|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government.
Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy.
And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins.
|
On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future?
You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't.
|
On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech.
But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy.
And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet).
|
On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet).
You do know that even if he's convicted on everything he's not legally going to be precluded from being president, even if it's from a Georgia prison?
|
On September 07 2023 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). You do know that even if he's convicted on everything he's not legally going to be precluded from being president, even if it's from a Georgia prison? I know. But in a sane world he would be convicted of Insurrection and the 14th amendment would disqualify him. Sadly we don't live in a sane world.
Happy cake day btw.
|
On September 07 2023 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). You do know that even if he's convicted on everything he's not legally going to be precluded from being president, even if it's from a Georgia prison?
Isn't that a question that isn't answered yet and eventually will need a supreme court decision (or something like that)?
|
|
|
On September 08 2023 00:14 JimmiC wrote:
One of the strangest and scariest parts is that he could be fairly elected if he is convicted. As in he grows in popularity with each charge and with more evidence.
Many Americans seem to like that he tried to cheat to hold power. They do not even seem to be arguing that he has been framed for the most part. I guess some believe that he was cheated, but I think most do not. They just want a republican in power regardless of how they do it.
I do not understand how as a party they have got to the point so quickly from the rule of law and blah blah party to the Trump abuse your power and wealth is a good thing party but they have.
Is Russian propaganda that powerful? Is that what really needs to be targeted? How do we actually stop it, they message on Facebook of it not being true just seems to make people believe it more. Because the rule of law was never about the law itself, but about using it as a means to oppress others. And fascism is just a continuation of that.
They believe in rules for you, not for me. And always have.
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
|
|
|
United States15580 Posts
On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet).
What exactly is the reason for you specifying the limitations of democracy? Are you saying democracy doesn't have this flexibility, so it is bad? Are you saying excluding people from democracy is unethical in all situations? Or are you just citing the law?
|
On September 08 2023 00:14 JimmiC wrote:
One of the strangest and scariest parts is that he could be fairly elected if he is convicted. As in he grows in popularity with each charge and with more evidence.
Many Americans seem to like that he tried to cheat to hold power. They do not even seem to be arguing that he has been framed for the most part. I guess some believe that he was cheated, but I think most do not. They just want a republican in power regardless of how they do it.
I do not understand how as a party they have got to the point so quickly from the rule of law and blah blah party to the Trump abuse your power and wealth is a good thing party but they have.
Is Russian propaganda that powerful? Is that what really needs to be targeted? How do we actually stop it, they message on Facebook of it not being true just seems to make people believe it more.
Well, we literally just discussed whether Biden should peacefully transfer power if he loses to Trump. And while most people here are in the 'yes' camp for various reasons, the alternative wasn't exactly unthinkable.
Republicans also view the other party as an existential threat. The problem is that it's difficult to openly discuss the specifics of their perceived existential threat with them because it's not a socially acceptable topic so they hide it under vague shit like a 'breakdown of order'.
I'm not sure if everyone quite processed this, but in the ultra-popular Flight 93 argument for Trump against Hillary (which was one of the rare moments of transparency in conservative thought), the "you die" option from "you charge the cockpit or you die" was the Great Replacement theory.
|
On September 08 2023 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). What exactly is the reason for you specifying the limitations of democracy? Are you saying democracy doesn't have this flexibility, so it is bad? Are you saying excluding people from democracy is unethical in all situations? Or are you just citing the law? This is all a hypothetical discussion about if Trump should be given power if he wins. So should democracy exclude a particular individual because someone thinks its a terrible idea? Who decides that? What are the criteria?
Should 'we' say Trump doesn't get to be President despite (hypothetically) winning a 'fair' election because he is allegedly a fascist who tried to overthrow the government? What sort of precedent does that set and how is that going to be abused in the future?
I don't think a person who was convicted of serious crimes (and Trump has been charged with serious crimes) should be able to become President but Trump hasn't been convicted yet. And even if he were the constitution doesn't place much limits besides someone being convicted of rebellion or insurrection.
|
On September 08 2023 00:14 JimmiC wrote:
One of the strangest and scariest parts is that he could be fairly elected if he is convicted. As in he grows in popularity with each charge and with more evidence.
Many Americans seem to like that he tried to cheat to hold power. They do not even seem to be arguing that he has been framed for the most part. I guess some believe that he was cheated, but I think most do not. They just want a republican in power regardless of how they do it.
I do not understand how as a party they have got to the point so quickly from the rule of law and blah blah party to the Trump abuse your power and wealth is a good thing party but they have.
Is Russian propaganda that powerful? Is that what really needs to be targeted? How do we actually stop it, they message on Facebook of it not being true just seems to make people believe it more.
Imho thats the dark side of the american dream. If you get away with it and therefore make it, your a hero.
|
|
|
United States15580 Posts
On September 08 2023 02:08 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2023 00:14 JimmiC wrote:
One of the strangest and scariest parts is that he could be fairly elected if he is convicted. As in he grows in popularity with each charge and with more evidence.
Many Americans seem to like that he tried to cheat to hold power. They do not even seem to be arguing that he has been framed for the most part. I guess some believe that he was cheated, but I think most do not. They just want a republican in power regardless of how they do it.
I do not understand how as a party they have got to the point so quickly from the rule of law and blah blah party to the Trump abuse your power and wealth is a good thing party but they have.
Is Russian propaganda that powerful? Is that what really needs to be targeted? How do we actually stop it, they message on Facebook of it not being true just seems to make people believe it more. Republicans also view the other party as an existential threat. The problem is that it's difficult to openly discuss the specifics of their perceived existential threat with them because it's not a socially acceptable topic so they hide it under vague shit like a 'breakdown of order'.
Yes and someone with severe schizophrenia may view trees as demons. It doesn't mean we ought to accommodate the perspective trees may be demons. Accommodating the lowest denominator is just cultural relativism, which is inherently flawed and a bad approach to societal/government design.
We have an incentive to design a society and government which effectively provides ethical outcomes. If we rely on broad-stroke, non-specific guiding principles, we end up applying inappropriate solutions to problems. We need to be able to be detailed in our analysis and specific in our solutions.
If we determine through reason and ethics that Trump should not ever be allowed to be president, that logic and ethical consideration should be able to be purposed into a formal component of national law and applied. The goal should always be to make things better and ethical.
|
On September 08 2023 00:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). You do know that even if he's convicted on everything he's not legally going to be precluded from being president, even if it's from a Georgia prison? I know. But in a sane world he would be convicted of Insurrection and the 14th amendment would disqualify him. Sadly we don't live in a sane world. Happy cake day btw.
On September 08 2023 01:04 WombaT wrote:
Happy cake day GH!
TYTY!
On September 08 2023 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2023 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). What exactly is the reason for you specifying the limitations of democracy? Are you saying democracy doesn't have this flexibility, so it is bad? Are you saying excluding people from democracy is unethical in all situations? Or are you just citing the law? This is all a hypothetical discussion about if Trump should be given power if he wins. So should democracy exclude a particular individual because someone thinks its a terrible idea? Who decides that? What are the criteria? Should 'we' say Trump doesn't get to be President despite (hypothetically) winning a 'fair' election because he is allegedly a fascist who tried to overthrow the government? What sort of precedent does that set and how is that going to be abused in the future? I don't think a person who was convicted of serious crimes (and Trump has been charged with serious crimes) should be able to become President but Trump hasn't been convicted yet. And even if he were the constitution doesn't place much limits besides someone being convicted of rebellion or insurrection.
I mean I obviously think revolutionary socialism is already necessary, but if Trump wins, I don't know how electoralism can survive. As in I literally don't comprehend how people think they will win back power electorally against fascists that have already flouted the "checks and balances" being impeached 2 different times, indicted 4, tried to overturn the election (is still saying he was cheated), and is polling better now (ahead of Biden) than before his mugshot.
Even if the fascists unexpectedly; have legitimate elections, allow the Democrat party participate in them, and they actually count their votes, it's not clear Democrats could win.
I don't know if people caught wind that the Georgia trial will be televised, but I'm going to say now if they don't figure out how to make Trump look almost pitiably pathetic it's going to have the opposite impact Dems would hope.
I think ChristianS said something a while back that continues to feel apt:
It feels like we’re all doing the math on our current velocity toward the cliff and distance from it and maximum braking force, but the math isn’t actually very hard. We just keep recalculating because the result we keep getting is unfathomable.
|
On September 08 2023 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2023 02:08 Dan HH wrote:On September 08 2023 00:14 JimmiC wrote:
One of the strangest and scariest parts is that he could be fairly elected if he is convicted. As in he grows in popularity with each charge and with more evidence.
Many Americans seem to like that he tried to cheat to hold power. They do not even seem to be arguing that he has been framed for the most part. I guess some believe that he was cheated, but I think most do not. They just want a republican in power regardless of how they do it.
I do not understand how as a party they have got to the point so quickly from the rule of law and blah blah party to the Trump abuse your power and wealth is a good thing party but they have.
Is Russian propaganda that powerful? Is that what really needs to be targeted? How do we actually stop it, they message on Facebook of it not being true just seems to make people believe it more. Republicans also view the other party as an existential threat. The problem is that it's difficult to openly discuss the specifics of their perceived existential threat with them because it's not a socially acceptable topic so they hide it under vague shit like a 'breakdown of order'. Yes and someone with severe schizophrenia may view trees as demons. It doesn't mean we ought to accommodate the perspective trees may be demons. Accommodating the lowest denominator is just cultural relativism, which is inherently flawed and a bad approach to societal/government design. We have an incentive to design a society and government which effectively provides ethical outcomes. If we rely on broad-stroke, non-specific guiding principles, we end up applying inappropriate solutions to problems. We need to be able to be detailed in our analysis and specific in our solutions. If we determine through reason and ethics that Trump should not ever be allowed to be president, that logic and ethical consideration should be able to be purposed into a formal component of national law and applied. The goal should always be to make things better and ethical.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was explaining why it's not that strange for the 'party of order' to support someone that breaks all the rules like Trump. It's for the greater good from their perspective. It's not much different than someone against hatred supporting punching a Nazi.
And in your example, if 50+ million people view trees as demons it shouldn't be surprising if anti-tree legislation pops up and covering forests in cement becomes a legitimate populist strategy. The "we" that you invoke has to be a strong majority to prevent that, there's no real way around this. If you can't convince enough of them that those fears are unwarranted, then it follows that you also can't convince them they should leave the "determining through reason and ethics" to you.
|
On September 08 2023 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2023 00:05 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). You do know that even if he's convicted on everything he's not legally going to be precluded from being president, even if it's from a Georgia prison? I know. But in a sane world he would be convicted of Insurrection and the 14th amendment would disqualify him. Sadly we don't live in a sane world. Happy cake day btw. TYTY! Show nested quote +On September 08 2023 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2023 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). What exactly is the reason for you specifying the limitations of democracy? Are you saying democracy doesn't have this flexibility, so it is bad? Are you saying excluding people from democracy is unethical in all situations? Or are you just citing the law? This is all a hypothetical discussion about if Trump should be given power if he wins. So should democracy exclude a particular individual because someone thinks its a terrible idea? Who decides that? What are the criteria? Should 'we' say Trump doesn't get to be President despite (hypothetically) winning a 'fair' election because he is allegedly a fascist who tried to overthrow the government? What sort of precedent does that set and how is that going to be abused in the future? I don't think a person who was convicted of serious crimes (and Trump has been charged with serious crimes) should be able to become President but Trump hasn't been convicted yet. And even if he were the constitution doesn't place much limits besides someone being convicted of rebellion or insurrection. I mean I obviously think revolutionary socialism is already necessary, but if Trump wins, I don't know how electoralism can survive. As in I literally don't comprehend how people think they will win back power electorally against fascists that have already flouted the "checks and balances" being impeached 2 different times, indicted 4, tried to overturn the election (is still saying he was cheated), and is polling better now (ahead of Biden) than before his mugshot. Even if the fascists unexpectedly; have legitimate elections, allow the Democrat party participate in them, and they actually count their votes, it's not clear Democrats could win. I don't know if people caught wind that the Georgia trial will be televised, but I'm going to say now if they don't figure out how to make Trump look almost pitiably pathetic it's going to have the opposite impact Dems would hope. I think ChristianS said something a while back that continues to feel apt: Show nested quote +It feels like we’re all doing the math on our current velocity toward the cliff and distance from it and maximum braking force, but the math isn’t actually very hard. We just keep recalculating because the result we keep getting is unfathomable.
"Electoralism"... Wow, that is quite a name for democracy!
Every time a democracy has been destroyed, it has been done by people believing they replace it with something better, because "their" side is right, if they have a majority or not.
History has not been kind to to people overthrowing democracies, and that includes several western nations.
|
On September 08 2023 17:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2023 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2023 00:05 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). You do know that even if he's convicted on everything he's not legally going to be precluded from being president, even if it's from a Georgia prison? I know. But in a sane world he would be convicted of Insurrection and the 14th amendment would disqualify him. Sadly we don't live in a sane world. Happy cake day btw. On September 08 2023 01:04 WombaT wrote:
Happy cake day GH! TYTY! On September 08 2023 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2023 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2023 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 23:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. You can put boundries on free speech and still let people speak their minds without fear of being punished by the government. Its hard to 'arbitrarily' (Trump has not been convicted of anything yet) exclude people from the ballot and still preserve democracy. And if you want to shift the blame to the American justice system being slow and to sheltering of rich people then I won't disagree. but that doesn't solve the problem of what to do if Trump is on the ballot because he hasn't been convicted yet and wins. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with the bit about free speech in relation to Trump's fascism other than maybe you think he's the kind of fascist that holds free and fair elections (because he hasn't been convicted?) Democrats could win in the future? You're literally the one shifting blame to the US justice system. But yeah, I agree it doesn't. what I am trying to explain is that you can set boundaries to free speech while still preserving the idea of free speech. But you can't exclude people from a democracy without just cause while preserving the idea of democracy. And while we can all see plenty of just cause to exclude Trump, legally that is not the case (yet). What exactly is the reason for you specifying the limitations of democracy? Are you saying democracy doesn't have this flexibility, so it is bad? Are you saying excluding people from democracy is unethical in all situations? Or are you just citing the law? This is all a hypothetical discussion about if Trump should be given power if he wins. So should democracy exclude a particular individual because someone thinks its a terrible idea? Who decides that? What are the criteria? Should 'we' say Trump doesn't get to be President despite (hypothetically) winning a 'fair' election because he is allegedly a fascist who tried to overthrow the government? What sort of precedent does that set and how is that going to be abused in the future? I don't think a person who was convicted of serious crimes (and Trump has been charged with serious crimes) should be able to become President but Trump hasn't been convicted yet. And even if he were the constitution doesn't place much limits besides someone being convicted of rebellion or insurrection. I mean I obviously think revolutionary socialism is already necessary, but if Trump wins, I don't know how electoralism can survive. As in I literally don't comprehend how people think they will win back power electorally against fascists that have already flouted the "checks and balances" being impeached 2 different times, indicted 4, tried to overturn the election (is still saying he was cheated), and is polling better now (ahead of Biden) than before his mugshot. Even if the fascists unexpectedly; have legitimate elections, allow the Democrat party participate in them, and they actually count their votes, it's not clear Democrats could win. I don't know if people caught wind that the Georgia trial will be televised, but I'm going to say now if they don't figure out how to make Trump look almost pitiably pathetic it's going to have the opposite impact Dems would hope. I think ChristianS said something a while back that continues to feel apt: It feels like we’re all doing the math on our current velocity toward the cliff and distance from it and maximum braking force, but the math isn’t actually very hard. We just keep recalculating because the result we keep getting is unfathomable. "Electoralism"... Wow, that is quite a name for democracy! Every time a democracy has been destroyed, it has been done by people believing they replace it with something better, because "their" side is right, if they have a majority or not. History has not been kind to to people overthrowing democracies, and that includes several western nations. To be fair to GH, the problem is more the US specific system then democracy in general.
In just a popular vote like most democracies Bush Senior would have been the last Republican President, over 30 years ago. Both Bush Jr's first win and Trump won with a minority of the vote.
Its the FPTP combined with the electoral college that really creates this drive to the bottom. Because only the tiny % of swing votes in specific states actually matter. Everyone else is mostly fluff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
