POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Pannonian]

If you have something more to say about what is known as 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]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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!

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]

Do the Republicans declare they want to have a separate country?

They do.

[Gilrandir]

They do.

The source, please.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Here's three examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ris-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 [being Republican]. “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

“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/u...p-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]

Here's three examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ris-krebs-shot





https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053810494



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/u...p-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]

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"...

Sad.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[ReluctantSamurai]

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/2020/1...-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]

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/2020/1...-stocks-441956

I tend to agree with this comment:

Would rather have the money advantage than the other way around.
538 just put out an article that split-ticket voting didn't really happen. The difference in results between the president, house and senate are all due to the way the structure filter the inputs. if this is true, it gives dems hope that a repeat of a close dem victory is possible since structurally a senate runoff is the same as a presidential election.

[Hooahguy]

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]

So cute.

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]

So cute.

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.

Flynn is just working off the cost of his pardon.

[ReluctantSamurai]

You go "Mr GriftWood":

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...blicans-442776

Gotta love all of this, Democrats

[ReluctantSamurai]

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]

@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]

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.

Then you will leave in a besieged fortress in perennial hatred hatching plots to sally forth some day and kill the bastards. A very comfortable life, I should say.

[Montmorency]

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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]

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).



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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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/nort...gislature.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...

I am comfortable with myself, and I sleep very well at night. So, Dr. Gilrandir.....epic FAIL

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...

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]

And the hits just keep on coming:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-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.

Hehehehehe.....

[Gilrandir]

Don't be a racialized Chukcha. 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 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]

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

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....

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]