|
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 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.
There's two steps here. The odds of him attempting to end it and the odds of him succeeding. Neither of those is at 100% in even the doomiest of predictions.
If you see it as not wanting to trade a perceived x% chance to end democracy for a certainty, the 'contradiction' between the rhetoric and handing over power evaporates.
Anyway, I don't know what you guys are smoking with this angle. The thoughts that Dems could energize people for a pre-emptive civil war before the crime they're supposed to be warring against even happens, or get the overwhelmingly conservative law enforcement/military to support them in a coup having just lost the elections fair and square across the board - seem absolutely preposterous to me.
|
On November 08 2024 05:06 WombaT wrote:
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
I earnestly think you're a nice guy. Should I give you the keys to my car and house?
There's a thing here about how we interpret people's words. You guys seem to be thinking about this theoretically, rather than in real life where things are uncertain, and everything in the future is a possibility, no matter how certain we are when we say things.
Someone might genuinely think Trump is a fascist and will end democracy, so if I gave them a gun and said shoot him would not doing so make them inconsistent?
Would it mean that they haven't thought their position through, or would it mean that although they said he was a fascist and will end democracy, they aren't sure enough to shoot the guy in the head?
|
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
I don’t think Trump is an existential threat to democracy in the United States. I think he has instincts in that domain, I don’t personally think he can pull it off. Consider me an optimist.
However I don’t make the claim that he’s a Fascist and if you don’t vote for me he’ll destroy democracy.
If you make that claim, you can either vehemently oppose him by any possible means necessary, or not. If you’re not willing to, you’re either not willing to put the boat out to oppose a democracy destroying Fascist, or you don’t actually believe they’re that.
|
On November 08 2024 04:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
You familiar with the tolerance paradox?
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), where he argued that a truly tolerant society must not tolerate those who promote intolerance.[2] Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.
Typically Democrats come down on the side that we have to be intolerant of some things to maintain a tolerant society, and an argument I'm reasonably sure you've made yourself here.
Now you're basically making the argument that we need to tolerate the intolerance of a fascist democracy destroying dictator taking control of the most lethal military in the world to protect our tolerant society. It is asinine on its face.
|
On November 08 2024 05:14 WombaT wrote:
I don’t think Trump is an existential threat to democracy in the United States. I think he has instincts in that domain, I don’t personally think he can pull it off. Consider me an optimist.
However I don’t make the claim that he’s a Fascist and if you don’t vote for me he’ll destroy democracy.
If you make that claim, you can either vehemently oppose him by any possible means necessary, or not. If you’re not willing to, you’re either not willing to put the boat out to oppose a democracy destroying Fascist, or you don’t actually believe they’re that.
OR you think they are that, and are sure enough to say it but are not sure enough to burn the whole country down.
|
On November 08 2024 05:06 WombaT wrote:
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
A diversity of tactics have been employed over the centuries in opposing autocrats and aspiring autocrats over the centuries, and I don’t think it’s remotely obvious that an unpopular faction attempting to preemptively seize power in a counter-coup is the only option or a particularly good one. It’s quite likely that we should be exploring options besides “come up with our best candidate to run against him in 4 years” but whatever that movement looks like, I don’t think Joe Biden or Kamala Harris will be at the head of it.
I think an attempt to hold onto power or overturn the election results by current Democrats would be counterproductive, likely unsuccessful, would embolden Trump and increase his popularity. I don’t think that’s remotely inconsistent with saying Trump and the MAGA movement are existential threats to our democratic system of government.
|
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
On November 08 2024 05:10 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote: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. There's two steps here. The odds of him attempting to end it and the odds of him succeeding. Neither of those is at 100% in even the doomiest of predictions. If you see it as not wanting to trade a perceived x% chance to end democracy for a certainty, the 'contradiction' between the rhetoric and handing over power evaporates. Anyway, I don't know what you guys are smoking with this angle. The thoughts that Dems could energize people for a pre-emptive civil war before the crime they're supposed to be warring against even happens, or get the overwhelmingly conservative law enforcement/military to support them in a coup having just lost the elections fair and square across the board - seem absolutely preposterous to me.
Dems made the claim, and it didn’t really land.
I’m not talking about Trump or his wider platform. There are many ways to oppose that in many spheres.
But if you claim he’s a Fascist who’s going to destroy democracy, civilly handing power over is bizarre.
I didn’t make the claim, I don’t personally believe the claim. But if you make the claim well, you gotta act accordingly
|
On November 08 2024 05:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 05:10 Dan HH wrote:On November 08 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote: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. There's two steps here. The odds of him attempting to end it and the odds of him succeeding. Neither of those is at 100% in even the doomiest of predictions. If you see it as not wanting to trade a perceived x% chance to end democracy for a certainty, the 'contradiction' between the rhetoric and handing over power evaporates. Anyway, I don't know what you guys are smoking with this angle. The thoughts that Dems could energize people for a pre-emptive civil war before the crime they're supposed to be warring against even happens, or get the overwhelmingly conservative law enforcement/military to support them in a coup having just lost the elections fair and square across the board - seem absolutely preposterous to me. Dems made the claim, and it didn’t really land. I’m not talking about Trump or his wider platform. There are many ways to oppose that in many spheres. But if you claim he’s a Fascist who’s going to destroy democracy, civilly handing power over is bizarre. I didn’t make the claim, I don’t personally believe the claim. But if you make the claim well, you gotta act accordingly
By the exact same token, the conversation from earlier comes back.
If Trump believed the election was stolen, he didn't go nearly far enough on Jan 6 and should have gone all in the insurrection.
|
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
On November 08 2024 05:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 05:06 WombaT wrote:
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 A diversity of tactics have been employed over the centuries in opposing autocrats and aspiring autocrats over the centuries, and I don’t think it’s remotely obvious that an unpopular faction attempting to preemptively seize power in a counter-coup is the only option or a particularly good one. It’s quite likely that we should be exploring options besides “come up with our best candidate to run against him in 4 years” but whatever that movement looks like, I don’t think Joe Biden or Kamala Harris will be at the head of it. I think an attempt to hold onto power or overturn the election results by current Democrats would be counterproductive, likely unsuccessful, would embolden Trump and increase his popularity. I don’t think that’s remotely inconsistent with saying Trump and the MAGA movement are existential threats to our democratic system of government.
I don’t disagree with any of that, many options are available.
But if you try to sell that Trump is an existential threat to US democracy more widely and is going to institute Fascism you have to kinda behave accordingly.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
Are people in this thread just discovering that word "Fascist" became an empty insult? Please, Putin calls Zelenskiy that, Kamala calls Trump that, freaking Orwell was already writing in 1946 about devaluation of "Fascist" stamp. So of course Kamala will call Trump a fascist in hopes of igniting visceral reaction and turn-out, and she succeeded. It's just that general situation is so perceivably bad (for incumbent) that Trump once again vastly outperformed his first election and hence won just as he did with Hillary (but popular vote included). 2020 is an aberration even without any election fraud conspiracies, and hence should be ignored until US is running an election race in lockdown conditions once again.
|
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
On November 08 2024 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 05:19 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 05:10 Dan HH wrote:On November 08 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote: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. There's two steps here. The odds of him attempting to end it and the odds of him succeeding. Neither of those is at 100% in even the doomiest of predictions. If you see it as not wanting to trade a perceived x% chance to end democracy for a certainty, the 'contradiction' between the rhetoric and handing over power evaporates. Anyway, I don't know what you guys are smoking with this angle. The thoughts that Dems could energize people for a pre-emptive civil war before the crime they're supposed to be warring against even happens, or get the overwhelmingly conservative law enforcement/military to support them in a coup having just lost the elections fair and square across the board - seem absolutely preposterous to me. Dems made the claim, and it didn’t really land. I’m not talking about Trump or his wider platform. There are many ways to oppose that in many spheres. But if you claim he’s a Fascist who’s going to destroy democracy, civilly handing power over is bizarre. I didn’t make the claim, I don’t personally believe the claim. But if you make the claim well, you gotta act accordingly By the exact same token, the conversation from earlier comes back. If Trump believed the election was stolen, he didn't go nearly far enough on Jan 6 and should have gone all in the insurrection.
He could have, it would be consistent. Although I wouldn’t agree with it.
I’m not sure if the actual point I’m trying to make is landing sufficiently. It’s purely that if Dems want to frame Trump as a Fascist who’ll destroy democracy, but will hand over power, they don’t really believe he’s going to destroy democracy, or want to do much about it.
|
On November 08 2024 05:25 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 05:19 ChristianS wrote:On November 08 2024 05:06 WombaT wrote:
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 A diversity of tactics have been employed over the centuries in opposing autocrats and aspiring autocrats over the centuries, and I don’t think it’s remotely obvious that an unpopular faction attempting to preemptively seize power in a counter-coup is the only option or a particularly good one. It’s quite likely that we should be exploring options besides “come up with our best candidate to run against him in 4 years” but whatever that movement looks like, I don’t think Joe Biden or Kamala Harris will be at the head of it. I think an attempt to hold onto power or overturn the election results by current Democrats would be counterproductive, likely unsuccessful, would embolden Trump and increase his popularity. I don’t think that’s remotely inconsistent with saying Trump and the MAGA movement are existential threats to our democratic system of government. I don’t disagree with any of that, many options are available. But if you try to sell that Trump is an existential threat to US democracy more widely and is going to institute Fascism you have to kinda behave accordingly.
“Behave accordingly” is vague enough I don’t see how anyone could disagree, but in this context it seems to mean “utilize the legal immunity SCOTUS has recently given the executive to employ some unilateral strategy to prevent the election winner from taking power.” In a word, assassination, although this could include all manner of legally creative schemes to accomplish the task (Trump attempted many of them in 2020).
I don’t think that would go well, and I don’t think that disproves that Trump is a fascist or that he would “end democracy” (itself a vague, abstracted phrase that is perhaps responsible for some of the ambiguity this discussion is tripping over).
|
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power
|
On November 08 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power
If you believe democratic elections are the only legitimate basis for power, and overturning a democratic election to instead impose your will unilaterally is fundamentally illegitimate and fascist, I don’t think it would be especially coherent to say “but we’re going to overturn a democratic election and unilaterally impose our will because we think democracy is just that important.” You’re trying to demonstrate a hypocrisy or prove they’re disingenuous for not saying that, but I simply don’t think it works.
From those premises the “legitimate” way to stop fascism was to campaign against it and prevent it from winning an election, and they took some extraordinary measures in pursuit of that goal, but they failed. After that there isn’t an internally consistent strategy that achieves victory, the only thing you can do is admit defeat.
|
On November 08 2024 05:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2024 05:19 WombaT wrote:On November 08 2024 05:10 Dan HH wrote:On November 08 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote: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. There's two steps here. The odds of him attempting to end it and the odds of him succeeding. Neither of those is at 100% in even the doomiest of predictions. If you see it as not wanting to trade a perceived x% chance to end democracy for a certainty, the 'contradiction' between the rhetoric and handing over power evaporates. Anyway, I don't know what you guys are smoking with this angle. The thoughts that Dems could energize people for a pre-emptive civil war before the crime they're supposed to be warring against even happens, or get the overwhelmingly conservative law enforcement/military to support them in a coup having just lost the elections fair and square across the board - seem absolutely preposterous to me. Dems made the claim, and it didn’t really land. I’m not talking about Trump or his wider platform. There are many ways to oppose that in many spheres. But if you claim he’s a Fascist who’s going to destroy democracy, civilly handing power over is bizarre. I didn’t make the claim, I don’t personally believe the claim. But if you make the claim well, you gotta act accordingly By the exact same token, the conversation from earlier comes back. If Trump believed the election was stolen, he didn't go nearly far enough on Jan 6 and should have gone all in the insurrection. He could have, it would be consistent. Although I wouldn’t agree with it. I’m not sure if the actual point I’m trying to make is landing sufficiently. It’s purely that if Dems want to frame Trump as a Fascist who’ll destroy democracy, but will hand over power, they don’t really believe he’s going to destroy democracy, or want to do much about it.
I understood but you're being too absolute about it, there's room for nuance here. They can really believe he is a threat that might (rather than the certain "will" or "going to" that you've been using) destroy/erode democracy and at the same time believe that trying to hold power by force in the current circumstances would increase that risk rather than decrease it. There's no inherent conflict between these positions.
|
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
Fair points the last 2 of you.
Not a huge amount for me to argue with there
|
There's also the fact that Trump is 78 and getting tired. He's probably going to spend half of his time on the golf course or with some other leisure activity judging from last time he was president. He also really doesn't have any convictions except being right, getting rich and avoiding going to jail. Not exactly Hitler at 43 who had already gone to jail for his beliefs.
He has a lot of grudges and will probably do some questionable shit in that regard but do we really see him as dictator material at 82 when his term is over? Making a lot of money and giving himself a full pardon? Absolutely. Staying on for life? Ehh...
|
On November 08 2024 05:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
There's also the fact that Trump is 78 and getting tired. He's probably going to spend half of his time on the golf course or with some other leisure activity judging from last time he was president. He also really doesn't have any convictions except being right, getting rich and avoiding going to jail. Not exactly Hitler at 43 who had already gone to jail for his beliefs.
He has a lot of grudges and will probably do some questionable shit in that regard but do we really see him as dictator material at 82 when his term is over? Making a lot of money and giving himself a full pardon? Absolutely. Staying on for life? Ehh...
I don't believe Trump can realistically pull it off, but if someone were to show him a realistic way to total invicibility, he'd take it. Trump will attempt to trample on everyone's rights and freedoms wherever he sees fit, and - other than external forces stopping him - the only remaining hope for people is that they randomly happen to never come into Trump's crossfire. It's a huge gamble, and we hope that Trump has enough blockades around him. We're betting on the existing checks and balances, as well as a large portion of luck.
Almost everyone in America is effectively Trump's enemy. His enemies know this, and his supporters are blissfully unaware. But even some of his supporters will feel it soon enough, even if they never realize until the bitter end that he's the real culprit. They'll blame Democrats for everything that goes wrong under Trump.
|
On November 08 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power
Not only that, but their cry of being the party of Democracy rings really hollow when they have behaved VERY undemocratically in two of the last 3 elections. Probably would have been 3/3 of the last 3 elections if the Pandemic hadn't cut the primary short in 2020.
Pushing Kamala Harris through as the Presidential Nominee after Biden dropped out without so much as a public debate. You really expect people to take you seriously that Trump is the danger to Democracy? It caused everyone to just default to "both parties are the same."
When "both parties are the same" is rampant in the electorate, Democrat turnout craters. So far the numbers look like 15 million fewer Liberals came out to vote this year.
|
On November 08 2024 06:35 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power Not only that, but their cry of being the party of Democracy rings really hollow when they have behaved VERY undemocratically in two of the last 3 elections. Probably would have been 3/3 of the last 3 elections if the Pandemic hadn't cut the primary short in 2020. Pushing Kamala Harris through as the Presidential Nominee after Biden dropped out without so much as a public debate. You really expect people to take you seriously that Trump is the danger to Democracy? It caused everyone to just default to "both parties are the same." When "both parties are the same" is rampant in the electorate, Democrat turnout craters. So far the numbers look like 15 million fewer Liberals came out to vote this year.
Harris lost and power is peacefully being transferred to Trump. That is an argument in favor of democracy working as intended.
You're not making a lick of sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
