|
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 |
Norway28443 Posts
Both Biden and Trump are unpopular. From April, 47% of Democrats said they wanted him to run again and 52% said they didn't want him to run again. (Trump's number was 55% of republicans being positive). Virtually every non-democrat wants Biden to not run again and virtually every non-republican wants trump to not run again.
Trump's numbers are pretty good for a loser of a presidential election while I imagine Biden's number is pretty abhorrent for an incumbent. To be fair I haven't seen similar numbers for say, Obama, but honestly I'm guessing at this point of his first term a pretty huge majority of Democrats wanted him to run for a second term.
81% of democrats said they'd probably or definitely vote for Biden in a presidential election, so I mean, people are largely planning on falling in line, but more than half would like to fall in line behind another candidate instead. He still might be the most popular candidate because of the lack of other strong candidates, but the lack of other strong candidates might also be partially because of the expectation that 'well he's the incumbent so let's just run him, regardless of his obvious issues'.
|
On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 07:10 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 06:52 WombaT wrote:On September 07 2023 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 01:03 KwarK wrote:
Of course it’s ill advised. Do you have a better plan? 99% of your posts are along the lines of:
Person A says “this sucks but it’s the result of structural issues that can’t be remedied and so it’s outside of my control, even though it’s undeniably bad”
You respond “how come you, and also the Democrats, are deliberately imposing this thing which I have come to a unique understanding is actually bad but you guys don’t know that because you’re not special like me”
We all see the problems. They’re not exactly hard to see. You have no unique insight into them. Better than raging at and shaming oppressed people that need Democrats to do better/more to shut up and fall in line a year before the nominating convention? Yeah lol. Just not doing that would be a step up. Better than that might be joining and amplifying a chorus of people saying "yeah, they DO need to do better if they want to win in 2024" even if you ultimately plan on telling them to shut up and fall in line like you in 2024. Better than might be actually believing it and treating it like something that mattered to oneself to put real pressure on Democrats to do more than be not-Republicans that vaguely impede a progressing Republican led march into fascism. Note the complete lack of an answer to the question "Do you have a better plan". It's literally a better plan. Kwark+others plan: raging at and shaming people to shut up and fall in line behind a guy ~75% of the country thinks is too old for the job a year before the party nomination to avoid the potential of Democrats voluntarily handing fascists command of the strongest military in the world with the capacity to make it uninhabitable. Better/non-idiotic plan: join in on demanding Democrats do better/more to improve their own probability of beating Trump so they don't choose to hand fascists command of the strongest military on the planet with the capacity to make it uninhabitable. bullshit. Hope Trump loses the election is everyones plan. You asked what to do when Trump won. "hope for another candidate" is not an answer to the question what to do when Trump wins. So answer the question. What do you think America should do if Trump win in 2024, regardless of who he runs again? You’re just asking for GH to answer a question one should answer oneself. I might be missing something here. GH asked a question of the thread. "should Biden hand over Power to Trump if Trump wins". Its a fine question and a somewhat interesting discussion. I myself votes for yes, because as others have said the solution to preserving Democracy isn't to kill it. GH complains, Kwark asks him for his own answer and GH, as always, dodges, I call him out on it and he dodges yet again. What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers. You’ve all voted for a hypothetical where a fascist returning to power is preferable to ‘democracy’ being impinged. By a landslide. And yet you all wonder why the left isn’t particularly enthusiastic? The question wasn't if the Democrats can do better, again almost everyone in this thread would probably say they can do better.
But the question GH asked, and refuses to answer himself, is if Biden should peacefully hand over power if Trump were to win.
|
United States24449 Posts
On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:
What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers.
I may have also missed it, but can you quote/cite where GH answered the question today?
|
On September 07 2023 07:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:
What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers.
I may have also missed it, but can you quote/cite where GH answered the question today?
My first answer was:
On September 06 2023 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If Trump is the usher for fascism in the US as Democrats insist (and they are basically right imo) it makes me wonder: If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist? It would seem to create a bit of a dilemma/paradox where the only way to protect the US from being ruled by a fascist would be to disregard its democracy. As such I'm curious where people here fall on that possibility. Poll: If Trump wins, should Biden peacefully transfer power to Trump?Yes (15) 79% No (2) 11% I don't know (2) 11% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ I don't know
Indications are this is going to be a perpetual question people opposing Republicans have to ask themselves with the names changing but not the core question about whether the US should/will empower a fascist if their democracy votes for it. Very fascinating results. The primary rationales for "yes" seems to be: 1. Trump/Republicans aren't fascist so if they are lost to they will be removed democratically in a future election (kinda flies in the face of Democrat campaign messaging, the recent conversation on the choice being Biden or fascism, and constant efforts from Republicans to disenfranchise people that might vote for someone other than them). 2. A version of the tolerance paradox. Outside of free speech absolutists, this is a clear contradiction. I'd probably still have to put myself in the "I don't know" camp, but I do find the inverse of stuff like this:Show nested quote +On September 05 2023 17:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2023 15:58 Severedevil wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
Yes. There's no sense cancelling democracy to protect democracy. It's one thing to disqualify him from office for treason. It's quite another to let him run but then cancel the election if you don't like the outcome. Agreed. I don't think fighting fascism with fascism is the way to go. more intuitive. That being: "I don't think voluntarily putting the most powerful military in the world under the command of a fascist insurrectionist is a wise strategy to stave off fascism."
Upon deeper probing it seems the "yes" camp continues to appear based on what I initially thought and a (imo) naïve high-road strategy similar to free speech absolutists.
I'd guess I'd still say "I don't know" and still find the rationale behind not empowering fascists with the most powerful military in the world more compelling, but I have no doubt Biden would regardless. Hence my emphasis on what Democrats/their supporters could/should be doing now to prevent that scenario from arising.
That their response has been to just keep rageshaming to shut up and fall in line (and overt admissions they would) is what helps lead me to believe that even if Trump wins and fascism takes over they'll just pull out the chair in the oval office for him to sit in while they keep telling the people getting steamrolled with oppression to keep shutting up, falling in line, and voting blue no matter who while discouraging competitive primaries by saying it'll endanger the incumbent/favorite in the general like they always have.
That's not enough to make necessary progress under the status quo (60 years netting 0 progress on Black-white wealth gap despite unparalleled support from Black people for example), it's even more preposterous to think it'll work under what they themselves identify as a fascist regime.
|
|
|
On September 07 2023 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 07:34 micronesia wrote:On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:
What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers.
I may have also missed it, but can you quote/cite where GH answered the question today? My first answer was: Show nested quote +On September 06 2023 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If Trump is the usher for fascism in the US as Democrats insist (and they are basically right imo) it makes me wonder: If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist? It would seem to create a bit of a dilemma/paradox where the only way to protect the US from being ruled by a fascist would be to disregard its democracy. As such I'm curious where people here fall on that possibility. Poll: If Trump wins, should Biden peacefully transfer power to Trump?Yes (15) 79% No (2) 11% I don't know (2) 11% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ I don't know
Indications are this is going to be a perpetual question people opposing Republicans have to ask themselves with the names changing but not the core question about whether the US should/will empower a fascist if their democracy votes for it. Very fascinating results. The primary rationales for "yes" seems to be: 1. Trump/Republicans aren't fascist so if they are lost to they will be removed democratically in a future election (kinda flies in the face of Democrat campaign messaging, the recent conversation on the choice being Biden or fascism, and constant efforts from Republicans to disenfranchise people that might vote for someone other than them). 2. A version of the tolerance paradox. Outside of free speech absolutists, this is a clear contradiction. I'd probably still have to put myself in the "I don't know" camp, but I do find the inverse of stuff like this:On September 05 2023 17:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2023 15:58 Severedevil wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
Yes. There's no sense cancelling democracy to protect democracy. It's one thing to disqualify him from office for treason. It's quite another to let him run but then cancel the election if you don't like the outcome. Agreed. I don't think fighting fascism with fascism is the way to go. more intuitive. That being: "I don't think voluntarily putting the most powerful military in the world under the command of a fascist insurrectionist is a wise strategy to stave off fascism." Upon deeper probing it seems the "yes" camp continues to appear based on what I initially thought and a (imo) naïve high-road strategy similar to free speech absolutists. I'd guess I'd still say "I don't know" and still find the rationale behind not empowering fascists with the most powerful military in the world more compelling, but I have no doubt Biden would regardless. Hence my emphasis on what Democrats/their supporters could/should be doing now to prevent that scenario from arising. That their response has been to just keep rageshaming to shut up and fall in line (and overt admissions they would) is what helps lead me to believe that even if Trump wins and fascism takes over they'll just pull out the chair in the oval office for him to sit in while they keep telling the people getting steamrolled with oppression to keep shutting up, falling in line, and voting blue no matter who while discouraging competitive primaries by saying it'll endanger the incumbent/favorite in the general like they always have. That's not enough to make necessary progress under the status quo (60 years netting 0 progress on Black-white wealth gap despite unparalleled support from Black people for example), it's even more preposterous to think it'll work under what they themselves identify as a fascist regime.
The question you posed wasn't "Should the democratic candidate...", it was "should Biden". Why do you now turn around and assert that yes-voters are against competitive primaries? It was explicitly not part of the hypothetical you proposed.
|
On September 07 2023 03:14 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 02:18 Simberto wrote:On September 07 2023 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 01:03 KwarK wrote:
Of course it’s ill advised. Do you have a better plan? 99% of your posts are along the lines of:
Person A says “this sucks but it’s the result of structural issues that can’t be remedied and so it’s outside of my control, even though it’s undeniably bad”
You respond “how come you, and also the Democrats, are deliberately imposing this thing which I have come to a unique understanding is actually bad but you guys don’t know that because you’re not special like me”
We all see the problems. They’re not exactly hard to see. You have no unique insight into them. Better than raging at and shaming oppressed people that need Democrats to do better/more to shut up and fall in line a year before the nominating convention? Yeah lol. Just not doing that would be a step up. Better than that might be joining and amplifying a chorus of people saying "yeah, they DO need to do better if they want to win in 2024" even if you ultimately plan on telling them to shut up and fall in line like you in 2024. Better than might be actually believing it and treating it like something that mattered to oneself to put real pressure on Democrats to do more than be not-Republicans that vaguely impede a progressing Republican led march into fascism. Note the complete lack of an answer to the question "Do you have a better plan". It's literally a better plan. Kwark+others plan: raging at and shaming people to shut up and fall in line behind a guy ~75% of the country thinks is too old for the job a year before the party nomination to avoid the potential of Democrats voluntarily handing fascists command of the strongest military in the world with the capacity to make it uninhabitable. Better/non-idiotic plan: join in on demanding Democrats do better/more to improve their own probability of beating Trump so they don't choose to hand fascists command of the strongest military on the planet with the capacity to make it uninhabitable. I think the core question is timing. + Show Spoiler +Right now, absolutely demand that the democrats put up someone better than Biden. Ideally have a good candidate, and push for them.
But most people talk about when the election happens. And when the election happens and it is Biden vs Trump, voting Biden is the only sane choice. At that point, you have 3 different options. Trump, Biden, or not voting/voting for someone else (which is basically half a vote for both). Sure, it would be better if other options existed, but if that is the situation on election day, then those better options don't exist, and you have to choose one of those 3 options.
You can still do all of the other stuff. No one is saying that you shouldn't. Voting is a 15 minute thing. It doesn't prevent you from doing other stuff. I am not saying people shouldn't vote. I'm saying that rather than trying to rageshame people into believing they don't have a choice but to shut up and fall in line a year out from the party nomination. People (particularly those that claim "leftist/progressive" type labels) should be demanding Democrats do better/more to help the people whose votes they insist they are simply entitled to.This premature rageshaming of people to shut up and fall in line is an important part of keeping people on the Democrat hamster wheel though. I think you need to be careful in doing this otherwise you risk depressing turnout. I think this is partly what happened with Hillary. All of the negativity and complaints by Democrats in safe states can have an impact on swing states
1: Long-term societal improvements require extensive, honest conversations regarding politicians. Encouraging people not to air their grievances is never acceptable.
2: Clinton's 2016 loss is a deeply complicated topic and it is not reasonable to point to her loss as a justification for anything. It is too complex and difficult to quantify to cite as evidence for something.
|
Norway28443 Posts
On September 07 2023 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 07:34 micronesia wrote:On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:
What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers.
I may have also missed it, but can you quote/cite where GH answered the question today? My first answer was: Show nested quote +On September 06 2023 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If Trump is the usher for fascism in the US as Democrats insist (and they are basically right imo) it makes me wonder: If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist? It would seem to create a bit of a dilemma/paradox where the only way to protect the US from being ruled by a fascist would be to disregard its democracy. As such I'm curious where people here fall on that possibility. Poll: If Trump wins, should Biden peacefully transfer power to Trump?Yes (15) 79% No (2) 11% I don't know (2) 11% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ I don't know
Indications are this is going to be a perpetual question people opposing Republicans have to ask themselves with the names changing but not the core question about whether the US should/will empower a fascist if their democracy votes for it. Very fascinating results. The primary rationales for "yes" seems to be: 1. Trump/Republicans aren't fascist so if they are lost to they will be removed democratically in a future election (kinda flies in the face of Democrat campaign messaging, the recent conversation on the choice being Biden or fascism, and constant efforts from Republicans to disenfranchise people that might vote for someone other than them). 2. A version of the tolerance paradox. Outside of free speech absolutists, this is a clear contradiction. I'd probably still have to put myself in the "I don't know" camp, but I do find the inverse of stuff like this:On September 05 2023 17:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2023 15:58 Severedevil wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
Yes. There's no sense cancelling democracy to protect democracy. It's one thing to disqualify him from office for treason. It's quite another to let him run but then cancel the election if you don't like the outcome. Agreed. I don't think fighting fascism with fascism is the way to go. more intuitive. That being: "I don't think voluntarily putting the most powerful military in the world under the command of a fascist insurrectionist is a wise strategy to stave off fascism." Upon deeper probing it seems the "yes" camp continues to appear based on what I initially thought and a (imo) naïve high-road strategy similar to free speech absolutists. I'd guess I'd still say "I don't know" and still find the rationale behind not empowering fascists with the most powerful military in the world more compelling, but I have no doubt Biden would regardless. Hence my emphasis on what Democrats/their supporters could/should be doing now to prevent that scenario from arising. That their response has been to just keep rageshaming to shut up and fall in line (and overt admissions they would) is what helps lead me to believe that even if Trump wins and fascism takes over they'll just pull out the chair in the oval office for him to sit in while they keep telling the people getting steamrolled with oppression to keep shutting up, falling in line, and voting blue no matter who while discouraging competitive primaries by saying it'll endanger the incumbent/favorite in the general like they always have. That's not enough to make necessary progress under the status quo (60 years netting 0 progress on Black-white wealth gap despite unparalleled support from Black people for example), it's even more preposterous to think it'll work under what they themselves identify as a fascist regime.
I think the question is a bit like asking 'what do you do if you're hit by a bus because you were running late for your second miniumum wage job and you don't have health insurance and you know treatment is gonna bankrupt you and make you homeless but otherwise you'll also lose your job and home because you won't be able to work with a broken leg'. The answer is basically 'don't get hit by the bus' and 'live in a country where health care is provided for you and where receiving treatment for a broken leg won't bankrupt you', and 'trump winning the election' is 'getting hit by the bus' and living in a country where trump might win the election is 'requiring two minimum wage jobs to get by while living in a country where health care isn't provided ...'.
You weren't really asking 'how can we avoid getting hit by the bus' or making real suggestions for how to avoid it, but what to do after impact. There aren't good options at that point, but personally I guess I'd rather be homeless with a functional leg than homeless with a broken leg.
|
On September 07 2023 09:43 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 07:34 micronesia wrote:On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:
What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers.
I may have also missed it, but can you quote/cite where GH answered the question today? My first answer was: On September 06 2023 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If Trump is the usher for fascism in the US as Democrats insist (and they are basically right imo) it makes me wonder: If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist? It would seem to create a bit of a dilemma/paradox where the only way to protect the US from being ruled by a fascist would be to disregard its democracy. As such I'm curious where people here fall on that possibility. Poll: If Trump wins, should Biden peacefully transfer power to Trump?Yes (15) 79% No (2) 11% I don't know (2) 11% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ I don't know
Indications are this is going to be a perpetual question people opposing Republicans have to ask themselves with the names changing but not the core question about whether the US should/will empower a fascist if their democracy votes for it. Very fascinating results. The primary rationales for "yes" seems to be: 1. Trump/Republicans aren't fascist so if they are lost to they will be removed democratically in a future election (kinda flies in the face of Democrat campaign messaging, the recent conversation on the choice being Biden or fascism, and constant efforts from Republicans to disenfranchise people that might vote for someone other than them). 2. A version of the tolerance paradox. Outside of free speech absolutists, this is a clear contradiction. I'd probably still have to put myself in the "I don't know" camp, but I do find the inverse of stuff like this:On September 05 2023 17:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2023 15:58 Severedevil wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
Yes. There's no sense cancelling democracy to protect democracy. It's one thing to disqualify him from office for treason. It's quite another to let him run but then cancel the election if you don't like the outcome. Agreed. I don't think fighting fascism with fascism is the way to go. more intuitive. That being: "I don't think voluntarily putting the most powerful military in the world under the command of a fascist insurrectionist is a wise strategy to stave off fascism." Upon deeper probing it seems the "yes" camp continues to appear based on what I initially thought and a (imo) naïve high-road strategy similar to free speech absolutists. I'd guess I'd still say "I don't know" and still find the rationale behind not empowering fascists with the most powerful military in the world more compelling, but I have no doubt Biden would regardless. Hence my emphasis on what Democrats/their supporters could/should be doing now to prevent that scenario from arising. That their response has been to just keep rageshaming to shut up and fall in line (and overt admissions they would) is what helps lead me to believe that even if Trump wins and fascism takes over they'll just pull out the chair in the oval office for him to sit in while they keep telling the people getting steamrolled with oppression to keep shutting up, falling in line, and voting blue no matter who while discouraging competitive primaries by saying it'll endanger the incumbent/favorite in the general like they always have. That's not enough to make necessary progress under the status quo (60 years netting 0 progress on Black-white wealth gap despite unparalleled support from Black people for example), it's even more preposterous to think it'll work under what they themselves identify as a fascist regime. The question you posed wasn't "Should the democratic candidate...", it was "should Biden". Why do you now turn around and assert that yes-voters are against competitive primaries? It was explicitly not part of the hypothetical you proposed.
I think that might be a bit of miscommunication. The part about being against competitive primaries is about the party itself as an apparatus (and many of it's enablers) consistently using some variation of "you're only hurting the incumbent/establishment preference by pushing your ('better but can't win a primary/general') candidate/ideas/policies in the primary".
The yes voters (that support Democrats) probably mostly ostensibly disagree with that tendency, even if their insistence on running on the Hamster Wheel (while rageshaming others to join them) empowers it from my perspective.
On September 07 2023 15:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 07:34 micronesia wrote:On September 07 2023 07:21 WombaT wrote:
What dodging? He’s pretty consistent in his answers.
I may have also missed it, but can you quote/cite where GH answered the question today? My first answer was: On September 06 2023 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If Trump is the usher for fascism in the US as Democrats insist (and they are basically right imo) it makes me wonder: If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist? It would seem to create a bit of a dilemma/paradox where the only way to protect the US from being ruled by a fascist would be to disregard its democracy. As such I'm curious where people here fall on that possibility. Poll: If Trump wins, should Biden peacefully transfer power to Trump?Yes (15) 79% No (2) 11% I don't know (2) 11% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ I don't know
Indications are this is going to be a perpetual question people opposing Republicans have to ask themselves with the names changing but not the core question about whether the US should/will empower a fascist if their democracy votes for it. Very fascinating results. The primary rationales for "yes" seems to be: 1. Trump/Republicans aren't fascist so if they are lost to they will be removed democratically in a future election (kinda flies in the face of Democrat campaign messaging, the recent conversation on the choice being Biden or fascism, and constant efforts from Republicans to disenfranchise people that might vote for someone other than them). 2. A version of the tolerance paradox. Outside of free speech absolutists, this is a clear contradiction. I'd probably still have to put myself in the "I don't know" camp, but I do find the inverse of stuff like this:On September 05 2023 17:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2023 15:58 Severedevil wrote:On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
Yes. There's no sense cancelling democracy to protect democracy. It's one thing to disqualify him from office for treason. It's quite another to let him run but then cancel the election if you don't like the outcome. Agreed. I don't think fighting fascism with fascism is the way to go. more intuitive. That being: "I don't think voluntarily putting the most powerful military in the world under the command of a fascist insurrectionist is a wise strategy to stave off fascism." Upon deeper probing it seems the "yes" camp continues to appear based on what I initially thought and a (imo) naïve high-road strategy similar to free speech absolutists. I'd guess I'd still say "I don't know" and still find the rationale behind not empowering fascists with the most powerful military in the world more compelling, but I have no doubt Biden would regardless. Hence my emphasis on what Democrats/their supporters could/should be doing now to prevent that scenario from arising. That their response has been to just keep rageshaming to shut up and fall in line (and overt admissions they would) is what helps lead me to believe that even if Trump wins and fascism takes over they'll just pull out the chair in the oval office for him to sit in while they keep telling the people getting steamrolled with oppression to keep shutting up, falling in line, and voting blue no matter who while discouraging competitive primaries by saying it'll endanger the incumbent/favorite in the general like they always have. That's not enough to make necessary progress under the status quo (60 years netting 0 progress on Black-white wealth gap despite unparalleled support from Black people for example), it's even more preposterous to think it'll work under what they themselves identify as a fascist regime. I think the question is a bit like asking 'what do you do if you're hit by a bus because you were running late for your second miniumum wage job and you don't have health insurance and you know treatment is gonna bankrupt you and make you homeless but otherwise you'll also lose your job and home because you won't be able to work with a broken leg'. So basically a question someone in the US might have to answer today?
+ Show Spoiler +The answer is basically 'don't get hit by the bus' and 'live in a country where health care is provided for you and where receiving treatment for a broken leg won't bankrupt you', and 'trump winning the election' is 'getting hit by the bus' and living in a country where trump might win the election is 'requiring two minimum wage jobs to get by while living in a country where health care isn't provided ...'. You weren't really asking 'how can we avoid getting hit by the bus' or making real suggestions for how to avoid it, but what to do after impact. There aren't good options at that point, but personally I guess I'd rather be homeless with a functional leg than homeless with a broken leg.
I was asking what people thought/concluded about the seemingly paradoxical issues with handing power to a fascist, or not handing power to fascist, in order to protect US democracy/the people living under it since it's a possibility facing the US.
My next post is me answering my poll question (quoted above) while noting my observations/opinions about others responses.
+ Show Spoiler +Then you asked about what "no" looked like and I responded. Then you just asked about the Pence part, Kwark and I responded (if your curiosity wasn't satisfied I could dig up some links or something?). The rest has been me basically explaining why rageshaming+"yes" didn't seem like a good or sustainable plan to me.
When asked if I had a better plan I noted that 1. Just not rageshaming people would be a better plan to avoid getting hit by the bus. Better than that, 2. Joining in with people demanding Democrats do better/more instead, even if they ultimately are going to demand everyone fall in line regardless of whether Democrats listen to/act on those demands. Better than that, 3. Don't demand people fall in line at all and only pressure Democrats/their supporters to be better/do more and let the sycophants worry about rageshaming people to shut up and fall in line.
My last post is lamenting that I don't think even many ostensible "progressives/leftists" will be moved to do even as little as the 2nd, let alone 3rd. {EDIT: As well as the whole Democrats/supporters not seeming to have any plan beyond the rageshaming and handing a fascist command of the most powerful military in the world if the rageshaming isn't enough, as polling indicates it won't be thing.}
I'm not entirely sure how people got so confused along the way.
|
Norway28443 Posts
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror.
|
I think people aren't being entirely honest when talking about Trump / GoP being fascist, which would also explain why they're okay with handing power over to him should he win in an election. He was a fairly crappy president no doubt, and some of the policies GoP is pushing for are quite bad, but it's not as if life under Trump was significantly different from life under Biden. People claim him and his party are awful fascists to convince folks who are disillusioned with Dems / American politics in general to vote for 'their guy' just like right wingers call Dems whatever bullshit to convince folks to vote for Trump.
|
On September 07 2023 20:30 Salazarz wrote:
I think people aren't being entirely honest when talking about Trump / GoP being fascist, which would also explain why they're okay with handing power over to him should he win in an election. He was a fairly crappy president no doubt, and some of the policies GoP is pushing for are quite bad, but it's not as if life under Trump was significantly different from life under Biden. People claim him and his party are awful fascists to convince folks who are disillusioned with Dems / American politics in general to vote for 'their guy' just like right wingers call Dems whatever bullshit to convince folks to vote for Trump. He literally tried overturning the election and installing himself as ruler. Including fake elector slates and an armed mob storming the capitol.
You don't need to make middle ages white people miserable to be a fascist.
|
On September 07 2023 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 03:14 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2023 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 02:18 Simberto wrote:On September 07 2023 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2023 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 01:03 KwarK wrote:
Of course it’s ill advised. Do you have a better plan? 99% of your posts are along the lines of:
Person A says “this sucks but it’s the result of structural issues that can’t be remedied and so it’s outside of my control, even though it’s undeniably bad”
You respond “how come you, and also the Democrats, are deliberately imposing this thing which I have come to a unique understanding is actually bad but you guys don’t know that because you’re not special like me”
We all see the problems. They’re not exactly hard to see. You have no unique insight into them. Better than raging at and shaming oppressed people that need Democrats to do better/more to shut up and fall in line a year before the nominating convention? Yeah lol. Just not doing that would be a step up. Better than that might be joining and amplifying a chorus of people saying "yeah, they DO need to do better if they want to win in 2024" even if you ultimately plan on telling them to shut up and fall in line like you in 2024. Better than might be actually believing it and treating it like something that mattered to oneself to put real pressure on Democrats to do more than be not-Republicans that vaguely impede a progressing Republican led march into fascism. Note the complete lack of an answer to the question "Do you have a better plan". It's literally a better plan. Kwark+others plan: raging at and shaming people to shut up and fall in line behind a guy ~75% of the country thinks is too old for the job a year before the party nomination to avoid the potential of Democrats voluntarily handing fascists command of the strongest military in the world with the capacity to make it uninhabitable. Better/non-idiotic plan: join in on demanding Democrats do better/more to improve their own probability of beating Trump so they don't choose to hand fascists command of the strongest military on the planet with the capacity to make it uninhabitable. I think the core question is timing. + Show Spoiler +Right now, absolutely demand that the democrats put up someone better than Biden. Ideally have a good candidate, and push for them.
But most people talk about when the election happens. And when the election happens and it is Biden vs Trump, voting Biden is the only sane choice. At that point, you have 3 different options. Trump, Biden, or not voting/voting for someone else (which is basically half a vote for both). Sure, it would be better if other options existed, but if that is the situation on election day, then those better options don't exist, and you have to choose one of those 3 options.
You can still do all of the other stuff. No one is saying that you shouldn't. Voting is a 15 minute thing. It doesn't prevent you from doing other stuff. I am not saying people shouldn't vote. I'm saying that rather than trying to rageshame people into believing they don't have a choice but to shut up and fall in line a year out from the party nomination. People (particularly those that claim "leftist/progressive" type labels) should be demanding Democrats do better/more to help the people whose votes they insist they are simply entitled to.This premature rageshaming of people to shut up and fall in line is an important part of keeping people on the Democrat hamster wheel though. I think you need to be careful in doing this otherwise you risk depressing turnout. I think this is partly what happened with Hillary. All of the negativity and complaints by Democrats in safe states can have an impact on swing states 1: Long-term societal improvements require extensive, honest conversations regarding politicians. Encouraging people not to air their grievances is never acceptable. 2: Clinton's 2016 loss is a deeply complicated topic and it is not reasonable to point to her loss as a justification for anything. It is too complex and difficult to quantify to cite as evidence for something.
I am ok with people airing grievences. I am thinking people just need to have some tact. Especially when considering that the political spectrum in California is way different than West Virginia. Not to mention there are clearly right wing trolls who bad faith a lot of this stuff. Unless its said in person by an elected official its hard to assume good faith (ex: if AOC criticizes someone for not being far enough left I take her at her word, if its a "left wing" grifter on youtube I am highly skeptical) note this is specifically regarding lurching to the left. I never take Republicans or conservatives at there word. They need to earn my trust after years and years of bad faith.
I am not saying theres one reason Hillary lost. She probably lost due to a thousand small cuts + NAFTA in the rust belt. I am just saying it does not help the cause with all of the negativity and incendiary language.
|
On September 07 2023 20:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 20:30 Salazarz wrote:
I think people aren't being entirely honest when talking about Trump / GoP being fascist, which would also explain why they're okay with handing power over to him should he win in an election. He was a fairly crappy president no doubt, and some of the policies GoP is pushing for are quite bad, but it's not as if life under Trump was significantly different from life under Biden. People claim him and his party are awful fascists to convince folks who are disillusioned with Dems / American politics in general to vote for 'their guy' just like right wingers call Dems whatever bullshit to convince folks to vote for Trump. He literally tried overturning the election and installing himself as ruler. Including fake elector slates and an armed mob storming the capitol. You don't need to make middle ages white people miserable to be a fascist.
Agreed. To me this whole take is the symptom of living in a bubble and the 24hr news cycle. Its like people forgot it happened already.
|
United States41385 Posts
Re: the Hillary loss, the election was close enough that literally any number of factors could be said to have changed the result. The bullshit announcement of a new bogus investigation, the Russian propaganda, 20 years of misinformation about Clintons (Uranium one conspiracies etc.), Ben Ghazi’s gate, sexism, the assumption that Trump wouldn’t win, Cambridge Analytica, deregistering voters, racists mad because Obama, and so forth.
Though none of that excuses (a minority of) the American people (but in the right states to win anyway) voting for a guy who made war crimes one of his key electoral promises.
All of those factors wouldn’t have made a difference had a very substantial minority of the American voting public not looked at Trump and said “that’s who we want running things, I like his strong ideas on trade like simply not mailing China the check for the balance of trade deficit, and his plan for defeating ISIS by unleashing the elephant of surprise”.
Clinton was somehow both awful and better than America deserves. In a good country she’d have lost to a good leader for being too out of touch and neoliberal. In America she lost because she wasn’t out of touch and cruel enough.
|
On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror.
It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism.
But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist.
If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique.
|
United States41385 Posts
On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique.
No, you’re approaching this like a physicist with frictionless vacuums and completely ignoring the nuance of the situation.
You can take a free speech absolutist with zero ideological restrictions on it, put them in a room with a large, belligerent asshole, and make them shut up about their controversial takes. Not because you’ve convinced them that actually they shouldn’t be able to say “fuck the police” in a free society but because they’re recognizing that the roided out “back the blue” moron is going to assault them.
There’s ideological beliefs and then there’s real world pragmatism. If we could find a way to keep America from falling to fascism without making things even worse then I’m all for it. I welcome your suggestions whenever you feel like actually solving this for us. But so far you haven’t.
The people proposing a peaceful transfer of power to a fascist aren’t doing so because they like fascism, it’s because the only known alternative is a violent transfer of power to the fascist.
|
|
|
On September 07 2023 23:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2023 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2023 18:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really have an issue with your sequence of posts here. The way I've interpreted you is that you particularly disagree with the idea that we should at this point commit to Biden, not that we should not vote for the eventual democratic nominee unless we get x. I think a lot of people have seen the latter (perhaps extrapolated from posts you've made in the past) and that this is what they're arguing against. At the same time I don't really agree with your presentation of why people are opposed to not transferring power to Trump if he wins the election being naïve high-roading. Imo, that rings about as true of a description here as it would if you said it to someone saying 'you can't bomb for peace' as a critique of the war on terror. It's basically the tolerance paradox. If someone is a free speech absolutist (even most of them have a line) then it makes sense they would be democracy absolutist where if the democracy votes for fascism then it gets fascism. But if they are someone that recognizes free speech needs reasonable boundaries to preserve itself as a principle, then it's nonsensical to defend democracy by giving control of it to a fascist. If Salz is right and people aren't being honest with themselves/us about believing Trump is a fascist, then it's not so ridiculous on it its face. But as Sadist and Gor pointed out, that's ostensibly not the case for them. fwiw I did notice you subtly try to make the argument Trump isn't a fascist, just bad, so you can exempt yourself (and others that want to argue Trump isn't fascist, like Republicans that voted yes for example) from that particular critique. No, you’re approaching this like a physicist with frictionless vacuums and completely ignoring the nuance of the situation. You can take a free speech absolutist with zero ideological restrictions on it, put them in a room with a large, belligerent asshole, and make them shut up about their controversial takes. Not because you’ve convinced them that actually they shouldn’t be able to say “fuck the police” in a free society but because they’re recognizing that the roided out “back the blue” moron is going to assault them. There’s ideological beliefs and then there’s real world pragmatism. If we could find a way to keep America from falling to fascism without making things even worse then I’m all for it. I welcome your suggestions whenever you feel like actually solving this for us. But so far you haven’t. The people proposing a peaceful transfer of power to a fascist aren’t doing so because they like fascism, it’s because the only known alternative is a violent transfer of power to the fascist.
My advice for a solution is to recognize the futility of electoralism, abandon it, and pick up revolutionary socialism, that's no secret.
So far people are very stubbornly attached to electoralism, to the point they'd voluntarily hand command of the most powerful military in the world to fascists in its name.
|
“Should Biden peacefully transfer power if he loses to Trump” seems like a fanciful premise to me. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of 2024 being a complete 2020 role-reversal – with incumbent Biden being beaten by a Donald Trump who’s been out of the White House for 4 years, but then refusing to peacefully transfer power – is kind of funny. Would we also get Biden kicking off the year getting impeached for threatening to withhold Ukraine military aid unless they announce investigations into Trump? Or Trump getting criticized for absentee campaigning from his basement? Will the Pod Save America guys storm the capitol?
But fundamentally, the whole political concept of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party is rooted in the idea that even if they are flawed, there’s still a future to be had from the forms and structures of US constitutional government. Whatever happens, they can still say “nobody in recent memory has made a more credible effort at pursuing liberal/progressive goals within the constraints of this system than the Democrats.” And, at least among political parties, the only alternatives are Republicans and weirdo third parties, so they’re technically correct.
It should be obvious but I’ll go ahead and say explicitly that if someone plainly loses the election and manages to stay in the White House anyway, the whole “Constitutional Republic” thing really is over. I know we’re already a “flawed democracy” or w/e and some fucky stuff happened in Florida in 2000, but if a J6-esque coup happens and we don’t manage to kick them out, that’s the ball game. Power-hungry forces don’t *want* to win elections in order to get what they want, we just make them. If a non-democratic path to power exists, and we tolerate it, it’s essentially the only path to power that matters any more.
That is to say, Joe Biden and the Democrats can’t do a J6-style coup because it undercuts their entire reason for existing. Their supporters are only their supporters because they believe in achieving progress within the system; destroy the system, and there’s absolutely no reason these guys would lead the political faction. If the American left had the ability and inclination to install someone as dictator for life, why in the hell would they pick Joe Biden?
Of course I think the real purpose in bringing up the hypothetical 2024 scenario is to push the idea that we should be nominating someone else right now in 2023. Which, idk, I don’t have very confident opinions about that. Conventional wisdom is that incumbent presidents automatically have a good wind at their back, while a challenger who primaries that incumbent is almost guaranteed to lose in the general. But similar conventional wisdom said the Dems should have been massacred in the midterm, or that Trump should have lost in 2016, so I dunno.
The Dems don’t really have a lot of promising talent in the bullpen, and the few names they’ve got are all worried they’ll be despised for friendly fire if they try it. Or, more charitably, maybe they’re putting their ambitions aside because they think a bruising primary would hand the election to Trump. Honestly, my biggest worry is what happens if Biden dies sometime between now and next November, especially if it happens late enough to make holding a real primary nonviable. Are we really gonna have to nominate Kamala without ever holding a vote? Maybe Joe should announce he’s switching VPs for his second term to someone more popular?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
