|
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 November 08 2024 03:48 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 03:33 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 02:49 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 02:37 NewSunshine wrote:On November 08 2024 02:32 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 02:20 Slydie wrote:On November 08 2024 01:38 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The old man yelling about how he hates flies is the deranged one. "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -Hermann Hesse The derangement around Trump is like 90% shadow projection. You're all just shadow boxing with your own inner tyrant imo. So the Trump voters who are angry at Kamala and Democrats are really just angry with their inner Kamala/Democrat? And what is 100% not a part of you so you are not disturbed by it? That kind of quotes are only good for making people angry. It is like a parent claiming "you are only fighting because you are so alike". The quote is a perfectly reasonable one, just completely ripped from what it’s meant to actually describe Correct. That quote has infinitely more to do with why a Trumper bristles at being called racist than it does with why reasonable people are upset with the Right's fascism. + Show Spoiler +
Incorrect. If you're reacting to something inside of you then you aren't actually responsive to what is outside of you, youre just shadow boxing and that's the difference. I don't see the same derangement among conservatives on any level, people very reasonably don't want to live under socialism.
The derangement around Trump has been next level. When you foam at the mouth about him being a nazi, Hitler, a fascist, and a tyrant (particularly as you try to force a vaccine on others, and exlude those from society who refuse) it is quite clear that you are just shadow boxing. When you have a stroke about racism and all the rest of it, while accusing black men who voted for Trump of x, y, and z, it's clear you're just shadow boxing.
The dems accused Trump of trying to overturn an election because he wanted a suspect result scrutinized. They're only arriculating who they are inside.
If I'm correct (I am), we will see dems advocate for not handing over power in the coming weeks. We've already seen such an intimation on the past couple page of the current discussion. As far as I can tell none of the Dems/libs here are supportive of the suggestion of them not proudly and peacefully handing power over to fascists. Nor have any shown any support for the fact that Biden can legally assasinate Trump and Vance in his official capacity as President to protect the US from a fascist takeover It's incoherent with their campaigning/rhetoric on Trump being a fascist dictator on day 1. It's irrational from a practical perspective and inconsistent with their understanding of free speech absolutism and the tolerance paradox. It's probably more hypocritical of them to willingly hand him power after he tried to steal it than it would be to refuse to give it to him though. Yes the two are a bit incongruous in combination. Trump is a Fascist we can’t allow in, but hey if we wins an election we’ll not do anything But yeah, the ‘we’ll not do anything until the next vote’ is still demonstrably the approach They are completely irrational in combination, the cognitive dissonance should be overwhelming. On November 08 2024 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2024 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 03:28 Sermokala wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ashli Babbitt had already been shot by the time Trump told the people to go home.
A lot of people trying to justify why they voted for Trump or why Trump winning is a good thing for America. A quote that has helped me and others yesterday is "don't be there for the people who weren't there for you". Not going to have a lot of time for the people who didn't vote for harris yet want to tell me to do any type of work for them. A ban on slavery is currently failing to pass in California. Miss me hard next time someone from California tries to tell me they're a leftist state. To be honest I didn't even know this was on the ballot all the months I've been harping on Democrats failing to even end the enslavement of US citizens for 100+ years. It's not a "leftist" state but that's Democrat af. Yeah I'm going to save this post for the next time you try to explain to me what way I should vote on anything at all. If you're so uninformed about whats going on in your own state about an issue I've seen you give a shit about before this cycle I'm not going to respect you to do the work on any issue in the future. You care so little about ending the enslavement of US citizens you didn't know it was on the ballot until the election. Needed something to laugh about this morning. I don't live in CA lol? I had my own rich asshole shit on my ballot to worry about. I'm guessing it didn't get a lot of attention, because people didn't think Democrats in California would vote to keep enslaving US citizens in 2024. Also probably related to why no one here that actually lives in CA ever mentioned it in response to me pointing out Democrats are still pro-slavery in 2024. To be fair I DO live in California and I didn't know about the chain gang proposition until I got my sample ballot. There's been almost zero press coverage of it, while there's been a ton on basically every other prop. I voted to repeal it btw. For all the good it did.
You know who SHOULD have known about this proposition? Someone that COULD have gotten it the support it needed to pass? Perhaps a certain California voter that just so happened to have the nation's attention for the last few months and somehow NEVER mentioned it?
Serm doesn't want to listen to me, but was ready to make that dipshit California voter president?
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of Democrats coming out and going full "stop the steal" pales in comparison to the hypocrisy and irrationality demanded of their supporters on a regular basis.
|
Canada11382 Posts
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens.
|
On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens.
This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well.
Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power.
Or
Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world".
That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist.
|
On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist.
This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though.
Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves.
|
Or that the system of checks and balances along with Trumps incompetence will be enough to protect the system for four years.
|
On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves.
That's part of what I'm talking about when I say that is "irrational from a practical perspective and inconsistent with their understanding of free speech absolutism and the tolerance paradox"
EDIT: If you willingly hand globally unmatched power to a known fascist dictator that you've said will destroy democracy, you are destroying democracy.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 08 2024 04:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 03:33 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 03:12 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2024 02:49 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 02:37 NewSunshine wrote:On November 08 2024 02:32 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 02:20 Slydie wrote:On November 08 2024 01:38 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The old man yelling about how he hates flies is the deranged one. "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -Hermann Hesse The derangement around Trump is like 90% shadow projection. You're all just shadow boxing with your own inner tyrant imo. So the Trump voters who are angry at Kamala and Democrats are really just angry with their inner Kamala/Democrat? And what is 100% not a part of you so you are not disturbed by it? That kind of quotes are only good for making people angry. It is like a parent claiming "you are only fighting because you are so alike". The quote is a perfectly reasonable one, just completely ripped from what it’s meant to actually describe Correct. That quote has infinitely more to do with why a Trumper bristles at being called racist than it does with why reasonable people are upset with the Right's fascism. Incorrect. If you're reacting to something inside of you then you aren't actually responsive to what is outside of you, youre just shadow boxing and that's the difference. I don't see the same derangement among conservatives on any level, people very reasonably don't want to live under socialism. The derangement around Trump has been next level. When you foam at the mouth about him being a nazi, Hitler, a fascist, and a tyrant (particularly as you try to force a vaccine on others, and exlude those from society who refuse) it is quite clear that you are just shadow boxing. When you have a stroke about racism and all the rest of it, while accusing black men who voted for Trump of x, y, and z, it's clear you're just shadow boxing. The dems accused Trump of trying to overturn an election because he wanted a suspect result scrutinized. They're only articulating who they are inside. If I'm correct (I am), we will see dems advocate for not handing over power in the coming weeks. We've already seen such an intimation on the past couple page of the current discussion. Trump just wanted a suspect result scrutinized? The dude incited an actual insurrection. That is not 'just looking at a suspect result'. But sure, its the derangement around Trump, not your utter denial of reality... No, no he didn't. Do you think the Canadian trucker protest was also an insurrection, just curious? It was in front of the parliament buildings. They got called Nazis too btw, by the people who fight so tirelessly for inclusion. Seems like a memetic literal concrete comprehension which believes that a protest outside a government building makes it an insurrection, as though we're still living in the 4th century BCE, and not the information age. Guess when he told them to go home after 2 hours that was a typo, it was meant to read "send them to Bergen Belsen." No, no, no, no. A thousand times no. I defend the Trucker protest from the silly accusations of an insurrection. It most definitely was a protest. An obnoxious one to the local residents, but a protest nonetheless. Trudeau got excited because he thought he had a January 6 on his hands, but he was dead wrong. What Trump tried to do is nothing the same. He demanded that states stop counting votes of all things! Would you accept that from any Democrat president or would you be in the streets crying 'Tyrant'?? Trump tried to over-ride the will of the people (false electors). He was pressuring states to find votes for him, which constitutionally, the president has no role in the elector role. Besides, based on what he was asking, it was quite transparently a quest to just have the States declare the number he needed to win +1 and Trump's team 'would do the rest." His cronies went around deliberately lying about election fraud. (Giuliani's defence was that he lied, but it was his First Amendment right to do so.) All their climp chimped falsehoods were shut down in the courts and when it all failed, they tried to strong-arm Mike Pence into breaking his constitutional duty. Do you think it was a coincidence that they all showed up on January 6, carrying weapons and guns and shouting revolution, and "Hang Mike Pence?" The vote certification was delayed and it was a genuine attempt to stop the certification of the vote through intimidation. That goes well beyond a violent protest that attempts to persuade the government to change it's mind. It was a blatant attempt to overturn the functions of government itself through force. I don't mind calling that an insurrection. It is categorically different than the Trucker protest, who as far as I know stuck to the streets, adjusted their protest to allow a single lane of traffic through (I think-it's been so long now. I know that they did accept some restrictions put upon them by police... though not the one that told them to go home.) And I don't even think they crossed onto the lawn outside Parliament, but certainly did not try to storm the government buildings. You're doing good work putting together all the pieces of the puzzle and explaining how the combined picture is one of an insurrection. But I think you're overcomplicating this because not only do we have all the pieces of the puzzle, we also have the puzzle box with the picture on the front and a title. We have Trump campaign memos from after the 2020 election results when they discussed the various means in which they could overturn the election. We have the discussions of the fake electors plot and how it would be implemented. They emailed about it and we have the emails. Sure, you can walk someone through how if you put all the pieces of the puzzle together and look at it then it looks like a plot to seize power after the people voted Trump out. But it came in a box labeled "secret plan to seize power after the people voted Trump out" and we have that box.
It’s not really a puzzle. It’s like baby’s first jigsaw where I shared some enthusiasm with Minibat when he assembled some 4 piece thing.
He was quite enthused to solve it before he could walk, grown adults will claim the puzzle is wrong
And said adults demand you respect their views that the puzzle is wrong or you’re a contemptible elitist.
Hey from the mouths of babes.
He was a bit young for the last cycle, but this time to vaguely paraphrase I got ‘Why does the US President seem less smart than you and mummy?’ to deal with yesterday.
I put quite a lot of stock in the intuition of children because they’ve yet to had their intuition beaten down by the wider culture.
Quite a difficult one to answer though, I can either bullshit him or just concede that actually, adults are pretty fucking stupid at times.
|
On November 08 2024 04:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 03:33 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 03:12 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2024 02:49 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 02:37 NewSunshine wrote:On November 08 2024 02:32 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 02:20 Slydie wrote:On November 08 2024 01:38 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The old man yelling about how he hates flies is the deranged one. "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -Hermann Hesse The derangement around Trump is like 90% shadow projection. You're all just shadow boxing with your own inner tyrant imo. So the Trump voters who are angry at Kamala and Democrats are really just angry with their inner Kamala/Democrat? And what is 100% not a part of you so you are not disturbed by it? That kind of quotes are only good for making people angry. It is like a parent claiming "you are only fighting because you are so alike". The quote is a perfectly reasonable one, just completely ripped from what it’s meant to actually describe Correct. That quote has infinitely more to do with why a Trumper bristles at being called racist than it does with why reasonable people are upset with the Right's fascism. Incorrect. If you're reacting to something inside of you then you aren't actually responsive to what is outside of you, youre just shadow boxing and that's the difference. I don't see the same derangement among conservatives on any level, people very reasonably don't want to live under socialism. The derangement around Trump has been next level. When you foam at the mouth about him being a nazi, Hitler, a fascist, and a tyrant (particularly as you try to force a vaccine on others, and exlude those from society who refuse) it is quite clear that you are just shadow boxing. When you have a stroke about racism and all the rest of it, while accusing black men who voted for Trump of x, y, and z, it's clear you're just shadow boxing. The dems accused Trump of trying to overturn an election because he wanted a suspect result scrutinized. They're only articulating who they are inside. If I'm correct (I am), we will see dems advocate for not handing over power in the coming weeks. We've already seen such an intimation on the past couple page of the current discussion. Trump just wanted a suspect result scrutinized? The dude incited an actual insurrection. That is not 'just looking at a suspect result'. But sure, its the derangement around Trump, not your utter denial of reality... No, no he didn't. Do you think the Canadian trucker protest was also an insurrection, just curious? It was in front of the parliament buildings. They got called Nazis too btw, by the people who fight so tirelessly for inclusion. Seems like a memetic literal concrete comprehension which believes that a protest outside a government building makes it an insurrection, as though we're still living in the 4th century BCE, and not the information age. Guess when he told them to go home after 2 hours that was a typo, it was meant to read "send them to Bergen Belsen." No, no, no, no. A thousand times no. I defend the Trucker protest from the silly accusations of an insurrection. It most definitely was a protest. An obnoxious one to the local residents, but a protest nonetheless. Trudeau got excited because he thought he had a January 6 on his hands, but he was dead wrong. What Trump tried to do is nothing the same. He demanded that states stop counting votes of all things! Would you accept that from any Democrat president or would you be in the streets crying 'Tyrant'?? Trump tried to over-ride the will of the people (false electors). He was pressuring states to find votes for him, which constitutionally, the president has no role in the elector role. Besides, based on what he was asking, it was quite transparently a quest to just have the States declare the number he needed to win +1 and Trump's team 'would do the rest." His cronies went around deliberately lying about election fraud. (Giuliani's defence was that he lied, but it was his First Amendment right to do so.) All their climp chimped falsehoods were shut down in the courts and when it all failed, they tried to strong-arm Mike Pence into breaking his constitutional duty. Do you think it was a coincidence that they all showed up on January 6, carrying weapons and guns and shouting revolution, and "Hang Mike Pence?" The vote certification was delayed and it was a genuine attempt to stop the certification of the vote through intimidation. That goes well beyond a violent protest that attempts to persuade the government to change it's mind. It was a blatant attempt to overturn the functions of government itself through force. I don't mind calling that an insurrection. It is categorically different than the Trucker protest, who as far as I know stuck to the streets, adjusted their protest to allow a single lane of traffic through (I think-it's been so long now. I know that they did accept some restrictions put upon them by police... though not the one that told them to go home.) And I don't even think they crossed onto the lawn outside Parliament, but certainly did not try to storm the government buildings. You're doing good work putting together all the pieces of the puzzle and explaining how the combined picture is one of an insurrection. But I think you're overcomplicating this because not only do we have all the pieces of the puzzle, we also have the puzzle box with the picture on the front and a title. We have Trump campaign memos from after the 2020 election results when they discussed the various means in which they could overturn the election. We have the discussions of the fake electors plot and how it would be implemented. They emailed about it and we have the emails. Sure, you can walk someone through how if you put all the pieces of the puzzle together and look at it then it looks like a plot to seize power after the people voted Trump out. But it came in a box labeled "secret plan to seize power after the people voted Trump out" and we have that box.
Does anyone have a good link for these? I have in-laws who are teetering on the edge of becoming "2020 was stolen" believers, and I'm struggling to find the right way to keep them from falling completely into the propaganda.
|
United States43404 Posts
On November 08 2024 04:14 WombaT wrote:
Hypothetically. If we were to reform institutions, what does that look like?
I’d remove term limits on Presidents first. It feels very arbitrary if we look at the other branches. Also it just feels kinda silly tbh. I understand the reason for it but you can absolutely end up with your best potential President being ineligible for the job
To compensate I’d slightly tweak the Supreme Court. I think Iong term expertise and surety of position are important. But perhaps it being a lottery of when someone dies versus who’s an incumbent President plus what does the Senate look like? Not ideal
I think perhaps you could say have a nomination per Pres term that both the Democrats and Republicans can do. You can either renew existing justices, or replace one from your own cohort. Make it bigger too. If there’s a vacancy, it has to be bipartisan with a threshold of 60% or whatever.
FDR was probably the most powerful president in history, he won four elections and there was very little in the way of checks on his power. He dominated the Supreme Court with the threat to pack it with his own loyalists if they didn't back down. It was his era that caused the two term rule. The rule exists for a reason.
In terms of reform you need to kill the two party winner takes all system. That's the root of the problem. Ranked choice, allocation of a state's EC seats based on PR and so forth.
End constituencies within states and replace them with ranked choice to nullify gerrymandering (there are anti gerrymandering commissions in states, they're infiltrated and politicized).
I'd probably scrap the Senate. It made sense in the original constitution in which states wielded far more power than they do today and the Federal government was involved only in interstate commerce, foreign policy, and national defence. It doesn't make sense today. We already have a representative Federal body that legislates on behalf of the nation. We don't need a second body that holds power in a dramatically disproportionate and undemocratic way to the first body in order to preserve a fiction of state sovereignty. Its only function today is to serve special interests and divert Federal dollars from where they're needed to the states with the outsized voting power.
You probably also need to ban most of social media and regulate the media which is something that could easily be abused but the alternative is somehow worse. The "pick your own truth" era has to end for there to be any hope of national political discourse and unity. It's tough because the alternative to "pick your own truth" is having a central authority let you know what the truth is like Russia does but I have confidence that it could be built in such a way that the official truth mirrors reality.
But all of this is surface level, the real problem is the permanent damage to the traditions of government. There is so much that is reliant on "well no patriot would ever do that" but there is no enforcement. And we cannot build an enforcement mechanism because the enforcement mechanism can't be designed in a way that actually makes it function. Once the taboo is broken it can't be unbroken, once SCOTUS start taking bribes we can't put that genie back in the bottle. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves.
It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy
So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself
Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway.
I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy
|
United States43404 Posts
On November 08 2024 04:31 raNazUra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:04 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 03:33 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 03:12 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2024 02:49 sevencck wrote:On November 08 2024 02:37 NewSunshine wrote:On November 08 2024 02:32 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 02:20 Slydie wrote:On November 08 2024 01:38 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -Hermann Hesse
The derangement around Trump is like 90% shadow projection. You're all just shadow boxing with your own inner tyrant imo. So the Trump voters who are angry at Kamala and Democrats are really just angry with their inner Kamala/Democrat? And what is 100% not a part of you so you are not disturbed by it? That kind of quotes are only good for making people angry. It is like a parent claiming "you are only fighting because you are so alike". The quote is a perfectly reasonable one, just completely ripped from what it’s meant to actually describe Correct. That quote has infinitely more to do with why a Trumper bristles at being called racist than it does with why reasonable people are upset with the Right's fascism. Incorrect. If you're reacting to something inside of you then you aren't actually responsive to what is outside of you, youre just shadow boxing and that's the difference. I don't see the same derangement among conservatives on any level, people very reasonably don't want to live under socialism. The derangement around Trump has been next level. When you foam at the mouth about him being a nazi, Hitler, a fascist, and a tyrant (particularly as you try to force a vaccine on others, and exlude those from society who refuse) it is quite clear that you are just shadow boxing. When you have a stroke about racism and all the rest of it, while accusing black men who voted for Trump of x, y, and z, it's clear you're just shadow boxing. The dems accused Trump of trying to overturn an election because he wanted a suspect result scrutinized. They're only articulating who they are inside. If I'm correct (I am), we will see dems advocate for not handing over power in the coming weeks. We've already seen such an intimation on the past couple page of the current discussion. Trump just wanted a suspect result scrutinized? The dude incited an actual insurrection. That is not 'just looking at a suspect result'. But sure, its the derangement around Trump, not your utter denial of reality... No, no he didn't. Do you think the Canadian trucker protest was also an insurrection, just curious? It was in front of the parliament buildings. They got called Nazis too btw, by the people who fight so tirelessly for inclusion. Seems like a memetic literal concrete comprehension which believes that a protest outside a government building makes it an insurrection, as though we're still living in the 4th century BCE, and not the information age. Guess when he told them to go home after 2 hours that was a typo, it was meant to read "send them to Bergen Belsen." No, no, no, no. A thousand times no. I defend the Trucker protest from the silly accusations of an insurrection. It most definitely was a protest. An obnoxious one to the local residents, but a protest nonetheless. Trudeau got excited because he thought he had a January 6 on his hands, but he was dead wrong. What Trump tried to do is nothing the same. He demanded that states stop counting votes of all things! Would you accept that from any Democrat president or would you be in the streets crying 'Tyrant'?? Trump tried to over-ride the will of the people (false electors). He was pressuring states to find votes for him, which constitutionally, the president has no role in the elector role. Besides, based on what he was asking, it was quite transparently a quest to just have the States declare the number he needed to win +1 and Trump's team 'would do the rest." His cronies went around deliberately lying about election fraud. (Giuliani's defence was that he lied, but it was his First Amendment right to do so.) All their climp chimped falsehoods were shut down in the courts and when it all failed, they tried to strong-arm Mike Pence into breaking his constitutional duty. Do you think it was a coincidence that they all showed up on January 6, carrying weapons and guns and shouting revolution, and "Hang Mike Pence?" The vote certification was delayed and it was a genuine attempt to stop the certification of the vote through intimidation. That goes well beyond a violent protest that attempts to persuade the government to change it's mind. It was a blatant attempt to overturn the functions of government itself through force. I don't mind calling that an insurrection. It is categorically different than the Trucker protest, who as far as I know stuck to the streets, adjusted their protest to allow a single lane of traffic through (I think-it's been so long now. I know that they did accept some restrictions put upon them by police... though not the one that told them to go home.) And I don't even think they crossed onto the lawn outside Parliament, but certainly did not try to storm the government buildings. You're doing good work putting together all the pieces of the puzzle and explaining how the combined picture is one of an insurrection. But I think you're overcomplicating this because not only do we have all the pieces of the puzzle, we also have the puzzle box with the picture on the front and a title. We have Trump campaign memos from after the 2020 election results when they discussed the various means in which they could overturn the election. We have the discussions of the fake electors plot and how it would be implemented. They emailed about it and we have the emails. Sure, you can walk someone through how if you put all the pieces of the puzzle together and look at it then it looks like a plot to seize power after the people voted Trump out. But it came in a box labeled "secret plan to seize power after the people voted Trump out" and we have that box. Does anyone have a good link for these? I have in-laws who are teetering on the edge of becoming "2020 was stolen" believers, and I'm struggling to find the right way to keep them from falling completely into the propaganda.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/chesebro-dec-6-memo/ce55d6abd79c2c71/full.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fraudulent-electors-memo-kenneth-chesebro-trump-indictment/
On March 30 2024 09:20 KwarK wrote:We have a clear path to Trump staying in power. 1. Pence fails to certify the electors. According to Pence he was only actually talked into certifying them by Dan fucking Quayle. Also the Secret Service attempted to remove Pence before certification took place. Also an explicitly stated goal of Trump's mob that he specifically called upon them to do was to get him to certify the election. 2. The Republican controlled state legislatures give Trump the electoral college votes won by Biden. That's wholly plausible given how many state representatives openly say the election was stolen by Biden and that Trump won. When asked they'll happily confirm they agree with the stolen election conspiracy theory and will vote accordingly. https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/republican-nominees-in-40-states-think-the-2020-election-was-stolen-heres-why-that-matters/Anyway, here's some excerpts from Trump's Jan 6 speech. Show nested quote +Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.
States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.
And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: "Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage." And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen.
...
And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn't, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution.
...
They want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.
(Audience chants: "Send it back.")
...
Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I'm not hearing good stories. So it's really not clear that the mob Trump raised at that rally was an explicit attempt to send the elections back to the states beyond the literal chants of "send it back" that he led the mob in. And it's really not clear that it was an order and a threat against Mike Pence beyond "we're not going to let that happen" and "I'm going to be very disappointed in you", and of course, the fact that the mob started chanting "hang Mike Pence" for some reason. So which part of the seizure of power do you think was so unlikely. Mike Pence failing to certify or the Republican State officials buying into the Trump election narrative? The part that barely failed because of Dan Quayle and the Secret Service or the part that didn't fail at all? People go "well I don't see how we get from Trump's mob to him staying in power" as if he didn't fucking lay it out for them step by step. Show nested quote +All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president Direct quote from Donald Trump on Jan 6 to his mob before sending them to make Pence send it back. Trump explained his plan to his followers but now people, who can literally watch the video in which Trump explains his plan which he specifically states is a plan to seize power, say "I don't think there was an actual plan to seize power".
On March 30 2024 05:20 KwarK wrote:To those doubting that there was a conspiracy or who may be unaware, Christopher Miller, the non approved Acting Defense Secretary (after Mark Esper resigned over disagreements with Trump), issued this memo on Jan 4 2021 that explicitly barred the DC National Guard from being deployed in response to a protest. It also forbade them from assisting the capitol police and other law enforcement. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Christopher_Miller_memo_of_Jan_4_2021.jpg) It’s an astonishing document. The head of the DC National Guard, Major General William Walker, testified that it was that memo that prevented him from deploying the guard in defence of the capitol. Show nested quote +Guard officials located with Major General Walker at the Armory all say he seriously contemplated aloud the possibility of breaking with the chain of command,” according to the report. “‘Should we just deploy now and resign tomorrow?’ [an officer] recalled Major General Walker bluntly putting it.”
Walker told the committee he “would have done just that,” had acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy not sent out two memos just days earlier. For a spontaneous mob attack that was probably antifa anyway there sure was a lot of preparation by Trump’s team.
On March 30 2024 07:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2024 06:56 Belisarius wrote:
Honestly, that's more preparation than I thought they were capable of.
Where are the minutes you referred to? Show nested quote +Just five days after Election Day in 2020, a conservative lawyer named Kenneth Chesebro emailed a former judge who was working for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, James R. Troupis, pitching an idea for how to overturn the results.
Through litigation, Mr. Chesebro said, the Trump campaign could allege “various systemic abuses” and, with court proceedings pending, encourage legislatures to appoint “alternative” pro-Trump electors that could be certified instead of the Biden electors chosen by the voters.
“At minimum, with such a cloud of confusion, no votes from WI (and perhaps also MI and PA) should be counted, perhaps enough to throw the election to the House,” Mr. Chesebro wrote to Mr. Troupis, referring to the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Troupis quickly brought Mr. Chesebro into the Trump legal team, directed him to lay out the plans in a series of memos now central to the indictment of Donald J. Trump and a month later — with the help of Reince Priebus, the former White House chief of staff — secured a meeting with Mr. Trump at the White House.
The email is the earliest known evidence of Mr. Chesebro’s involvement in what would become known as the false elector plot. It was released Monday along with a trove of more than 1,400 pages of text messages and emails belonging to Mr. Troupis and Mr. Chesebro as they settled a lawsuit against them filed in Wisconsin.
Taken together, the documents show in new detail how the Trump campaign’s litigation strategy was not designed to win in court as much as it was designed to give cover for their political efforts. And they underscore the central role that Mr. Troupis — previously a little-known figure in the effort to overturn the election — played in furthering the plans.
The messages also detail how Mr. Chesebro worked to get the false-electors documents into the hands of members of Congress, and how Mr. Chesebro — who has since pleaded guilty in Georgia to a felony conspiracy charge related to the scheme — celebrated the crowd that was gathering in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, before a violent mob stormed the Capitol. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/chesebro-troupis-jan-6-messages.htmlAfter they lost the election they followed an explicit and documented strategy of disrupting the certification of the electors and the transfer of power in order to toss it to the Republican controlled state legislatures. They wrote the plan down. 1,400 memos, emails, and text messages including the Show nested quote +“At minimum, with such a cloud of confusion, no votes from WI (and perhaps also MI and PA) should be counted, perhaps enough to throw the election to the House,”
encourage legislatures to appoint “alternative” pro-Trump electors that could be certified instead of the Biden electors chosen by the voters. above. The idea that they didn’t plan to storm the capitol and physically prevent the certification of the Biden victory is undermined by the literal plan to do it.
|
On November 08 2024 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. That's part of what I'm talking about when I say that is " irrational from a practical perspective and inconsistent with their understanding of free speech absolutism and the tolerance paradox"
On November 08 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway. I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy
Answering both quotes:
It probably is irrational from a practical perspective, but when it comes to the inconsistency, there's no way around it. If democrats decided not to hand over power, that is destroying democracy. Handing over power also brings the possibility of democracy being destroyed. If you look at the situation and say 'My priority is to protect democracy in any way I can' then you are greeted with a dilemma, where neither position is inconsistent because its not black and white like that. Do you destroy democracy to protect democracy? If that's the question, there is no answer consistent with a belief in democracy being an end (as opposed to means to achieve another end) in of itself.
So its more a matter of perspective and priority. I would fully expect your perspective and priority to be to stop fascism by any means necessary.
That is NOT the perspective of the Democrats.
|
On November 08 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway. I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy
It's literally a false dichotomy, it works if you're only allowed to believe the chances of Trump's 2nd term being the end of democracy are one of 0% or 100%.
|
On November 08 2024 04:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. That's part of what I'm talking about when I say that is " irrational from a practical perspective and inconsistent with their understanding of free speech absolutism and the tolerance paradox" Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway. I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy Answering both quotes: It probably is irrational from a practical perspective, but when it comes to the inconsistency, there's no way around it. If democrats decided not to hand over power, that is destroying democracy. Handing over power also brings the possibility of democracy being destroyed. If you look at the situation and say 'My priority is to protect democracy in any way I can' then you are greeted with a dilemma, where neither position is inconsistent because its not black and white like that. Do you destroy democracy to protect democracy? If that's the question, there is no answer consistent with a belief in democracy being an end (as opposed to means to achieve another end) in of itself. So its more a matter of perspective and priority. I would fully expect your perspective and priority to be to stop fascism by any means necessary. That is NOT the perspective of the Democrats.
Handing power to known fascists you believe will destroy democracy (and have been saying as much for months/years) is destroying democracy.
You're basically making the argument that anything less than free speech absolutism destroys the 1st amendment.
Which fine, but then recognize the hypocrisy of knowing that's stupid when it comes to the 1st amendment and pretending like you don't how stupid a belief that is when it comes to fascism and democracy.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 08 2024 04:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:14 WombaT wrote:
Hypothetically. If we were to reform institutions, what does that look like?
I’d remove term limits on Presidents first. It feels very arbitrary if we look at the other branches. Also it just feels kinda silly tbh. I understand the reason for it but you can absolutely end up with your best potential President being ineligible for the job
To compensate I’d slightly tweak the Supreme Court. I think Iong term expertise and surety of position are important. But perhaps it being a lottery of when someone dies versus who’s an incumbent President plus what does the Senate look like? Not ideal
I think perhaps you could say have a nomination per Pres term that both the Democrats and Republicans can do. You can either renew existing justices, or replace one from your own cohort. Make it bigger too. If there’s a vacancy, it has to be bipartisan with a threshold of 60% or whatever. FDR was probably the most powerful president in history, he won four elections and there was very little in the way of checks on his power. He dominated the Supreme Court with the threat to pack it with his own loyalists if they didn't back down. It was his era that caused the two term rule. The rule exists for a reason. In terms of reform you need to kill the two party winner takes all system. That's the root of the problem. Ranked choice, allocation of a state's EC seats based on PR and so forth. End constituencies within states and replace them with ranked choice to nullify gerrymandering (there are anti gerrymandering commissions in states, they're infiltrated and politicized). I'd probably scrap the Senate. It made sense in the original constitution in which states wielded far more power than they do today and the Federal government was involved only in interstate commerce, foreign policy, and national defence. It doesn't make sense today. We already have a representative Federal body that legislates on behalf of the nation. We don't need a second body that holds power in a dramatically disproportionate and undemocratic way to the first body in order to preserve a fiction of state sovereignty. Its only function today is to serve special interests and divert Federal dollars from where they're needed to the states with the outsized voting power. You probably also need to ban most of social media and regulate the media which is something that could easily be abused but the alternative is somehow worse. The "pick your own truth" era has to end for there to be any hope of national political discourse and unity. It's tough because the alternative to "pick your own truth" is having a central authority let you know what the truth is like Russia does but I have confidence that it could be built in such a way that the official truth mirrors reality. But all of this is surface level, the real problem is the permanent damage to the traditions of government. There is so much that is reliant on "well no patriot would ever do that" but there is no enforcement. And we cannot build an enforcement mechanism because the enforcement mechanism can't be designed in a way that actually makes it function. Once the taboo is broken it can't be unbroken, once SCOTUS start taking bribes we can't put that genie back in the bottle. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
FDR did kick some arse though. For me possibly the greatest US President, despite his flaws.
You almost need term limits because over an elongated period, your ability to appoint various things becomes increasingly powerful. But ultimately I think it’s a matter of neutering that relationship, rather than limiting the terms of a President
I wouldn’t ban social media, I think it needs regulated and I think it needs a big cohort of nations interfacing with the companies and end users to come up with a better framework. But it has to be both consistent and multifaceted.
The early internet saw self-regulation from principled people, internet 2.0 and beyond hasn’t, so someone has to step in.
Fake news to me is the biggest threat to our democracy, you have to do something about it. Ironically a big beneficiary of it popularised the phrase, but it 100% needs to be tackled.
I think you can maybe keep the Senate, but you have to make some other tweaks, namely making the Presidency a straight popular vote.
So you end up with a population weighted House of Representatives, a straight popular vote President and the Senate weighting for states versus people.
|
On November 08 2024 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. That's part of what I'm talking about when I say that is " irrational from a practical perspective and inconsistent with their understanding of free speech absolutism and the tolerance paradox" On November 08 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway. I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy Answering both quotes: It probably is irrational from a practical perspective, but when it comes to the inconsistency, there's no way around it. If democrats decided not to hand over power, that is destroying democracy. Handing over power also brings the possibility of democracy being destroyed. If you look at the situation and say 'My priority is to protect democracy in any way I can' then you are greeted with a dilemma, where neither position is inconsistent because its not black and white like that. Do you destroy democracy to protect democracy? If that's the question, there is no answer consistent with a belief in democracy being an end (as opposed to means to achieve another end) in of itself. So its more a matter of perspective and priority. I would fully expect your perspective and priority to be to stop fascism by any means necessary. That is NOT the perspective of the Democrats. Handing power to known fascists you believe will destroy democracy (and have been saying as much for months/years) is destroying democracy. You're basically making the argument that anything less than free speech absolutism destroys the 1st amendment. Which fine, but then recognize the hypocrisy of knowing that's stupid when it comes to the 1st amendment and pretending like you don't how stupid a belief that is when it comes to fascism and democracy.
I'm missing a logical connect here.
I'm not saying anything about free speech absolutism or the first amendment and I don't get any connection you're trying to make there.
I'm making the point that setting fire to something does not protect it from being destroyed.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 08 2024 04:42 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway. I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy It's literally a false dichotomy, it works if you're only allowed to believe the chances of Trump's 2nd term being the end of democracy are one of 0% or 100%.
In reality it’s not a false dichotomy.
If your framing is that Trump will end democracy, it’s a dichotomy.
GH’s point isn’t that Trump will end democracy, it’s that certain Dems make the claim.
And if they make that claim, it becomes a dichotomy.
You either have to concede that acruel imminent Fascism isn’t really coming, so it’s business as usual.
Or, if you think imminent Fascism is coming, do something to prevent it beyond the ballot box you just lost.
But it’s a dichotomy. And a dichotomy of the Dem’s creation.
|
Canada11382 Posts
Yeah, I think the big difference is something that is highly probable or at least way more possible than should ever be vs it has already happened and democracy is already over when it comes to a violent overthrow like I was allowing.
So if it really was the case that there were hundreds of boxes of fake ballots being brought in, that it really was the case that the same ballot was being swiped hundreds of time and that thousands of dead people were being voted in as living and it really was the case that in living rooms there were people filling out hundreds more of ballots to stuff. And if it really is the case that the Democrats fully controlled the courts to stop the evidence from being heard (they even got to Trump's appointed judges.) And if was the case that they had infiltrated the Republican party to swing over Raffensperger, Bill Barr, Jeff Rosen, the entire justice department, Trump's own aides and Mike Pence, etc, etc. Then, I suppose if all that being true, then democracy is already over and there's isn't as much risk of ending democracy to save democracy as democracy is already dead.
However, with Trump there is a worse than average risk of him taking an authoritarian swing based upon his past actions and the fact that he'll have way less people to check his authoritarian inclinations with Mike Pence, Bill Barr and company all gone. However, the worst has not arrived yet, nor is that possibility inevitable. So ending democracy to save democracy on a possibility however probable is not a good move.
I don't even think the risk is that Trump becomes dictator for life so much as he continues to damage the institutions and separation of the branches of power as well as conspiracy brain a large side of the electorate. His use of executive power, the enshrinement of criminal immunity, and him walking away scot free from trying to overthrow the last election has lasting damage to the health of America's institutions.
|
On November 08 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:42 Dan HH wrote:On November 08 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 04:16 Falling wrote:
And by the way, if a party ever did conspire to and succeed at undermining an election to get themselves in power by mass fraud, you probably should rebel against said government. The problem is the whole thing is a lie, they knew it was a lie, and people like Steven Bannon were saying exactly what they were going to do prior to them doing it. (Plus the Chesboro memo.)
The other problem is there is quite a bit of false equivalence where opening up additional days to advance voting is also called fraud because they shortened the process to make the change because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
The justification for January 6 is lies top to bottom and was only the last attempt in a series of attempts to undermine votes of the American citizens. This actually captures something about the choice before Democrats quite well. Do they acknowledge that they know it's a lie? Harris was lying when she called Trump a fascist and they've all been spreading this lie like Trumpers did the "stolen election" for months, years really. As such, they must do the right thing and peacefully give Trump power. Or Do they acknowledge Trump is a fascist. Harris was right to call him one. As such, they must do the right thing and by any means necessary prevent a known fascist from taking control of "the most lethal military in the world". That's sorta how I get to the conclusion it's actually more hypocritical for Democrats peacefully transfer power to Trump than it is to refuse to empower a fascist. This could feasibly be a false dichotomy though. Its possible that they believe handing power over peacefully to a fascist is preferable to the alternative of temporarily destroying democracy themselves. It’s not a false dichotomy because if you believe x is a Fascist who will destroy democracy, handing over power to them is destroying democracy So if you’re unwilling to do anything you either believe x is absolute shit and sucks, but isn’t an actual threat to democracy itself Or, you believe they are, but give them the keys to the kingdom anyway. I think we’ve a tendency to oversimplify some complex stuff, but I think this particular one is a legitimate dichotomy It's literally a false dichotomy, it works if you're only allowed to believe the chances of Trump's 2nd term being the end of democracy are one of 0% or 100%. In reality it’s not a false dichotomy. If your framing is that Trump will end democracy, it’s a dichotomy. GH’s point isn’t that Trump will end democracy, it’s that certain Dems make the claim. And if they make that claim, it becomes a dichotomy. You either have to concede that acruel imminent Fascism isn’t really coming, so it’s business as usual. Or, if you think imminent Fascism is coming, do something to prevent it beyond the ballot box you just lost. But it’s a dichotomy. And a dichotomy of the Dem’s creation.
Again this makes the assumption that priority is stop the fascists by any means necessary.
Its a trolley problem all over again. I'm sure we've had this exact discussion on here before.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
If you concede Trump is a bit shit and what do we do? And there’s a bunch of possible options moving forwards, it’s not a dichotomy.
But if you say he’s a Fascist that will destroy democracy, there are literally only two options there. And if one accepts that framing it’s 100% a dichotomy.
There isn’t a third option. You either let the Fascist (that you tagged a Fascist) do their thing, or you vehemently oppose the Fascist however you can
If you say ‘Trump is a giant Fascist but we’ll peacefully transfer power to him’ there are legitimately only two calculuses to take away from that.
Either you earnestly think he’s a Fascist, but aren’t willing to do anything about it beyond ballot box democracy, or you don’t actually think he’s a democracy destroying Fascist
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
