly believe that "you can't change the Constitution." As with the flag, they have been miseducated into glorifying the paper/fabric over the ideals. A Pledge of Allegiance is only a sinister simulacrum of a civic spirit.

Our record for stability is explained by the near-limitless Lebensraum we have enjoyed, our freedom from external enemies, and our willingness to internalize and sublimate instability against marginalized populations. These exorbitant luxuries are no longer a valued inheritance...

Don't conflate the liberal and democratic parts of liberal democracy. The liberal part has been brief, but as far as the structure is concerned voters have voted in elections between opposing parties which have transferred power peacefully with only two notable exceptions (1860, 2020).

Idaho's right, holding elections with a peaceful transfer of power is not sufficient toward democracy as, indeed, there is every possibility of those things being present in an oligarchy where only dozens can vote. There is a sliding scale, of course, from more autocratic/oligarchic to more democratic, but the early republic was not in a meaningful sense more of a democracy than the Roman republic or contemporary China. Calling that a democracy makes about as much sense as calling FDR's government a dictatorship (for its tinge of centralized power).

I learned that there wasn't a specific cut off point between democracy and not democracy.

But there is, inevitably, a cut-off point. Without a decision to categorize, we can't have a concept of non-democracy, and then we're really in the semantic wilderness.

So you deny the existence of any 'illiberal democracies'? It's all or nothing? FYI, you live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy ya dum dum (your logic, not mine).

Another way to look at it is, where would the early US (or Georgian UK) fall along contemporary rankings of states? 2/8 points maybe? 3 points?

Surely there's more to it than that - when the consultation is choosing one pre-selected person from a list where generally 3 or less have a hope and run on a "manifesto" which neither the individual nor the party they represent have to follow in the slightest, and there are even people called "Whips" to coerce party members to vote the "right" way; independents can of course stand, but the system is basically designed that party backing is required and to get a winnable seat requires doing what the party wants, not the populace. Parties never have more than one option in a given area, and rarely replace the current candidate, rendering this a weird permanent job with a 5 year farce.

Only in the last few years was there any way to recall any politician by the people - and even now this is extremely difficult to do, and viewed with horror by politicians.

And this is apparently the populace being "consulted"...? Well, yes, if only to exclude them from any meaningful choice as far as humanly possible.

~:smoking:

What you're describing sounds more like a deficit in the political behavior of citizens than in the character of the "establishment" itself.

You talked about a democracy without universal suffrage as not a worthwhile democracy, whereas I was taught that our democracy was progressively added to. In recent years I have learned more about democracy as a principle. If the winner of an election gets authority by virtue of winning, but is under no obligation to keep promises, is it still a worthwhile democracy? If the electorate supports the winner of an election by virtue of their winning the election, but do not hold them to their promises, is it still a worthwhile democracy? If the aim of the winner is to beat the loser, without any specific platform, is it still a worthwhile democracy? NB. all of this is with what even you would call universal suffrage.

Your grievances with particular emanations of policy have to be distinguished from the desirability or applicability of democracy as a system (and Brexit would hardly be less damaging or insistent under a Tory oligarchy), let alone the semantics of democracy as a concept. We always have to be clear about what it is we're talking about.

Pannonian

11-29-2020, 13:50

Your grievances with particular emanations of policy have to be distinguished from the desirability or applicability of democracy as a system (and Brexit would hardly be less damaging or insistent under a Tory oligarchy), let alone the semantics of democracy as a concept. We always have to be clear about what it is we're talking about.

I'm not talking about specific policy. I'm talking about the practice of gaming the electoral system. To show how not about specific policy it is, I'll point you to Gaius Sempronius Gracchus versus Marcus Livius Drusus, 121 BC. Back then, you have one faction winning an election by making promises that they never intended to keep, and the voters voting for them because their promises were greater. Do you see the point? Except that now, with the simultaneous fetishisation and trivialisation of democracy via reality TV, we have people voting to make their side win, and winning is justification in and of itself.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-29-2020, 21:30

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do you think that democracy is a good thing in and of itself?
2. Do you think that more democracy is always better?

These are basic questions to this sub-argument.

Gilrandir

11-29-2020, 22:13

Your accusation is the confession, but as I repeat I am not the one opposed to peaceful coexistence here.

You are. In word you are not, but the conceptual metaphors you use (political controversies are a life-or-death fight with a predator) betray you and clearly show your attitude to your political opponents.

How do you not perceive any tension between on one hand implicitly treating Republicans as rabid animals who cannot possibly be expected to change their behavior (not that such a framing would suffer on the merits) and on the other demanding that liberals unilaterally navigate the resulting worldscape with an (inevitably deferential) eye toward supplicating said Republicans?

MY treating or YOURS? I don't treat them that way, so it spells yours? That means you aren't against peaceful co-existence?

Let me know when Ukraine stops provoking Putin with its territorial aggression and becomes a good neighbor in the international community.

Is there a single post of yours addressed to me in a POTUS thread where Ukraine isn't mentioned? Your record seems to be no less shameful than mine in trying to rub in things that you think hurt others (which they don't, in this case).

Называешься груздём, полезай в кузов

Назвался. Why do you keep addressing me in Russian and making mistakes as often as not?

I can't resist reposting this one (https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-need-a-wizard-who-can-appeal-to-the-moderate-orc-voter) when you're almost literally asserting a duty on our part - the 'Men of the West' - to engineer coexistence with the ringwraiths, orcs, and goblins of the land. :sick:

The repost is баян.

As for coexistence of men with other creatures of Arda:

1) Inadvertently or deliberately, you brought forth another conceptual metaphor likening your political opponents to inveterately evil beings created by the Dark Lord. Good luck to you living with them side by side as neighbors!

2) In fact, people of the west (Americans and Europeans) went far along the way of peaceful coexistence with those who once (say, in the Middle Ages) were perceived as ultimate evil - people of other religion, race, sexual preferences, etc. So by medieval standards, you live side by side with orcs and trolls. I don't see how peaceful coexistence with republicans is worse. But you evidently do.

Gilrandir

11-29-2020, 22:18

I'm not talking about specific policy. I'm talking about the practice of gaming the electoral system. To show how not about specific policy it is, I'll point you to Gaius Sempronius Gracchus versus Marcus Livius Drusus, 121 BC. Back then, you have one faction winning an election by making promises that they never intended to keep, and the voters voting for them because their promises were greater. Do you see the point? Except that now, with the simultaneous fetishisation and trivialisation of democracy via reality TV, we have people voting to make their side win, and winning is justification in and of itself.

Funny that you can ruminate on how bad democracy is only living in one. Living in North Korea or the USSR you wouldn't be able to discuss the merits and demerits of its political regime.

ReluctantSamurai

11-30-2020, 02:28

you brought forth another conceptual metaphor likening your political opponents to inveterately evil beings created by the Dark Lord. Good luck to you living with them side by side as neighbors!

Donald Trump has always been about white anxiety over those "criminals and rapists" from south of the border; about putting self before country; about a man groping a woman whenever he feels like it; about circumventing the law, constitutional and otherwise; about the well being of the stock market before individual Americans at home; a denier of systemic racism; and most importantly, subverting democracy to suit one man's and one party's whims. And yet....74 million Americans still voted for him and therefore what he represents.

Trump didn't bring these things into being...they were already there. He just brought them into focus, and most grievously, at the highest level possible....the President of the United States. By voting for this man, people were voting for enabling genocide on immigrant women who had hysterectomies forced upon them, and their children ripped from them, many of whom will never be together again.

Repeat----we had 74 MILLION Americans who were willing to enable this kind of behavior for another four years, and attempting to subvert the democratic vote to do so. So yes, this can be likened to "evil beings created by the Dark Lord." In what other terms can you frame what's been done in the name of Donald Trump over the last four years?

Something other than smug condescending, I warrant....:gorgeous:

Living in North Korea or the USSR you wouldn't be able to discuss the merits and demerits of its political regime

So we are all just supposed to drop to our knees in thankfulness, just because we can "ruminate on how bad democracy is"..... without making any effort to make it better? Puuuuleeeze...:juggle2:

Gilrandir

11-30-2020, 05:52

Repeat----we had 74 MILLION Americans who were willing to enable this kind of behavior for another four years, and attempting to subvert the democratic vote to do so. So yes, this can be likened to "evil beings created by the Dark Lord." In what other terms can you frame what's been done in the name of Donald Trump over the last four years?

Evil beings are to be eliminated because they can't be reformed. They are inherently evil. In the fantasy world. You aren't living in one but you still want to act like that. How are you better than they?

In Ukraine (since Montmorency has initiated this tradition I can pick it up I guess) we have around 20% of voters who think that Russia isn't our enemy, the war in Donbas is an internal conflict, Ukraine itself is to blame in losing Crimea and we have to forget about all grievances with Putin and become brethren with Russia again (as it was before 2014). For me it is unacceptable (like for you depredations of republicans they are doing as you claim), but I realize that we have to live with them and don't spread around chauvinistic drivel of us being Elves and them being Orcs. We should at least keep civil and don't foment hatred if we want to live in one country. Propelling hatred in the society that is already brimming with it will take you nowhere. Dial down and use your common sense.

So we are all just supposed to drop to our knees in thankfulness, just because we can "ruminate on how bad democracy is"..... without making any effort to make it better? Puuuuleeeze...:juggle2:

The choice is yours: on the knees in thankfulness or on the knees in slavery. In the first case you can rise from time to time to mind your own business. In the second you can't.

ReluctantSamurai

11-30-2020, 07:03

The choice is yours: on the knees in thankfulness or on the knees in slavery. In the first case you can rise from time to time to mind your own business. In the second you can't.

Oh thank you magnificent Ilúvatar for your great words of wisdom......:hail:

:rolleyes:

Montmorency

11-30-2020, 07:59

we have people voting to make their side win, and winning is justification in and of itself.

If you have something more to say about what is known as negative partisanship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_partisanship) it would fit well with this thread and any other about American politics, but it is still orthogonal to the preceding discussion evaluating the definition of democracy.

These are basic questions to this sub-argument.

Right, Pann is touching on the normative aspect of contemporary politics.

Is there a single post of yours addressed to me in a POTUS thread where Ukraine isn't mentioned?

Yes. Do the work.

Your record seems to be no less shameful than mine in trying to rub in things that you think hurt others (which they don't, in this case).

Man, are you dumb or just that stubborn? I'm not mentioning Ukraine to trigger you. Ukraine is not an aggressor against Russia. Ukraine is not opposed to peaceful coexistence. It is the other way around.

Just so, liberals are not the enemies of Republicans. Noticing that Republicans seek to rule or ruin to advance plutocracy, theocracy, and a white ethnostate does not make the observer the obstacle to peace. To mix these things up is the aim of a harasser.

Republicans are not savages who lack agency and personhood compared to liberals. It is valid to address them directly and demand they change their behavior, as the perpetrators in the scenario. It is no one's responsibility to save Republicans from themselves.

If there's something in my wording you couldn't get past, let me try again:

Oh no mommy, the big scawy Republicans wanna hurt me! Boo hoo hoo hoo! No mommy, don't let the Republicans hurt meee! Mommy help! Waaaaaa!

Does that leave you more comfortable?

In Ukraine (since Montmorency has initiated this tradition I can pick it up I guess) we have around 20% of voters who think that Russia isn't our enemy, the war in Donbas is an internal conflict, Ukraine itself is to blame in losing Crimea and we have to forget about all grievances with Putin and become brethren with Russia again (as it was before 2014). For me it is unacceptable (like for you depredations of republicans they are doing as you claim), but I realize that we have to live with them and don't spread around chauvinistic drivel of us being Elves and them being Orcs. We should at least keep civil and don't foment hatred if we want to live in one country. Propelling hatred in the society that is already brimming with it will take you nowhere. Dial down and use your common sense.

Very good. Now what if they decide they don't have to live with you?

Назвался. Why do you keep addressing me in Russian and making mistakes as often as not?

I find it easy to admit mistakes when I make them. Consider it.

1) Inadvertently or deliberately, you brought forth another conceptual metaphor likening your political opponents to inveterately evil beings created by the Dark Lord. Good luck to you living with them side by side as neighbors!

You said it buddy, not me! :mellow:

2) In fact, people of the west (Americans and Europeans) went far along the way of peaceful coexistence with those who once (say, in the Middle Ages) were perceived as ultimate evil - people of other religion, race, sexual preferences, etc. So by medieval standards, you live side by side with orcs and trolls. I don't see how peaceful coexistence with republicans is worse. But you evidently do.

I'm tempted to recommend you pick up a history book at random, to find out about peaceful coexistence, but I'm afraid you'd fix on how the Elders of Zion jeopardized the peaceful existence of Germany and the future of the Aryan children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words). Protip: This was a lie invented by the aggressors to justify their crimes.

Evil beings are to be eliminated because they can't be reformed. They are inherently evil. In the fantasy world. You aren't living in one but you still want to act like that. How are you better than they?

Ask someone you know why you celebrate May 9th.

Pannonian

11-30-2020, 11:33

If you have something more to say about what is known as negative partisanship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_partisanship) it would fit well with this thread and any other about American politics, but it is still orthogonal to the preceding discussion evaluating the definition of democracy.

Not really. My point is that democracy is good at some things, not so good at others. Democracy cannot do the impossible, and it shouldn't be asked to do the illegal. But the alt right have gamed the system to say that democracy trumps all else. If they promised the impossible to win, they still have a democratic mandate to do whatever they want, because after all they won at the ballot box. If they promised the illegal to win, law has to step aside for democracy, which has primacy. See the newspaper headline about judges who ordered the UK government to follow the law: "Enemies of the People".

Seamus Fermanagh

11-30-2020, 18:41

a completely inoffensive name

12-01-2020, 06:20

Seems like every other country goes through constitutions generation-by-generation. A Constitution is just a document. If a nation should have some sacred civic values and virtues, they should be external to a constitution, which would merely embody them.

In America there are indeed many people who, contrary to the original intent, honestly believe that "you can't change the Constitution." As with the flag, they have been miseducated into glorifying the paper/fabric over the ideals. A Pledge of Allegiance is only a sinister simulacrum of a civic spirit.

Our record for stability is explained by the near-limitless Lebensraum we have enjoyed, our freedom from external enemies, and our willingness to internalize and sublimate instability against marginalized populations. These exorbitant luxuries are no longer a valued inheritance...

Hard disagree. Thinking of guiding documents as just text on paper just feeds into an attitude of might makes right. What strength does any text have if not in the impression it imparts on someone? I know no one who follows any rules simply because 'it's the law', they must either believe in it or be in fear of it. Politics without belief devolves into a game of changing the text as much as you can to make yourself the winner or just ignoring it. Monty, our main issue with the Republican party is precisely the lack of conviction towards Constitutional norms and practice. Party over country is just a polite way of calling them traitors. Traitors to the Constitution.

Second statement is non-sequitur, it's not that many, and it's mostly a narrative fed to liberals who want to think of themselves as 'thinkers' vs 'feelers'.

There are many reasons that contribute to the stability, although it doesn't seem like the limitless lebenstraum of North America, or the lack of external enemies prevented a Civil War from potentially dissolving the project. Both factors were at their peak in the 1860s, 15 years off conquering half of Mexico and two entire oceans separating the US from a world still using sails.

We also can't just leave it up to our culture to be a continuous thread of noble values and virtues. Cultures become decadent, indulgent, hateful, ignorant and if the Constitution is to be re-written every twenty years like Jefferson imagined, then we lose the reminder of what we used to be, of what the original idea was and where we are in that attempt. This isn't to say that the current method of reforming the Constitution is perfect, it is clearly set at too high a bar to facilitate needed change.

Idaho's right, holding elections with a peaceful transfer of power is not sufficient toward democracy as, indeed, there is every possibility of those things being present in an oligarchy where only dozens can vote. There is a sliding scale, of course, from more autocratic/oligarchic to more democratic, but the early republic was not in a meaningful sense more of a democracy than the Roman republic or contemporary China. Calling that a democracy makes about as much sense as calling FDR's government a dictatorship (for its tinge of centralized power).

Look you either go by whether the government in question allowed elections to those they considered citizens or you just dismiss the idea of democracy as a Plutonian Ideal. The US is not a democracy because we still have artificial barriers that prohibit some from voting, so by definition suffrage is still cannot be said to be universal and therefore US has never been a Democracy, only an Oligarchy with an ever increasing size. Hell, many non-citizens contribute to health and body politic of the country to a degree equal or more than many citizens, the US will never be a democracy truly until all who live within its borders has their opinion expressed in the vote. The material richness of our country comes from a globalized economy that makes us interdependent on those across the world for our own financial health and likewise we have the same power on their lives. How can we call ourselves a democracy when we still ignore the billions worldwide who suffer and prosper from decisions the US government makes. Should they have no say in such an authority over their lives?

The self-flagellation is part of what makes this country great and receptive to social upheaval and change...but there is only so much to dispense before it becomes like an intellectual exercise of how can we contextualize our world in the worst of all possible lights.

Another way to look at it is, where would the early US (or Georgian UK) fall along contemporary rankings of states? 2/8 points maybe? 3 points?

A variant of Illliberal Democracy which comes in multiple permutations as the combinations of what makes a liberal democracy are 1 (satisfies all criteria) but illiberal can come in varying failures of specific or multiple criteria.

Gilrandir

12-01-2020, 06:55

Very good. Now what if they decide they don't have to live with you?

Do the Republicans declare they want to have a separate country?

You said it buddy, not me! :mellow:

You don't have to say it explicitely. Conceptual metaphors do it for you by exposing the pattern of your thinking. I refer you to Lakoff and Johnson.

Ask someone you know why you celebrate May 9th.

I don't. I commemorate (not celebrate) May 8th.

ReluctantSamurai

12-01-2020, 08:53

Do the Republicans declare they want to have a separate country?

They do.

Gilrandir

12-01-2020, 10:55

They do.

The source, please.

ReluctantSamurai

12-01-2020, 15:24

Here's three examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/01/trump-lawyer-joe-digenova-election-security-chief-chris-krebs-shot

A former head of US election security who said Donald Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden was not subject to voter fraud should be “taken out at dawn and shot”, a Trump campaign lawyer said.

DiGenova said Trump’s legal team was “talking to the jury, trying to influence the jury. And that includes judges and state legislatures. And the governors in these states are a bunch of losers, along with their secretaries of state. I’ve never seen such wimps wearing an R . [B]“You know, they’re going to have to be dealt with politically. It’s the only way you deal with these people.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html

“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci … no I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man,” Bannon said. “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put their heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the programme or you’re gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/politics/trump-america.html

President Trump argued this week that the death toll from the coronavirus was actually not so bad. All you had to do was not count states that voted for Democrats.

“If you take the blue states out,” he said, “we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at. We’re really at a very low level.”

The statement was as jarring as it was revealing, indicative of a leader who has long seemed to view himself more as the president of Red America rather than the United States of America. On the pandemic, immigration, crime, street violence and other issues, Mr. Trump regularly divides the country into the parts that support him and the parts that do not, rewarding the former and reproving the latter.

While presidents running for re-election typically look at the map of the country through a partisan lens, they ostensibly take off such a filter when it comes to their duties to govern, or at least make the effort to look like they do. But that is an axiom Mr. Trump has rarely observed as he rails against "Democratic cities" and "badly run blue states." And he has sought to punish them with tax policies and threats to withhold federal funding, while devoting far more time and attention to red states.

To say nothing of a plot to kidnap and execute the governor of Michigan, which was incited, in part, by rhetoric from POTUS because she dared to stand up to his bullshit, and because she's a Democrat.

"Red States" and "Blue States". Put their heads on pikes. Taken out at dawn and shot. Do I need to remind you of what that continuing kind of rhetoric led to here in the UNITED STATES?

That the current president was more than willing, along with a substantial portion of the Republican Party, to completely ignore the results of the popular vote which he lost by over 6 MILLION votes, and just seize the presidency outright, should signal loud and clear what the intentions of this current version of the Republican Party is all about.

Gilrandir

12-01-2020, 16:58

Here's three examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/01/trump-lawyer-joe-digenova-election-security-chief-chris-krebs-shot

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/154158-POTUS-General-Election-Thread-2020?p=2053810494#post2053810494

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/politics/trump-america.html

To say nothing of a plot to kidnap and execute the governor of Michigan, which was incited, in part, by rhetoric from POTUS because she dared to stand up to his bullshit, and because she's a Democrat.

"Red States" and "Blue States". Put their heads on pikes. Taken out at dawn and shot. Do I need to remind you of what that continuing kind of rhetoric led to here in the UNITED STATES?

That the current president was more than willing, along with a substantial portion of the Republican Party, to completely ignore the results of the popular vote which he lost by over 6 MILLION votes, and just seize the presidency outright, should signal loud and clear what the intentions of this current version of the Republican Party is all about.

I didn't see something like "we should have our own country where Trump would be president" or "let those states that voted for Trump secede".

ReluctantSamurai

12-01-2020, 18:00

I didn't see something like "we should have our own country where Trump would be president" or "let those states that voted for Trump secede".

Oh, seditious rhetoric and behavior isn't enough, we actually have to have civil war before you "see"...:rolleyes:

Sad.....~:wave:

Seamus Fermanagh

12-01-2020, 20:57

They do.

They do not want a separate country and did not declare such (except perhaps for the CSA fantasists among them). They want "the left" to be crushed and broken so they can take full control of this country. They view this as returning it to the way it was and should be. They truly believe that straying from the simple virtues of God, guns, and tradition is an attempt to sell out the country to some form of world order.

Their vision of America is, at best, a halcyon distortion. Mostly it is a fantasy wherein their traditional views are the "ideal" just because they are comfortable with the implicit cultural power position that would accrue to them therein. The ideal to which they ascribe has never been an accurate depiction of the American experience -- yet they are willing to trample elements of the Constitution to preserve other elements they view as more important and obviate the electoral system on a whim in pursuit of power. Repulsive.

They don't even see that their standard bearer is simply using them to acquire that power and has a demonstrable track record of not sharing (or for that matter delegating effectively) the power given him.

More than many (any?) in this forum, I am a patriot of and apologist for the USA. I revel in the wonderful things my country has done for itself and others in our time as a polity. That said, to behave this way in pursuit of a fantasy that never was and gleefully ignores the problems and limitations of our nation and its history is ludicrous at best. Nothing in the Trump GOP speaks to the angels of our better nation as a people.

Three quarters of a century ago we, flaws and all, were part of an alliance that defeated the stormtrooper types. And now my former party -- or at least far too many of them -- is all too gleefully playing those same vile games and peddling lies and hate. Horst Wessel would find too many kindred spirits in Trumps deplorables. :shame:

ReluctantSamurai

12-01-2020, 21:37

They do not want a separate country and did not declare such

Sorry, you will never convince me of that. The divide is not about the Mason-Dixon line anymore, but of rural America and the cities. I spent 25 years of my life living in rural America. It's a different world that city slickers do not understand. City dwellers are viewed as welfare queens who want more government sucking the life and money out of the rest of the hard-working REAL Americans.

They want "the left" to be crushed and broken so they can take full control of this country.

And that would require "the left" to be confined to "blue districts" or else kicked out of the country, no?

Seamus Fermanagh

12-01-2020, 23:23

Again, the CSA fantasists probably would want a separate country. I just think that isn't true of most of the rest of that crowd. They want power and control.

And I am well aware of the country v city divide in this.

ReluctantSamurai

12-02-2020, 00:40

I just think that isn't true of most of the rest of that crowd.

And yet they rally around a man whose values much more resembles the Stars and Bars than the Stars and Stripes.

Gilrandir

12-02-2020, 06:10

And yet they rally around a man whose values much more resembles the Stars and Bars than the Stars and Stripes.

As I said, if you want to live in one country with them, whatever their shortcomings might be, there should be a roadmap to win them to your side or at least make them neutral. The first step should be dissecting the Trump voter, since I'm sure people had various reasons why they voted for him. Then you should deal with each group piecemeal.

There are people who voted for Trump just because they like him personally. You can't do anything about it, I'm afraid, unless you act by reforming the very society so that arrogant ignorant bigotic bullies could just have no chance to come close to places where they could be elected anywhere, to say nothing of top positions. This is a long process but in my opinion the likes of Trump could never come to power in Europe. Ask them how they do it, but I'm guessing that free gun ownership has much to do with it.

There are people who voted for him because they always vote for Republicans. Changing this stupid tradition is again a long process (although not so long as the first one) but it is a double-edged sword. If people are persuaded that you should appraise the person not vote because he belongs to Republicans it will work the same for Democratic candidates, so shifting focus to individuals will deprive Democrats of "their voter" as well.

There are people who voted for Trump because he promised (and implemented) some steps that they liked. To appease them is the easiest (as compared to the first two groups). If Trump promised to bring industries back home, address this problem. If he promised to create jobs, address this problem. If he promised to stop immirgation, address this problem by introducing more sensible immigration policies (I saw black voters who said they would vote for Trump because he stopped the inflow of immigrants who stole jobs they were naturally engaged in). If he promised to mind international events less and focus on what happens inside the nation, address this problem. If he promised to make NATO allies pay on par with the USA, address this problem.

Thus, by SENSIBLE dealing with Trump's promises you will take all his trumps (pun is intentional) from him as his voters will see that what he promised is implemented by others who aren't that obscene. Because I'm sure, that there are plenty of reasonable and decent people who voted for him, not just a bunch of low-cultured yokels.

All of this is a long story, but IMHO you have no alternative. And if you keep saying like "The Good will triumph when we kill all bad people" it won't mend the existing divides but only deepen them.

Idaho

12-02-2020, 14:09

24035

ReluctantSamurai

12-02-2020, 20:21

Democrats are perhaps making the same mistake they made in the recent general elections by believing that throwing millions of dollars to a candidate will get them elected:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/02/democrats-hammer-perdue-loeffler-stocks-441956

As the Georgia Republican continues to face an onslaught of news stories about the timing of his stocks trades amid a high profile runoff, super PACs run by allies of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are flooding the airwaves in the state. The Georgia Way and Georgia Honor — two newly formed super PACs affiliated with Senate Majority PAC — have spent more than $10 million so far since Nov. 3 on ads hammering Perdue and Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) over their portfolios.

I tend to agree with this comment:

“There’s no such thing as a persuadable voter,” said one Georgia Republican, who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the issue. “The Dems all believe [Perdue] had inside information. The Republicans, even if they believe that, don’t give a s---. I just think it doesn’t do anything. I don’t think it moves the needle.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are betting that voters will keep a broader goal in mind: GOP control of the Senate.

"The issue is probably going to be the majority," said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). "That’s what people are voting on.”

a completely inoffensive name

12-02-2020, 21:08

Hooahguy

12-03-2020, 06:02

Well if the hardcore Trumpists make good on their threat to sit out the election if the electoral college formally votes to confirm a Biden victory, then maybe Dems have a shot in Georgia.

Crandar

12-03-2020, 16:17

So cute (https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-shares-message-trump-martial-law-2020-12?r=US&IR=T).:clown:

We are kind of experts in the coup business, our last dictatorship launched three successful coups (one against a foreign, sovereign government) and foiled another hostile one, so if you want any advice, feel free to ask.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-03-2020, 17:56

ReluctantSamurai

12-04-2020, 20:00

You go "Mr GriftWood":

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/maga-georgia-civil-war-trump-senate-republicans-442776

Gotta love all of this, Democrats~D

ReluctantSamurai

12-04-2020, 21:28

There are people who voted for Trump just because they like him personally.

There are people who voted for him because they always vote for Republicans.

There are people who voted for Trump because he promised (and implemented) some steps that they liked.

Sorry, but those dogs just won't hunt. A vote for Trump, no matter the reason, is a vote for all the horrific, authoritarian ideals he stands for. It's like saying I like a strong, dominant military even though that military might likely use nuclear weapons to resolve disputes; or that military hasn't a care for human rights violations in the course of military operations and use drone strikes indiscriminately regardless of collateral damage.

If you voted for Trump, you voted for more undermining of democracy, you voted for more government corruption, you voted for more of the same kind of divisionist populism we've had here in the last 4 years, you voted for an administration that doesn't believe in science and therefore more of "the virus is a hoax" policy, and a continuing push to hold on to, or expand the use of fossil fuels, even though you don't need a science degree to see what's been happening to our climate the last 20-30 years.

So all those reasons to have voted for Trump are complete and utter bullshit. Having said that, if I came across a person in a life threatening situation where my help could save their life, I won't be asking for their political affiliation before I offer my help. But some Trump supporter who is suffering from a situation brought about by, or amplified by Trump Administration policies....sorry, you'll get no sympathy from me.

CrossLOPER

12-04-2020, 22:28

Montmorency, Gilrandir... Do either of you feel like you have been dismissive of each others' geopolitical concerns, while being wildly more enthusiastic about issues that affect you directly?

Gilrandir

12-05-2020, 05:16

Montmorency

12-05-2020, 05:32

Pan'

I think you should start a new thread. The notion of democracy -- how pure, how much, how practical -- is a good discussion. Even if it was prompted by our recent elections, I think it would be better separated from the minutia of this particular change in power in the USA.

Without continuing on the meta distinctions between what it is various people are expressing thoughts on, I just want to revisit my advice to Pann that he shouldn't be so ready to concede his opponents' framing of the discourse about "democracy." Challenge the premise and see what happens.

Unrelatedly, I just came across what might be your song (http://www.hpcc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/dan/songs/_social.htm).

The people's flag is slightly pink,
It's not as red as most folks think.
We must not let the people know
What socialists thought long ago.

Chorus:
Don't let the scarlet banner float.
We want the middle class's vote.
Let our old-fashioned comrades sneer,
We'll stay in power for many a year.

Some years ago the flag was red;
No-one knew then what was ahead.
It witnessed many a deed and vow -
We cannot use that colour now.
Chorus

It well recalled the triumphs past,
It gave the hope of peace at last
But once in government it's plain
The red flag none shall see again.
Chorus

With heads uncovered once we swore
Always to bear it on before.
With power now our first concern
We have to let the red flag burn.

Hard disagree. Thinking of guiding documents as just text on paper just feeds into an attitude of might makes right. What strength does any text have if not in the impression it imparts on someone? I know no one who follows any rules simply because 'it's the law', they must either believe in it or be in fear of it. Politics without belief devolves into a game of changing the text as much as you can to make yourself the winner or just ignoring it.

Ok, so two problems:

1. Is any of that really true?
2. What does it have with promoting a civil religion centered around a document qua document?

Monty, our main issue with the Republican party is precisely the lack of conviction towards Constitutional norms and practice. Party over country is just a polite way of calling them traitors. Traitors to the Constitution.

You think it's valuable to merely transplant the exact mentality and rhetoric adopted by Republicans? Because that is literally their rhetoric toward liberals.

I don't give a crap about betrayal of "the Constitution" as such, the problem is betraying humanity and any and all worthy ideals contained in the Constitution. Alternatively, the problem is the more secular one of a mainstream political movement seizing temporal power in violation of liberal democratic practice and in serious violation of many laws.

You're not going to beat Republicans at their authoritarian mind game. Ideas and ideals are what is important, don't lose sight of that. Don't be like Jordan Peterson in thinking that all of society is a game of indoctrination and that elites have to find the right narrative formula for brainwashing the public into salutary conduct.

Second statement is non-sequitur, it's not that many, and it's mostly a narrative fed to liberals who want to think of themselves as 'thinkers' vs 'feelers'.

?

It's a common conservative rebuke to criticism of the Constitution (e.g. Electoral College, their interpretation of various amendments, even that legend about the strict construction of the Constitution around express powers and authorities).

There are many reasons that contribute to the stability, although it doesn't seem like the limitless lebenstraum of North America, or the lack of external enemies prevented a Civil War from potentially dissolving the project.

Think about my phrase "our willingness to internalize and sublimate instability against marginalized populations." The country spilled into civil war the very moment that was no longer immediately possible or sustainable! The very return to that framework is what characterized the post-Reconstruction/Jim Crow peace, which was terminated by the Civil Rights Era.

Manifest Destiny and the 20th-century nostalgia for settlement alongside the canonization of Amerindians as defeated and disappeared is another noteworthy element. We enjoyed unlimited colonialism until we ourselves were in a position to lead the dismantling of the old colonial order. Of course we should record that unique geopolitical benefits counteracted centrifugal forces.

We also can't just leave it up to our culture to be a continuous thread of noble values and virtues. Cultures become decadent, indulgent, hateful, ignorant and if the Constitution is to be re-written every twenty years like Jefferson imagined, then we lose the reminder of what we used to be, of what the original idea was and where we are in that attempt. This isn't to say that the current method of reforming the Constitution is perfect, it is clearly set at too high a bar to facilitate needed change.

Again, compare what you're saying to the observable reality.

Look you either go by whether the government in question allowed elections to those they considered citizens or you just dismiss the idea of democracy as a Plutonian Ideal.

Plato hated democracy. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is China a democracy? Was the Soviet Union a democracy? Was Commonwealth Poland a democracy? Was Imperial Germany a democracy? All of the above have or had prominent electoral politics. We can go on dude... and one would be welcome to designate all the above democracies, but that stretches the term beyond usability.

The US is not a democracy because we still have artificial barriers that prohibit some from voting, so by definition suffrage is still cannot be said to be universal and therefore US has never been a Democracy, only an Oligarchy with an ever increasing size.

You're creating a strawman of categorization that I explicitly warded off. It is not useful to treat democracy as a concept that requires 99% of countries on the planet today to be either democracies, or non-democracies.

Hell, many non-citizens contribute to health and body politic of the country to a degree equal or more than many citizens, the US will never be a democracy truly until all who live within its borders has their opinion expressed in the vote. The material richness of our country comes from a globalized economy that makes us interdependent on those across the world for our own financial health and likewise we have the same power on their lives. How can we call ourselves a democracy when we still ignore the billions worldwide who suffer and prosper from decisions the US government makes. Should they have no say in such an authority over their lives?

That's actually the ideal for many leftists, stateless - or at least transnational ("geopolitan") - democracy. But the application of Zeno's conceptual asymptote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Dichotomy_paradox) is never made as a serious philosophical argument, but as an expression of pique.

The self-flagellation is part of what makes this country great and receptive to social upheaval and change...but there is only so much to dispense before it becomes like an intellectual exercise of how can we contextualize our world in the worst of all possible lights.

???

Other political systems and cultures exist, both extant and imagined; you are falling into some American exceptionalism here.

A variant of Illliberal Democracy which comes in multiple permutations as the combinations of what makes a liberal democracy are 1 (satisfies all criteria) but illiberal can come in varying failures of specific or multiple criteria.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure this sentence means as much as you intended when you wrote it. Please rephrase.

Do the Republicans declare they want to have a separate country?

You don't have to say it explicitely. Conceptual metaphors do it for you by exposing the pattern of your thinking. I refer you to Lakoff and Johnson.

I don't. I commemorate (not celebrate) May 8th.

Don't be a racialized Chukcha (https://travelingyourdream.com/chukchi-jokes/).

Chukchi submits a novel for publication. The editor reads it and tells him, “Well, it’s not very good. You should read the classics. Have you read Turgenev? Tolstoy? Dostoevsky?”

“No, Chukchi not reader. Chukchi writer.”

Be a reader first.

If a dirty black Harlem mugger puts a gun to your face demanding your wallet, you will never be the murderer if he kills you.

They do.

Well, it's not that, it's that they want this one without us, or with us as second-class citizens under a new apartheid. To say their aim is secession is to imply that there is a "red America" that is willing and able to surrender a great deal to a "blue America."

There is no such indication. A handful, such as the intellectual Rod Drehers of the Right, claim adherence to a Benedict Option of conservative exit from temporal society, but I see no reason to think that conservatives in numbers are interested in putting themselves on a reservation to 'live and let live'. There is rather every indication of a House Divided, to become all one thing or the other.

The source, please.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/California_sea_lion_in_La_Jolla_%2870568%29.jpg/620px-California_sea_lion_in_La_Jolla_%2870568%29.jpg

Again, the CSA fantasists probably would want a separate country. I just think that isn't true of most of the rest of that crowd. They want power and control.

And I am well aware of the country v city divide in this.

The Confederate mindset is the very same essence that animates the core of the Republican Party today.

There is that famous generic sense of conservatism as promoting a law that binds, but does not protect, the outgroup, and protects, but does not bind, the ingroup. But there's more to it in the American context. It's the belief that some people are not equal or legitimate political agents, period, and that the highest end of governance or the polity itself is to immanentize that proper order of things.

Refer to the old blog entry (https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/) I quoted in an earlier post.

All of this is a long story, but IMHO you have no alternative. And if you keep saying like "The Good will triumph when we kill all bad people" it won't mend the existing divides but only deepen them.

Once again your failure to read or learn anything outside the Gilrandisphere of your navel leaves you detached from reality. But this is a good space to reorient around a more important question: How about Trump supporters appease us?

Sorry, but those dogs just won't hunt. A vote for Trump, no matter the reason, is a vote for all the horrific, authoritarian ideals he stands for. It's like saying I like a strong, dominant military even though that military might likely use nuclear weapons to resolve disputes; or that military hasn't a care for human rights violations in the course of military operations and use drone strikes indiscriminately regardless of collateral damage.

If you voted for Trump, you voted for more undermining of democracy, you voted for more government corruption, you voted for more of the same kind of divisionist populism we've had here in the last 4 years, you voted for an administration that doesn't believe in science and therefore more of "the virus is a hoax" policy, and a continuing push to hold on to, or expand the use of fossil fuels, even though you don't need a science degree to see what's been happening to our climate the last 20-30 years.

So all those reasons to have voted for Trump are complete and utter bullshit. Having said that, if I came across a person in a life threatening situation where my help could save their life, I won't be asking for their political affiliation before I offer my help. But some Trump supporter who is suffering from a situation brought about by, or amplified by Trump Administration policies....sorry, you'll get no sympathy from me.

Some of the many problems with Gil's proposals is that they do not recognize or address underlying facts of American politics that relate to political behavior, including discursive frames and identities. So he cannot begin to offer an informed opinion on any aspect of American politics. He could begin by learning, but alas he relies on preconception.

But there are some notions expressed or presumed therein that you'll find in mainstream articles by even minimally-aware commentators. They are:

1. Liberals are ethically-obligated to surrender their interests and perspectives to conservatives.
2. Liberals would be strategically-advantaged in pursuing conservative priorities.
3. The attitudes and behavior of conservative voters (especially socially-reactionary ones) are highly malleable.

Unfortunately there is rarely evidence on offer to support these (typically unstated or unexamined) premises in the context of contemporary American politics; one gets the sense that the private preferences of the commentators are being laundered through persuasion of another proposition.

Montmorency, Gilrandir... Do either of you feel like you have been dismissive of each others' geopolitical concerns, while being wildly more enthusiastic about issues that affect you directly?

This hasn't been about geopolitics? Unsurprisingly I'm as a matter of fact more concerned with American affairs than Ukrainian ones, and Gil vice versa, but the entire argument has been centered around America's domestic politics (not even geopolitics).

If you mean 'dismissive of each other's concerns" more broadly, the way to assess the question would be to compare the concerns. On one hand, I catalog (and this is just the past couple months) Republican tolerance (at least) of a plot to abduct and/or execute Michigan's governor; a Republican Senator campaigning on being "more conservative than Attila the Hun" and "eliminating the liberal scribes"; widespread Republican willingness to overthrow our ancient and established form of government; mainstream Republicans up to the President's lawyers and former high officials (and pardon recipients) warning of civil war, demanding martial law and the physical suppression of political opponents or even those perceived to be disloyal to Trump. These facts and others lead me to express well-worn prognoses about the fragility and stability of American society and government. Gil's concern is an impulse to condemn these as being intemperate and insensitive to the Republican prerogative of receiving Democratic appeasement and coddling.

I cannot help anyone who finds themselves confused at the balance.

But your question, if my construal is applicable, needn't even come up in abstract when one participant exhaustively describes and defends their position but another disregards the entirety as not worthy of engagement (yet worthy of peremption).

Montmorency

12-05-2020, 06:13

It is official: Joe Biden has won more than 7 million votes ahead of Trump (NY finally finished counting, being the slowest state in the country once again).

The immediate bad news is, the pandemic is raging out of control like never before and record numbers are dying daily with weeks to go before Christmas and the New Year drive transmission into the ultimate paroxysm.

Two House races remain undecided last I checked, one in Iowa and one in New York, both being separated by literal handfuls of ballots. These are among the closest races for federal office in American history. But it is likely that the Republicans will squeak ahead
in the end, to secure a total of 213 House seats to 222 Dem (out of 435), down from 235 in January 2019).

https://i.imgur.com/rWodbzb.png

The map depicting 2020 pop-vote margins against 2016's is mercifully-reassuring. As ACIN submitted, the available evidence suggests split-ticket voting has continued its long death through this cycle, and only Florida is a worrisome prospect into the future.

If what we're seeing is a coupling of Florida's traditional high (comparatively) turnout rate combined with an acceleration of ageing conservatives retiring there, the state could remain perpetually out of reach - especially as state Republicans are incentivized toward a norm of tapping the till in electoral administration, so to speak.

Good summary.

https://i.imgur.com/a065A08.jpg

ReluctantSamurai

12-05-2020, 06:32

Then you will leave in a besieged fortress in perennial hatred hatching plots to sally forth some day and kill the bastards.

You would make a terrible psychologist if that's how you view my existence from your analysis of my posting here. I don't hold hatred for the "bastards", but indifference with a healthy dose of disdain. I simply don't care what happens to people who are too stupid to realize what's being done to them, like the idiot in a North Dakota hospital who, dying from acute respiratory distress caused by COVID-19, was screaming at hospital staff that COVID-19 is a hoax, and he must have lung cancer or pneumonia that explained his condition. He believed what he was being told by Trump and others, and he paid for it with his life.

And the same state that gave us that, has this beauty to offer up:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/north-dakota-man-who-died-of-covid-19-wins-seat-in-state-legislature.html

Perhaps if Mr. Andahl had lived in a state that actually, you know, tried to mediate the spread of SARS-2 by wearing masks and social distancing, he might still be alive to take his seat in government...:no:

I am comfortable with myself, and I sleep very well at night. So, Dr. Gilrandir.....epic FAIL:gorgeous:

Well, it's not that, it's that they want this one without us, or with us as second-class citizens under a new apartheid.

Probably a more accurate assessment...

Liberals would be strategically-advantaged in pursuing conservative priorities.

Which is what I'm afraid the Biden Administration will do. Again, I don't have high expectations that he will get many meaningful policies enacted that actually benefit the American people or the environment, but if he leads the country out of this pandemic catastrophe, gets our economy back on a road to recovering, and repairs some of the damage done in our international relations, that's a win in my book. What's going to happen in 2024 is another story...:shrug:

I literally just hate liberals. I don't have any other politics.

Yep. That about sums up the current version of the Republican Party.

ReluctantSamurai

12-05-2020, 07:10

And the hits just keep on coming:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/03/trump-teams-discredited-witness-compared-to-snl-character

The look on Giuliani's face is priceless:

Giuliani, who sat next to Carone at the Michigan hearing, was heard shushing her as she loudly spoke over a state representative, and could be seen wincing during some of her account of witnessing fraud.

Taking her cue from the type of people she is assisting:

Carone, who has been doing the rounds on rightwing media in recent weeks, claimed on Wednesday night she “had to get rid of social media” in the wake of her public appearances. That statement also seems to be false, given a Facebook account in her name still exists on the site (https://www.facebook.com/1hAtHack).

Hehehehehe.....:clown:

Gilrandir

12-05-2020, 12:44

Don't be a racialized Chukcha (https://travelingyourdream.com/chukchi-jokes/). Be a reader first.

That's a totally unracist joke.

But this is a good space to reorient around a more important question: How about Trump supporters appease us?

They should. You both should. At least the most sober minds from both camps. But since there are no Trump supporters on these boards, I try to reason with only one party to the conflict. Were there any Trump supporters in evidence, I would say the same words to them. But you seem to think that I'm against you and for them. I'm not against or for anybody if we speak about ordinary people.

Yet appeasement is to be extended by winners first. And Biden himself said that he will be the president of both those who voted for him, and those who didn't.

But you keep rattling about Good Us and Evil Them. It shows that you aren't ready for any appeasement or even discussing it.

This hasn't been about geopolitics? Unsurprisingly I'm as a matter of fact more concerned with American affairs than Ukrainian ones, and Gil vice versa, but the entire argument has been centered around America's domestic politics (not even geopolitics).

Now we are finally in agreement.

Gil's concern is an impulse to condemn these as being intemperate and insensitive to the Republican prerogative of receiving Democratic appeasement and coddling.

My concern (although it is too strong a word, a matter deserving a friendly advice would suit better) is not parties squabbling and fighting. My - let it be - concern is ORDINARY PEOPLE who would still live side by side whether the politicians make peace or not.

You would make a terrible psychologist if that's how you view my existence from your analysis of my posting here. I don't hold hatred for the "bastards", but indifference with a healthy dose of disdain. I simply don't care what happens to people who are too stupid to realize what's being done to them,

My analysis is not a psychological one since it is grounded only on your posts. I would call it a limited psycholinguistic essay into your personality. And the language you use is far from indifference-exposing, but rather hatred-driven.

Montmorency, Gilrandir... Do either of you feel like you have been dismissive of each others' geopolitical concerns, while being wildly more enthusiastic about issues that affect you directly?

My take on our argument:

Montmorency advocates an exclusive approach to the defeated Republicans (vae victis kind of stuff), when the political losers should merge into the background, be kept isolated, disregarded and constantly reminded that their time is over.

I root for the inclusive approach where even the losers should have a chance to voice their concerns which should be addressed as far as the winners find sensible with a view to the unity of the nation.

My stance comes from the experience of living through at least two election campaigns where "kill or be killed" slogan dominated and was flaunted by both sides. But one day the elections had been over, and we (like in common people) were left to sort things out among ourselves being neighbors, colleagues, even relatives with different (or opposite if you like) political views. We realized that in our day-to-day communication we have to find a common tongue and cooperate leaving political controversies to rest. For instance, my ex-boss still believes that the events of 2014 in Ukraine were a nazi coup and the loss of Crimea is our responsibility not Russian aggression. Yet she is a very pleasant woman, we have very good relations and never mention our differences (She is quite peculiar, though: the two most hated categories of people for her are Jews and Ukrainian nazis).

So my advice to Americans is to realize that you will live next door not with Republicans or Democrats, but with neighbors who have their sentiment and political stance which shouldn't preclude you from communication and cooperation (or at least should be no reason for a conflict).

As for Montmorency: He is a judicious person. I believe that deep in his heart he begins to realize that his approach is fallacious, he can't go on hating or ignoring the sentiment of his opponenets (they are opponents, not enemies!) among average folks. His emotions are still hot but when the election frenzy subsides he will gradually regain his common sense.

There are two reasons why he still can't own up to the recognition: the person who says it and the way it is said. Our previous encounters with him formed in him a strong bias against me, so he is initally dismissive of what I say. I've been in Montmorency's shoes too when you know deep inside that your opponent is right but you keep arguing just because he is a dirty repulsive cad. And the only reason you can offer in the argument is "I just hate that guy".

The second reason is directly related to the first - he doesn't like the way I word my opinion. But being a linguist I know that most epithets he throws at me are emotionally charged words the choice of which depends on the speaker's attitude to the interlocutor. So when you don't like him you use words like "smarmy" and "condescending" while someone with at least a neutral attitude would use "courteous" and "sympathizing". Thus I only take him down a peg or two when he becomes too personal in his attacks.

But generally, I bear him no grudge understanding his emotional investment. In fact, I see in him myself of a couple of years ago when emotions clouded my judgement. So "I'm your father, Luke" (always wanted to say that phrase!).

Now ReluctantSamurai is a different story. He is an ardent revolutionary that will keep campaigning long after it is over. I think he took upon himself his nickname not for naught. He reminds me of a Japanese soldier (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25772192#:~:text=Japan%20WW2%20soldier%20who%20refused%20to%20surrender%20Hiroo%20Onoda%20dies,-17%20January%202014&text=Hiroo%20Onoda%20remained%20in%20the,that%20the%20war%20had%20ended.) who will lurk in the jungle decades after the war is over refusing to believe in it. There RS will waylay unwary passers-by and putting the hayfork to their throat demand whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. Then he will shape his course of actions depending on the response.

He imagines all Trump voters as untermenshen that deserve no quarter since they are all the same. I'm guessing he has an impersonation of a Trump voter among backward hicks that surround him against whom he has some grudge. Thus his stereotype is heavily overlaid with personal grievances.

At least, these are my impressions and I'm sure that both characters of the story will try to amend such pictures.

ReluctantSamurai

12-05-2020, 15:04

He is an ardent revolutionary that will keep campaigning long after it is over.

Actually, I won't. Revolutionary in that I believe climate change is the biggest issue facing all of humanity, and if we don't correct ourselves, and soon, we will not recognize this planet after our foolishness takes its' toll, and the ants and centipedes and scorpions reclaim their domain. I took my forum name in honor of the film 47 Ronin. I don't like to fight, but when pushed to the brink, I will resist like a warrior....so you got the Japanese part correct, at least:laugh4:

Again, you miss the mark completely in assuming I'm on some sort of crusade to hunt down Republicans. I'll repeat....I have nothing but utter disdain for the vast majority of Ever-Trumpers, and don't give a damn whether any of them live or die. And btw, it was revolutionaries that founded this country in the first place, and it will be revolutionaries that change this world, if that's even possible. Co-operation and communication is only possible when those with whom you are in conflict with want the same thing.

Thus his stereotype is heavily overlaid with personal grievances.
Ah....so now I am reduced to a simple stereotype that crouches in my castle hatching plots designed to "kill the bastards" with my pitchfork at the ready....:duel:

EPIC FAIL once again, Dr. Gilrandir, but such discussions are rather pointless and a waste of my time, so G'Day Mate~:wave:

[and btw, you're fired]

Gilrandir

12-05-2020, 15:38

Again, you miss the mark completely in assuming I'm on some sort of crusade to hunt down Republicans. I'll repeat....I have nothing but utter disdain for the vast majority of Ever-Trumpers, and don't give a damn whether any of them live or die.

Your posts and vocabulary in them caused my conclusion. And I abide by it since for me as a cognititve linguist they are more revealing signs than conscious admission that can be deliberately disguising. Although I realize that we are often being emotional and say "I will kill my brother" without actually meaning it. But again Republicans aren't your brothers, are they?

And btw, it was revolutionaries that founded this country in the first place, and it will be revolutionaries that change this world, if that's even possible.

I thought it was founded by religious fugitives ostracized from their own land.

Ah....so now I am reduced to a simple stereotype that crouches in my castle hatching plots designed to "kill the bastards" with my pitchfork at the ready....:duel:

That at least I gleaned from your posts. But I have a different image in my head: an unshaven soldier in a tattered uniform standing guard at the half-burned gate of a pilfered fort with the the rainforest lush vegetation encrouching on it from all sides. And waiting for a general to relieve him of his eternal sentry duty.

EPIC FAIL once again, Dr. Gilrandir, but such discussions are rather pointless and a waste of my time, so G'Day Mate~:wave:

[and btw, you're fired]

Don't remember being hired so can't agree to being fired. But I kinda like being called Doctor. Although being a PhD I can't say you are much amiss in you mockingly bestowing on me this unfitting (as you think) title.

ReluctantSamurai

12-05-2020, 16:38

Okaaaay. So in the interests of getting this discussion back on topic, more skullduggery in Georgia as Republicans seek to disenfranchise, and physically threaten their own:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/12/gabe-sterling-georgia-republican-trump/617295/

From Gabe Sterling, the Republican voting-system manager in Georgia:

We just had a great election. Everything’s great.” At some point, you start dealing with irrationality. [When we did the hand recount] we figured, okay, if we do this and it came out that good, surely this will kill the idea that these machines did something untoward. We were wrong. Facts and data don’t seem to really matter.

These QAnon crazies put that out on Twitter and wherever else they put it. And within minutes, they got the guy’s name. They start harassing his family members. And I talked to the Dominion project manager, and she was audibly upset when I talked to her on the phone. There had been a tweet that said with the kid’s name: “You’ve committed treason. May God have mercy on your soul,” with a GIF with a noose just swinging slightly. I mean, it was creepy. It was scary. At that point, it was like: I’m done. I mean, I took a high-profile job. I’ve had police protection outside my house for a couple of weeks. The secretary [of state] ran for office. He’s had people trespass. They’ve had caravans go around. His wife’s gotten sexualized threats. I’m not saying it’s par for the course, and no one should accept it, but when you put yourself out there, that’s going to happen.

A friend of mine who’s left-leaning says the reason we have ballots is so we don’t have to deal with bullets. If you’re saying, “Well, the ballots don’t matter anymore,” what’s the next logical step?

It’s loony tunes! It’s frickin’ loony tunes. Lin Wood and Sidney Powell got up there and said, “You should protest and not vote at all.” I mean, Lin Wood hadn’t voted in a Republican primary since 2004. And these people are listening to him because he’s wearing a MAGA hat and he won some really big verdicts. He called me out by name in the last rally, saying we’re not going to sell our votes to China. I don’t even know what the hell that means. So it’s crazy.

I think it’s going to take a lot to rebuild trust. And the problem is, when people get alienated from the process ... We’ve already seen a bifurcation—culturally, socially, economically—on a lot of these things. And populists on both sides can stoke those situations. As institutions continue to get undermined, everybody gets hurt in the long run, especially on the functionality side. From our point of view, we run good elections. We run safe and secure elections. That’s what we have to do and that’s our job. We’ll continue to follow the law. We had a state senator ask us today: “How could you certify this election with these signature matches and everything else?” And our general counsel looked at him and said, “We followed the law that your legislature passed. That’s what we did.” So we will continue to do that.

Well, maybe Charlie Daniels was right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBjPAqmnvGA

Seamus Fermanagh

12-05-2020, 17:15

Sorry, but those dogs just won't hunt. A vote for Trump, no matter the reason, is a vote for all the horrific, authoritarian ideals he stands for. It's like saying I like a strong, dominant military even though that military might likely use nuclear weapons to resolve disputes; or that military hasn't a care for human rights violations in the course of military operations and use drone strikes indiscriminately regardless of collateral damage.

If you voted for Trump, you voted for more undermining of democracy, you voted for more government corruption, you voted for more of the same kind of divisionist populism we've had here in the last 4 years, you voted for an administration that doesn't believe in science and therefore more of "the virus is a hoax" policy, and a continuing push to hold on to, or expand the use of fossil fuels, even though you don't need a science degree to see what's been happening to our climate the last 20-30 years.

So all those reasons to have voted for Trump are complete and utter bullshit. Having said that, if I came across a person in a life threatening situation where my help could save their life, I won't be asking for their political affiliation before I offer my help. But some Trump supporter who is suffering from a situation brought about by, or amplified by Trump Administration policies....sorry, you'll get no sympathy from me.

There ARE people who voted for him just because he had an R after his name. That they put party over country and community is pig-ignorant and/or morally reprehensible, but I am fairly certain such occurred.

I personally know at least one Florida voter who pulled the lever for Trump -- despite thinking him a vile person -- because 'his policies benefit small business (she owns one) and because Trump is pro-life. No matter how much my wife and I pointed out that his policies were NOT targeted on small business, only benefiting them because it made profits easier for all businesses (much to the added pelf of the big corps and 1% even more than our small business friend) and that his pro-life judges were probably selected more for their economic than their social conservatism. These policies benefited the business, so the vote was cast for a bad candidate anyway.

Sadly, some of the voters did vote for him because he looked/sounded/behaved as they would if they had that much money and power.

So, while neither you nor I find these reasons sufficient to deem those voters less morally culpable for the ills of this thankfully out-going President, I must note that Gil' was correct that these reasons WERE reasons that prompted a number of the Trump voters.

Sadly, far too large a cadre of Trump's support are "deplorables," and as I have noted elsewhere they are in the ascendant in the GOP. Which is why, as of yesterday when renewing my license, I am no longer affiliated with that party (and did not vote for a single one of the rapscallions in the past election. The first no GOP vote ballot I had ever cast).

Seamus Fermanagh

12-05-2020, 17:21

I thought it was founded by religious fugitives ostracized from their own land.

The colonies of Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, & Rhode Island were founded by religious groups seeking a chance to worship as they saw fit. None of these religious communities remained in charge of those colonies at the time we sought independence.

Edit: Post-independence the Latter Day Saints went west to found their own republic. When Utah later sought statehood they were forced to alter their religion to gain admission. Ironic, given that some of our founding colonies were themselves religious separatists and that the 1st amendment had been adopted well prior to the persecution of the LDS.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-05-2020, 19:43

Just watching interviewees on CNN who are publicly expressing their belief that Trump can still get this vote overturned and be returned to office.

My mind is boggled by this.

spmetla

12-05-2020, 20:20

You're not alone in being bewildered. I never thought I'd spend so much time having to fact check friends and some family on what is 'real' only to have it all dismissed by being "fake news" or "deep state propaganda" if they don't agree.

It's the same disconnect with COVID, my elderly mom honestly thinks COVID is just a hoax by Bill Gates and the corporations to sell vaccines while they track and sterilize us. Arguing with a loved one about what is 'real' is just crazy and depressing. I feel like I'm arguing about religious or philosophical differences instead of the provable factual things that these are.

How does one reach and convince people that live in an alternate reality?

ReluctantSamurai

12-05-2020, 22:23

There ARE people who voted for him just because he had an R after his name.

I am well aware of that, and I'm not arguing against it. However, you cannot just vote for the part of Trump you like...you get the whole disgusting package. Do all those "other" reasons outweigh the bad? Apparently so for 74 million Americans.

Just watching interviewees on CNN who are publicly expressing their belief that Trump can still get this vote overturned and be returned to office.

That this sort of rhetoric is supported by a whole lot of people who don't care about democracy anymore, bodes not very good for our future. You vote so you don't have to use bullets to resolve issues. If you take away the right to vote, what's left?

Arguing with a loved one about what is 'real' is just crazy and depressing.

Feel you on that one. My sister and a cousin are both die-hard Ever-Trumpers. I had to block my cousins phone # because she kept blowing my phone up with Trump tweets/retweets, even though we had an agreement to not talk politics, an agreement which my sister thankfully respects. My cousin is beyond hope. My sister and I can carry on a conversation for hours, as long as it doesn't involve politics.

My cousin is the perfect example of those living in another world. I cannot get more than a few sentences in before she flips the conversation to the latest conspiracy. So we don't speak anymore. The only sad part about that is she lives with her mother who happens to be my absolute favorite aunt since I was a kid. My aunt is 87 with a number of health issues, and my cousin is going to kill her some day because "COVID-19 is a hoax, and vaccines are a plot by Bill Gates to insert nano-bots in our brains to control us." :embarassed:

a completely inoffensive name

12-06-2020, 00:12

Sorry, but those dogs just won't hunt. A vote for Trump, no matter the reason, is a vote for all the horrific, authoritarian ideals he stands for. It's like saying I like a strong, dominant military even though that military might likely use nuclear weapons to resolve disputes; or that military hasn't a care for human rights violations in the course of military operations and use drone strikes indiscriminately regardless of collateral damage.

If you voted for Trump, you voted for more undermining of democracy, you voted for more government corruption, you voted for more of the same kind of divisionist populism we've had here in the last 4 years, you voted for an administration that doesn't believe in science and therefore more of "the virus is a hoax" policy, and a continuing push to hold on to, or expand the use of fossil fuels, even though you don't need a science degree to see what's been happening to our climate the last 20-30 years.

So all those reasons to have voted for Trump are complete and utter bullshit. Having said that, if I came across a person in a life threatening situation where my help could save their life, I won't be asking for their political affiliation before I offer my help. But some Trump supporter who is suffering from a situation brought about by, or amplified by Trump Administration policies....sorry, you'll get no sympathy from me.

Many genuinely believe voting for Trump was the opposite of everything you said. They think they are draining the swamp, they think they are standing up for security in the face of political correctness, they think the science is on their side.

This is exactly the attitude that reinforces the current dilemma. We assume these people have the same field of view as us and attribute their decisions as malice. In the end you only have two options to gain another vote, convince someone or remove someone. Anyone arguing to dismiss a voter as hopeless is implicitly arguing for something more horrific. This is why we can not give up on people and we certainly can not boil down each voter's preferences, ideologies and personalities to a single vote.

a completely inoffensive name

12-06-2020, 00:19

My take on our argument:

Montmorency advocates an exclusive approach to the defeated Republicans (vae victis kind of stuff), when the political losers should merge into the background, be kept isolated, disregarded and constantly reminded that their time is over.

I root for the inclusive approach where even the losers should have a chance to voice their concerns which should be addressed as far as the winners find sensible with a view to the unity of the nation.

My stance comes from the experience of living through at least two election campaigns where "kill or be killed" slogan dominated and was flaunted by both sides. But one day the elections had been over, and we (like in common people) were left to sort things out among ourselves being neighbors, colleagues, even relatives with different (or opposite if you like) political views. We realized that in our day-to-day communication we have to find a common tongue and cooperate leaving political controversies to rest. For instance, my ex-boss still believes that the events of 2014 in Ukraine were a nazi coup and the loss of Crimea is our responsibility not Russian aggression. Yet she is a very pleasant woman, we have very good relations and never mention our differences (She is quite peculiar, though: the two most hated categories of people for her are Jews and Ukrainian nazis).

So my advice to Americans is to realize that you will live next door not with Republicans or Democrats, but with neighbors who have their sentiment and political stance which shouldn't preclude you from communication and cooperation (or at least should be no reason for a conflict).

As for Montmorency: He is a judicious person. I believe that deep in his heart he begins to realize that his approach is fallacious, he can't go on hating or ignoring the sentiment of his opponenets (they are opponents, not enemies!) among average folks. His emotions are still hot but when the election frenzy subsides he will gradually regain his common sense.

There are two reasons why he still can't own up to the recognition: the person who says it and the way it is said. Our previous encounters with him formed in him a strong bias against me, so he is initally dismissive of what I say. I've been in Montmorency's shoes too when you know deep inside that your opponent is right but you keep arguing just because he is a dirty repulsive cad. And the only reason you can offer in the argument is "I just hate that guy".

The second reason is directly related to the first - he doesn't like the way I word my opinion. But being a linguist I know that most epithets he throws at me are emotionally charged words the choice of which depends on the speaker's attitude to the interlocutor. So when you don't like him you use words like "smarmy" and "condescending" while someone with at least a neutral attitude would use "courteous" and "sympathizing". Thus I only take him down a peg or two when he becomes too personal in his attacks.

But generally, I bear him no grudge understanding his emotional investment. In fact, I see in him myself of a couple of years ago when emotions clouded my judgement. So "I'm your father, Luke" (always wanted to say that phrase!).

Now ReluctantSamurai is a different story. He is an ardent revolutionary that will keep campaigning long after it is over. I think he took upon himself his nickname not for naught. He reminds me of a Japanese soldier (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25772192#:~:text=Japan%20WW2%20soldier%20who%20refused%20to%20surrender%20Hiroo%20Onoda%20dies,-17%20January%202014&text=Hiroo%20Onoda%20remained%20in%20the,that%20the%20war%20had%20ended.) who will lurk in the jungle decades after the war is over refusing to believe in it. There RS will waylay unwary passers-by and putting the hayfork to their throat demand whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. Then he will shape his course of actions depending on the response.

He imagines all Trump voters as untermenshen that deserve no quarter since they are all the same. I'm guessing he has an impersonation of a Trump voter among backward hicks that surround him against whom he has some grudge. Thus his stereotype is heavily overlaid with personal grievances.

At least, these are my impressions and I'm sure that both characters of the story will try to amend such pictures.

Yo, what about me, I love it when people talk about me

a completely inoffensive name

12-06-2020, 00:27

How does one reach and convince people that live in an alternate reality?

Spend more time with them so they spend less time on the internet and fox news.

a completely inoffensive name

12-06-2020, 00:34

One more thing to note, since the election I have felt guilty that in Stellaris you can set up an ideal democratic space society but game mechanics still allow you to spend 'influence points' to skew the chances in favor of a candidate. I have now modded the game to prevent my United Nations of Earth from any such manipulations by myself as the shadow ruler.

Montmorency

12-06-2020, 05:00

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-expenses/trump-campaign-spent-more-than-2-million-on-election-lawyers-including-jenna-ellis-idUSKBN28E2VG

The FEC filing, which covers the period from Oct. 15 through Nov. 23, classified about $8.8 million in expenses as “recount” related.

Legal consulting was the campaign’s second-biggest recount expense, according to the disclosure report. The first was $3 million to pay the cost of a partial recount in Wisconsin that ended up increasing Biden’s lead by 87 votes. The third largest recount expense was nearly $2.2 million for text message advertising as the campaign bombarded his supporters with requests for money.

Hahaha

The legal effort has been a powerful fundraising tool. Trump’s campaign reported that it had raised more than $207 million since the election.

The bust-out, of course.

They should. You both should. At least the most sober minds from both camps. But since there are no Trump supporters on these boards, I try to reason with only one party to the conflict. Were there any Trump supporters in evidence, I would say the same words to them. But you seem to think that I'm against you and for them. I'm not against or for anybody if we speak about ordinary people.

You seem to be for nonsense and against truth or evidence, or you would refer to the latter. But the crux of the matter is that in principle all interested groups in a society should appease each other, and indeed this is the intended accommodative function of participatory democracy. That is what most Republicans reject and what most Democrats support. I reject the replacement of liberal democracy with authoritarian minority rule; my desire is to secure social peace where the forces of Reaction seek to disrupt it.

How can there be conciliation if only one side wants it?

You take unlimited issue with just one of these, on false pretenses and without regard to any actual facts of the matter.

Your choices are your choices.

But you keep rattling about Good Us and Evil Them. It shows that you aren't ready for any appeasement or even discussing it.

That is a lie. I refer to specific actions and belief systems that damage the country. One side wants to expand economic relief and healthcare in a recession and the other demands blood to satisfy the injury it believes the first has contrived against it. The first part of that injury being a Communist Deep State conspiracy to steal the presidency. It is wrong to appease such and your desire to have me appease them places you in support of fascism and therefore in support of conflict.

You, of course, have never hesitated to howl whenever anyone suggested Ukraine make unilateral concessions to Russia. How about you just vote to be reabsorbed into Russia, or at least rejoin the CIS with reduced governmental sovereignty. I'm 100% sure that will reduce squabbling and fighting, so your refusal to support that course makes you a fanatical enemy of peace.

What is objectionable in the above? I'll tell you what, that it is a grotesque and abusive deception in all aspects. I wish you wouldn't succumb to those. There is no reason why Ukraine should need to surrender itself to appease anyone, it is not the major cause of the conflict or its continuation, and to the extent a policy of surrender is possible it will not resolve the conflict anyway.

My concern (although it is too strong a word, a matter deserving a friendly advice would suit better) is not parties squabbling and fighting. My - let it be - concern is ORDINARY PEOPLE who would still live side by side whether the politicians make peace or not.

You never identify these ordinary people and or your concern for them. What is going to happen? Who is doing what? There is only one side where ordinary people are in support of mass violence and political domination. Look there to find the locus of squabbling and fighting.

What friendly advice would you have had for the German Jews in the 1930s ? This isn't a trick question. I'm not asking anything complicated or spicy, like about the Tigray in Ethiopia. I demand you answer the question directly, as a test of your principles.

Montmorency advocates an exclusive approach to the defeated Republicans (vae victis kind of stuff), when the political losers should merge into the background, be kept isolated, disregarded and constantly reminded that their time is over.

That is a lie. You describe the Republican approach. It is unjust and unjustifiable to turn it onto me if your purpose is something other than harassment.

I root for the inclusive approach where even the losers should have a chance to voice their concerns which should be addressed as far as the winners find sensible with a view to the unity of the nation.

A fine principle. One problem is that you never apply this principle analytically to American politics.

So my advice to Americans is to realize that you will live next door not with Republicans or Democrats, but with neighbors who have their sentiment and political stance which shouldn't preclude you from communication and cooperation (or at least should be no reason for a conflict).

You're talking to the wrong person, which is a realization you ought to take seriously if you care about the things you claim to care about.

My stance comes from the experience of living through at least two election campaigns where "kill or be killed" slogan dominated and was flaunted by both sides. But one day the elections had been over, and we (like in common people) were left to sort things out among ourselves being neighbors, colleagues, even relatives with different (or opposite if you like) political views. We realized that in our day-to-day communication we have to find a common tongue and cooperate leaving political controversies to rest. For instance, my ex-boss still believes that the events of 2014 in Ukraine were a nazi coup and the loss of Crimea is our responsibility not Russian aggression. Yet she is a very pleasant woman, we have very good relations and never mention our differences (She is quite peculiar, though: the two most hated categories of people for her are Jews and Ukrainian nazis).

That's very nice for you, but your bromides fail to take into account some obvious facts:

1. Ukraine remains embroiled in a frozen civil war. Ignoring the situation doesn't make it go away; resolving the struggle between internal and external power bases makes it go away.
2. Historically political controversies are not bound to rest (which is almost tautological with even a moment's consideration).
2.a. Conflicts escalate all the time.

Ukrainian-affinity Ukranians don't have much power to impose their vision, between the need for Western support, the options available to disaffected Russian-affinity Ukrainians, and the geopolitical posture of Russia. Therefore they have their own tight line to walk. It would be a mockery of millions to reduce the matter to an imperative for "ordinary people" to strive toward a Potemkin country that cannot exist by its own nature.

You offer nothing toward resolving real-world conflicts in or out of America, other than a not-so-tacit recommendation that the less aggressive factions submit unconditionally to the more aggressive ones. That's what you're doing for the American context, though you would never accept such terms in your own.

Apparently you would be cheering for BLM had the protesters been demanding civil war, to be consistent - right? Nah, you expressed alarm about a black militia in a conversation laying out extensive white police and militia aggression.

Even now nothing can move you beyond your realm of personal comfort. But your personal comfort is not a factor in resolving societal or civilizational conflicts, or even in adjudicating reality.

It's OK to be partial, but you have to be able to defend yourself on the merits rather than relying on distortion, deflection, and dismissal of uncomfortable facts. If you have such a low opinion of black folk and such a high one of white folk, justify that. If you think fascists have the higher standing and deserve the higher consideration than liberals, justify that. Don't unjustly accuse others of your own flaws to paper over a lack of an argument.

As for Montmorency: He is a judicious person. I believe that deep in his heart he begins to realize that his approach is fallacious, he can't go on hating or ignoring the sentiment of his opponenets (they are opponents, not enemies!) among average folks. His emotions are still hot but when the election frenzy subsides he will gradually regain his common sense.

Don't you feel shame? You insult me over and over while refusing to care even a little about getting something right. Someone who doesn't care about right or wrong, factually or ethically, is contemptible.

There are two reasons why he still can't own up to the recognition: the person who says it and the way it is said. Our previous encounters with him formed in him a strong bias against me, so he is initally dismissive of what I say. I've been in Montmorency's shoes too when you know deep inside that your opponent is right but you keep arguing just because he is a dirty repulsive cad. And the only reason you can offer in the argument is "I just hate that guy".

Exact inverse of the truth.

The second reason is directly related to the first - he doesn't like the way I word my opinion.

Your opinions are beyond specious, they're invalid. No matter how many times I point that out to you, you refuse to read and respond. You proceed only from an internal ideal form, responsive to your own fixed self-regard, rather than anything external or objective.

To do that over and over is infliction of stupidity on the interlocutor to the point of insult. You thereby destroy any possibility of collaborative civil discourse, ironically.

At least, these are my impressions and I'm sure that both characters of the story will try to amend such pictures.

In conclusion, you are unrepentantly full of crap.

That Harlem mugger has you by the neck yet you would have me insist that you are killing yourself.

since for me as a cognititve linguist

Prove that you sustain the native intelligence necessary to represent the discipline. At any rate I feel sorry for your students who have a teacher who holds himself to a lower standard than he would them.

Think hard about how you wish to proceed as I will disregard any comment that doesn't contain:

1. Evidence
2. An argument

You would make a terrible psychologist if that's how you view my existence from your analysis of my posting here. I don't hold hatred for the "bastards", but indifference with a healthy dose of disdain. I simply don't care what happens to people who are too stupid to realize what's being done to them,

More than the cluelessness is the revolting injustice of falsely calling out leftists for the manifest flaws of the Republicans themselves, who are instead owed our legitimacy and appeasement. Hier ist kein warum I guess.

Being an American leftist comes with the heavy responsibility of giving a care about the people who want you dead. Like Doctors Without Borders in a Taliban stronghold, I don't want Republican common clay to suffer; I just want to hold their heads and guns down as we deliver them high-quality healthcare, education, and infrastructure. As always, we are beholden to the (liberally-biased) reality of the common good and the common doom. :worried:

There ARE people who voted for him just because he had an R after his name. That they put party over country and community is pig-ignorant and/or morally reprehensible, but I am fairly certain such occurred

There's a sense of 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' with such motivations. One way to see it is that there is a subset of people who strongly prioritize deregulation, tax cuts (nb. this person is very likely to have tax increases phase in on them under the 2017 law), or single issues like abortion or furthering the power of the Republican party. But the flipside of the selfsame is that these people are at least accepting of fascist accumulation of power, demonization of political or cultural difference, wild incompetence and corruption, performative cruelty, and tangible injury to the American polity and common weal (among other things).

IMO for the vast majority it boils down to the 4chan screenshot I posted above, though "hate liberals" should be modified to "hate/fear." Unreasoned fear and disgust are inescapable threads of Republican sentiment when it comes to anything liberal or Democratic.

Sadly, far too large a cadre of Trump's support are "deplorables," and as I have noted elsewhere they are in the ascendant in the GOP. Which is why, as of yesterday when renewing my license, I am no longer affiliated with that party (and did not vote for a single one of the rapscallions in the past election. The first no GOP vote ballot I had ever cast).

Thank you.

Okaaaay. So in the interests of getting this discussion back on topic, more skullduggery in Georgia as Republicans seek to disenfranchise, and physically threaten their own:

Gabe Sterling was fomenting outrage about Democratic "voter fraud" during the Obama admin. Now he gets death threats from fanatics who believe who assisted a massive conspiracy to fraudulently interfere with the election against his party.
https://twitter.com/Lollardfish/status/1334020024563019777

We have to bear in mind that, eventually, for there to be reconciliation there must be truth, and accountability, and liability.

Me sowing (https://twitter.com/screaminbutcalm/status/1105577845642878976): Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!

Me reaping: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

The colonies of Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, & Rhode Island were founded by religious groups seeking a chance to worship as they saw fit. None of these religious communities remained in charge of those colonies at the time we sought independence.

Edit: Post-independence the Latter Day Saints went west to found their own republic. When Utah later sought statehood they were forced to alter their religion to gain admission. Ironic, given that some of our founding colonies were themselves religious separatists and that the 1st amendment had been adopted well prior to the persecution of the LDS.

The description applies for Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, but Massachusetts and Connecticut were founded by exclusionary conservative theocrats (think Oliver Cromwell). Rhode Island was founded by exiles from Massachusetts. Only the Pennsylvania Quakers and Rhode Island Baptists were halfway decent in their relations among themselves and with outsiders.

I exclude Maryland because, interestingly, Catholics were always a tiny minority there during colonial times, within a generation of founding there was persistent sectarian violence, and after two generations the Protestant majority overpowered the Catholics and repressed them.

Many genuinely believe voting for Trump was the opposite of everything you said. They think they are draining the swamp, they think they are standing up for security in the face of political correctness, they think the science is on their side.

This is exactly the attitude that reinforces the current dilemma. We assume these people have the same field of view as us and attribute their decisions as malice. In the end you only have two options to gain another vote, convince someone or remove someone. Anyone arguing to dismiss a voter as hopeless is implicitly arguing for something more horrific. This is why we can not give up on people and

Two things are true at the same time:

1. Most of these people are hopeless, as was the case in analogous historical episodes.
2. We have a self-interested responsibility to try to deactivate some of them
2.a. This isn't an individual-level responsibility, just as there is no obligation for anyone to be another's friend or lover.

When you note the self-justifying discursive frames Republicans may adopt, though, you must realize that none of that is exclusive of malice. But you should have noticed by now that conscious cruelty is essential to this movement. Cruelty in the name of capitalism, the (secret Republican) Constitution, the (secret Republican) Bible, security for the existence of their people and a future for their children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words), is still cruelty.

Let's be real, the best-case scenario is that we win enough elections and suppress Republican malfeasance sufficiently that pressure can be released from some of the existential problems facing the country and world (which themselves do in part contribute to the intensity of the Republican philosophy). That's the best case.

we certainly can not boil down each voter's preferences, ideologies and personalities to a single vote.

In 21st century America it is the defining factor. Partisan sorting, partisan hyperpolarization, and negative partisanship (all of which are historically and geographically-contingent) make it so. It wasn't always like this. In most societies it isn't like this (if only because the role of party organizations in sectarianism is different). It is what it is. There is a fundamental clash of values and epistemologies here in a way that has rarely existed on the world stage (capitalism vs. Communism can't compare); wishful thinking won't change that.

In these trying times we increasingly cannot AFFORD to cultivate analysis of dreams rather than realities.

Gilrandir

12-06-2020, 07:48

The colonies of Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, & Rhode Island were founded by religious groups seeking a chance to worship as they saw fit. None of these religious communities remained in charge of those colonies at the time we sought independence.

Evidently, there is a question what can be considered the foundation of the country - the initial pilgrim settlement or gaining independence.

Yo, what about me, I love it when people talk about me

Beside calling me names you didn't participate in the disussion, so I can't size you up.

my desire is to secure social peace where the forces of Reaction seek to disrupt it.

In what way? By disregarding the conerns of 40% of voters? That's rich.

How can there be conciliation if only one side wants it?

Judging by what you say and how you say it, you don't want it either.

That is a lie. I refer to specific actions and belief systems that damage the country. One side wants to expand economic relief and healthcare in a recession and the other demands blood to satisfy the injury it believes the first has contrived against it. The first part of that injury being a Communist Deep State conspiracy to steal the presidency. It is wrong to appease such and your desire to have me appease them places you in support of fascism and therefore in support of conflict.

You still don't make difference between the Republican party and ordinary people who voted for them. The latter are not a uniform group with one purpose in their mind. There are decent people among them who have their honest concerns and aspirations. These are recommended to heed if you want to have civil peace, as you claim.

You, of course, have never hesitated to howl whenever anyone suggested Ukraine make unilateral concessions to Russia. How about you just vote to be reabsorbed into Russia, or at least rejoin the CIS with reduced governmental sovereignty. I'm 100% sure that will reduce squabbling and fighting, so your refusal to support that course makes you a fanatical enemy of peace.

What is objectionable in the above? I'll tell you what, that it is a grotesque and abusive deception in all aspects. I wish you wouldn't succumb to those. There is no reason why Ukraine should need to surrender itself to appease anyone, it is not the major cause of the conflict or its continuation, and to the extent a policy of surrender is possible it will not resolve the conflict anyway.

Again Ukraine. :no:

It is a fallacious approach again.
First of all, I speak of BOTH sides making steps to agreement, and you of unilateral concessions.

Then, one can't draw analogies between internal tensions within a democracy with a 200-year history behind them and a young fledgling country under the attack of a predator neighbor. For you, inclusion is a means of reconciliation within the country, for us any concession (at least those that Russia has in mind) spells the end of the country.

You never identify these ordinary people and or your concern for them. What is going to happen? Who is doing what? There is only one side where ordinary people are in support of mass violence and political domination. Look there to find the locus of squabbling and fighting.

Judging from your and ReluctantSamurai's blood-thirsty vocabulary, anything may happen. But the likeliest picture is giving a cold shoulder to those who you identify as Republican voters on a simple reason that all of them "are in support of mass violence and political domination" with subsequent estrangement and siloing of both camps.

What friendly advice would you have had for the German Jews in the 1930s ? This isn't a trick question. I'm not asking anything complicated or spicy, like about the Tigray in Ethiopia. I demand you answer the question directly, as a test of your principles.

Again a flawed comparison. By drawing it you present yourself and your supporters as people being hunted and sent to concentration camps which is definitely and exaggeration. Are there any pogroms of Democratic voters being planned or having been executed? What you present as life-or-death fight doesn't qualify as one. When the transition of power is finalized, the passions will die down and you wil return to normalcy. Or should return if you take steps to maintaining rapport with your political adversaries (which you evidently consider your enemies).

That is a lie. You describe the Republican approach. It is unjust and unjustifiable to turn it onto me if your purpose is something other than harassment.

My approach is neither Republican nor Democratic. It's common-sensical. But you keep propelling he-that-is-not-with-us-is-against-us approach. Which is contrary to what your new leader said, by the way.

Ukraine remains embroiled in a frozen civil war.

Let me adopt your way of communicating:

That is a lie. You describe the Republican Russian approach.

Conflicts escalate all the time.

Wrong. Look at Cyprus or Moldova. Conflicts escalate as a rule when some stakeholder is interested in it.

You offer nothing toward resolving real-world conflicts in or out of America, other than a not-so-tacit recommendation that the less aggressive factions submit unconditionally to the more aggressive ones.

Wrong. In post #705 I adumbrated possible directions along which you are to move.

Apparently you would be cheering for BLM had the protesters been demanding civil war, to be consistent - right? Nah, you expressed alarm about a black militia in a conversation laying out extensive white police and militia aggression.

You more than once pointed to my mental deficiencies and stubborness, but you keep saying things that point to the same. I more than once expressed my repulsion of ANY violence aimed at innocent people (be it black or white). But you keep repeating the misconception you pasted on me and hanging the dog for a bad name you gave.

If you have such a low opinion of black folk and such a high one of white folk, justify that. If you think fascists have the higher standing and deserve the higher consideration than liberals, justify that.

See above. But generally, it is funny to hear any accusations of racism from a person who indulges in racist jokes.

Don't you feel shame? You insult me over and over while refusing to care even a little about getting something right. Someone who doesn't care about right or wrong, factually or ethically, is contemptible.

I insult you only in response. And if someone having his own opinion which doesn't coincide with yours is an insult, well, I'm starting to believe that you are in for a life-or-death fight with your political opponents.

You thereby destroy any possibility of collaborative civil discourse, ironically.

I don't need it, while you do - collaborative civil discourse WITHIN YOUR COUNTRY.

That Harlem mugger has you by the neck yet you would have me insist that you are killing yourself.

The metaphor is wrong as Harlem as safe as the Vatican at noon, as you claim.

At any rate I feel sorry for your students who have a teacher who holds himself to a lower standard than he would them.

And I feel sorry for the country where the Good side (as you claim) is so intolerant and aggressive towards all dissident.

Think hard about how you wish to proceed as I will disregard any comment that doesn't contain:

1. Evidence
2. An argument

My chief argument: the evidence from a personnaly-interested stakeholder isn't considered valid at court thus it shouldn't be considered serious here either. Why should I unquestioningly side with you if I
1) didn't hear the Republican take on the conflict.
2) see your aggression towards opponents.
3) witness your emotions prevail over common sense.

In 21st century America it is the defining factor. Partisan sorting, partisan hyperpolarization, and negative partisanship (all of which are historically and geographically-contingent) make it so.

Which is what you further by your attitude.

ReluctantSamurai

12-06-2020, 08:56

Beside calling me names you didn't participate in the disussion, so I can't size you up.

Ahhh....here comes Dr. Phil again:rolleyes:

The latter are not a uniform group with one purpose in their mind. There are decent people among them who have their honest concerns and aspirations

I don't think that either Monty or I have stated that there aren't decent people calling themselves Republicans. There are plenty of examples in the news today, where GOP politicians are standing up for democracy in defiance of the Trump Way, which I support despite some of their other agendas which I oppose.

Judging from your and ReluctantSamurai's blood-thirsty vocabulary

So now I've gone from fanatical jungle Japanese soldier waiting to be freed by command central, to blood-thirsty (insert whatever fits here).

Are there any pogroms of Democratic voters being planned or having been executed? What you present as life-or-death fight doesn't qualify as one.

You apparently missed these, so I'll repost them:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/01/trump-lawyer-joe-digenova-election-security-chief-chris-krebs-shot

“Anybody who thinks the election went well,” he said, “like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity, that guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” “You know, they’re going to have to be dealt with politically. It’s the only way you deal with these people.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html

Bannon during the podcast said, "Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci." "Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man," Bannon continued. "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone – time to stop playing games." "Blow it all up, put Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right," Bannon said.

And Monty and I are the bloodthirsty ones??

How about these two:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

Roger Stone, whose 40-month prison sentence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/20/roger-stone-sentence-judge-refuses-new-trial-request) for lying to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation was commuted by Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/11/roger-stone-donald-trump-commutation-outrage), has said Trump should seize total power and jail prominent figures including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg if he loses to Joe Biden in November.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-flynn-martial-law-new-election_n_5fc7d3e6c5b6f3fe59724a45

Michael Flynn (https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/michael-flynn), President Donald Trump’s (https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/donald-trump) former national security adviser who was pardoned by the president last week for lying during the Russia investigation, wants Trump to declare martial law (https://www.huffpost.com/topic/martial-law) and “temporarily suspend the Constitution” until a new election is held. Flynn, who had been awaiting sentencing for (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pardon-michael-flynn_n_5a216c7fe4b03350e0b64a66)lying to the FBI (https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/fbi) about his Russian contacts before Trump’s pardon, on Tuesday retweeted a news release from a right-wing Ohio group called We The People Convention asking the president to declare martial law so troops can supervise a do-over of the 2020 election. Flynn tagged many conservative celebs in his post and added: “Freedom never kneels except for God.”

So what part of "Trump should seize total power and jail prominent figures" and "temporarily suspend the Constitution until a new election is held" and having troops supervise a "do-over" of the 2020 election, don't you understand?? You don't. You haven't a clue.

I more than once expressed my repulsion of ANY violence aimed at innocent people (be it black or white). But you keep repeating the misconception you pasted on me and hanging the dog for a bad name you gave.

And yet the four people I just referenced (all former members of the Trump Administration in one capacity or another), all want to do violence on innocent people. Why do you never reference them? You keep repeating the mantra that you stand for "both sides" without recognizing that important, and powerful people want to do physical and undemocratic harm to others. Such a hypocrite.

I'm simply tired of your condescending, preacher-from-the-pulpit way of discussing, and so I'm opting out (@Hooahguy---my last rant on the matter). Funny you never seem to post anything original or thought provoking, but instead relish in smarmy rhetoric in reply to something someone else said. Well, I'm done with it. Y'all can find me over on the COVID thread, or the Climate thread....I'm pretty much done with this one.

Gilrandir

12-06-2020, 09:56

Ahhh....here comes Dr. Phil again:rolleyes:

You fired me and now are jealous that someone else wants my services?

And Dr. Phil is like in Punxsutawney Phil?

I don't think that either Monty or I have stated that there aren't decent people calling themselves Republicans. There are plenty of examples in the news today, where GOP politicians are standing up for democracy in defiance of the Trump Way, which I support despite some of their other agendas which I oppose.

You said that you don't care why they voted for Trump, but if they did they are all the same to you. But again, you talk of decent GOP politicians, not of ordinary drivers or nurses who voted for Trump.

So now I've gone from fanatical jungle Japanese soldier waiting to be freed by command central, to blood-thirsty (insert whatever fits here).

One doesn't exclude the other. Remember the hayfork and waylaying of unwary strangers?

You apparently missed these, so I'll repost them:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/01/trump-lawyer-joe-digenova-election-security-chief-chris-krebs-shot

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html

And Monty and I are the bloodthirsty ones??

Both you and those ones. You don't notice it but your rhetoric is strikingly similar. And why do you think you are better? Because you want to hang them for a noble cause?

How about these two:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-flynn-martial-law-new-election_n_5fc7d3e6c5b6f3fe59724a45

So what part of "Trump should seize total power and jail prominent figures" and "temporarily suspend the Constitution until a new election is held" and having troops supervise a "do-over" of the 2020 election, don't you understand?? You don't. You haven't a clue.

And yet the four people I just referenced (all former members of the Trump Administration in one capacity or another), all want to do violence on innocent people. Why do you never reference them?

Okay, they want you to die. And? Any steps in this direction? Any pogroms, arrests, executions?
Just empty words and threats - just like what we hear from the opposite side. If those are crimes, sue them and persecute them. Otherwise, your vocabulary is the same.

I'm sure that in a couple of months when the frenzy ebbs, everybody will forget about these words. As you would repent of yours - even now you try to pretend you didn't mean any evil to all of your opponents.

You keep repeating the mantra that you stand for "both sides" without recognizing that important, and powerful people want to do physical and undemocratic harm to others. Such a hypocrite.

Again a lie. I stand for NO SIDE. My concern is ordinary people who remeber about their political preferences a day before elections and forget about them a day after. But if your opponenets want to do some terribel things, WANTING is not a crime. Just railings of the side that lost. Which isn't represented on these boards to say anything in its defense, by the way. If they do something that is qualified as a crime, imprison them.

I'm simply tired of your condescending, preacher-from-the-pulpit way of discussing, and so I'm opting out (@Hooahguy---my last rant on the matter).

First you demand that I offer some concrete steps, and when I do you think that I preach. A very consistent position.

Funny you never seem to post anything original or thought provoking, but instead relish in smarmy rhetoric in reply to something someone else said.

It is the key word here.

Gilrandir

12-06-2020, 11:55

Found some articles which maintain that Democrats aren't lily-white fighters for a good cause as some people here would like to present. Or at least there is another side to the story which is far from being a black-or-white matter (no race implication whatsoever).
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-sore-loser-hypocrisy-damaging-democracy-opinion-1546118
https://www.theitem.com/stories/democratic-party-has-stooped-to-bullying-republicans,310361
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-haters-democratic-party-0710-story.html
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2017/10/liberals-respond-usual-bullying/
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-handle-political-bullying-on-facebook-4117108

So the arguments like "we aren't like the evil them" don't work.

spmetla

12-06-2020, 20:19

I don't think anyone here sees the Democrats as the "good guys" but more just the normal old politics of a decade ago. Corruption, gerrymandering, pandering to the more 'extreme' elements, willfully ignoring hypocrisies and so forth are just as present in the Democratic Party as it is in the Republican. Harry Reid's changing the rules in the Senate to not need to work with the Republicans led to McConnell being able to railroad Supreme court nominations without any Democrats.

There is very much a cultural war going on in the US, the most fanatical are the progressive/SJW/anarchist or democratic-socialists which are opposed by the the reactionary/christian-nationalist/ militia group pseudo fascists on the right.

Both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

I don't think anyone here doubts that if Trump had won there'd be the usual riots and protests against his victory in the usual slate of cities. These can be dangerous but they are not a threat to representative democracy though they can be problematic and dangerous too.

The current "Trump Wing" of the Republican Party however is a threat to the nation's democratic norms, the current disavowal of election results and willingness to look for ways to overturn democratic results to have their guy in office is a danger. The death threats against their own party members who are just following the law is evidence of the danger to this, the militia group in Michigan wanting to kidnap and kill Democratic officials just demonstrates how much of a threat it is. The 'Trump Army' is thankfully not as well organized as the the Nazi SA but this trend of accepting violence to get one's way in politics threatens to undo the overall successful experiment of American democracy.

It's not that no one on the Democratic side isn't "evil" but that the current Trumpism is real and present danger to the country. Biden's government won't be perfect and rosy and I disagree on some policies strongly, but it's a step back from the brink, back to civil discourse and actually governing instead of consolidating power.

Hooahguy

12-06-2020, 21:27

Harry Reid's changing the rules in the Senate to not need to work with the Republicans led to McConnell being able to railroad Supreme court nominations without any Democrats.

You leave out the fact that it was done in response to the GOP being particularly terrible when it comes to nominations, as in they were filibustering every single nomination put forth by Obama. They even filibustered Chuck Hagel, a republican, who was being put up for Secretary of Defense, the first time in American history thats been done for that position.

The Dems are not angels, but its also abundantly clear that only one party actually stands for at least a semblance of good governance while the other is just obstruction and chaos.

Gilrandir

12-07-2020, 06:10

There is very much a cultural war going on in the US, the most fanatical are the progressive/SJW/anarchist or democratic-socialists which are opposed by the the reactionary/christian-nationalist/ militia group pseudo fascists on the right.

Both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

Having lived through similar controversies, I believe that concessions are inevitable, if the united country is still a priority for the winners at least.

Montmorency

12-08-2020, 08:43

In the past days:

An armed mob (https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-michigan-idUSKBN28H137) assembled at the private residence of the Michigan Secretary of State to demand that the certification of Biden's electoral college slate be reversed. (I'm not even opposed to direct confrontation of (badly-behaved) public officials, but open sedition for sedition's sake is a big deal.)
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1335766211687313409 [VIDEO]

The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/survey-who-won-election-republicans-congress/2020/12/04/1a1011f6-3650-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html) asked all Congressional Republicans about their beliefs on who won the presidential election. Barely 10% "acknowledge Joe Biden’s win over President Trump a month after the former vice president’s clear victory of more than 7 million votes nationally and a convincing electoral-vote margin that exactly matched Trump’s 2016 tally." Almost all the rest decline to say.

Rebekah Jones, the Florida GIS specialist who designed the state's public facing COVID interface but was fired in the summer for going public about the state government's attempts to manipulate public health data, has been vocally criticizing Florida's pandemic response for half a year. This week (https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/12/07/agents-raid-home-fired-florida-data-scientist-who-built-covid-19-dashboard-rebekah-jones/6482817002/), state police entered her home with weapons drawn and seized all her electronics.

Yet more Trump election lawsuits were dismissed on the basis of advancing, at best, no evidence, with one described (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2020/12/trump-thought-courts-were-key-to-winning-judges-disagreed/) by a member of the bench as "perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in any federal court in connection with an election." Trump continues to insist he has won and the Biden victory be overturned. In multiple "Stop the Steal (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/georgia-senate-runoff-republicans-civil-war.html)" rallies endorsed by Trump (and sometimes attended by his children or minions), speakers avow that we are in a civil war and that Democrats should be killed.

tHe WIneNeRs oF tEh eLETCIoN aRe OblIgAtTed TO givE ConCEsSsioNs :freak:

I have one concession in mind at least. In satisfying the stipulation that there be no political assassinations or attempted assassinations prior to February 1st, 2021, let every self-reported Trump voter be eligible to claim $1 cash from their (newly-instituted) local postal bank. Reward value only redeemable toward purchase of one (1) cookie.

[url]Think hard about how you wish to proceed as I will disregard any comment that doesn't contain:

1. Evidence
2. An argument

I was wrong to plunk down conditions this way. Emphasizing loss of attention as an outcome could discourage Gil from putting in effort by skewing the ratio of risk (investment) and reward (furthering communication). Why bother investing cognitively if there is a chance reciprocation won't be forthcoming? Anyone might feel that way independent of the particulars.

Then again, it's not my business to artisanally-craft him the opportunity to cure his submissions; if he doesn't want to f**k, he can always walk.

Found some articles which maintain that Democrats aren't lily-white fighters for a good cause as some people here would like to present. Or at least there is another side to the story which is far from being a black-or-white matter (no race implication whatsoever).
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-sore-loser-hypocrisy-damaging-democracy-opinion-1546118
https://www.theitem.com/stories/democratic-party-has-stooped-to-bullying-republicans,310361
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-haters-democratic-party-0710-story.html
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2017/10/liberals-respond-usual-bullying/
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-handle-political-bullying-on-facebook-4117108

So the arguments like "we aren't like the evil them" don't work.

I found some articles that maintain you're a space alien. Here is one:

Gilrandir is a Space Alien (www.orgtimes.com/node/35532/Gilrandir-is-a-space-alien)
by Montomercy

I have it on good authority that Gilrandir is a space alien. He is neither a Russiatic nor a humanoid. Gilrandir could not be reached before publication. The Israeli Ministry of Defense declined comment.

Also, breaking news: Ukrainians are all Nazis (https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/russia-s-foreign-minister-compares-ukrainian-leadership-to-nazis-1.6749191).

"Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine who live in the Donbass are fighting with the Ukrainian regime, which has all the characteristics of being Nazis and neo-Nazi," Lavrov said

Hey, some people are saying it, very handsome, intelligent, and/or politically-important people, so it must be true.

The articles exist for a reason. I didn't write them. :thinking:

Notice, by the way, how my submission is infinitely more informative than Gilrandir's, in that it presents actual content rather than pointing without explanation at some links where Republicans can be found complaining about Democrats. And my example is overtly fake at that.

My overtly-fake example is better support toward a claim that, for example, that Gilrandir is a space Nazi, than Gilrandir's post is toward his position that Democrats are evil.

Sad.

See above. But generally, it is funny to hear any accusations of racism from a person who indulges in racist jokes.

Yes, the Chukcha joke is racist and always has been. If you can instinctively understand what would be wrong with being called, say, ебанутый хохол, your mind should be able extend to the condition of people outside your group.

The metaphor is wrong as Harlem as safe as the Vatican at noon, as you claim.

You might have a higher chance of getting pickpocketed at the Vatican at noon... OK, the Harlem mugger travels to your residence just to victimize you. You are still not killing yourself when he puts the gun in your face.

My chief argument: the evidence from a personnaly-interested stakeholder isn't considered valid at court thus it shouldn't be considered serious here either. Why should I unquestioningly side with you if I
1) didn't hear the Republican take on the conflict.
2) see your aggression towards opponents.
3) witness your emotions prevail over common sense.

Just a tip, since you yet again failed to present evidence or an argument:

Don't bother fucking with people if you admit you have no idea what's at stake or what you're talking about. But as it stands you are evidently only interested in the Republican take on the conflict. Shape up and stop constituting lies from the lacunae of your mind.

I don't think anyone here sees the Democrats as the "good guys" but more just the normal old politics of a decade ago. Corruption, gerrymandering, pandering to the more 'extreme' elements, willfully ignoring hypocrisies and so forth are just as present in the Democratic Party as it is in the Republican. Harry Reid's changing the rules in the Senate to not need to work with the Republicans led to McConnell being able to railroad Supreme court nominations without any Democrats.

There is very much a cultural war going on in the US, the most fanatical are the progressive/SJW/anarchist or democratic-socialists which are opposed by the the reactionary/christian-nationalist/ militia group pseudo fascists on the right.

Both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

I don't think anyone here doubts that if Trump had won there'd be the usual riots and protests against his victory in the usual slate of cities. These can be dangerous but they are not a threat to representative democracy though they can be problematic and dangerous too.

The current "Trump Wing" of the Republican Party however is a threat to the nation's democratic norms, the current disavowal of election results and willingness to look for ways to overturn democratic results to have their guy in office is a danger. The death threats against their own party members who are just following the law is evidence of the danger to this, the militia group in Michigan wanting to kidnap and kill Democratic officials just demonstrates how much of a threat it is. The 'Trump Army' is thankfully not as well organized as the the Nazi SA but this trend of accepting violence to get one's way in politics threatens to undo the overall successful experiment of American democracy.

It's not that no one on the Democratic side isn't "evil" but that the current Trumpism is real and present danger to the country. Biden's government won't be perfect and rosy and I disagree on some policies strongly, but it's a step back from the brink, back to civil discourse and actually governing instead of consolidating power.

Your post is a positive example of how who is saying something can be at least as important as what is being said. Genuine center-right people (even the ones of less-than-outstanding integrity or good will) need to be seen to be rewarded and consulted in this country, if only to show the weakest links of the Republican coalition that another path is available. (Don't get me wrong, paramount position will never be on the table.)

Also, there are centrist mercenaries, e.g. Neal Katyal, who will consort with whomever they believe confers fame, prestige, power, or money on them; for them the carrots and the sticks are straightforward, but it takes some guts in practice to guarantee universal negative consequences for making the wrong bet, which are the most intelligible language for them.

Both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

Bottom line is, this kind of framing can be tested empirically.

Between anarchists and fascists, who has held power in government? Who has implemented policy to damage the interests or protected constituencies of the other? Who has tens of millions in their camp? Who would overthrow our ancient and well-established form of government, even the abstraction of democracy, to dominate the other? Always the latter, somehow, toward "anarchists" and everyone else in between. These facts matter.

That's literally the problem! In standard liberal politics, it is as close to a common modern ideal as we have that all sides (there are many stakeholders) play the structured give and take in the interest of maintaining civil peace. If one very powerful faction unilaterally nullifies that equilibrium out of a manifest belief that its opponents are not legitimate citizens or democratic partners, the deal is broken and the only available "concession" is surrender. The only concession Democrats have to offer Republicans is to leave their offices, abolish their greatest accomplishments, assist Republicans in implementing Republican politics and cultural priorities, and - most of all - submit to the boot stamping on the face forever.*

In Lincoln's words:

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them.

That much should self-evidently be intolerable to anyone who isn't an accomplice to the demolition of the polity.*

That the five largest protest movements in the history of a country, perhaps even by proportion of population as well as in absolute participation, all occurred under one president's tenure, is not a sign that the president and his followers are owed greater deference and homage.

https://i.imgur.com/7fnvulO.png

The question of how to resolve a civilizational struggle has to my knowledge always had a messy answer*, but liberals somehow always take the defensive stance. In terms of institutions, the one plausible short-term agent-centric countermeasure is to take pains that the agents of chaos suffer professional and personal rebuke. And of course criminal liability, not wherever applicable - that would overwhelm the judiciary and the media - but to maximum effect.

*See: Crittenden compromise, flaws of

Gilrandir

12-08-2020, 12:22

Hysterics

You asked for evidence. I gave you the evidence. Now you don't like this evidence because it mentions evils done by the immaculate ones. I don't see how the evidence that you post is better than that supplied by the Chicago Tribune or Newsweek I referred to.

Your reaction only corroborated my opinion that through your emotional involvement you downplay (or vehemently deny) evils done by Democrats and underscore evils done by Republicans.

Generally, your manner of debating is weird. You indulge in racist jokes to show that I'm a racist, and mention Ukraine in every post to show that I'm derailing the thread. Using Russian four-letter words is also called to show that I am a foul-mouthed person? What next? Praising Trump to show that I'm a Republican?

By your hysterics you evade responding to the challenge you dared me with. I came up with at least a semblance of steps to be taken to ensure the unity of your country. You just throw about empty words of your wish to keep peace in it. IN WHAT WAY? By low-profiling Republicans? By hue-and-crying those who voted for them? So far only bellicose rhetoric and insulting those who might dare to disgree with you.

So I see that you belong to one of the fanatical camps spmelta wrote about (the progressive/SJW/anarchist or democratic-socialists which are opposed by the the reactionary/christian-nationalist/ militia group pseudo fascists on the right). And he also was right that both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-08-2020, 19:31

How come Gil' is worthy of being a space alien and I am not? :inquisitive: :shame:

I will now go off in a corner and sulk.

Montmorency

12-09-2020, 03:53

You asked for evidence. I gave you the evidence. Now you don't like this evidence because it mentions evils done by the immaculate ones. I don't see how the evidence that you post is better than that supplied by the Chicago Tribune or Newsweek I referred to.

You offered no more evidence than I did of your status as an extraterrestrial, which I extensively apprised you of in the post just above yours. You presented nothing, only gesturing at the existence of words written by Republicans; as usual, content is extraneous to belief. This approach instantly evaporates when one recalls that Democrats can write op-eds too.

You never described any evils of Democrats or acknowledged any evils of Republicans. This is the behavior of favoring Republicans. You should at least be forthright about what you're doing and defend yourself accordingly; that you cannot do so in the light of day does not entitle you to retreat to bare assertion.

Generally, your manner of debating is weird. You indulge in racist jokes to show that I'm a racist, and mention Ukraine in every post to show that I'm derailing the thread. Using Russian four-letter words is also called to show that I am a foul-mouthed person? What next? Praising Trump to show that I'm a Republican?

I tried to keep it as simple as possible; I'm sorry to hear you were nevertheless confused. The purpose of invoking relatable forms of transgression or deception was to show you what you were doing exactly but in a way that would allow you to grasp the fallacies across contexts. These are empathetic techniques used to teach morality to small children. Unfortunately you really are absorbed enough in your navel to miss the point.

By your hysterics you evade responding to the challenge you dared me with. I came up with at least a semblance of steps to be taken to ensure the unity of your country.

I explained why those were no such thing, and how to even generate such suggestions required a fatally-impoverished knowledge of America and the world. You never responded, as you never responded to most of the inconvenient facts I or others mentioned. Instead of playing a Trump in miniature, flooding the zone with dozens of falsehoods and derangements and multiplying new ones exponentially when confronted over any one, you should do the honest, respectable, work yourself.

IN WHAT WAY? By low-profiling Republicans? By hue-and-crying those who voted for them? So far only bellicose rhetoric and insulting those who might dare to disgree with you.

You can begin by reading the entire thread for which that has been a subject. I can't do it for you.

In abstract, keeping the people who are creating disunity far from power is a good start, but that's too big-brained for you.

So I see that you belong to one of the fanatical camps spmelta wrote about (the progressive/SJW/anarchist or democratic-socialists which are opposed by the the reactionary/christian-nationalist/ militia group pseudo fascists on the right). And he also was right that both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

Reality has a habit of intruding on fantasy, but for all our sakes I hope you never have to discover that.

How come Gil' is worthy of being a space alien and I am not? :inquisitive: :shame:

I will now go off in a corner and sulk.

I don't know what you mean. If there's something you wanted to talk to me about, don't feel restrained. We can compartmentalize.

But the space alien analogy is not favorable to the subject, it was to demonstrate the shocking deficiency not merely of Gil's reasoning but of his whole posture toward communication. I could have invented any fake story to serve the same purpose, or abused a real one to insinuate something unsupportable from the text. I shouldn't have said my fake contribution was infinitely more informative than Gil's though, since a positive real number has a definite additive distance from zero.

So Gil could have done the halfway-honest thing and tried to use information or perspectives from the articles to argue whatever case he pleased - a case that would have been trivially debunkable, but still an aspirationally-coherent case. But Gil is a writer, not a reader, so he doesn't ever feel the need to refer to human words that were not conceived in his own mind. So at the end of this disgraceful episode he finally embraced the instincts of the archetypical 13-year-old Youtube troll.

Think about how much deference it must take to his notion of Republican stances, how much affective animus against all things liberal, to link 5 articles without commentary, or indeed any indication of awareness of their contents (or of the meta-idea that textual content may have import toward arguments), and attribute that as a case for treating Democrats with disdain and alarm, or for unfailingly deflecting all criticisms of Republicans.

For Gilrandir, the mere existence of an anti-Democrat op-ed is sufficient to implicitly refute half the Backroom content of the past 4 years alone. To say nothing of a casual perusal of reports on current events.

(Gil appreciating Trump's cogent argument for why Democrats are the REAL bad guys)

https://i.imgur.com/bSzGArl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BwQPutG.png

Any member who could post their way into such a situation should be treated as a complete joke absent any tangible desire to improve. When Gil writes like this ipse dixit, while steadfastly refusing to treat the perspectives or information we put forth as deserving of consideration, it is nothing less than an expression of his absolute contempt for us as people. No way does that go unaddressed. I've tried to seek out the right measure of austerity in correcting Gil, but when a person relentlessly asserts their inferiority to you, trust at last departs from the presumption of communicative peerhood.

To clear up any confusion, here is a basic sample format for "argument with evidence."

Thesis: Republicans from top to bottom have abandoned democracy, and that is dangerous for the country.

Body Section 1: Here's what the Republicans believe and are doing, and why it is important and bad.

Body Section 2: Here's the historical context that leads us to think that these beliefs and behaviors are durable, logically-connected, and on a predictable course.

Body Section 3: Here's the contrast to Democrats' behaviors and attitudes.

Conclusion: Because Republicans are X and have been Y, whereas Democrats are and have been Z, the implications are...

For everyone who quit before high school (though these concepts are taught as early as primary school). It doesn't have to be in essay format - no one here does that - but basic elements of reasoning ought to be present.

Gilrandir

12-09-2020, 12:13

More hysterics

Again ascribing to me what I didn't say and spouting vitriol at anyone who doesn't agree that all Democrats are angels while all Republicans are satans.

For the last time:

I'm not on anybody's side. Any US administration that will support Ukraine is good for me.
Both sides were engaged in bullyings, lies and misdemeanor.

If someone commits a crime (WHATEVER SIDE) put him in prison.

People had various reasons for voting for Trump. We never had a chance to listen to a person who could explain his opting for Trump. I expect he would have a lot to say in defense of his choice and in condemnation of the opposite option.

Public peace will not be any nearer if you promote hatred of people who have a different political stance.

As I've been taught when I first appeared on these boards, one can't take seriously the opinion of a random guy emotionally invested in what he is writing about.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-09-2020, 18:54

Montmorency
I was making a little joke...:bow:

Montmorency

12-10-2020, 03:53

18 Republican state governments are currently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. That is the vast majority of Republican state governments.

That their vice signalling has a probability of one in a quadrillion-to-the-fourth-power (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/09/trumps-effort-steal-election-comes-down-some-utterly-ridiculous-statistical-claims/) of effecting a judicial outcome does not change the consistent overt intent of Republican politicians to overthrow the republic. Wherein is also implicated the support of most of the Republican base for securing illegitimate supremacy.

Most of you should have familiarity with the Prisoner's Dilemma concept or the sense to interpret its visualization:

https://i.imgur.com/0mC55NG.jpg

Again ascribing to me what I didn't say and spouting vitriol at anyone who doesn't agree that all Democrats are angels while all Republicans are satans.

For the last time:

I'm not on anybody's side. Any US administration that will support Ukraine is good for me.
Both sides were engaged in bullyings, lies and misdemeanor.

If someone commits a crime (WHATEVER SIDE) put him in prison.

People had various reasons for voting for Trump. We never had a chance to listen to a person who could explain his opting for Trump. I expect he would have a lot to say in defense of his choice and in condemnation of the opposite option.

Public peace will not be any nearer if you promote hatred of people who have a different political stance.

As I've been taught when I first appeared on these boards, one can't take seriously the opinion of a random guy emotionally invested in what he is writing about.

Facts matter. Truth matters. It's bad of you not to care about facts or truth - and that should go for any topic, not just American politics. It is not possible to communicate with someone who does not care about facts or truth, on even such a banality as the weather. Don't do you.

I like the phrase "bonkers superfecta": Illogical, irrelevant, ahistorical, and factually-incorrect. I would add "ethically-challenged." To wrap the ribbon on this heartfelt exchange of Gilrandir's idea that noticing, describing, and reviling civilizational crimes is even worse than the (ongoing!) crimes themselves (from the person who thinks it's appropriate for armed private citizens to menace peaceful protesters just because they're passing their residence):

"You need to stop struggling and fighting so much," the Strangler murmured, "and understand my motivations, so we can work together on solutions."

"Acckkkkkkk" said The Strangler's victim.

"Hmm," said The Strangler, "you really need to do better at convincing me."

"Glllllkkkk," said The Strangler's victim.

"That's all very well and good in a *perfect* world," said The Strangler. "But we don't live in a perfect world. You're not taking human nature into account. Stranglings are going to happen."

"nnnnngk," said The Strangler's victim.

"But how will you PAY for that?" the Strangler chuckled, strangling away, strangling away.

"Both sides are fighting," said the pundit, from the armchair.

"We sure ARE!" said The Strangler. "Good point!"

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

https://i.imgur.com/mgwAEij.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Cj0T4EC.jpg

https://files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/should.png

... 'I support peace and unity in all conflicts, it's just that I think Ukrainians are bloodthirsty hysterics who won't let Russians have what is theirs and prosper. NO I AM NOT A PUTINIST.'

Despite it all, I don't bear grudges. Every interaction gets evaluated on its unique characteristics. So just don't come at me in the future with the same behavior and expect a different result.

Montmorency
I was making a little joke...:bow:

Er...

What's the academic picture on Affective strategies in attitude change?

ReluctantSamurai

12-10-2020, 06:34

18 Republican state governments are currently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. That is the vast majority of Republican state governments.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/trump-to-join-texas-lawsuit-seeking-to-invalidate-electoral-votes-in-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin/

They are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

Gilrandir

12-10-2020, 14:34

The Simpsons, Season 23, Episode 496 "Politically Inept, with Homer Simpson"

Homer: Yeah, maybe I'll vote Democrat. The great thing is, when they get in, they act like Republicans.

ReluctantSamurai

12-10-2020, 16:46

The great thing is, when they get in, they act like Republicans

The GOP of today doesn't even remotely resemble the GOP of eight years ago when that episode aired. The GOP of today want's to subvert the will of the people, at the cost of democracy. The Democrats, with all of their shortcomings and failings, at least recognize that there needs to be a smooth transfer of power when they lose, and that subverting democracy because you refuse to acknowledge the other party is harmful to the nation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/voter-fraud/617354/

Armed protesters showing up at the homes of elected officials to force them to overturn the outcome of the presidential election, especially in a state where Trump-supporting militants were caught plotting to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, is obviously disturbing. Protesting government officials, even for grievances you or I might find absurd, is a fundamental constitutional right. The presence of firearms among the protesters, however, as well as the decision to protest at her residence instead of her workplace, add elements of coercion.

Questioning election results is a staple of partisan rhetoric, of course. Democratic voters and pundits, and occasionally elected officials, have advanced their own baseless conspiracies to explain political losses. The distinction is that the Democratic Party’s leadership, understanding that the peaceful transfer of power is crucial to a functional democracy—or fearing the political cost of failing to honor it—has typically dismissed those conspiracies rather than embracing them, denying them needed oxygen. Some Democrats fumed about voting machines in Ohio in 2004, but that did not stop John Kerry from quickly conceding (https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/john-kerry-axe-files/index.html); furious liberals indulged fantasies that Russian interference in 2016 included manipulation of vote tallies, but Hillary Clinton conceded the morning after the election (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/hillary-clinton-concedes-to-trump-we-owe-him-an-open-mind-and-a-chance-to-lead/).

That is not the case today. Insisting that the election was stolen by fraud, or that the outcome is somehow in doubt, remains the majority position among Republican elected officials. Only 27 of the 249 Republicans in Congress are willing to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/survey-who-won-election-republicans-congress/2020/12/04/1a1011f6-3650-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html).

The majority of people who make such declarations understand that in fact, Trump did not win, that he received fewer votes than his opponent, and that the Electoral College result reflects that loss. But they support Trump’s claims that the vote was fraudulent, and his efforts to pressure Republican officials in key states to overturn the result. To Trump’s strongest supporters, Biden’s win is a fraud because his voters should not count to begin with, and because the Democratic Party is not a legitimate political institution that should be allowed to wield power even if they did.

The Republican base’s fundamental belief, the one that Trump used to win them over in the first place, the one that ties the election conspiracy to birtherism and to Trump’s sneering attack on the Squad’s citizenship, is that Democratic victories do not count, because Democratic voters are not truly American. It’s no accident that the Trump campaign’s claims have focused almost entirely on jurisdictions with high Black populations.

The absence of not only evidence of any systemic fraud, but even compelling anecdotes that might be misleadingly trumpeted throughout right-wing media, has not deterred the president or his supporters. Republican legislators are already scheming to put new restrictions on the franchise, justified by claims of fraud so baseless that not even their handpicked judges can find a foothold to sustain them. The necessary ingredient is not actual voter fraud, but Democratic victory at the ballot box, real or potential.

When they say the 2020 election was stolen, Trumpists are expressing their view that the votes of rival constituencies should not count, even though they understand, on some level, that they do. They are declaring that the nation belongs to them and them alone, whether or not they actually comprise a majority, because they are the only real Americans to begin with.

Oh, and btw, here's the Republican Party platform from 2012:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-republican-party-platform

This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. If we restructure government's most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse. If we keep taxation, litigation, and regulation to a minimum. If we celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation. If we lift up the middle class. If we hand over to the next generation a legacy of growth and prosperity, rather than entitlements and indebtedness.

As we embark upon this critical mission, we are not without guidance. We possess an owner's manual: the Constitution of the United States, the greatest political document ever written. That sacred document shows us the path forward. Trust the people. Limit government. Respect federalism. Guarantee opportunity, not outcomes. Adhere to the rule of law. Reaffirm that our rights come from God, are protected by government, and that the only just government is one that truly governs with the consent of the governed.

We respectfully submit this platform to the American people. It is both a vision of where we are headed and an invitation to join us in that journey. It is about the great dreams and opportunities that have always been America and must remain the essence of America for generations to come.

Not an unreasonable platform. Especially the part about an "owner's manual" (ie. the Constitution), and "adherence to the rule of law" and that the only just government is one that truly governs with the consent of the governed. Fast forward to today---there are only 27 Republican members of Congress out of 249, that are willing to "adhere to the rule of law." There are 18 Republican-led states that are suing the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, because they don't agree that Biden legally won the popular vote and therefore the electoral votes in those states, even though all four of those states have certified that Biden won the popular vote, and three of the four have submitted their results to Congress. Whatever happened to "the consent of the governed??

The Republican Party platform for 2020----oh yeah, that's right, they were too lazy to draft a new one so they used the one from 2016:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/us/politics/republicans-platform.html

After the resolution was adopted over the weekend, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign late Sunday night announced (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-announces-president-trumps-2nd-term-agenda-fighting-for-you) “a set of core priorities” for a second term in the form of 50 bullet points under the heading “Fighting for You!” The list functions as a greatest hits of Mr. Trump’s recent proclamations, including, under his plans for confronting the coronavirus crisis, pledges such as “Return to Normal in 2021” and “Develop a Vaccine by The End Of 2020,” which, of course, take place entirely in Mr. Trump’s current term in office.

The priorities document, which for reasons unexplained capitalizes nearly every word in it, also pledges to “Hold China Fully Accountable for Allowing the Virus to Spread around the World.” There is also a pledge to send a manned mission to Mars and “Get Allies to Pay their Fair Share.”

There is no mention of abortion or the Second Amendment, which have long been animating features of the social conservative wing of Republican politics. The only foreign country mentioned by name is China, under a section titled “end our reliance on China.” A section on innovation offers a goal to “Partner with Other Nations to Clean Up our Planet’s Oceans.” It offers no specifics.

The GOP was so lazy and so uninspired, that they forgot to edit the 2016 document resulting in these hilarious gaffes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/republican-platform.html

“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” the platform reads (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7019-republican-platform/cc2c15a0e1b432d6964b/optimized/full.pdf#page=1). “Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government.”

“The Middle East is more dangerous now than at any time since the Second World War,” the platform reads. “Whatever their disagreements, presidents of both parties had always prioritized America’s national interests, the trust of friendly governments, and the security of Israel. That sound consensus was replaced with impotent grandstanding on the part of the current President and his Secretaries of State. The results have been ruinous for all parties except Islamic terrorists and their Iranian and other sponsors.”

“That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories,” the platform reads. “Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power.”