POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Gilrandir]

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....

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

[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]

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...-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-...-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.

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/stat...20024563019777

We have to bear in mind that, eventually, for there to be reconciliation there must be truth, and accountability, and liability.

Me sowing: 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, 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]

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.

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]

Beside calling me names you didn't participate in the disussion, so I can't size you up.

Ahhh....here comes Dr. Phil again

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/...ris-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/stev...-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/...-lose-election

Roger Stone, whose 40-month prison sentence for lying to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation was commuted by Donald Trump, 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/micha...b6f3fe59724a45

Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser who was pardoned by the president last week for lying during the Russia investigation, wants Trump to declare martial law and “temporarily suspend the Constitution” until a new election is held. Flynn, who had been awaiting sentencing for lying to the 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]

Ahhh....here comes Dr. Phil again

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/...ris-krebs-shot

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/stev...-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/...-lose-election



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/micha...b6f3fe59724a45



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]

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-s...pinion-1546118
https://www.theitem.com/stories/demo...blicans,310361
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...710-story.html
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2...sual-bullying/
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-...cebook-4117108

So the arguments like "we aren't like the evil them" don't work.

[spmetla]

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]

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]

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]

In the past days:

An armed mob 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_/stat...66211687313409 [VIDEO]

The Washington Post 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, 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 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" 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

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-s...pinion-1546118
https://www.theitem.com/stories/demo...blicans,310361
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...710-story.html
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2...sual-bullying/
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-...cebook-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
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.

"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.


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.



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]

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]

How come Gil' is worthy of being a space alien and I am not?

I will now go off in a corner and sulk.

[Montmorency]

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?

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)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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]

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]

@Montmorency
I was making a little joke...

[Montmorency]

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 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:

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.

... '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...

Er...

What's the academic picture on Affective strategies in attitude change?

[ReluctantSamurai]

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/tr...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]

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]

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/ar...-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; furious liberals indulged fantasies that Russian interference in 2016 included manipulation of vote tallies, but Hillary Clinton conceded the morning after the election.

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.

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/docu...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/u...-platform.html

After the resolution was adopted over the weekend, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign late Sunday night announced “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/u...-platform.html

“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” the platform reads. “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.”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Er...

What's the academic picture on Affective strategies in attitude change?

That's actually a pretty old one. Link

Appeals to logic and reasoning are harder to make and harder to get folks to listen but have the better long term impact.

Appeals to affect work quickly, don't require any linear support, etc. but are subject to being more transient and replaced by the next "moving" message.

Its one of the reasons Trump (and other demagogues) have to keep things stirred up and keep the rallies going -- if the emotions cool and thinking begins, then some of the audience is lost.