Today is the one year anniversary of the insurrection on the capital, which was egged on by Trump (and other Republicans), who told lies about voter fraud that predictably fostered distrust in the electoral system. In the last year, we have seen new policies in several Republican controlled states to make it more difficult to vote and to allow partisan legislators to overturn election results. While the Republicans are certainly the more dangerous threat to democracy at the moment, Democrats have also contributed to distrust in democratic institutions by claiming Trump was an illegitimate president on various occasions.
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
So how are you feeling about the state of American democracy? Is the danger of authoritarian collapse overstated or are we headed toward another attempted coup (or whatever you'd like to call it) on January 6, 2025? How much depends on Trump running again? What solutions do you see?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Today is the one year anniversary of the insurrection on the capital, which was egged on by Trump (and other Republicans), who told lies about voter fraud that predictably fostered distrust in the electoral system. In the last year, we have seen new policies in several Republican controlled states to make it more difficult to vote and to allow partisan legislators to overturn election results. While the Republicans are certainly the more dangerous threat to democracy at the moment, Democrats have also contributed to distrust in democratic institutions by claiming Trump was an illegitimate president on various occasions.
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
So how are you feeling about the state of American democracy? Is the danger of authoritarian collapse overstated or are we headed toward another attempted coup (or whatever you'd like to call it) on January 6, 2025? How much depends on Trump running again? What solutions do you see?
There is not a problem, so there are no solutions needed.
The structure of the founding was to make a tyranny hard to establish, both
of a minority and of a majority. No majoritarian democracy. That is still the case.
I'm pretty pessimistic. It looks to me like the death throes of a democracy, and I don't see it getting better any time soon, short of some kind of monumental short-term change.
I think that giving Trump a second round might accelerate it somewhat, but at this point it looks like irreversible climate change to me: it's inevitable.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2022, 06:23:56 PM
...It looks to me like the death throes of a democracy ... .
A beautiful death! :-)
I'm glad to see this thread, I've been thinking of this issue all day between necessary tasks, teaching, etc.
Yes, it's like a juggernaut on the loose.
But I do see some encouraging points, like the ongoing congressional inquiry, and the upswing in participants with info to share...it might have been nice for them to have come forward earlier, but their input is important and needs to be heard in the quest to determine accountability and mete out due consequences...
https://youtu.be/6N9nWf6CBwg
Another encouraging moment was Ari Melber's calling a coup a coup, last night, in his call to Navarro....
https://www.businessinsider.com/ari-melber-challenge-peter-navarro-says-describing-coup-2022-1
...as well as today's announcement by former staffer Stephanie Grisham that she and 15-20 other past Republican WH staffers, both above and below her in rank, plan to meet to discuss how to stop the rolling behemoth threatening to take over their party before it crushes the electoral process next fall:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/politics/stephanie-grisham-trump-officials-meeting-cnntv/index.html
There are never-Trumpers who've made inroads, and now formerly-avid-Trumpers are burning their MAGA hats....so there may be a bit of sanity surfacing, even in that camp:
https://youtu.be/DhbjTiQ6zJU
Individuals with purpose and clear, good intent, like ants, can make a difference, I think.
At least, that's where my hope lies.
M.
Automation is going to make half of our country effectively disabled, and the half that aren't disabled aren't generous enough to actually care for them. The interests of Americans will simply end up too divergent to make democracy work. We will have civil war, which will go nuclear, so that our technological society will collapse and all the about-to-be-disabled people find themselves useful again - if they aren't dead.
I estimate about a third of my county has no future in our society, and their genes would already be better off with a nuclear war. Their way of life is as obsolete as that of Native Americans 400 years ago, and our society if it continues on its current path will treat them the same way.
Quote from: quasihumanist on January 06, 2022, 07:06:45 PM
Automation is going to make half of our country effectively disabled, and the half that aren't disabled aren't generous enough to actually care for them. The interests of Americans will simply end up too divergent to make democracy work. We will have civil war, which will go nuclear, so that our technological society will collapse and all the about-to-be-disabled people find themselves useful again - if they aren't dead.
I estimate about a third of my county has no future in our society, and their genes would already be better off with a nuclear war. Their way of life is as obsolete as that of Native Americans 400 years ago, and our society if it continues on its current path will treat them the same way.
No worries! We can always go back to the galleys as transport. Would even mitigate global warmiing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley#/media/File:Galley-knightshospitaller.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley#/media/File:Galley-knightshospitaller.jpg)
Plenty 'o jobs there.
QuoteToday is the one year anniversary of the insurrection on the capital, which was egged on by Trump (and other Republicans), who told lies about voter fraud that predictably fostered distrust in the electoral system. In the last year, we have seen new policies in several Republican controlled states to make it more difficult to vote and to allow partisan legislators to overturn election results. While the Republicans are certainly the more dangerous threat to democracy at the moment, Democrats have also contributed to distrust in democratic institutions by claiming Trump was an illegitimate president on various occasions.
Mighty charitable of you. [snort] The basis for believing Trump was not a legitimate president could have been:
1. He sometimes had a rude way of expressing himself
2. Hillary deserved the gig. She fought for it, she waited for it, she put up with Bill, and she's a woman, dammit!
3. The electoral college stinks
all of which amount to nothing, even together.
whereas in the wake of COVID chaos, many rules were changed (2020) at the last minute, some legally questionable. George Soros, Mark Zuckerburg and the liberal media that people like them bought suppressed stories about Biden's depraved family and their shenanigans. Now they've used their outsize wealth to insert district attorneys into our lives (not theirs) who refuse to uphold their sworn duties, putting many, especially the poorest, in mortal danger.
The election was not stolen; it was bought by people who knew exactly what they were doing. So between the two answers to 'was the election stolen or was it squeaky clean?' the more correct answer is 'it was stolen.'
So no, the right is not the bigger threat. The left is.
We have loudmouths on the left today who are claiming the KKK is coming back. REALLY?
I would have hoped for a reconciliation some time ago, but at this point I'll settle for people with bad ideas being put out of business. And it looks like this can be accomplished simply by people using their right to vote.
ETA: The ideal modern day free republic --- someone comes to your home and holds a scanner up to your forehead and records your vote. You don't even have to get out of bed. The 'wealthy' pay for the staff and equipment. No more voter suppression!
Now they've used their outsize wealth to insert district attorneys into our lives (not theirs) who refuse to uphold their sworn duties, putting many, especially the poorest, in mortal danger.
Kinda like the DA who refused to charge the murderers of Ahmad Arbery, sheltered those very murderers, and who is now charged with "not upholding her sworn duty". And lost her bid for re election. Guess Soros didn't pump enough $$$ into her campaign.
My own take is that American democracy is certainly not in a healthy place. Putting aside structural issues that give outsized power to the political minority and issues like money in politics, the much more urgent issue that the last president tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election and, in his efforts, convinced much of the Republican party that the election was fraudulent. There is a social contract in democracies, whereby losers have to acknowledge that they lose to their voters, and we have lost that on the Republican side and to a lesser extent on the Democratic side (Stacy Abrams in GA race comes to mind). Republicans at the state level have gone the next step, in some instances, by trying to give themselves the ability to interfere in the certification process.
In terms of solutions, there are no great ones on the table. Passing some voting rights legislation could help prevent partisans from interfering at the state level, but it is not a good idea to pass voting rights rules with a strict party vote. Republicans in the senate might be willing to do something to clarify the role of the VP in the certification process, which would be good, but rather marginal given the state of things.
Overall, it is hard to be optimistic.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
An easy check on the health of democracy would be to look at polls about how optimistic people are about their lives, NOT about how they feel about politics. Identitarianism from both the right and left do a good job of making people enraged, but do nothing to make people feel good about the future. (Pretty much by definition; the way to get people enraged is to make them thing things are hopeless, or almost hopeless.)
Unless and until the emphasis shifts to being on peoples' common humanity, and how we are similar, rather than on how we are different, things will get worse.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 07:15:59 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
An easy check on the health of democracy would be to look at polls about how optimistic people are about their lives, NOT about how they feel about politics. Identitarianism from both the right and left do a good job of making people enraged, but do nothing to make people feel good about the future. (Pretty much by definition; the way to get people enraged is to make them thing things are hopeless, or almost hopeless.)
Unless and until the emphasis shifts to being on peoples' common humanity, and how we are similar, rather than on how we are different, things will get worse.
Respectfully, that is not a good way to check the health of democracy. It is a good way to check on the optimism of individuals, but has little to do with the health of the democratic system.
You are right though, that polarization has reached a very unhealthy place in this country and finding common ground on issues would be helpful.
When I was young, I used to think how awful it must have been to live in the Soviet Block, without democracy. But at some point I figured that although there were problems (lack of choice in the supermarket was the one that got most press) life went on for most much as it does for most in western democracies.
In the US, it's long been clear that democracy is very limited, and money rules. Although my faith in national and state elections is not strong, it's not much less than 10 years ago. Things are precarious and may well get worse, especially if the economy collapses, international warfare increases, and the refugee problem impinges more on the US. It's look like China will have huge power over the US not too far from now. One thing that the Trump years made clear is that a significant proportion of people in the US don't give a crap about democracy, and mainly care about power.
But with the looming climate and ecological crisis, all these concerns pale in comparison.
We are so fortunate to live in this country. My husband is quite ill and I am compromised, so while you're free to express any opinion you want, it's good to live in a state of gratefulness.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 07:15:59 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
An easy check on the health of democracy would be to look at polls about how optimistic people are about their lives, NOT about how they feel about politics. Identitarianism from both the right and left do a good job of making people enraged, but do nothing to make people feel good about the future. (Pretty much by definition; the way to get people enraged is to make them thing things are hopeless, or almost hopeless.)
Unless and until the emphasis shifts to being on peoples' common humanity, and how we are similar, rather than on how we are different, things will get worse.
I wonder. People on this thread are mostly left-of-center politically, which is their right. Their president is hurting in the polls. It makes things appear gloomy. They are looking for a path forward in which they have input. What's more likely (according to polling today) is a path forward where their priorities are rejected at voting time. That's how democracy works. Tyranny of the majority. Current leftist fetishes like 'anti-racism' a supposed need for anti-voter suppression legislation, treating minorities first for COVID because they suffer more in greater numbers relative to their share of the population (obesity makes you more at risk but some white people are obese too, what about them?), southern border enforcement = bigotry, wokeness invading corporate rank-and-file life, neglecting the safety in urban neighborhoods, etc. The democrats have a portfolio of vividly expressed ideas that the majority doesn't like. Wait and see. There may be a perfect storm of repudiation coming.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2022, 07:42:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 07:15:59 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
An easy check on the health of democracy would be to look at polls about how optimistic people are about their lives, NOT about how they feel about politics. Identitarianism from both the right and left do a good job of making people enraged, but do nothing to make people feel good about the future. (Pretty much by definition; the way to get people enraged is to make them thing things are hopeless, or almost hopeless.)
Unless and until the emphasis shifts to being on peoples' common humanity, and how we are similar, rather than on how we are different, things will get worse.
Respectfully, that is not a good way to check the health of democracy. It is a good way to check on the optimism of individuals, but has little to do with the health of the democratic system.
Let me put it another way: Revolutions and civil war happen in countries where a large number of people feel despair. The current fashion from both ends of the political spectrum of catastrophising and saying "THOSE people OVER THERE are destroying everything!" is bad, and when people who should know better, like academics and journalists, fuel it instead of trying to calm things own with objective, nuanced perspective, it's not a good omen.
Quote
You are right though, that polarization has reached a very unhealthy place in this country and finding common ground on issues would be helpful.
Common ground requires everyone to admit that there are some legitimate concerns on both "sides" of an issue, and that the challenge comes down to figure out a compromise in the weights attached to the different concerns.
For instance, with regard to covid:
- No-one wants an epidemic to wipe out society or destroy the healthcare system.
- No-one wants to create a police state and imprison everyone at home indefinitely.
Anyone with a brain realizes that any action or solution needs to consider both of those.
Since we live in a republic and not a true democracy, I am grateful to be in a state where human rights are more protected. Given that the Supreme Court is kicking things like abortion rights back to states, our state recognizes that women are people, which is good.
Here's hoping that Canada will take us in as the federal system shifts more and more to a Putinesque kleptocracy (and we wonder why the grifter in chief admired the guy). This will happen either through right wing cheating through gerrymandering and voter suppression and outright fraud as they take over local election systems and continue to refuse to admit American Citizens in Puerto Rico and D.C. senate representation. Or if those institutions prevail, and the cheating comes to naught, then we will see another insurrection, maybe even a successful one.
The Electoral College and Senate are already outdated enough to eliminate the one person-one vote idea that made our republic something like a democracy. If your ideas are so bad you can't convince people to vote for you, then cheat. And if they are so bad that even the thumb on the scales doesn't get you your way, go to outright bullying.
Yeah. I'm cynical.
I seriously doubt that we're headed into a dictatorship anytime soon. But our government at the federal level obviously has not been functioning well in recent years, and overall trends are not looking good. There's a saying to the effect that a society gets the government that it deserves. Given the direction that our society has been moving over the years, I think we're seeing the insight of that saying demonstrated. Our democracy is sick because our society is sick (Or maybe I should say getting sicker, since I know my history too well to imagine that there was ever a time when society and democracy enjoyed anything like perfect health).
Societies and governments can get healthier as well as sicker, and maybe that could yet happen. But with the very environment we live in continually getting sicker and sicker, and harder to live with and in, it seems unlikely that society will improve. This isn't just happening in the U.S., either. It's everywhere in the whole world. To me it appears that the world as we know it is heading into its end times--perhaps within my lifetime (I'm in my early 50s), almost certainly within the lifetimes of today's young people. The good news is there's a new world coming. I can live through the death of the old one, if it comes in my time, with that knowledge to help me get through it. We're just finally seeing what we were told 20 centuries ago to look out for.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 09:02:26 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2022, 07:42:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 07:15:59 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Against this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
An easy check on the health of democracy would be to look at polls about how optimistic people are about their lives, NOT about how they feel about politics. Identitarianism from both the right and left do a good job of making people enraged, but do nothing to make people feel good about the future. (Pretty much by definition; the way to get people enraged is to make them thing things are hopeless, or almost hopeless.)
Unless and until the emphasis shifts to being on peoples' common humanity, and how we are similar, rather than on how we are different, things will get worse.
Respectfully, that is not a good way to check the health of democracy. It is a good way to check on the optimism of individuals, but has little to do with the health of the democratic system.
Let me put it another way: Revolutions and civil war happen in countries where a large number of people feel despair. The current fashion from both ends of the political spectrum of catastrophising and saying "THOSE people OVER THERE are destroying everything!" is bad, and when people who should know better, like academics and journalists, fuel it instead of trying to calm things own with objective, nuanced perspective, it's not a good omen.
Quote
You are right though, that polarization has reached a very unhealthy place in this country and finding common ground on issues would be helpful.
Common ground requires everyone to admit that there are some legitimate concerns on both "sides" of an issue, and that the challenge comes down to figure out a compromise in the weights attached to the different concerns.
For instance, with regard to covid:
- No-one wants an epidemic to wipe out society or destroy the healthcare system.
- No-one wants to create a police state and imprison everyone at home indefinitely.
Anyone with a brain realizes that any action or solution needs to consider both of those.
The left, as of today anyway, is opting out of any common ground discussion, whether they know it or not, by insisting that 'white supremacy' be dealt with. Biden has already planted himself in this camp, which should make him an easy mark for the republican in 2024.
Unverified yet popular claim that January 6 riots were about white supremacy: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/naacp-head-white-supremacy-has-endured-beyond-jan-6-diminishing-voting-rights/ar-AASuMtN
A way to take a stand against odd, bothersome people without playing the race card (as if such a simple task would require someone's help, but apparently that's where we are): https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/15/no-the-proud-boys-are-not-white-supremacists/
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 07, 2022, 09:10:56 AM
Since we live in a republic and not a true democracy, I am grateful to be in a state where human rights are more protected. Given that the Supreme Court is kicking things like abortion rights back to states, our state recognizes that women are people, which is good.
Here's hoping that Canada will take us in as the federal system shifts more and more to a Putinesque kleptocracy (and we wonder why the grifter in chief admired the guy).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Canada isn't perfect either. (And as an aside, if the Republican party instantly evaporated, wouldn't that make the US "putinesque" as a single party state? I'm amazed at how many people who should know better seem to think total dominance of ANY single party would be a good idea.)
Quote
This will happen either through right wing cheating through gerrymandering and voter suppression and outright fraud as they take over local election systems and continue to refuse to admit American Citizens in Puerto Rico and D.C. senate representation. Or if those institutions prevail, and the cheating comes to naught, then we will see another insurrection, maybe even a successful one.
The Electoral College and Senate are already outdated enough to eliminate the one person-one vote idea that made our republic something like a democracy. If your ideas are so bad you can't convince people to vote for you, then cheat. And if they are so bad that even the thumb on the scales doesn't get you your way, go to outright bullying.
A single party state would be so much better. See how much Hong Kong has improved in the last 20 years.
This was on another blog in Summer of 2020, before the presidential election:
Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.
:-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 07, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
This was on another blog in Summer of 2020, before the presidential election:
Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.
:-)
Darn right. We don't want their guns, or complaints about our "high taxes", "Monopoly money", the metric system, or bilingual labels on packaging.
Quote from: dismalist on January 07, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
This was on another blog in Summer of 2020, before the presidential election:
Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.
:-)
I've seen the quote. What is ironic is that the Northeast, California, Oregon, Washington and Chicago represent such a large portion of the economy that the "rest" of the country doesn't have a chance to prosper. Aside from Texas and Florida there isn't much. particularly of you throw in that Georgia would erupt in civil war.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 07, 2022, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 07, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
This was on another blog in Summer of 2020, before the presidential election:
Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.
:-)
I've seen the quote. What is ironic is that the Northeast, California, Oregon, Washington and Chicago represent such a large portion of the economy that the "rest" of the country doesn't have a chance to prosper. Aside from Texas and Florida there isn't much. particularly of you throw in that Georgia would erupt in civil war.
Don't confuse levels with rates of change. :-)
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 09:48:59 AM
A single party state would be so much better. See how much Hong Kong has improved in the last 20 years.
We used to have Whigs and Tories. We wouldn't have a one party system and I hope and would love to see something moderate replace the White Kristian Nationalist cult that has cast out Liz Cheney of all people.
If we don't do something about Randi Weingarten everyone's going to hate teachers.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/democrats-botched-public-school-covid-policy/621183/
Quote from: notmycircus on January 07, 2022, 08:07:27 AM
We are so fortunate to live in this country. My husband is quite ill and I am compromised, so while you're free to express any opinion you want, it's good to live in a state of gratefulness.
No clause here seems related to any other clause. None of them seem relevant to the thread.
Quote from: mahagonny on January 07, 2022, 12:01:20 PM
If we don't do something about Randi Weingarten everyone's going to hate teachers.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/democrats-botched-public-school-covid-policy/621183/
Thank goodness for Randi!
The obstreperousness of the teachers' unions during COVID may be the spark that starts to revolutionize the system.
Virginia voting is a beginning, big time.
By revolution I mean parental choice of institutions and content.
I think it's a mistake to view this in isolation from regional and global trends - democracy reached its global high-water mark in the 90's and has been receding globally ever since. Trump actually stole the playbook of the Mexican Left, not least crying fraud in any election you don't win, and his Covid policy was a more moderate, comparatively fact-based version of those of Mexico and Brazil, except only for his support for vaccine development. Extreme political polarization has swept the Americas with only a few exceptions (look at Chile for the latest example).
Quote from: dismalist on January 07, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
This was on another blog in Summer of 2020, before the presidential election:
Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.
:-)
California's Hispanic population would never put up with it.
Quote from: Stockmann on January 07, 2022, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 07, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
This was on another blog in Summer of 2020, before the presidential election:
Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.
:-)
California's Hispanic population would never put up with it.
Whoever wrote that clearly knows very little about the west coast. Who would be dumb enough to think OR and WA would not go to war with each other??? They are politically and culturally quite closely aligned (if you doubt my knowledge of that, please see monicker). If they did anything, CA, OR and WA would leave together (aka "Cascadia"). They would collectively take a big chunk of the economy and an even bigger chunk of the military with them. Controlling the Pacific ports alone would give them a huge amount of power.
QuoteDon't confuse levels with rates of change. :-)
People who can't laugh at themselves are dangerous. :-)
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 07, 2022, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 09:48:59 AM
A single party state would be so much better. See how much Hong Kong has improved in the last 20 years.
We used to have Whigs and Tories. We wouldn't have a one party system and I hope and would love to see something moderate replace the White Kristian Nationalist cult that has cast out Liz Cheney of all people.
The
voters remain the same, regardless of what the parties are. Any party with any desire to win has to have a big enough tent for a significant part of the electorate. Trump is kind of a red herring; his popularity was relatively low, and the fact that a reasonable percentage of those who voted Obama in 2012 went to Trump in 2016 suggests it had little to do with him personally. Focusing on him is just a way to ignore the ways that the Democrats failed to attract lots of voters that they might have gotten otherwise. ( You know, the "deplorables".)
Bill Maher, definitely neither a Republican nor even a conservative, raised this point a few years back. The fact that some people would choose someone like Trump over the Democrats indicates how alienated they had become by the party that they "should" have embraced.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 01:50:29 PM
...
The voters remain the same, regardless of what the parties are. Any party with any desire to win has to have a big enough tent for a significant part of the electorate. Trump is kind of a red herring; his popularity was relatively low, and the fact that a reasonable percentage of those who voted Obama in 2012 went to Trump in 2016 suggests it had little to do with him personally. Focusing on him is just a way to ignore the ways that the Democrats failed to attract lots of voters that they might have gotten otherwise. ( You know, the "deplorables".)
Bill Maher, definitely neither a Republican nor even a conservative, raised this point a few years back. The fact that some people would choose someone like Trump over the Democrats indicates how alienated they had become by the party that they "should" have embraced.
Bingo!Would it not in that case be simpler
for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
--Bert Brecht,
The Solution, 1953. Published 1959.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 01:50:29 PM
The voters remain the same, regardless of what the parties are. Any party with any desire to win has to have a big enough tent for a significant part of the electorate. Trump is kind of a red herring; his popularity was relatively low, and the fact that a reasonable percentage of those who voted Obama in 2012 went to Trump in 2016 suggests it had little to do with him personally. Focusing on him is just a way to ignore the ways that the Democrats failed to attract lots of voters that they might have gotten otherwise. ( You know, the "deplorables".)
Bill Maher, definitely neither a Republican nor even a conservative, raised this point a few years back. The fact that some people would choose someone like Trump over the Democrats indicates how alienated they had become by the party that they "should" have embraced.
I get what you are saying and acknowledge that there is some truth to it, but it is also more complicated. The current GOP strategy also isn't to have a big tent for the electorate, it is to hand pick the electorate that it wants and actively try to prevent much of the electorate from voting.
From the eighties forward, the active project to dismantle and hamstring the federal government and then say "see, government is unable to help you" has convinced that hand-picked electorate to vote against their own interests. It is also true the Democrats are horrible at messaging. When individual components of Obamacare and Build Back Better are presented to Americans, they in large number like and support them. But then Tucker and co screech "death panels" and "socialism". There is also a lot of privilege fragility that shouldn't have to be handled so carefully, but probably needs to be if we are to move people past that fragility.
And the two parties are playing very different games. "Build the Wall" fits on a bumper sticker. "Universal pre-K to improve quality of life for all and reduce the amount of money we spend on medicaid, SNAP and mass incarceration" is a lot harder to get on a sticker.
It's also a lot easier to lie and obfuscate and just refuse to do anything beyond make tax cuts, wave flags, and pass outsized military budgets. It's a heck of a lot harder to actually try to govern a really diverse country that has been shredded by decades of growing income inequality, lack of health care, and insane levels of gun violence. Yeah, Canada's not perfect but they have a handle on those last two things which make us the shame of the developed world as they should.
And let's not forget only one party is actively undermining democracy to the extent that they celebrate the terrorists of January 6 as patriots.
QuoteAnd let's not forget only one party is actively undermining democracy to the extent that they celebrate the terrorists of January 6 as patriots.
And let's not forget only one party is actively undermining democracy to the extent that they celebrate the terrorists of the George Floyd riots as patriots.
yet...
There are democrats who want it understand that they notice black Americans' pain, but do not want police precincts, cruisers burned to the ground or non-prosecuted retail looting to express that concern.
There are republicans who suspect the voting count accuracy in 2020 was compromised, and that people who chose Trump over Biden and Hillary have been unfairly maligned, but don't need to cause a fracas in public to express themselves.
Both these group ought to able to see each other as reasonable, in theory, but are drowned out by the hysterical noise.
Quoteto vote against their own interests.
Ah yes, the fallback position of Marxism: The masses suffer from false consciousness.
Therefore, those who are against us may not vote.
The neo's have happily taken this over form the originals.
I'll just remind everyone who is trying to "both sides are bad" this thing that Trump and his Republican allies tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election. This is the immediate crisis to democracy.
What would have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to do what Trump asked him to do? How close were we to civil war?
It didn't feel that close to me.
But then I think how the democracy of a country is more a matter of a sliding scale rather than all or nothing. Right now I'd rate the US something like 2 out of 5 stars. Maybe 2.5. Do political scientists have official ratings of how democratic countries are?
I'll just remind everyone who is trying to "both sides are bad" this thing that the republican party still believes the American experiment is worth continuing and the democratic party (at least the ones we hear from most of often) have given up on it and can't offer anything but the opportunity to join them wallowing in misery.
Quote from: downer on January 08, 2022, 08:34:39 AM
What would have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to do what Trump asked him to do? How close were we to civil war?
It didn't feel that close to me.
I don't think you were close to
civil war either. That would require the Democratic part of the country to take up arms, which seems unlikely at best. This would, after all, have been the
second election stolen by Republicans, and the first saw Democrats roll over for the sake of "unity".
Quote
But then I think how the democracy of a country is more a matter of a sliding scale rather than all or nothing. Right now I'd rate the US something like 2 out of 5 stars. Maybe 2.5. Do political scientists have official ratings of how democratic countries are?
There's the Democracy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index) (but it's compiled by The Economist).
Quote from: downer on January 08, 2022, 08:34:39 AM
What would have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to do what Trump asked him to do? How close were we to civil war?
It didn't feel that close to me.
But then I think how the democracy of a country is more a matter of a sliding scale rather than all or nothing. Right now I'd rate the US something like 2 out of 5 stars. Maybe 2.5. Do political scientists have official ratings of how democratic countries are?
The Polity index is popular among political scientists. We're at a 5 on the -10 to 10 scale these days, putting us below the democracy threshold of 6. Economist also has one that rates US as a flawed democracy. I'm sure there are others.
Quote from: downer on January 08, 2022, 08:34:39 AM
What would have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to do what Trump asked him to do? How close were we to civil war?
It didn't feel that close to me.
But then I think how the democracy of a country is more a matter of a sliding scale rather than all or nothing. Right now I'd rate the US something like 2 out of 5 stars. Maybe 2.5. Do political scientists have official ratings of how democratic countries are?
V-Dem: https://www.v-dem.net/ (https://www.v-dem.net/)
Freedom House: https://freedomhouse.org/ (https://freedomhouse.org/)
We had a good run but it's over.
I recommend
The Unwinding by George Packer.
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 07, 2022, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 01:50:29 PM
The voters remain the same, regardless of what the parties are. Any party with any desire to win has to have a big enough tent for a significant part of the electorate. Trump is kind of a red herring; his popularity was relatively low, and the fact that a reasonable percentage of those who voted Obama in 2012 went to Trump in 2016 suggests it had little to do with him personally. Focusing on him is just a way to ignore the ways that the Democrats failed to attract lots of voters that they might have gotten otherwise. ( You know, the "deplorables".)
Bill Maher, definitely neither a Republican nor even a conservative, raised this point a few years back. The fact that some people would choose someone like Trump over the Democrats indicates how alienated they had become by the party that they "should" have embraced.
And the two parties are playing very different games. "Build the Wall" fits on a bumper sticker. "Universal pre-K to improve quality of life for all and reduce the amount of money we spend on medicaid, SNAP and mass incarceration" is a lot harder to get on a sticker.
Democrat ideas don't fit on bumper stickers? There are lots, but here are a couple of examples:
- "DEFUND THE POLICE!"
- "BELIEVE ALL WOMEN!"
As I said before, voters are not stupid, and hyperbolic nonsense doesn't impress them. They may not say it to anyone's face, but in the privacy of the ballot box they will vote against that stupidity.
The above examples could both have been replaced with much more truthful statements that many voters could accept, if in fact they were about truthfulness rather than tribalism.
- "IMPROVE MENTAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS!"
- "INVESTIGATE EVERY CLAIM!"
In the first case, one of the big complaints against police is related to people having mental health crises. Voters are not stupid, and have heard these stories. Virtually all agree that improvements can be made. If that involves more or better training for police, it would actually require
more funding for police. If it involves setting up programs with mental health professionals dealing with some of these cases, then it may
eventually reduce the need for resources, but if so that is a secondary consequence; it is NOT a prerequisite for the improvement.
In the second case, one of the complaints against the justice system is that many historical complaints of sexual assault were not investigated. Voters are not stupid, and have heard these stories. Virtually all agree that improvements can be made. However, most voters have heard stories of false claims of sexual assault, and
every voter knows of some woman who has lied about something. ( And "believe all women" presents a logical impossibility in the case of a female teacher accused of sexual interference with a female student. If the teacher denies the claim, WHICH woman is to be believed??? Again, voters are not stupid and see through this immediately.)
Trying to get voters to say the magic phrases and use the secret handshake to show that they're part of the "right" tribe is condescending and ineffective. Voters who do not voluntarily align with a specific party will not be browbeaten into submission just to avoid being identified with those "other bad people over there".
Truthfulness is more important than tribalism to a large section of the electorate.
Quote from: spork on January 08, 2022, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: downer on January 08, 2022, 08:34:39 AM
What would have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to do what Trump asked him to do? How close were we to civil war?
It didn't feel that close to me.
But then I think how the democracy of a country is more a matter of a sliding scale rather than all or nothing. Right now I'd rate the US something like 2 out of 5 stars. Maybe 2.5. Do political scientists have official ratings of how democratic countries are?
V-Dem: https://www.v-dem.net/ (https://www.v-dem.net/)
Freedom House: https://freedomhouse.org/ (https://freedomhouse.org/)
We had a good run but it's over.
I recommend The Unwinding by George Packer.
I checked out the Freedom House ratings, for the US and a couple of other countries with which I am somewhat familiar.
The ratings seem to derive from the degree of agreement between matters in countries and Freedom House's preferred policies. For the US it is said:
However, in recent years its democratic institutions have suffered erosion, as reflected in partisan pressure on the electoral process, bias and dysfunction in the criminal justice system, harmful policies on immigration and asylum seekers, and growing disparities in wealth, economic opportunity, and political influence.--In recent years [Trump, Republicans]. I guess they don't like him or them.
--Partisan pressure on the electoral system. I suppose they mean by Republicans, but one can say from Democrats as well.
--Bias in criminal justice. I suppose the incarcerated population must be proportional to race in the population.
--Harmful immigration policies. One can disagree, strongly.
--Disparities in ... everything. The disparity in wealth is rich. I suppose most wealth was stolen.
So their trick is to claim the system is broken rather than to argue one's views. That's very common, but is mere political rhetoric.
Quote from: dismalist on January 08, 2022, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: spork on January 08, 2022, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: downer on January 08, 2022, 08:34:39 AM
What would have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to do what Trump asked him to do? How close were we to civil war?
It didn't feel that close to me.
But then I think how the democracy of a country is more a matter of a sliding scale rather than all or nothing. Right now I'd rate the US something like 2 out of 5 stars. Maybe 2.5. Do political scientists have official ratings of how democratic countries are?
V-Dem: https://www.v-dem.net/ (https://www.v-dem.net/)
Freedom House: https://freedomhouse.org/ (https://freedomhouse.org/)
We had a good run but it's over.
I recommend The Unwinding by George Packer.
I checked out the Freedom House ratings, for the US and a couple of other countries with which I am somewhat familiar.
The ratings seem to derive from the degree of agreement between matters in countries and Freedom House's preferred policies. For the US it is said:
However, in recent years its democratic institutions have suffered erosion, as reflected in partisan pressure on the electoral process, bias and dysfunction in the criminal justice system, harmful policies on immigration and asylum seekers, and growing disparities in wealth, economic opportunity, and political influence.
--In recent years [Trump, Republicans]. I guess they don't like him or them.
--Partisan pressure on the electoral system. I suppose they mean by Republicans, but one can say from Democrats as well.
--Bias in criminal justice. I suppose the incarcerated population must be proportional to race in the population.
--Harmful immigration policies. One can disagree, strongly.
--Disparities in ... everything. The disparity in wealth is rich. I suppose most wealth was stolen.
So their trick is to claim the system is broken rather than to argue one's views. That's very common, but is mere political rhetoric.
Try looking at Polity Index, the Economist democracy rating, and the myriad of others showing US democracy in decline.
More generally, and I cannot believe I have to keep repeating this, Trump and his Republican allies
tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election just one year ago. You keep going on about tyranny of the majority, insisting there is no problem, and saying "it is mere political rhetoric," but you are ignoring a literal attack on the democratic process and system.
QuoteTrump and his Republican allies tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election
Clearly, a bunch of incompetents. Hardly any police defense and the rioters can't even usurp a government when their allies are sitting in the chamber. I am
not shaking in my boots.
Argue the case(s) to the voters. Repeating "Trump" and "disparity" gets one only so far with the electorate.
Perhaps there was no real danger of them actually staging a successful coup, in the sense of maintaining power beyond a few moments of confusion, but I think there was real danger of attacking and killing Pence or Romney and perhaps also some democrats or just anyone the rabble had come across. I think if either of those had happened, we'd be even more scared for our democracy now. Partly, I am worried that exactly that will happen in Coup 2.0. Maybe not a takeover, but more damage, more killing, more claims of an invalid election taken seriously. Then, maybe 3.0 will be the real deal. I am wary of people who claim "it can't happen here" or various revised versions of that statement.
The March on Rome this was not.
Given how many guns there are in the US and the levels of political rhetoric, I am surprised every day that there isn't considerably more political violence than there is.
It was what it was. But it was pretty bad.
The more info that comes in, the clearer it is that planning was not random or bottom-up only.
We will get past it safely only by taking it for the serious effort it was, and meting out consequences appropriately.
If that happens, we stand a chance.
If not, we're in trouble.
I'm hopeful we can get an incisive, clear report and reasonable action on the results.
But failing that, we'd do well to be worried.
My folks thought Nixon was just fine. For me, this is Lombardi's 《deja-vu all over again,》only much worse.
M.
Quote from: dismalist on January 08, 2022, 01:05:04 PM
The March on Rome this was not.
Actually, it was a
Schildbürgerstreich, an act of monumental dim-wittedness.
Dismalist will never accept that there is a problem. Even if Republicans are successful next time in overturning the results of an election he will give some glib response about the founders and a smiley face. The normalization of political violence is a-ok with him. The lies about voter fraud and the idiotic conspiracy theories that have overtaken the Republican party are not a thing worth even mentioning. In his mind, there is no problem - it is all good.
Some of you think that government by a majority is qualitatively better than government by a minority, that there is something special about 50.1%.
I think government should ideally be by consensus, and the difference between government by 50.1% and government by 49.9% is exactly the same as the difference between government by 49.9% and government by 49.7%.
By that standard, we are in deep trouble, and have been in deep trouble for years, because no matter what there is a significant minority that refuses to compromise, so we cannot get government by anything close to 100%.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2022, 06:15:34 PM
Dismalist will never accept that there is a problem. Even if Republicans are successful next time in overturning the results of an election he will give some glib response about the founders and a smiley face. The normalization of political violence is a-ok with him. The lies about voter fraud and the idiotic conspiracy theories that have overtaken the Republican party are not a thing worth even mentioning. In his mind, there is no problem - it is all good.
If the demand for democracy is high enough, voters are free to vote with their feet! =-p
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2022, 09:13:31 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2022, 06:15:34 PM
Dismalist will never accept that there is a problem. Even if Republicans are successful next time in overturning the results of an election he will give some glib response about the founders and a smiley face. The normalization of political violence is a-ok with him. The lies about voter fraud and the idiotic conspiracy theories that have overtaken the Republican party are not a thing worth even mentioning. In his mind, there is no problem - it is all good.
If the demand for democracy is high enough, voters are free to vote with their feet! =-p
That sort of thing actually works somewhat for sub-national units, at least in the United States. Alas, it doesn't work well among countries.
That's almost number three, Para! But you deserve a [small] break on this one. :-)
Quote from: quasihumanist on January 08, 2022, 09:10:44 PM
Some of you think that government by a majority is qualitatively better than government by a minority, that there is something special about 50.1%.
I think government should ideally be by consensus, and the difference between government by 50.1% and government by 49.9% is exactly the same as the difference between government by 49.9% and government by 49.7%.
By that standard, we are in deep trouble, and have been in deep trouble for years, because no matter what there is a significant minority that refuses to compromise, so we cannot get government by anything close to 100%.
'237 years ago, on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the 13 colonies to affirm that governments are constituted to secure natural, individual rights and that they "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed."
And, that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."'
Which people? The January 6 'insurgents' believed they were following the instructions in the constitution. Why trust the media after the 'Russian collusion' saga?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2022, 06:15:34 PM
Dismalist will never accept that there is a problem.
I don't think that's the case. I take dismalist's responses as a reminder that situations like this, even though they are disturbing, are basically "noise and fury, signifying nothing". Seriously, how many people a year after the event think it was a good idea? And there's no sign whatsoever of it having brought about anything substantial.
The Arab Spring, it wasn't. And even
that had a lot less long term impact than expected.
Quote from: quasihumanist on January 08, 2022, 09:10:44 PM
Some of you think that government by a majority is qualitatively better than government by a minority, that there is something special about 50.1%.
I think government should ideally be by consensus, and the difference between government by 50.1% and government by 49.9% is exactly the same as the difference between government by 49.9% and government by 49.7%.
By that standard, we are in deep trouble, and have been in deep trouble for years, because no matter what there is a significant minority that refuses to compromise, so we cannot get government by anything close to 100%.
Absolutely. As long as everything is viewed in tribal terms of winners and losers, rather than in terms of what kind of changes are good for society,
regardless of whose "side" they're from, I don't see a way out.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 06:03:16 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2022, 06:15:34 PM
Dismalist will never accept that there is a problem.
I don't think that's the case. I take dismalist's responses as a reminder that situations like this, even though they are disturbing, are basically "noise and fury, signifying nothing". Seriously, how many people a year after the event think it was a good idea? And there's no sign whatsoever of it having brought about anything substantial.
The Arab Spring, it wasn't. And even that had a lot less long term impact than expected.
Quote from: quasihumanist on January 08, 2022, 09:10:44 PM
Some of you think that government by a majority is qualitatively better than government by a minority, that there is something special about 50.1%.
I think government should ideally be by consensus, and the difference between government by 50.1% and government by 49.9% is exactly the same as the difference between government by 49.9% and government by 49.7%.
By that standard, we are in deep trouble, and have been in deep trouble for years, because no matter what there is a significant minority that refuses to compromise, so we cannot get government by anything close to 100%.
Absolutely. As long as everything is viewed in tribal terms of winners and losers, rather than in terms of what kind of changes are good for society, regardless of whose "side" they're from, I don't see a way out.
Most Republican politicians refuse to say that Biden won the election and that Trump lost. Republicans at the state level are, in some cases, giving themselves permission to reject the vote count in their states and send their own set of electors to Congress. Most Republican voters believe there was massive voter fraud in the election. These are serious repercussions - not of January 6th, specifically, but of the conspiracy theories and lies that have overtaken one party in the two party system and that led up to January 6th. In general there is an overemphasis on the riot and an underemphasize on the lies that created it.
It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 07:30:23 AM
It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).
Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!
BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 07:50:19 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 07:30:23 AM
It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).
Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!
BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.
right. there is no such thing as 'winning the popular vote.' That's like saying 'I won the weigh in at the boxing match.' the phrase itself is misleading. Infused with agenda.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 07:50:19 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 07:30:23 AM
It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).
Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!
BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.
Of course. I mentioned in almost every one of my posts in this thread that there is a danger that the Democrats also do not accept the results of elections. That said, there is a more serious problem on one side - that being the side whose political elites are largely advancing lies about voter fraud in an effort to delegitimize past and future elections.
Crucially, Democrats did not go to extrajudicial lengths to try to overturn the results of the 2016 election. There is an order of magnitude difference between complaining and trying to "find votes" or prevent the VP from accepting electors. But they could in the future, which is one reason why there should be bipartisan agreement on this.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 08:07:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 07:50:19 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 07:30:23 AM
It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).
Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!
BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.
Of course. I mentioned in almost every one of my posts in this thread that there is a danger that the Democrats also do not accept the results of elections. That said, there is a more serious problem on one side - that being the side whose political elites are largely advancing lies about voter fraud in an effort to delegitimize past and future elections.
Again, the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about voter suppression.
As long as both sides only "accept" results that favour them, the whole system suffers. The fact is that
any election that is very close is one where voters were very divided, and THAT'S a big problem, regardless of who wins.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 08:12:48 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 08:07:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 07:50:19 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 07:30:23 AM
It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).
Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!
BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.
Of course. I mentioned in almost every one of my posts in this thread that there is a danger that the Democrats also do not accept the results of elections. That said, there is a more serious problem on one side - that being the side whose political elites are largely advancing lies about voter fraud in an effort to delegitimize past and future elections.
Again, the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about voter suppression.
As long as both sides only "accept" results that favour them, the whole system suffers. The fact is that any election that is very close is one where voters were very divided, and THAT'S a big problem, regardless of who wins.
There is nothing wrong with complaining about voter suppression. Saying one party is trying to advance policy that makes it more difficult to vote is different then saying, with zero evidence, there was massive fraud.
Look, there are problems on both sides, as I've said in many posts in this thread, but there is a bigger problem on one side.
And again, the
Republicans tried to overturn the results of the last election. That is different than complaining about structural issues in the electoral system.
Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
It is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AM
Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by
anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AM
Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
The SC ruled that it is not their jurisdiction. In theory, Congress could do it, but seems unlikely that they will. Some states have made some some good strides (e.g. Michigan) while others are going in the wrong direction.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 08:12:48 AM
Again, the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about voter suppression.
Funny they haven't complained that soaring street crime in urban areas might make people more reluctant to go the polls.
Funny, but not surprising, since soaring street crime is something they prefer to 'racist policing.'
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Fraud will be most easily be committed by the party in power. Under current institutions, fraud will be contained to individual States, as different parties hold office in various jurisdictions. Under a popular vote for president, all the Dems gotta do is cheat in California and perhaps New York, and you've won.
[If we wanna whine about past elections, let's go back to 1960, when the Chicago margin for Jack Kennedy just happened to overcome the downstate margin for Tricky Dick. I believe they waited to report the result so they would know how much to cheat by. Nixon knew it, but didn't pursue it on account he didn't want the Soviet Union to get a bad impression of American democracy! Never thought I'd miss the Cold War.]
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AM
Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
21 states are doing so:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission
I believe the state of democracy to be at best weak and in reality fraudulent for several reasons:
1) The system is rigged against third parties
2) Weak voter participation
3) Too much money is involved
4) "low information" voters
5) The news media picks a few favorites and gives them free advertising on the TV news, especially during presidential primaries.
I take the cynical view of Mencken that democracy is the illusion that you and I together have more power than Rockefeller.
One person, one vote is so quaint. We all need to just be quiet and give in to the oligarchy I guess.
One can see the same facts and infer different things:
I believe the state of democracy to be at best weak and in reality fraudulent for several reasons:
1) The system is rigged against third parties -- Yes, first-past-the-post makes them unnecessary. We don't want Weimar!
2) Weak voter participation -- Yes, there's so little at stake. Evidence of contentment.
3) Too much money is involved -- Less than for bubble gum advertising.
4) "low information" voters -- that's the only kind.
5) The news media picks a few favorites and gives them free advertising on the TV news, especially during presidential primaries. -- that, too, is us. We like garbage. Or, entertainment. But who watches TV anymore?
System is working.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 09, 2022, 12:51:07 PM
One person, one vote is so quaint. We all need to just be quiet and give in to the oligarchy I guess.
In
any system with representatives, the number of votes in each
district varies, so "one person, one vote" is misleading, to the extent that each person's vote doesn't carry equal weight.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 02:13:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
The Electoral College helps prevent a tyranny of the majority. That is its most important function.
[Conservative? Speaking with Hayek, I am not a conservative.]
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 02:13:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
The Electoral College helps prevent a tyranny of the majority. That is its most important function.
[Conservative? Speaking with Hayek, I am not a conservative.]
We wouldn't need the EC for that if we had ranked choice voting with the reshuffling technique (single-transferable) rules.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2022, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 02:13:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
The Electoral College helps prevent a tyranny of the majority. That is its most important function.
[Conservative? Speaking with Hayek, I am not a conservative.]
We wouldn't need the EC for that if we had ranked choice voting with the reshuffling technique (single-transferable) rules.
How many states have adopted this? How many might consider it in the next 50 years?
Why is tyranny of a minority better than tyranny of a majority?
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 09, 2022, 03:23:04 PM
Why is tyranny of a minority better than tyranny of a majority?
There is no tyranny of a minority here in the US as a whole, on account that too is hard to pull off, on account of the electoral college. If one finds a particular State tyrannical, one can move.
Let them compete to keep them in line.
Quote from: downer on January 09, 2022, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2022, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 02:13:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
The Electoral College helps prevent a tyranny of the majority. That is its most important function.
[Conservative? Speaking with Hayek, I am not a conservative.]
We wouldn't need the EC for that if we had ranked choice voting with the reshuffling technique (single-transferable) rules.
How many states have adopted this? How many might consider it in the next 50 years?
Current list of alternative voting rules:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/29/more-u-s-locations-experimenting-with-alternative-voting-systems/
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 03:31:06 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 09, 2022, 03:23:04 PM
Why is tyranny of a minority better than tyranny of a majority?
There is no tyranny of a minority here in the US as a whole, on account that too is hard to pull off, on account of the electoral college. If one finds a particular State tyrannical, one can move.
Let them compete to keep them in line.
Since you hurt my feelings with that math slur of my character (the margin thing, even though I hadn't confused margin with totals:)), I'm back at you here. There is no tyranny of the minority if we count states, but certainly is if we use a registered voter as the unit.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2022, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: downer on January 09, 2022, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2022, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 02:13:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
The Electoral College helps prevent a tyranny of the majority. That is its most important function.
[Conservative? Speaking with Hayek, I am not a conservative.]
We wouldn't need the EC for that if we had ranked choice voting with the reshuffling technique (single-transferable) rules.
How many states have adopted this? How many might consider it in the next 50 years?
Current list of alternative voting rules:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/29/more-u-s-locations-experimenting-with-alternative-voting-systems/
Thanks. Informative. I'm not holding my breath for a national wave of enlightenment.
If a political party keeps harping that the rules are wrong it means it doesn't see itself as winning with current rules.
The way to win is to adapt one's program to appeal to people less like oneself. The horror!
[My guess is that the Democratic Party, on average, doesn't see how it can form a national coalition of the winning, so we get this nonsense that the Republic is going down the tubes. It won't. Live with it.]
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 02:13:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
QuoteIt is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.
Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.
Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically. This is why they are so desperate to keep it.
Eric Adams, a democrat, is also a conservative. We'll take him. Conservative ideas will find a home, because conservative ideas are what life produces. We are all somewhat conservative, but only some of us deny it. My prediction (also hope) is the democratic party will splinter as people with common sense find each other and fight for a place at the table.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 03:59:26 PM
If a political party keeps harping that the rules are wrong it means it doesn't see itself as winning with current rules.
The way to win is to adapt one's program to appeal to people less like oneself. The horror!
[My guess is that the Democratic Party, on average, doesn't see how it can form a national coalition of the winning, so we get this nonsense that the Republic is going down the tubes. It won't. Live with it.]
+1
Sometimes seeing the people who've been the problem finding themselves in a panic is a good sign.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 03:59:26 PM
[My guess is that the Democratic Party, on average, doesn't see how it can form a national coalition of the winning, so we get this nonsense that the Republic is going down the tubes. It won't. Live with it.]
It is not the Dems restricting voting access.
It was not the Dems attacking the Capitol.
[Interthreaduality] It is not the Dems who have their own private special college with fundraising letters to strangers filling with lies and distortions.
It is not the Dems filling the airways and the Internet with angry propaganda.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 03:59:26 PM
[My guess is that the Democratic Party, on average, doesn't see how it can form a national coalition of the winning, so we get this nonsense that the Republic is going down the tubes. It won't. Live with it.]
It is not the Dems restricting voting access.
It was not the Dems attacking the Capitol.
[Interthreaduality] It is not the Dems who have their own private special college with fundraising letters to strangers filling with lies and distortions.
It is not the Dems filling the airways and the Internet with angry propaganda.
Angry propaganda! In the internet no less! The horror!
You can't win this way, friends.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2022, 03:59:26 PM
[My guess is that the Democratic Party, on average, doesn't see how it can form a national coalition of the winning, so we get this nonsense that the Republic is going down the tubes. It won't. Live with it.]
It is not the Dems restricting voting access.
It was not the Dems attacking the Capitol.
[Interthreaduality] It is not the Dems who have their own private special college with fundraising letters to strangers filling with lies and distortions.
It is not the Dems filling the airways and the Internet with angry propaganda.
It is the Dems, not the repubs, who are deciding for all of us that black lives are more important than white lives. Yes, with
consequences.https://www.city-journal.org/racial-essentialism-corrupts-medicine
https://www.persuasion.community/p/race-isnt-a-risk-factor
Conservatives in this thread need to get a grip on reality. Republicans literally tried to overturn the results of a free and fair national election. They spread lies about voter fraud and all kinds of other idiotic conspiracy theories that are now mainstream in the party. Most of their party leaders refuse to acknowledge that Trump lost the election or to condemn the insurrectionists that attacked the Capital building. This is not politics as usual.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 08:34:33 PM
Conservatives in this thread need to get a grip on reality. Republicans literally tried to overturn the results of a free and fair national election.
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of
independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough
independents.
APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Lose in a democratic election? The point is that they may be a thing of the past.
Quote from: downer on January 10, 2022, 04:52:29 AM
Lose in a democratic election? The point is that they may be a thing of the past.
Aside from the hyperbole, this misses the point I was making:
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 04:35:39 AM
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough independents. APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Moving to the
centre makes it much easier for a party to win by enough votes to avoid all kinds of whining from the other side. Contested elections are the result of parties catering more to their fringes than to the mainstream voters.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 06:07:38 AM
Quote from: downer on January 10, 2022, 04:52:29 AM
Lose in a democratic election? The point is that they may be a thing of the past.
Aside from the hyperbole, this misses the point I was making:
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 04:35:39 AM
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough independents. APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Moving to the centre makes it much easier for a party to win by enough votes to avoid all kinds of whining from the other side. Contested elections are the result of parties catering more to their fringes than to the mainstream voters.
Don't you usually win an election by using the plan that appears most likely to work? We don't care that much how loud they whine, long as they lose.
Except that certain "extremists" won't accept the result of a fair election if the independents don't vote their way.
Quote from: waterboy on January 10, 2022, 06:35:07 AM
Except that certain "extremists" won't accept the result of a fair election if the independents don't vote their way.
And by definition, there are
many fewer of them. The bigger the
majority of voters who accept the outcome, the less the whining of a lunatic fringe matters.
TWITTER IS NOT REALITY. Despite how many people who should know better, including journalists, act as though it is.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 08:34:33 PM
Conservatives in this thread need to get a grip on reality. Republicans literally tried to overturn the results of a free and fair national election.
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough independents. APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Ok? What does this have to do with the my post?
I'm sure we agree that appealing to moderates is a smart political strategy in general elections, but that is not the issue here.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 06:49:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 08:34:33 PM
Conservatives in this thread need to get a grip on reality. Republicans literally tried to overturn the results of a free and fair national election.
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough independents. APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Ok? What does this have to do with the my post?
I'm sure we agree that appealing to moderates is a smart political strategy in general elections, but that is not the issue here.
My point is that the pattern of grumbling from the losing side will continue, and potentially get even worse, unless and until both parties come to their senses and stop courting the fringe and instead focus on the mainstream. (Whichever party does it first should be able to clean up in an election.)
I think both Democrats and Republicans have some serious issues to confront if they are to consistently win elections (though obviously someone has to win, so its a matter of which consistently wins, not whether or not one or the other will eventually win). Republicans, most immediately, have a Trump problem, and with it, kind of a meandering ideology problem.
Sometimes they seem mainly fiscally centered ( lower taxes, lower spending, etc.) and other times, and probably most of the time under Trump, regardless of his stock market fixation, more getting into culture wars. The Democrats have a serious issue with division of their ranks, with the Squad et al on one side, and Spanberger, Luria, some other House critters, Sinema, Manchin on the other. Fair or not, Biden is taking the blame on this division, as well as inflation, corona, Afghanistan (which is weird, because nobody wanted us to really stay there) and whatever else. I am trying to analyze it with some distance, and in doing so, I don't really see one side consistently having an advantage, though since Dems are in control now, its easier for them to be blamed and thus lose in some way. The Republicans biggest vulnerability is unforced errors from Trump (yes, even with him out). Their second biggest would be fixation on relatively minor issues such as critical race theory ( I mean minor in terms of the vast array of issues---not that it isn't a worthy topic). it might help win a local race or two, but nationally, I don't think it will cut it in the end.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 06:52:31 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 06:49:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2022, 08:34:33 PM
Conservatives in this thread need to get a grip on reality. Republicans literally tried to overturn the results of a free and fair national election.
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough independents. APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Ok? What does this have to do with the my post?
I'm sure we agree that appealing to moderates is a smart political strategy in general elections, but that is not the issue here.
My point is that the pattern of grumbling from the losing side will continue, and potentially get even worse, unless and until both parties come to their senses and stop courting the fringe and instead focus on the mainstream. (Whichever party does it first should be able to clean up in an election.)
Republican grumbling has morphed into a series of lies and conspiracy theories about voter fraud that have gone mainstream in the party and that are threatening our democratic institutions. You, as a "moderates are always better guy," should be horrified by this, but instead you keep hand waving it away by saying both sides are bad. Sure, Democrats have their extreme wing and they are not helping Democrats electorally, but they are not a clear and
present threat to democracy the way that the Republican extremists have become.
And look, you have to stop dancing around this: Republicans tried to overturn the results of the last election. They egged on an attack on the capital. Most House Rs voted against certifying election results, based on fraud claims that have no basis in reality. Most Rs in Congress are still unwilling to acknowledge that Trump lost the election or to denounce the capital attackers. At the state level, Rs are trying to make rules that will allow their partisans to interfere with the certification processes. This is not a TWITTER issue - this is really happening.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 07:12:06 AM
And look, you have to stop dancing around this: Republicans tried to overturn the results of the last election. They egged on an attack on the capital. Most House Rs voted against certifying election results, based on fraud claims that have no basis in reality. Most Rs in Congress are still unwilling to acknowledge that Trump lost the election or to denounce the capital attackers. At the state level, Rs are trying to make rules that will allow their partisans to interfere with the certification processes. This is not a TWITTER issue - this is really happening.
Just a reminder; I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not even American. But the more time spent harping about the past (by either party) rather than focusing on the future, the more likely things are to get worse rather than better.
Let me provide a Canadian cautionary tale.
Leading up to the election in Fall 2021, the Conservative party was actually in the lead for a while. However, the leader was pushed on whether all MPs would be required to be vaccinated to serve in the House of Commons. The leader, who was fully vaccinated, refused to say. Over 70% of Canadians were vaccinated at that time, and the majority favoured requiring vaccinations. After that, the Conservatives lost ground and lost the election.
TRYING TO NOT ALIENATE THE SMALL FRINGE COST THE SUPPORT OF THE MAINSTREAM. That hill was not worth dying on. (And eventually, after the election, the leader required that MPs be vaccinated. Too little, too late.)
A party that supports policies that most people see as sane and reasonable, and that rejects the rhetoric of the extremist loonies, will do better than one that courts the loonies in the long run. Courting the loonies
may result in a win, but it's a bigger gamble than appealing to the much bigger population of moderates.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 07:39:23 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 07:12:06 AM
And look, you have to stop dancing around this: Republicans tried to overturn the results of the last election. They egged on an attack on the capital. Most House Rs voted against certifying election results, based on fraud claims that have no basis in reality. Most Rs in Congress are still unwilling to acknowledge that Trump lost the election or to denounce the capital attackers. At the state level, Rs are trying to make rules that will allow their partisans to interfere with the certification processes. This is not a TWITTER issue - this is really happening.
Just a reminder; I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not even American. But the more time spent harping about the past (by either party) rather than focusing on the future, the more likely things are to get worse rather than better.
Let me provide a Canadian cautionary tale.
Leading up to the election in Fall 2021, the Conservative party was actually in the lead for a while. However, the leader was pushed on whether all MPs would be required to be vaccinated to serve in the House of Commons. The leader, who was fully vaccinated, refused to say. Over 70% of Canadians were vaccinated at that time, and the majority favoured requiring vaccinations. After that, the Conservatives lost ground and lost the election.
TRYING TO NOT ALIENATE THE SMALL FRINGE COST THE SUPPORT OF THE MAINSTREAM. That hill was not worth dying on. (And eventually, after the election, the leader required that MPs be vaccinated. Too little, too late.)
A party that supports policies that most people see as sane and reasonable, and that rejects the rhetoric of the extremist loonies, will do better than one that courts the loonies in the long run. Courting the loonies may result in a win, but it's a bigger gamble than appealing to the much bigger population of moderates.
You're making a point about electoral politics - winning elections by appealing to moderates - and that is a fine point that I mostly agree with. But that is not the focus of this thread or of my post, which are focused on the ongoing attacks on the democratic system. If the democratic system is effectively undermined or dismantled, then playing to moderates or giving a forward looking message won't matter. That is the issue here.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 07:49:10 AM
You're making a point about electoral politics - winning elections by appealing to moderates - and that is a fine point that I mostly agree with. But that is not the focus of this thread or of my post, which are focused on the ongoing attacks on the democratic system. If the democratic system is effectively undermined or dismantled, then playing to moderates or giving a forward looking message won't matter. That is the issue here.
But that's exactly the point; what undermines the democratic system is people from different parties trying to focus on what divides people rather than on what unites them. The more parties spend their time on actions
for which there is broad consensus, the safer the system is. If one party doesn't want to do this, then they will ultimately lose to the party more willing to do this.
One would think that making sure everyone can vote as easily as possible would be unifying, but it is not. And that is because one party has declared, openly, that if every American could vote they would never win another election. So rather than considering how they could package their ideas or modify them a bit to meet the needs of the broader consituency, they openly try to stack the deck, and then if that doesn't do the trick they resort to violence.
The argument that Dems are terrible communicators is legit. They are. The argument that some of the progressive Dems are too far left for much of the country is legit. The argument that both parties are equally bad for democracy is a logical fallacy of what aboutism and that logical fallacy is probably the most dangerous threat to our democracy. It is time to stop pretending that what is happening with some (not all - I love you Mike Murphy!) of the republican party is normal.
The Republicans have Fascists among them. Yet people don't say that makes them unelectable.
It's fine for a party to include a wide range of opinion.
I am curious as to why in the US, democratic socialism is more scary than fascism.
Quote from: downer on January 10, 2022, 08:36:11 AM
The Republicans have Fascists among them. Yet people don't say that makes them unelectable.
It's fine for a party to include a wide range of opinion.
I am curious as to why in the US, democratic socialism is more scary than fascism.
I assume it's decades of cold war messaging.
Quote from: downer on January 10, 2022, 08:36:11 AM
The Republicans have Fascists among them. Yet people don't say that makes them unelectable.
It's fine for a party to include a wide range of opinion.
I am curious as to why in the US, democratic socialism is more scary than fascism.
Cuba, China, and North Korea are examples of communism. ( "Socialism" is the term communists use to describe themselves. Most of the countries Americans
mean when they say "socialist" are actual social democracies, NOT socialist.) What examples do people have of an
existing fascist government? Russia?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 06:07:38 AM
Quote from: downer on January 10, 2022, 04:52:29 AM
Lose in a democratic election? The point is that they may be a thing of the past.
Aside from the hyperbole, this misses the point I was making:
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 04:35:39 AM
According to Gallup, in 2021, percentages of American voters:
- Republican 31%
- Democrat 27%
- Independent 41%
For either party to win, they have to win a majority of independents. If they lose, it's because they didn't appeal to enough independents. APPEALING TO MODERATES IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE. Catering to the extremists on either end is not a winning strategy.
Moving to the centre makes it much easier for a party to win by enough votes to avoid all kinds of whining from the other side. Contested elections are the result of parties catering more to their fringes than to the mainstream voters.
Marshy, I gotta say, I am appreciating your commentary these days.
ALL POWER TO THE MODERATES!!!!
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2022, 08:22:05 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 07:49:10 AM
You're making a point about electoral politics - winning elections by appealing to moderates - and that is a fine point that I mostly agree with. But that is not the focus of this thread or of my post, which are focused on the ongoing attacks on the democratic system. If the democratic system is effectively undermined or dismantled, then playing to moderates or giving a forward looking message won't matter. That is the issue here.
But that's exactly the point; what undermines the democratic system is people from different parties trying to focus on what divides people rather than on what unites them. The more parties spend their time on actions for which there is broad consensus, the safer the system is. If one party doesn't want to do this, then they will ultimately lose to the party more willing to do this.
There are many things that undermine democracy. I am happy to agree that one thing is a lack of bipartisan cooperation. However, the most direct and immediate threat to the US democratic system is Republicans having attempted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election, and ongoing steps to make that attempt successful next time. Democracy is holding and respecting free and fair elections, and Republicans are attacking that at this moment. This is not the past, it is the present. It is not a partisan issue that we requires compromise or that we should ignore because it divides people, it is a reality that is verified by reporting and by the admission of the very conspirators that tried to carry this out.
You seem unwilling to engage with this, and instead keep going back to a general statement of "both sides should do better." We agree that both sides should do better on many things, but in this case there it is one side (the Republicans) that are attacking the infrastructure of democracy. If you refuse to engage on this point, then then you are choosing to ignore the most crucial and immediate threat to democracy in America.
I've never heard of a Democrat who wasn't a moderate.
None of them in the last 40 years has yet proposed nationalizing the major industries or abolishing inheritance and private education. They don't even propose depriving churches of their tax-exempt status.
QuoteDemocracy is holding and respecting free and fair elections, and Republicans are attacking that at this moment.
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Republicans questioning vote counts after the 2020 election wound up in court. Republicans won no cases, even before judges appointed by Republicans. They were peaceably resolved. War of words.
Trump calling: Find more votes. That's what politicians do when they're on the losing side!
Republicans voting against certification of the Electoral College numbers. Well! Only in 2017 did some Democrats try the same. Turned out they hadn't read the rules. VP Joe Biden, then presiding, had the sense to admonish one with: It's over! Pure posturing. Just woids.
[Changing voting eligibility? That's not just woids. Both sides wish to do that. But that's normal.]
Alas, there is nothing to get excited about.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
QuoteDemocracy is holding and respecting free and fair elections, and Republicans are attacking that at this moment.
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Republicans questioning vote counts after the 2020 election wound up in court. Republicans won no cases, even before judges appointed by Republicans. They were peaceably resolved. War of words.
Trump calling: Find more votes. That's what politicians do when they're on the losing side!
Republicans voting against certification of the Electoral College numbers. Well! Only in 2017 did some Democrats try the same. Turned out they hadn't read the rules. VP Joe Biden, then presiding, had the sense to admonish one with: It's over! Pure posturing. Just woids.
[Changing voting eligibility? That's not just woids. Both sides wish to do that. But that's normal.]
Alas, there is nothing to get excited about.
In NYC illegal aliens can elect a mayor now.
I suspect the 2022 red wave wipeout will be so pronounced there won't be much bickering.
ETA:
This is kind of crap the democrats are writing, and the public isn't buying it; i.e. 'you accept exactly what we propose for districting, etc. or you are intentionally subverting democracy.' There's no recognition that it's a conflict of interests and there are two sides. That's what the lie is. I am not aware of any law stating that the African American vote has to be consolidated for maximum effect or it's voter suppression and subverting democracy.
Racist! Racist! is just so tired.
I notice they've referred to CRT without using the term. Shrewd!
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/01/08/georgia-republicans-are-scheming-to-subvert-the-will-of-voters/
Wake-up call to democrats: teacher's unions are rapidly becoming public enemy number one. Time to get your special ass dressed, get out the door, go to school and teach the kids in the room like they're paying for. Life involves risk, folks.
https://wirepoints.org/six-sources-of-chicago-teachers-union-power/
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2022, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
QuoteDemocracy is holding and respecting free and fair elections, and Republicans are attacking that at this moment.
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Republicans questioning vote counts after the 2020 election wound up in court. Republicans won no cases, even before judges appointed by Republicans. They were peaceably resolved. War of words.
Trump calling: Find more votes. That's what politicians do when they're on the losing side!
Republicans voting against certification of the Electoral College numbers. Well! Only in 2017 did some Democrats try the same. Turned out they hadn't read the rules. VP Joe Biden, then presiding, had the sense to admonish one with: It's over! Pure posturing. Just woids.
[Changing voting eligibility? That's not just woids. Both sides wish to do that. But that's normal.]
Alas, there is nothing to get excited about.
In NYC illegal aliens can elect a mayor now.
I suspect the 2022 red wave wipeout will be so pronounced there won't be much bickering.
ETA:
This is kind of crap the democrats are writing, and the public isn't buying it; i.e. 'you accept exactly what we propose for districting, etc. or you are intentionally subverting democracy.' There's no recognition that it's a conflict of interests and there are two sides. That's what the lie is. I am not aware of any law stating that the African American vote has to be consolidated for maximum effect or it's voter suppression and subverting democracy.
Racist! Racist! is just so tired.
I notice they've referred to CRT without using the term. Shrewd!
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/01/08/georgia-republicans-are-scheming-to-subvert-the-will-of-voters/
Wake-up call to democrats: teacher's unions are rapidly becoming public enemy number one. Time to get your special ass dressed, get out the door, go to school and teach the kids in the room like they're paying for. Life involves risk, folks.
https://wirepoints.org/six-sources-of-chicago-teachers-union-power/
Perhaps this will help:https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11618
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2022, 09:16:02 AM
There are many things that undermine democracy. I am happy to agree that one thing is a lack of bipartisan cooperation. However, the most direct and immediate threat to the US democratic system is Republicans having attempted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election, and ongoing steps to make that attempt successful next time.
68% percent of Americans (i.e. a strong majority) think the election was fair.
MOVE ON!Most Americans think closed borders (i.e. no immigration) and open borders are both crazy.
MOVE ON!Most Americans think "defunding the police" is a dumb idea.
MOVE ON!Most Americans believe that people who say "climate change is a myth" and those who say "quit fossil fuels today" are both nuts.
MOVE ON!It's a totally senseless waste of time to endlessly try to convince an entrenched minority about what they "should" think
when the majority already accept something reasonable.
Common sense positions on all kinds of issues could be easily established if people would just tell the shrill extremists,
including (especially) those on "their own side" that they're out of touch with reality.
One of the things I liked about Obama when he was president was his refusal to go to extremes on all kinds of issues. Sadly, it seems he's gone more partisan and woke since then. (To be fair, some of that was no doubt a response to Trump, but it's still regrettable.)
QuoteOne of the things I liked about Obama when he was president was his refusal to go to extremes on all kinds of issues. Sadly, it seems he's gone more partisan and woke since then.
He's no longer President. He can afford to move further away from the median.
It is a real puzzle to me how the Democrats are acting, bowing to their own left.
I'm guessing the median voter is different over issues and it's hard for the Democrats to put together a package for him or her without alienating their own committed nut jobs. They're afraid, for good reason. Take, e.g., the VA election of 2021: Teachers' unions are all Democratic, but the Democratic parent voters in the 'burbs went against the educational establishment!
Hence, all the hubbub about the Republic going down the tubes, as it's the only thing they can agree upon.
The Democrats need Trump more than the Republicans do! :-)
Well, you could probably run with "both parties need Trump" and make a good case of it, or "neither of them really need him, so just move on and let the voters decide on the issues." I'm more inclined to hope for the latter, though I doubt that "the issues" which will be focused on will satisfy me much (there will still be plenty of culture war and cries of socialism, etc.).
My guess as to why many establishment Democrats would rather try to satisfy the left of their party than the right is because they see that the left are young and from urban areas in traditional blue states. The right tend to be older (though not by a lot, unless they are senators) and from redder/purpler areas. There's more of a chance the latter and not the former will be picked off in the next election. Of course the establishment could side more with the party's right and help save them, but I sense many think that its a lost cause for now. I personally don't think so, but perhaps Pelosi and others do.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 10, 2022, 11:44:20 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2022, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
QuoteDemocracy is holding and respecting free and fair elections, and Republicans are attacking that at this moment.
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Republicans questioning vote counts after the 2020 election wound up in court. Republicans won no cases, even before judges appointed by Republicans. They were peaceably resolved. War of words.
Trump calling: Find more votes. That's what politicians do when they're on the losing side!
Republicans voting against certification of the Electoral College numbers. Well! Only in 2017 did some Democrats try the same. Turned out they hadn't read the rules. VP Joe Biden, then presiding, had the sense to admonish one with: It's over! Pure posturing. Just woids.
[Changing voting eligibility? That's not just woids. Both sides wish to do that. But that's normal.]
Alas, there is nothing to get excited about.
In NYC illegal aliens can elect a mayor now.
I suspect the 2022 red wave wipeout will be so pronounced there won't be much bickering.
ETA:
This is kind of crap the democrats are writing, and the public isn't buying it; i.e. 'you accept exactly what we propose for districting, etc. or you are intentionally subverting democracy.' There's no recognition that it's a conflict of interests and there are two sides. That's what the lie is. I am not aware of any law stating that the African American vote has to be consolidated for maximum effect or it's voter suppression and subverting democracy.
Racist! Racist! is just so tired.
I notice they've referred to CRT without using the term. Shrewd!
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/01/08/georgia-republicans-are-scheming-to-subvert-the-will-of-voters/
Wake-up call to democrats: teacher's unions are rapidly becoming public enemy number one. Time to get your special ass dressed, get out the door, go to school and teach the kids in the room like they're paying for. Life involves risk, folks.
https://wirepoints.org/six-sources-of-chicago-teachers-union-power/
Perhaps this will help:https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11618
Yes. Thank you.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 01:18:08 PM
QuoteOne of the things I liked about Obama when he was president was his refusal to go to extremes on all kinds of issues. Sadly, it seems he's gone more partisan and woke since then.
He's no longer President. He can afford to move further away from the median.
It is a real puzzle to me how the Democrats are acting, bowing to their own left.
Only thing I can figure is that so many of their issues are a litmus test for a person establishing that they are not a bigot. So they've painted themselves into a corner. They have bullied themselves into submission.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Yes, all politicians act in their own self-interest. Only one group attempted to physically attack the democratic process itself.
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2022, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Yes, all politicians act in their own self-interest. Only one group attempted to physically attack the democratic process itself.
I think that's all the Democrats have, and I don't think it mattered for the system. The system worked well, as explicated above.
Everyone is free to make more of Jan 6, 2021 than I do. I merely suspect that dwelling on it is preaching to the choir.
The message I get is: Republicans bad. Oh my god, what news!
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 03:14:46 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2022, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Yes, all politicians act in their own self-interest. Only one group attempted to physically attack the democratic process itself.
I think that's all the Democrats have, and I don't think it mattered for the system. The system worked well, as explicated above.
Everyone is free to make more of Jan 6, 2021 than I do. I merely suspect that dwelling on it is preaching to the choir.
The message I get is: Republicans bad. Oh my god, what news!
A response that I would have welcomed, and that would have changed my opinion of the Republican party, is if the prevailing sentiment that week (speeches by McConnell and Graham, for example) had morphed into a repudiation of political violence and an affirmation of the importance of following the unwritten rules of democracy. What we got instead was a quick about-face and return to the pattern of behavior that led to Jan. 6.
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2022, 05:53:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 03:14:46 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 10, 2022, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2022, 09:43:24 AM
With the exception of the moronic storming of the Capitol, all this is words, not deeds. And that event will forgotten sooner, not later.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Yes, all politicians act in their own self-interest. Only one group attempted to physically attack the democratic process itself.
I think that's all the Democrats have, and I don't think it mattered for the system. The system worked well, as explicated above.
Everyone is free to make more of Jan 6, 2021 than I do. I merely suspect that dwelling on it is preaching to the choir.
The message I get is: Republicans bad. Oh my god, what news!
A response that I would have welcomed, and that would have changed my opinion of the Republican party, is if the prevailing sentiment that week (speeches by McConnell and Graham, for example) had morphed into a repudiation of political violence and an affirmation of the importance of following the unwritten rules of democracy. What we got instead was a quick about-face and return to the pattern of behavior that led to Jan. 6.
I guess some people don't like the Republican party. No need to change one's opinion.
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
Dismalist's comment says it all: Trump called for more votes to be found, that's what politicians do, no big deal! Of course, Dismalist doesn't clarify that Trump's call for more votes was a literal phone call in which he put pressure on the Georgia secretary of state to magically and, presumably illegally, create votes. No big deal! Trump also made unfounded claims of fraud that sparked a riot, but hey no biggie! The Republican party has become largely radicalized, but hey that's just politics! Let's move on!
No political order lasts forever and America's democratic system will inevitably fall apart. The question is when. We can just ignore it and say "nothing to worry about" when there is an attack on democratic institutions, but sooner or later those attacks will be successful. I hope this thread ages poorly and the current and ongoing attacks don't amount to anything this time, but the general apathy of the public and insistence by conservatives (including moderate conservatives) that we look away are not good signs.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
Dismalist's comment says it all: Trump called for more votes to be found, that's what politicians do, no big deal! Of course, Dismalist doesn't clarify that Trump's call for more votes was a literal phone call in which he put pressure on the Georgia secretary of state to magically and, presumably illegally, create votes. No big deal! Trump also made unfounded claims of fraud that sparked a riot, but hey no biggie! The Republican party has become largely radicalized, but hey that's just politics! Let's move on!
No political order lasts forever and America's democratic system will inevitably fall apart. The question is when. We can just ignore it and say "nothing to worry about" when there is an attack on democratic institutions, but sooner or later those attacks will be successful. I hope this thread ages poorly and the current and ongoing attacks don't amount to anything this time, but the general apathy of the public and insistence by conservatives (including moderate conservatives) that we look away are not good signs.
This. Well put, Sun_Worshiper.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
There are all kinds of things, including those you've listed, that merit concern. However, if the proposed solution is to effectively operate as a one-party state, then that makes "democracy" just some sort of window dressing. In several decades, as I have told my kids many times, there has not been a
single election (at
any level) where I was
entirely happy with my choice. That s reality.
As far as Trump and others' efforts to interfere in the democratic process, obnoxious as I find them, I feel that the best thing the Democrats could do is to move
forward and present an ethical alternative that reflects the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than doing the same kind of thing as Trump and doubling down with the more extreme elements in their own party.
One thing to note: Trump was the best thing that happened to much of the media, whose rating$ $kyrocketted as every day people would tune in to watch the train wreck. The worst thing for them would be to get a Republican candidate who was as charismatic as Biden.
They have a vested interest in keeping the focus on Trump for the
audience, whether that is in the best interest of the country and/or democracy or not.
(Court cases for Jan.6 rioters can proceed whether the media covers them or not. How much news coverage they get depends on how many eyeballs they can generate, not on how intrinsically "important" they are.)
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
I acknowledge your concern. It is deeply concerning that so much of the Republican party and its supporters are still in thrall to Trump. Let's be fair--the real Trump nuts, the ones storming the Capitol and generating fake news and trolling anybody and everybody (Including the Fora's own resident troll) are in the minority. But the majority has failed to forcefully repudiate that minority, and that's simply not right.
Here's the thing, though--part of the reason why so many conservatives feel a need to hang together despite everything is because they are deeply, deeply afraid of what could happen to them if they don't. And it is not right to dismiss their fears as nothing but the product of brainwashing by fake news. I get my news from mainstream sources. And in these mainstream sources I saw a failure in some quarters to repudiate the widespread political violence that occurred last year with BLM. I've seen calls on the opinion pages of the NYT to unseat certain Republican members of Congress--democratically elected members of Congress--in the belief that they don't deserve to be there. I've seen substantial segments of leftist opinion positioning themselves to claim that the midterm losses that they likely face this year are the result of elections stolen through voter suppression and gerrymandering--in other words, denying that election results are legitimate.
Loss of support for the democratic process is not confined to one party. It's more acute among Republican supporters, yes, but it's not limited to them. Democracy can only function if the different factions within it recognize each other's fundamental legitimacy, even if they disagree. And I don't see either of the principal partisan sides in the U.S. doing that anymore. Neither Republicans nor Democrats seem willing to accept that the other side might have a right to win elections. The other side is evil, and has no right to wield power, and can only have succeeded because they did something to steal the election.
Hate is ultimately a product of fear. The more the two sides fall into this
mutual fear and loathing, the more they will hate each other. Hate hurts democracy, and everything else.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:06:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
There are all kinds of things, including those you've listed, that merit concern. However, if the proposed solution is to effectively operate as a one-party state, then that makes "democracy" just some sort of window dressing. In several decades, as I have told my kids many times, there has not been a single election (at any level) where I was entirely happy with my choice. That s reality.
As far as Trump and others' efforts to interfere in the democratic process, obnoxious as I find them, I feel that the best thing the Democrats could do is to move forward and present an ethical alternative that reflects the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than doing the same kind of thing as Trump and doubling down with the more extreme elements in their own party.
One thing to note: Trump was the best thing that happened to much of the media, whose rating$ $kyrocketted as every day people would tune in to watch the train wreck. The worst thing for them would be to get a Republican candidate who was as charismatic as Biden.
They have a vested interest in keeping the focus on Trump for the audience, whether that is in the best interest of the country and/or democracy or not.
(Court cases for Jan.6 rioters can proceed whether the media covers them or not. How much news coverage they get depends on how many eyeballs they can generate, not on how intrinsically "important" they are.)
Who proposed the bolded is the solution? It certainly wasn't me.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:06:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
There are all kinds of things, including those you've listed, that merit concern. However, if the proposed solution is to effectively operate as a one-party state, then that makes "democracy" just some sort of window dressing. In several decades, as I have told my kids many times, there has not been a single election (at any level) where I was entirely happy with my choice. That s reality.
As far as Trump and others' efforts to interfere in the democratic process, obnoxious as I find them, I feel that the best thing the Democrats could do is to move forward and present an ethical alternative that reflects the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than doing the same kind of thing as Trump and doubling down with the more extreme elements in their own party.
One thing to note: Trump was the best thing that happened to much of the media, whose rating$ $kyrocketted as every day people would tune in to watch the train wreck. The worst thing for them would be to get a Republican candidate who was as charismatic as Biden.
They have a vested interest in keeping the focus on Trump for the audience, whether that is in the best interest of the country and/or democracy or not.
(Court cases for Jan.6 rioters can proceed whether the media covers them or not. How much news coverage they get depends on how many eyeballs they can generate, not on how intrinsically "important" they are.)
Who proposed the bolded is the solution? It certainly wasn't me.
As apl68 indicated, any party that views the other as inherently evil and who must be prevented from holding power by any means possible is essentially proposing that.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:06:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
There are all kinds of things, including those you've listed, that merit concern. However, if the proposed solution is to effectively operate as a one-party state, then that makes "democracy" just some sort of window dressing. In several decades, as I have told my kids many times, there has not been a single election (at any level) where I was entirely happy with my choice. That s reality.
As far as Trump and others' efforts to interfere in the democratic process, obnoxious as I find them, I feel that the best thing the Democrats could do is to move forward and present an ethical alternative that reflects the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than doing the same kind of thing as Trump and doubling down with the more extreme elements in their own party.
One thing to note: Trump was the best thing that happened to much of the media, whose rating$ $kyrocketted as every day people would tune in to watch the train wreck. The worst thing for them would be to get a Republican candidate who was as charismatic as Biden.
They have a vested interest in keeping the focus on Trump for the audience, whether that is in the best interest of the country and/or democracy or not.
(Court cases for Jan.6 rioters can proceed whether the media covers them or not. How much news coverage they get depends on how many eyeballs they can generate, not on how intrinsically "important" they are.)
Who proposed the bolded is the solution? It certainly wasn't me.
As apl68 indicated, any party that views the other as inherently evil and who must be prevented from holding power by any means possible is essentially proposing that.
Well, that's not my opinion on all of this. I'd be very happy to see Republicans run a sane candidate in 2024 - one who doesn't rile up their constituents with dangerous conspiracy theories or try to delegitimize the electoral process. I can think of a few people along these lines and while I probably wouldn't vote for any of them I would be fine with them winning the election.
In terms of solutions, I'd like to see policies to put guardrails on state-legislatures and to clarify the role of the VP. I think the latter is possible, but unlikely, while the former will certainly not happen at this point.
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 08:08:18 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
I acknowledge your concern. It is deeply concerning that so much of the Republican party and its supporters are still in thrall to Trump. Let's be fair--the real Trump nuts, the ones storming the Capitol and generating fake news and trolling anybody and everybody (Including the Fora's own resident troll) are in the minority. But the majority has failed to forcefully repudiate that minority, and that's simply not right.
Here's the thing, though--part of the reason why so many conservatives feel a need to hang together despite everything is because they are deeply, deeply afraid of what could happen to them if they don't. And it is not right to dismiss their fears as nothing but the product of brainwashing by fake news. I get my news from mainstream sources. And in these mainstream sources I saw a failure in some quarters to repudiate the widespread political violence that occurred last year with BLM. I've seen calls on the opinion pages of the NYT to unseat certain Republican members of Congress--democratically elected members of Congress--in the belief that they don't deserve to be there. I've seen substantial segments of leftist opinion positioning themselves to claim that the midterm losses that they likely face this year are the result of elections stolen through voter suppression and gerrymandering--in other words, denying that election results are legitimate.
Loss of support for the democratic process is not confined to one party. It's more acute among Republican supporters, yes, but it's not limited to them. Democracy can only function if the different factions within it recognize each other's fundamental legitimacy, even if they disagree. And I don't see either of the principal partisan sides in the U.S. doing that anymore. Neither Republicans nor Democrats seem willing to accept that the other side might have a right to win elections. The other side is evil, and has no right to wield power, and can only have succeeded because they did something to steal the election.
Hate is ultimately a product of fear. The more the two sides fall into this mutual fear and loathing, the more they will hate each other. Hate hurts democracy, and everything else.
I agree with much of this, regarding Democrats. As I said in my opening post and elsewhere, both parties have exacerbated the problem. Rs are a much more significant danger to democracy at the moment, but it could be Ds in the future that use the tactics Rs have been polishing. That's one of the many reasons that conservatives should be on board with addressing these issues.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:06:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
There are all kinds of things, including those you've listed, that merit concern. However, if the proposed solution is to effectively operate as a one-party state, then that makes "democracy" just some sort of window dressing. In several decades, as I have told my kids many times, there has not been a single election (at any level) where I was entirely happy with my choice. That s reality.
As far as Trump and others' efforts to interfere in the democratic process, obnoxious as I find them, I feel that the best thing the Democrats could do is to move forward and present an ethical alternative that reflects the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than doing the same kind of thing as Trump and doubling down with the more extreme elements in their own party.
One thing to note: Trump was the best thing that happened to much of the media, whose rating$ $kyrocketted as every day people would tune in to watch the train wreck. The worst thing for them would be to get a Republican candidate who was as charismatic as Biden.
They have a vested interest in keeping the focus on Trump for the audience, whether that is in the best interest of the country and/or democracy or not.
(Court cases for Jan.6 rioters can proceed whether the media covers them or not. How much news coverage they get depends on how many eyeballs they can generate, not on how intrinsically "important" they are.)
Who proposed the bolded is the solution? It certainly wasn't me.
As apl68 indicated, any party that views the other as inherently evil and who must be prevented from holding power by any means possible is essentially proposing that.
Slipperly slope logical fallacy. Seeking to replace the current iteration of the in-thrall to Trump/minority rule power over principle, party over country Republican party with something that is more like the Republican party I grew up with - (Bob Dole was my senator before I could vote, and my first vote cast was for him in a presidential primary) is not the same as trying to seek a one party system.
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 11, 2022, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2022, 08:06:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
There are all kinds of things, including those you've listed, that merit concern. However, if the proposed solution is to effectively operate as a one-party state, then that makes "democracy" just some sort of window dressing. In several decades, as I have told my kids many times, there has not been a single election (at any level) where I was entirely happy with my choice. That s reality.
As far as Trump and others' efforts to interfere in the democratic process, obnoxious as I find them, I feel that the best thing the Democrats could do is to move forward and present an ethical alternative that reflects the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than doing the same kind of thing as Trump and doubling down with the more extreme elements in their own party.
One thing to note: Trump was the best thing that happened to much of the media, whose rating$ $kyrocketted as every day people would tune in to watch the train wreck. The worst thing for them would be to get a Republican candidate who was as charismatic as Biden.
They have a vested interest in keeping the focus on Trump for the audience, whether that is in the best interest of the country and/or democracy or not.
(Court cases for Jan.6 rioters can proceed whether the media covers them or not. How much news coverage they get depends on how many eyeballs they can generate, not on how intrinsically "important" they are.)
Who proposed the bolded is the solution? It certainly wasn't me.
As apl68 indicated, any party that views the other as inherently evil and who must be prevented from holding power by any means possible is essentially proposing that.
Slipperly slope logical fallacy. Seeking to replace the current iteration of the in-thrall to Trump/minority rule power over principle, party over country Republican party with something that is more like the Republican party I grew up with - (Bob Dole was my senator before I could vote, and my first vote cast was for him in a presidential primary) is not the same as trying to seek a one party system.
I believe we are best served by two parties who have different approaches, but a shared love of ALL Americans and a mutual respect for each other's legitimacy. That's not what we have today.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 08:08:18 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2022, 07:35:34 AM
My main takeaway from this thread is that it is impossible to convince conservatives that one party doing everything it can - including fomenting violence, telling blatant lies to the public, and pressuring election officials - to overturn the results of a free and fair election is something that merits concern. We've come to a point where, for much of the American population, everything that happens in the political world is just politics.
I acknowledge your concern. It is deeply concerning that so much of the Republican party and its supporters are still in thrall to Trump. Let's be fair--the real Trump nuts, the ones storming the Capitol and generating fake news and trolling anybody and everybody (Including the Fora's own resident troll) are in the minority. But the majority has failed to forcefully repudiate that minority, and that's simply not right.
Here's the thing, though--part of the reason why so many conservatives feel a need to hang together despite everything is because they are deeply, deeply afraid of what could happen to them if they don't. And it is not right to dismiss their fears as nothing but the product of brainwashing by fake news. I get my news from mainstream sources. And in these mainstream sources I saw a failure in some quarters to repudiate the widespread political violence that occurred last year with BLM. I've seen calls on the opinion pages of the NYT to unseat certain Republican members of Congress--democratically elected members of Congress--in the belief that they don't deserve to be there. I've seen substantial segments of leftist opinion positioning themselves to claim that the midterm losses that they likely face this year are the result of elections stolen through voter suppression and gerrymandering--in other words, denying that election results are legitimate.
Loss of support for the democratic process is not confined to one party. It's more acute among Republican supporters, yes, but it's not limited to them. Democracy can only function if the different factions within it recognize each other's fundamental legitimacy, even if they disagree. And I don't see either of the principal partisan sides in the U.S. doing that anymore. Neither Republicans nor Democrats seem willing to accept that the other side might have a right to win elections. The other side is evil, and has no right to wield power, and can only have succeeded because they did something to steal the election.
Hate is ultimately a product of fear. The more the two sides fall into this mutual fear and loathing, the more they will hate each other. Hate hurts democracy, and everything else.
I agree with much of this, regarding Democrats. As I said in my opening post and elsewhere, both parties have exacerbated the problem. Rs are a much more significant danger to democracy at the moment, but it could be Ds in the future that use the tactics Rs have been polishing. That's one of the many reasons that conservatives should be on board with addressing these issues.
Yes! The whole idea of democracy is, or should be, that everybody is committed to making it work, disagreements on various things notwithstanding.
More hope (for those who don't just come to this thread to bellyache):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/11/madison-cawthorn-trump-republican-north-carolina-voters
NC's Republicans are doing something about the issue.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on January 11, 2022, 12:19:44 PM
More hope (for those who don't just come to this thread to bellyache):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/11/madison-cawthorn-trump-republican-north-carolina-voters
NC's Republicans are doing something about the issue.
M.
Let's make a deal. We'll give up Madison Cawthorn and you give up Maxine Waters.
Why would you want Democrats to give up Waters? She's close to retirement. Make Dems give up an up and comer like AOC.
I was thinking of someone who is outright subversive. Maybe AOC qualifies. OK, Kamala then.
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 11, 2022, 01:56:43 PM
Why would you want Democrats to give up Waters? She's close to retirement. Make Dems give up an up and comer like AOC.
Naah, keep them both. Like red flags to a bull for the Republicans! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2022, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 11, 2022, 01:56:43 PM
Why would you want Democrats to give up Waters? She's close to retirement. Make Dems give up an up and comer like AOC.
Naah, keep them both. Like red flags to a bull for the Republicans! :-)
Hillary Clinton with a twenty year head start. Her new riff, 'you're angry because you're not good enough to get me in the sack' is still playing out.
It is bad to let oneself get sucked into party politics. Better to think of structure. I like symmetry.
Many of us think a return to the center is a good answer. The center being the median voter on any particular issue. On a single issue, the median always wins [well, conditional on technical stuff].
But what if the median voters are few in number? We essentially have that now: A bimodal distribution of preferences.
But bimodal can mean a lot -- big differences in modes? Steep change of number of voters away from median preferences? Looks like neither side has an incentive to move to the median on account they'd lose more voters [staying home, protesting, and so on] than gaining them.
An extreme case was slavery. Median voter might have wanted a little slavery. But there were very few of those, so no, it took a civil war.
Abortion rights contemporaneously are similar. Let's not have a civil war over that.
This shows that in an electorate with bi-modally dispersed preferences -- us -- nobody is happy with the democratic outcome, even if it's fair and square.
Hence, a democratic cure might be more federalism. It can't be a uniform standard on everything.
But this at least explains the noise, trying to pull voters into one or the other camp with words rather than policy promises. The words cost nothing.
Symmetry/reciprocity are good. It would be good to agree it's unacceptable to invade the Capitol Buildings or other government property with talk of hanging Mike Pence because you have doubts about vote tabulating, and it would be good to agree it's unacceptable to pointedly neglect law enforcement, public safety or encourage burglary of retail and setting fire to police precinct/cruisers and other places because George Floyd was brutalized and died in police custody. We won't get one without an agreement to both.
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2022, 09:19:18 PM
It is bad to let oneself get sucked into party politics. Better to think of structure. I like symmetry.
Many of us think a return to the center is a good answer. The center being the median voter on any particular issue. On a single issue, the median always wins [well, conditional on technical stuff].
But what if the median voters are few in number? We essentially have that now: A bimodal distribution of preferences.
But bimodal can mean a lot -- big differences in modes? Steep change of number of voters away from median preferences? Looks like neither side has an incentive to move to the median on account they'd lose more voters [staying home, protesting, and so on] than gaining them.
An extreme case was slavery. Median voter might have wanted a little slavery. But there were very few of those, so no, it took a civil war.
Abortion rights contemporaneously are similar. Let's not have a civil war over that.
This shows that in an electorate with bi-modally dispersed preferences -- us -- nobody is happy with the democratic outcome, even if it's fair and square.
Hence, a democratic cure might be more federalism. It can't be a uniform standard on everything.
But this at least explains the noise, trying to pull voters into one or the other camp with words rather than policy promises. The words cost nothing.
Looks like Hilary Clinton disagrees. She is setting herself up to run in 2024. She sees her chance in moving to the center.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-2024-comeback-president-biden-harris-democrat-nominee-race-2022-midterm-loss-11641914951 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-2024-comeback-president-biden-harris-democrat-nominee-race-2022-midterm-loss-11641914951)
I did not get past the three or four sentence free part before the paywall hit, but, well... the Democrats would just insult Americans if they attempted to foist Hillary-- whom I reluctantly voted for in the 2016 general-- on us again. Millions of Americans have voted for Dem presidential candidates and would easily be convinced to do so again, but do not want Hillary Clinton ever to be president. That may offend some secular denizens of Cambridge and Wellesley faculty lounges, but true enough it remains, and a party coup replacing Biden/ Harris with her would almost certainly give us more Trump... or someone much much worse.
The founder of Oath Keepers has been charged with seditious conspiracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-KxEIeeqQ
M.
There is a good discussion of this topic on the latest 538 podcast. The professor they interview notes (as some posters here have) that the quality of US democracy has declined according to every measure that researchers use. The host pushes back in a pretty smart, data driven way.
A number of sources are dismissing the Hillary thing.
My guess is that this is trolling (by Fox News sources) that is mainly meant to promote nasty infighting (and outfighting that can get the Republican base all bothered when there isn't a rebellion to defend).
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 14, 2022, 06:46:47 AM
A number of sources are dismissing the Hillary thing.
My guess is that this is trolling (by Fox News sources) that is mainly meant to promote nasty infighting (and outfighting that can get the Republican base all bothered when there isn't a rebellion to defend).
As far as the state of democracy, in the remote possibility that 2024 once more was Trump vs. Clinton, THAT would indicate a very sad state of affairs. On both sides.
Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.
So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2022, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 14, 2022, 06:46:47 AM
A number of sources are dismissing the Hillary thing.
My guess is that this is trolling (by Fox News sources) that is mainly meant to promote nasty infighting (and outfighting that can get the Republican base all bothered when there isn't a rebellion to defend).
As far as the state of democracy, in the remote possibility that 2024 once more was Trump vs. Clinton, THAT would indicate a very sad state of affairs. On both sides.
Nah, it would be a lot of fun watching the replay!
Quote from: mamselle on January 14, 2022, 10:38:40 AM
Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.
So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.
M.
I believe you have to go back to 1956 to find someone who lost an election who was brought back as the candidate for a subsequent one. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.
I would hope for Hillary to get the nomination rather than Biden. She's smarter, at least.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2022, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 14, 2022, 10:38:40 AM
Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.
So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.
M.
I believe you have to go back to 1956 to find someone who lost an election who was brought back as the candidate for a subsequent one. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.
Nixon lost in 1960, and then won in1968.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2022, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2022, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 14, 2022, 10:38:40 AM
Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.
So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.
M.
I believe you have to go back to 1956 to find someone who lost an election who was brought back as the candidate for a subsequent one. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.
Nixon lost in 1960, and then won in1968.
I stand corrected. At any rate, you basically have to answer the following question: "What slice of voters who chose Trump (or stayed home, I suppose), in 2016 who would now vote for Clinton?"
I can't come up with any demographic for that. (Unless
geographical voting patterns change, then even the whole electoral college thing will work the same way it did then as well.)
The most relevant point of historical trivia would be "When was the last time that a president who lost re-election then came back to win it in the next election? I think the answer is Grover Cleveland. He was President until the late 1880's , then he lost the next election, then he won the next one after that. So, Trump would have to do something that happened only one other time, 130 years ago. And a Republican has never done it (if that matters!). Cleveland won the popular vote all three times. If Trump pulls it off, it would likely be with three popular vote losses in a row.
Though I agree that Clinton wouldn't really bring anybody in who isn't inclined to vote for her already, that might be enough, especially if people feel the same regarding Trump.
People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now. New voters coming along. It could be interesting. I suspect young voters are not going to be excited about Hillary, which would be an advantage for Trump. If she starts talking about the 'Glass Ceiling' (yawn...they had Margaret Thatcher in 1979) and 'the year of the woman' Trump has it made.
Found this as a comment on another blog:
1824, 1872, 1960, 2000, 2004, 2016. Questioning election results is a national pastime, and maybe sometimes the allegations even have merit, but now it's a grave threat to our fragile democracy.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2022, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2022, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2022, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 14, 2022, 10:38:40 AM
Clinton is principled, experienced, and savvy.
So one part of that statement needs re-consideration.
M.
I believe you have to go back to 1956 to find someone who lost an election who was brought back as the candidate for a subsequent one. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.
Nixon lost in 1960, and then won in1968.
I stand corrected. At any rate, you basically have to answer the following question: "What slice of voters who chose Trump (or stayed home, I suppose), in 2016 who would now vote for Clinton?"
I can't come up with any demographic for that. (Unless geographical voting patterns change, then even the whole electoral college thing will work the same way it did then as well.)
I've got no clue. Maybe a "who do you fear more as President" question or a "who do you loathe more" question. mamselle is absolutely correct that exactly one of them is capable of governing without craziness. However, as long as Evangelicals fear her, are entranced by him or strike a Devil's bargain for the SC I don't think she can win.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2022, 03:14:21 PM
I've got no clue. Maybe a "who do you fear more as President" question or a "who do you loathe more" question. mamselle is absolutely correct that exactly one of them is capable of governing without craziness. However, as long as Evangelicals fear her, are entranced by him or strike a Devil's bargain for the SC I don't think she can win.
Right now, with democrats and their skewed priorities, is craziness. Those of us who are not set for life financially have reason to worry about accelerating inflation, among other things.
When I consider American political commentary, I eventually hark back to what was described in La Dolce Vita [1960] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053779/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053779/)
Sad, sad, sad. Farce. It's not even wrong.
I thought Indira broke the glass ceiling in 1966, and then Golda in 1969. Though, of interest, neither country has had a second woman as PM (though Israel came close a few years back).
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 14, 2022, 04:44:10 PM
I thought Indira broke the glass ceiling in 1966, and then Golda in 1969. Though, of interest, neither country has had a second woman as PM (though Israel came close a few years back).
My opinion (obviously)
Thinking that the UK needs to have another woman head-of-state, and now, would be another trite 'feminist' idea. All they need is to have the right person for the job with the right ideas and leadership skill, which Thatcher and many others believed she was, and that they need urgently. It's the nation that is important. The folly of thinking it's important to break the 'glass-ceiling' is what gave the democrats their newest self-contructed political liability, Kamala Harris. Explained: https://unherd.com/2022/01/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail/
Quote from: mahagonny on January 14, 2022, 05:35:53 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 14, 2022, 04:44:10 PM
I thought Indira broke the glass ceiling in 1966, and then Golda in 1969. Though, of interest, neither country has had a second woman as PM (though Israel came close a few years back).
My opinion (obviously)
Thinking that the UK needs to have another woman head-of-state, and now, would be another trite 'feminist' idea. All they need is to have the right person for the job with the right ideas and leadership skill, which Thatcher and many others believed she was, and that they need urgently. It's the nation that is important. The folly of thinking it's important to break the 'glass-ceiling' is what gave the democrats their newest self-contructed political liability, Kamala Harris. Explained: https://unherd.com/2022/01/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail/
Margaret was Minister of Education in the Heath cabinet. She did
not want to cancel free school milk, though she did [Thatcher, thatcher, milk snatcher], taking a hit for the team, which was all male. Later, Ted Heath said: Margaret is the only cabinet member who has balls!
A Soviet military magazine invented the sobriquet "The Iron Lady" for her, which she gladly accepted.
She broke ceilings by herself.
Mahog wrong again: People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now. And insufferably, deliberately offensive, insulting many folks on The Fora who voted for either T or H in 2016 and who are neither dead nor suffering from dementia.
Wonder why Mahog has this need to name call, verbally abuse, use ad hominems....perhasps because s/he/it has so little else.....
Fewer people than ever trusting the news media is a concerning thing. It's a bad thing that they don't have news they believe they can trust, but it would be a worse thing if they still trusted news that they shouldn't. One example is the high number of editorials condemning Sens. Manchin and Sinema recently for breaking ranks with the democrats, usually found in outlets with a decided liberal slant. But there is no critical mass of voters who agree with the democrats on either the question of the filibuster or the need for nationalizing voting.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-4c41-dbc8-a1ff-7d6105130000
Quote from: nebo113 on January 15, 2022, 06:20:16 AM
Mahog wrong again: People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now. And insufferably, deliberately offensive, insulting many folks on The Fora who voted for either T or H in 2016 and who are neither dead nor suffering from dementia.
Wonder why Mahog has this need to name call, verbally abuse, use ad hominems....perhaps because s/he/it has so little else.....
Glad you pointed this out.
I was going to, but I had to prep a theory class, revise an article manuscript for submission, and get a conference paper abstract (due today, it's in wrap-up phase, now) started.
Guess I'm too slow, somnolent, and decrepit as an active independent scholar and teacher to make reasoned political choices.
That must be it...
M.
Quote from: mamselle on January 15, 2022, 06:53:23 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 15, 2022, 06:20:16 AM
Mahog wrong again: People who voted for Trump and Hillary in 2016 are dead or in dementia by now. And insufferably, deliberately offensive, insulting many folks on The Fora who voted for either T or H in 2016 and who are neither dead nor suffering from dementia.
Wonder why Mahog has this need to name call, verbally abuse, use ad hominems....perhaps because s/he/it has so little else.....
Glad you pointed this out.
I was going to, but I had to prep a theory class, revise an article manuscript for submission, and get a conference paper abstract (due today, it's in wrap-up phase, now) started.
Guess I'm too slow, somnolent, and decrepit as an active independent scholar and teacher to make reasoned political choices.
That must be it...
M.
No, My meaning was misconstrued. I explained on the other thread.
Nebo occasionally stalks me with these silly accusations. Last time it was outrage over the phrase 'the blacks.' Which I don't say any more. However, 'people of color' takes longer to type.
ETA: Can you say 'African Americans' any more? I think the jury is still out. Of course, I am posing the question to some who want us to use the term 'Latinx' which the group themselves dislikes.
Hm. Was talking about this with a few friends the other day.
On the one hand we haven't rounded up all people of a certain national descent, taken their property and sent them to internment camps.
But we do "other" another group of people by not making it possible for them to immigrate "legally," and deport them from time to time. Or separate them from their children and then lose the paperwork.
We don't have regular lynching parties or openly segregated neighborhoods, schools, and businesses.
But we do deny schooling, parks, and preschools, then send young people on the cradle-to-prison pipeline where they are locked away; or have "stand your ground" laws where it's okay to shoot and kill a stranger who someone thinks is trespassing.
We have desegregated our schools, but also got rid of free/low cost college educations for those who don't have family money to pay tuition. So these young people start out life under a mountain of debt.
We don't commit violence against workers demanding their rights. We do ship jobs to China where people live away from their families in dorms, with no privacy, making cheap products.
So have we made progress? Or shifted one set of wrongs into a new set of wrongs. Are we just more civilized about how we harm people?
2024 chatter is just meaningless speculation at this point. That said, I will engage just to say that nominating either Trump or Clinton would be a colossal political blunder for their respective parties.
Meanwhile, the journalists and the committee are doing their job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kOUyWufSN8
That's a sign of democratic processes moving forward.
M.
Two months later (so I hope I can be forgiven for a double post...):
Good, in that things are discovered through due process, and commented upon by a free press, and processed by a judiciary that is (mostly) staffed by civil servants who aren't (supposed to be) beholden to anyone.
Really upset, in that these findings can come before us as verified fact:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih44XPmiZsM
I still suspect Trump has extortionary files on everyone he perceives could ever come up against him, and uses them... NYC DA's anyone?
M.
We're in a hell of a mess. Someone's going to be on the Supreme Court who plays games when asked 'what is a woman.'
ETA: now it occurs to me -- was she being facetious? As in 'I thought I knew what a woman was, but lately I doubt myself. Graduated from Harvard at the top of my class, served on the Circuit Court but hell...beats me! Can't you ask something easier?'
Quote from: mahagonny on March 25, 2022, 06:21:34 PM
We're in a hell of a mess. Someone's going to be on the Supreme Court who plays games when asked 'what is a woman.'
ETA: now it occurs to me -- was she being facetious? As in 'I thought I knew what a woman was, but lately I doubt myself. Graduated from Harvard at the top of my class, served on the Circuit Court but hell...beats me! Can't you ask something easier?'
Sure! What's a jackass? Starts with M, ends with y. Easy peasy.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 25, 2022, 06:21:34 PM
We're in a hell of a mess. Someone's going to be on the Supreme Court who plays games when asked 'what is a woman.'
ETA: now it occurs to me -- was she being facetious? As in 'I thought I knew what a woman was, but lately I doubt myself. Graduated from Harvard at the top of my class, served on the Circuit Court but hell...beats me! Can't you ask something easier?'
Do you really think the questioner wasn't playing a game?
Did you all see that Clarence Thomas's wife was directly involved in the botched coup on January 6? I'm trending ever more pessimistic.
Yes. More and more interesting...could provide further tinder for the T-fire...
M.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 26, 2022, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 25, 2022, 06:21:34 PM
We're in a hell of a mess. Someone's going to be on the Supreme Court who plays games when asked 'what is a woman.'
ETA: now it occurs to me -- was she being facetious? As in 'I thought I knew what a woman was, but lately I doubt myself. Graduated from Harvard at the top of my class, served on the Circuit Court but hell...beats me! Can't you ask something easier?'
Do you really think the questioner wasn't playing a game?
As in 'here's your chance to show us you're not a Marxist born again reality denier?' Seems more like easy pitch to me. Although she didn't deliver fully for the radical left. Some might have preferred she had explained '"woman" is just a social construct generated by the desire to oppress.' By suggesting a biologist could have answered the question more competently, she admitted there is a biological answer. (I'm beginning to like her. She thinks on her feet!)
ETA: They might have been thinking, or at least aware of the suggestion, 'let's see what tribe you belong to.' I guess that's a game of sorts. But it is something the progressives have foisted on us.
QuoteDid you all see that Clarence Thomas's wife was directly involved in the botched coup on January 6? I'm trending ever more pessimistic.
I'm not up to speed on that one yet. Was there some abuse of power? Plenty of people have nutty wives. I'm one of them.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 26, 2022, 05:27:34 PM
Did you all see that Clarence Thomas's wife was directly involved in the botched coup on January 6? I'm trending ever more pessimistic.
Source?
According to the New York Times, 'the Thomases "have been a fiercely close couple for decades" and that Justice Thomas has referred to his wife as his "best friend."'
Wow, stay as sweet as you are, NYT. Are they going to wish the couple a fiercely happy anniversary? Getting to the heart of the matter I see.
It'sveverywhere. Here's one (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/&ved=2ahUKEwjS7IP2ovn2AhWVMX0KHd1rAvQQFnoECFIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Qo98B91c_hw4kCMASzm1X).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 03, 2022, 06:38:59 PM
It'sveverywhere. Here's one (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/&ved=2ahUKEwjS7IP2ovn2AhWVMX0KHd1rAvQQFnoECFIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Qo98B91c_hw4kCMASzm1X).
I don't subscribe. also, this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2021/03/17/media-bias-fact-check-downgrades-the-washington-post/
Any others you'd recommend?
Quote from: mahagonny on April 04, 2022, 08:22:18 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 03, 2022, 06:38:59 PM
It'sveverywhere. Here's one (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/&ved=2ahUKEwjS7IP2ovn2AhWVMX0KHd1rAvQQFnoECFIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Qo98B91c_hw4kCMASzm1X).
I don't subscribe. also, this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2021/03/17/media-bias-fact-check-downgrades-the-washington-post/
Any others you'd recommend?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/04/ginni-thomas-trump-era-00022634
To answer the title question:
Pretty good, at least over the fact that Judge Brown has been confirmed, 53-47:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmiseaKNOBE
M.
Better.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-hunter-biden-laptop-emails-senate-joe-business-dealings-china-burisma-ukraine-corruption-11649365586
I love Bennie and Liz.
M.
Livestream on the Washington Post channel just ended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAYUj3iwqLY
Monday AM is the next hearing.
Impressively conducted and organized; Officer Edward's testimony was particularly lucid.
M.
Pretty interesting article about where US is at now and what it might look like going forward:
https://theconversation.com/us-swing-toward-autocracy-doesnt-have-to-be-permanent-but-swinging-back-to-democracy-requires-vigilance-stamina-and-elections-250383
The author notes that Polity - the scale political scientists often use to measure regime type - has downgraded the US out of the democracy range, largely on the basis of weakened checks and balances. I remember they did this during the first Trump presidency as well, I believe after the Administration ignored a congressional subpoena.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on March 26, 2025, 07:52:42 AMPretty interesting article about where US is at now and what it might look like going forward:
https://theconversation.com/us-swing-toward-autocracy-doesnt-have-to-be-permanent-but-swinging-back-to-democracy-requires-vigilance-stamina-and-elections-250383
The author notes that Polity - the scale political scientists often use to measure regime type - has downgraded the US out of the democracy range, largely on the basis of weakened checks and balances. I remember they did this during the first Trump presidency as well, I believe after the Administration ignored a congressional subpoena.
I'm more pessimistic than the author, given that our two-party first-past-the-post electoral system incentivizes terrible economic policy, which drives polarization.
This guy has the right idea:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/yale-professor-fascism-canada (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/yale-professor-fascism-canada).
Long read, but interesting article.
'Many Americans Feel in Real Peril': Four Columnists on the Democrats' Weak Response to Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/opinion/democratic-party-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7U4._Y-6.nagTTVDFDmfh&smid=nytcore-android-share
The cynic in me is thinking about D's and R's as Coke vs Pepsi. If the D's are funded by and lobbied by the same people, are they just individually hoping to fall on the right side of the power shift, just like the non-MAGA R's?
Discuss.
Traditionally (at least in my lifetime) they've been more like Coke (Rs) vs Diet Coke (Ds), at least when it comes to shilling for corporate interests. Nowdays Rs are more like Coke mixed with battery acid.
I'm not American, obviously, though as you may know my partner is (and as it happens, I was eligible for citizenship but decided, as a teen, not to pursue it because of the political situation at the time).
Anyway: I was pessimistic before. But now that armed and masked thugs are arresting/disappearing permanent residents for their fairly anodyne free speech, and now that visitors are being turned away because of speech critical of the President...
I think it's dead. So does my partner. She is eligible for citizenship here, now, and we plan to sever all of our economic ties to the US as soon as possible (which won't be super soon, since her mother depends on us, but still).
My preference would be to move. However, it would mean leaving a marriage of 40+ years, so no. One branch of my kids would happily relocate to NZ with us, but not the other.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 28, 2025, 12:17:25 PMI'm not American, obviously, though as you may know my partner is (and as it happens, I was eligible for citizenship but decided, as a teen, not to pursue it because of the political situation at the time).
Anyway: I was pessimistic before. But now that armed and masked thugs are arresting/disappearing permanent residents for their fairly anodyne free speech, and now that visitors are being turned away because of speech critical of the President...
I think it's dead. So does my partner. She is eligible for citizenship here, now, and we plan to sever all of our economic ties to the US as soon as possible (which won't be super soon, since her mother depends on us, but still).
My only concern is that when the good people start fleeing America the power of this behemouth will all the more securely fall into the hands of very bad people. And no one in the world is safe if Drumpf gets what he wants. You may find sanctuary for a time, just don't count on it staying a sanctuary.
Tolkien understood this dynamic of geopolitics.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 28, 2025, 12:17:25 PMI'm not American, obviously, though as you may know my partner is (and as it happens, I was eligible for citizenship but decided, as a teen, not to pursue it because of the political situation at the time).
Anyway: I was pessimistic before. But now that armed and masked thugs are arresting/disappearing permanent residents for their fairly anodyne free speech, and now that visitors are being turned away because of speech critical of the President...
I think it's dead. So does my partner. She is eligible for citizenship here, now, and we plan to sever all of our economic ties to the US as soon as possible (which won't be super soon, since her mother depends on us, but still).
I think it's either dead or will be so severely damaged that it won't recover in my lifetime, which amounts to the same thing.
My wife has dual citizenship, we could in theory migrate permanently to her homeland, but it's one of those shithole country military dictatorships. So not really a better option.
Plato was right.
Contemporary USian populism isn't all that different from Athenian populism and won't end all that differently either.
Except nukes might be involved.
I believe in democracy, and I also believe in rule by the wise. I've concluded that the human race was created with a severe deficit of capacity for wisdom, so my wishes aren't simultaneously possible. Given that, I think nuclear war, so that God can have another chance, is a good idea.
Birds of a feather flock together:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/world/europe/trump-authoritarians-inspiration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7k4.nRPg.MFhQW8pij5Af&smid=url-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/world/europe/trump-authoritarians-inspiration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7k4.nRPg.MFhQW8pij5Af&smid=url-share)
What democracy?
It's far too soon to write American democracy off. Certainly not when it's still capable of producing a result that vast sections of the nation's elite didn't want. But it's hurting pretty bad. A successful democracy needs strong and healthy institutions, and ours have taken a terrible beating in recent years. This has now gotten much worse--thanks, paradoxically, to a democratic result that the nation's elite failed to control.
Quote from: apl68 on April 04, 2025, 07:42:33 AMIt's far too soon to write American democracy off. Certainly not when it's still capable of producing a result that vast sections of the nation's elite didn't want. But it's hurting pretty bad. A successful democracy needs strong and healthy institutions, and ours have taken a terrible beating in recent years. This has now gotten much worse--thanks, paradoxically, to a democratic result that the nation's elite failed to control.
I'd call it a democratic result that was due to failures of multiple systems that should have safe-guarded this country. The national-level failures started with the Reflublican Party, extended to the Electoral College, then to the me-&-my-party-before-country Senators, etc. And that's just his first term...
But - just like no one (except at least one fiction author) thinking that a pilot would ever use a plane, much less one with passengers, as a weapon - they never imagined this new reality, so there were no guaranteed defenses against it.
It doesn't help that a cadre of supposedly religiously-motivated people have spent a couple of generations (or more) working toward taking this county over, either. Their willingness to side with things that I find indistinguishable from evil to promote their idea of good is just a sickening icing on this sh*t cake they are trying to make.
I have a hard time imagining another government managing to undo most, let alone all, of the damage in a single term, let alone guarding against similar future results. Looks to me like, at best, we're looking at a future of periodic lurches into crisis, with occasional breathers.
In other words, a competitive authoritarian future.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 08:12:38 AMI have a hard time imagining another government managing to undo most, let alone all, of the damage in a single term, let alone guarding against similar future results. Looks to me like, at best, we're looking at a future of periodic lurches into crisis, with occasional breathers.
In other words, a competitive authoritarian future.
You could well be correct. There are still a strong group of competent people in this country who are traditional patriots - Country First! When in power they will work to fix things, but are likely to have to do so much of it that progress becomes limited.
This could easily become a perfect storm - lots of issues from economic chaos, lack of effective government programs, climate disasters, etc. which combine to make scared & hurting people easy victims for charismatic con-artists. I forget who said it first - something about people who have a simple solution to complex problems usually being insane.
As bad as this is (and it is bad), American democracy has been in worse places at many points in our history. In fact, I'm not sure things are worse now than they were during W Bush's administration. That does not necessarily mean that things will go back to normal* or get better any time soon, but it is worth putting all of this in context.
* Which was not all that great for a large plurality of Americans
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 04, 2025, 10:46:59 AMAs bad as this is (and it is bad), American democracy has been in worse places at many points in our history. In fact, I'm not sure things are worse now than they were during W Bush's administration. That does not necessarily mean that things will go back to normal* or get better any time soon, but it is worth putting all of this in context.
* Which was not all that great for a large plurality of Americans
I didn't always agree with GWB or admire him... still, he wasn't gleefully driving a truck through the economy, critical programs, all while blatantly turning a profit at taxpayer expense.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 04, 2025, 12:29:53 PMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 04, 2025, 10:46:59 AMAs bad as this is (and it is bad), American democracy has been in worse places at many points in our history. In fact, I'm not sure things are worse now than they were during W Bush's administration. That does not necessarily mean that things will go back to normal* or get better any time soon, but it is worth putting all of this in context.
* Which was not all that great for a large plurality of Americans
I didn't always agree with GWB or admire him... still, he wasn't gleefully driving a truck through the economy, critical programs, all while blatantly turning a profit at taxpayer expense.
Let's review: Bush arguably lost the 2020 presidential election, but was ushered in anyway by a Republican-led supreme court; invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, with the former being arguably the largest foreign policy blunder in modern history and resulting in the deaths of at least 200,000 people; torture; implemented the patriot act; led a campaign of chilling speech by making anyone and everyone in the elite media afraid to call out his idiotic foreign policy for fear of not supporting the troops; ran his 2004 campaign in large part on demonizing homosexuality... Not to mention crashing the economy.
He wasn't as gleeful about it as Trump, but he sure did a lot of damage to American democracy, to the country, and to the world.
This is already going to be an order of magnitude worse, whether or not Trump himself is gleeful.
A bit off the topic of my feelings about American democracy, but Trump will probably kill more people than George W. Bush did, by wrecking PEPFAR, TB programs, etc. administered through USAID and HHS.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on April 04, 2025, 08:35:36 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 08:12:38 AMI have a hard time imagining another government managing to undo most, let alone all, of the damage in a single term, let alone guarding against similar future results. Looks to me like, at best, we're looking at a future of periodic lurches into crisis, with occasional breathers.
In other words, a competitive authoritarian future.
You could well be correct. There are still a strong group of competent people in this country who are traditional patriots - Country First! When in power they will work to fix things, but are likely to have to do so much of it that progress becomes limited.
This could easily become a perfect storm - lots of issues from economic chaos, lack of effective government programs, climate disasters, etc. which combine to make scared & hurting people easy victims for charismatic con-artists. I forget who said it first - something about people who have a simple solution to complex problems usually being insane.
The other factor is that once the ship of state turns, it becomes hard for anyone, including the opposition, to change course. Democrats, after all, didn't just end torture or the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan once they took power again. Or, hell, just look at the Iran nuclear deal! If the US gets embroiled in any major conflict--Iran, Canada, Greenland, Panama, Mexico--then I have very little faith that the nightmare will end if or when Democrats manage to get back into power.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 05:45:30 PMQuote from: Sea_Ice on April 04, 2025, 08:35:36 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 08:12:38 AMI have a hard time imagining another government managing to undo most, let alone all, of the damage in a single term, let alone guarding against similar future results. Looks to me like, at best, we're looking at a future of periodic lurches into crisis, with occasional breathers.
In other words, a competitive authoritarian future.
You could well be correct. There are still a strong group of competent people in this country who are traditional patriots - Country First! When in power they will work to fix things, but are likely to have to do so much of it that progress becomes limited.
This could easily become a perfect storm - lots of issues from economic chaos, lack of effective government programs, climate disasters, etc. which combine to make scared & hurting people easy victims for charismatic con-artists. I forget who said it first - something about people who have a simple solution to complex problems usually being insane.
The other factor is that once the ship of state turns, it becomes hard for anyone, including the opposition, to change course. Democrats, after all, didn't just end torture or the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan once they took power again. Or, hell, just look at the Iran nuclear deal! If the US gets embroiled in any major conflict--Iran, Canada, Greenland, Panama, Mexico--then I have very little faith that the nightmare will end if or when Democrats manage to get back into power.
And one thing which I think many Americans don't realize, regardless of their politics, is the long-term effects that basically the
entire world believes they can no longer count on the US as a partner militarily, economically, or any other way.
No matter what government follows in 2028, the spectre of this kind of thing in the future means that
everyone is going to try and minimize their exposure to the US as a matter of long term self-preservation. They can't be counted on for ANYTHING. EVER.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2025, 09:46:45 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 05:45:30 PMQuote from: Sea_Ice on April 04, 2025, 08:35:36 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 08:12:38 AMI have a hard time imagining another government managing to undo most, let alone all, of the damage in a single term, let alone guarding against similar future results. Looks to me like, at best, we're looking at a future of periodic lurches into crisis, with occasional breathers.
In other words, a competitive authoritarian future.
You could well be correct. There are still a strong group of competent people in this country who are traditional patriots - Country First! When in power they will work to fix things, but are likely to have to do so much of it that progress becomes limited.
This could easily become a perfect storm - lots of issues from economic chaos, lack of effective government programs, climate disasters, etc. which combine to make scared & hurting people easy victims for charismatic con-artists. I forget who said it first - something about people who have a simple solution to complex problems usually being insane.
The other factor is that once the ship of state turns, it becomes hard for anyone, including the opposition, to change course. Democrats, after all, didn't just end torture or the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan once they took power again. Or, hell, just look at the Iran nuclear deal! If the US gets embroiled in any major conflict--Iran, Canada, Greenland, Panama, Mexico--then I have very little faith that the nightmare will end if or when Democrats manage to get back into power.
And one thing which I think many Americans don't realize, regardless of their politics, is the long-term effects that basically the entire world believes they can no longer count on the US as a partner militarily, economically, or any other way.
No matter what government follows in 2028, the spectre of this kind of thing in the future means that everyone is going to try and minimize their exposure to the US as a matter of long term self-preservation. They can't be counted on for ANYTHING. EVER.
This is true, although there have been other instances like this (1971 Nixon shock, for example) that did not lead to the kind of pullback from US that was expected.
Partly it is about what alternative hegemon exists - or whether one exists at all. Is China ready to step up into that role? Probably not for various reasons. Ditto for the EU.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 05, 2025, 10:10:59 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2025, 09:46:45 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 05:45:30 PMQuote from: Sea_Ice on April 04, 2025, 08:35:36 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2025, 08:12:38 AMI have a hard time imagining another government managing to undo most, let alone all, of the damage in a single term, let alone guarding against similar future results. Looks to me like, at best, we're looking at a future of periodic lurches into crisis, with occasional breathers.
In other words, a competitive authoritarian future.
You could well be correct. There are still a strong group of competent people in this country who are traditional patriots - Country First! When in power they will work to fix things, but are likely to have to do so much of it that progress becomes limited.
This could easily become a perfect storm - lots of issues from economic chaos, lack of effective government programs, climate disasters, etc. which combine to make scared & hurting people easy victims for charismatic con-artists. I forget who said it first - something about people who have a simple solution to complex problems usually being insane.
The other factor is that once the ship of state turns, it becomes hard for anyone, including the opposition, to change course. Democrats, after all, didn't just end torture or the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan once they took power again. Or, hell, just look at the Iran nuclear deal! If the US gets embroiled in any major conflict--Iran, Canada, Greenland, Panama, Mexico--then I have very little faith that the nightmare will end if or when Democrats manage to get back into power.
And one thing which I think many Americans don't realize, regardless of their politics, is the long-term effects that basically the entire world believes they can no longer count on the US as a partner militarily, economically, or any other way.
No matter what government follows in 2028, the spectre of this kind of thing in the future means that everyone is going to try and minimize their exposure to the US as a matter of long term self-preservation. They can't be counted on for ANYTHING. EVER.
This is true, although there have been other instances like this (1971 Nixon shock, for example) that did not lead to the kind of pullback from US that was expected.
Partly it is about what alternative hegemon exists - or whether one exists at all. Is China ready to step up into that role? Probably not for various reasons. Ditto for the EU.
I think that's the key. A wariness to put all of a country's eggs in
any single basket is what I imagine will be more of the way things unfold. So many countries will do some business with the US, but few will risk having that as their single biggest relationship.
DJT,MTG and others are not politicians. They are entertainers.
Voters are so used to pols saying one thing and doing another that they vote on brand and message instead of anticipated actions and results.
All this political theater has real-life consequences.
FAFO, indeed.
Let's keep things in propotion, folks. America has been through bad times before, much worse times actually. The Western World has been through bad times before.
Granted, this time is unique----but if the world reabsorbed Germany and Japan, and even Russia before it went cray-cray again, it will reabsorb America one day.
Drumpf is trying to hobble America and make it vulnerable for takeover. Already it is backfiring everywhere. Even Ted Cruz is sounding the alarm.
What we need to worry about is how much damage Drumpf is going to cause in the immediate future and how to recouperate.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2025, 09:46:45 AM[...]
the spectre of this kind of thing in the future means that everyone is going to try and minimize their exposure to the US as a matter of long term self-preservation. They can't be counted on for ANYTHING. EVER.
Millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. already know this.
Even Obama is starting to speak out. I've almost never seen a former president say much about current administrations before.
Could apply to so many threads, but here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOHbyuanbY
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 06, 2025, 02:15:28 PMCould apply to so many threads, but here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOHbyuanbY
:D
Newsweek: Trump Approval Rating Goes Negative With Republican Pollster for First Time (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-2055795)
QuoteThat is the first time in Trump's second term that Rasmussen's tracker has shown the president with a net negative approval rating. On April 3, Trump's approval rating dipped below 50 points for the first time. Rasmussen is generally considered as a Republican-leaning pollster.
Many polls have shown the president's approval rating on the decline in recent days.
Newsweek's average of the 10 most recently published polls shows that Trump's approval rating stands at 47 percent, while 49 percent disapprove. That is a decline from early March, when Trump's approval rating was at 49 percent, while 47 percent disapproved.
Keep watching. The landscape is already shifting, and we are, what, 11 weeks into his 2nd term?
It's not impossible: IMPEACH TRUMP!!!
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2025, 06:33:49 PMNewsweek: Trump Approval Rating Goes Negative With Republican Pollster for First Time (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-2055795)
QuoteThat is the first time in Trump's second term that Rasmussen's tracker has shown the president with a net negative approval rating. On April 3, Trump's approval rating dipped below 50 points for the first time. Rasmussen is generally considered as a Republican-leaning pollster.
Many polls have shown the president's approval rating on the decline in recent days.
Newsweek's average of the 10 most recently published polls shows that Trump's approval rating stands at 47 percent, while 49 percent disapprove. That is a decline from early March, when Trump's approval rating was at 49 percent, while 47 percent disapproved.
Keep watching. The landscape is already shifting, and we are, what, 11 weeks into his 2nd term?
It's not impossible: IMPEACH TRUMP!!!
He isn't the real issue. Project 2025 is and it will continue under JD
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 06, 2025, 02:15:28 PMCould apply to so many threads, but here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOHbyuanbY
Ben Stein, the actor playing the teacher, went on to be a conservative agitator. His blog (https://spectator.org/author/bstein/) has been quiet since November, when he turned 80, so we are left to wonder how he feels about tariffs personally.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2025, 06:33:49 PMNewsweek: Trump Approval Rating Goes Negative With Republican Pollster for First Time (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-2055795)
QuoteThat is the first time in Trump's second term that Rasmussen's tracker has shown the president with a net negative approval rating. On April 3, Trump's approval rating dipped below 50 points for the first time. Rasmussen is generally considered as a Republican-leaning pollster.
Many polls have shown the president's approval rating on the decline in recent days.
Newsweek's average of the 10 most recently published polls shows that Trump's approval rating stands at 47 percent, while 49 percent disapprove. That is a decline from early March, when Trump's approval rating was at 49 percent, while 47 percent disapproved.
Keep watching. The landscape is already shifting, and we are, what, 11 weeks into his 2nd term?
It's not impossible: IMPEACH TRUMP!!!
Rs are not going to vote to impeach him, but it will become harder for him to follow his most destructive instincts if his popularity is in the toilet.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 07, 2025, 08:17:27 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2025, 06:33:49 PMIt's not impossible: IMPEACH TRUMP!!!
Rs are not going to vote to impeach him, but it will become harder for him to follow his most destructive instincts if his popularity is in the toilet.
These are people who will turn on anyone if they think that their turn on the guillotine is coming, voters and politicians. I'm convinced by your second statement but not your first.
Some comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
Quote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
Quote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:13:09 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
The $500 spent on imports has nothing to do with the trade deficit. Foreigners get the US$ and spend them on US goods, our exports. Same with your spending abroad, that's going to equal additional US exports.
Quote from: dismalist on April 09, 2025, 02:16:32 PMQuote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:13:09 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
The $500 spent on imports has nothing to do with the trade deficit. Foreigners get the US$ and spend them on US goods, our exports. Same with your spending abroad, that's going to equal additional US exports.
I know this but Trump doesn't.
Quote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:17:56 PMQuote from: dismalist on April 09, 2025, 02:16:32 PMQuote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:13:09 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
The $500 spent on imports has nothing to do with the trade deficit. Foreigners get the US$ and spend them on US goods, our exports. Same with your spending abroad, that's going to equal additional US exports.
I know this but Trump doesn't.
But does Trump know you're doing this, and that just [?] to hurt him? :-)
I decided to go ahead with a purchase as hedge. Back story, I've been thoughtful (lucky) with cars. Got to a place where I could by with cash (sorry clean, new for me), and thought about trade values pretty well. When I retired my wife and I went down to one car, selling a Honda Odyssey with 40,000 miles for more than we paid retail. We have a Honda CR-V hybrid with 20,000 miles. I just leased a Fiat 500e for 24 months to drive pretty much all its 10,000 mile per year in town. The intent is to extend the life of the CR-V as much as possible so if prices go up substantially we don't have to purchase as soon. With federal and state rebates I paid $500 down for $93 a month lease. At the end I can turn it in, or if used prices have gone up substantially buy it, then keep or sell it.
I was not in the market, but the chance to do this with the rebates and incentives it seems like a no brainer. Not an investment, a hedge.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
What is the favourite chocolate in Canada?
Quote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:13:09 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
I closed my Amazon account and I don't buy American goods (at least to my knowledge) anymore. Easier of course to do when you live in the UK. I have not been to the States for 8 years, and I don't really intend to visit again. I have looked into what I need to do to give up my US citizenship if things keep getting worse—it costs a few thousand dollars, a visit to the embassy, and a final tax return. It will make administering my pensions easier.
New York Times reports that the Trump Administration will cancel immigrants' social security numbers to deny them access to credit and other financial services:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/migrants-deport-social-security-doge.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k4.LXX8.2Nj8MBtCwNXG&smid=url-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/migrants-deport-social-security-doge.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k4.LXX8.2Nj8MBtCwNXG&smid=url-share)
I predict that with the next 24 months we will see U.S. citizens "mistakenly" arrested and deported.
Quote from: spork on April 10, 2025, 02:10:11 PMNew York Times reports that the Trump Administration will cancel immigrants' social security numbers to deny them access to credit and other financial services:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/migrants-deport-social-security-doge.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k4.LXX8.2Nj8MBtCwNXG&smid=url-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/migrants-deport-social-security-doge.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k4.LXX8.2Nj8MBtCwNXG&smid=url-share)
I predict that with the next 24 months we will see U.S. citizens "mistakenly" arrested and deported.
I predict that with the next 24 months we will see U.S.
citizens congressmen and business leaders "mistakenly" arrested and deported.
Having said this, shutting up won't get the job done. Freedom of speech only works if you use it. Our best denfense is persuading more people to speak out against the incompetence and foolishness on full display every day. Flood the zone.
Quote from: spork on April 10, 2025, 02:10:11 PMI predict that with the next 24 months we will see U.S. citizens "mistakenly" arrested and deported.
And this is the guy who will make it happen: https://www.propublica.org/article/recording-reveals-leland-dudek-thoughts-trump-doge-social-security
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 10, 2025, 02:43:30 PMQuote from: spork on April 10, 2025, 02:10:11 PMI predict that with the next 24 months we will see U.S. citizens "mistakenly" arrested and deported.
And this is the guy who will make it happen: https://www.propublica.org/article/recording-reveals-leland-dudek-thoughts-trump-doge-social-security
Or they could just declare you dead.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/10/self-deportation-immigrants-social-security-dead/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/10/self-deportation-immigrants-social-security-dead/)
Quote from: Minervabird on April 10, 2025, 12:04:32 PMQuote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:13:09 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
I closed my Amazon account and I don't buy American goods (at least to my knowledge) anymore. Easier of course to do when you live in the UK. I have not been to the States for 8 years, and I don't really intend to visit again. I have looked into what I need to do to give up my US citizenship if things keep getting worse—it costs a few thousand dollars, a visit to the embassy, and a final tax return. It will make administering my pensions easier.
It used to be a lot easier and cheaper to renounce US citizenship. IIRC it was something like fifty bucks, then Obama jacked it to $800, and then the underpants gnomes somehow raised it to the present $3k. 0_o
I'm certainly very glad I decided, as a teen, not to pursue citizenship. We will not be claiming it for our children (my partner is American), unless there are some really dramatic changes for the good in the next fourteen years.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 10, 2025, 09:48:39 PMQuote from: Minervabird on April 10, 2025, 12:04:32 PMQuote from: spork on April 09, 2025, 02:13:09 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 09, 2025, 08:11:38 AMQuote from: Minervabird on April 08, 2025, 01:37:18 PMSome comic relief: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/apr/07/so-you-want-to-go-to-the-usa-are-you-sure-heres-how-to-prepare-your-machines-for-trumpistan
The chocolate really is disgusting, it's true.
In December, I bought two pairs of pants made in the USA for < $200. In the last week I have spent ~ $500 on imported socks, underwear, running shoes, and other goods. My small contribution to the trade deficit.
Also, my wife and I are not vacationing in the USA this summer. We will be spending our fun budget abroad.
I closed my Amazon account and I don't buy American goods (at least to my knowledge) anymore. Easier of course to do when you live in the UK. I have not been to the States for 8 years, and I don't really intend to visit again. I have looked into what I need to do to give up my US citizenship if things keep getting worse—it costs a few thousand dollars, a visit to the embassy, and a final tax return. It will make administering my pensions easier.
It used to be a lot easier and cheaper to renounce US citizenship. IIRC it was something like fifty bucks, then Obama jacked it to $800, and then the underpants gnomes somehow raised it to the present $3k. 0_o
I'm certainly very glad I decided, as a teen, not to pursue citizenship. We will not be claiming it for our children (my partner is American), unless there are some really dramatic changes for the good in the next fourteen years.
Yes. I'm pretty much giving up on the idea of receiving Social Security anyhow and not really seeing much benefit to American citizenship anymore.
Three grad students in my department have had their visas revoked. Our International Student Services office only finds out by scanning the appropriate databases daily.
Quote from: Bbmaj7b5 on April 11, 2025, 06:07:47 AMThree grad students in my department have had their visas revoked. Our International Student Services office only finds out by scanning the appropriate databases daily.
Oof.
I haven't been on campus this spring, but my good friend/colleague in the building next to mine said earlier this week that the trash in her building and office hasn't been emptied in nearly 2 weeks. I told her to ask about it; we think ICE might have taken their housekeepers, both older people, one Hispanic and one Asian. She asked her chair yesterday, who asked Admin, who wouldn't give a straight answer as to why those people haven't been seen or why the trash is piling up.
Quote from: AmLitHist on April 11, 2025, 11:04:53 AMI haven't been on campus this spring, but my good friend/colleague in the building next to mine said earlier this week that the trash in her building and office hasn't been emptied in nearly 2 weeks. I told her to ask about it; we think ICE might have taken their housekeepers, both older people, one Hispanic and one Asian. She asked her chair yesterday, who asked Admin, who wouldn't give a straight answer as to why those people haven't been seen or why the trash is piling up.
It's okay for ICE to raid churches.
The feds are moving immigrant SSNs into the "dead" file to screw with their bank relationships. Not to mention their earned benefits.
Sick mother****ers.
Quote from: AmLitHist on April 11, 2025, 11:04:53 AMI haven't been on campus this spring, but my good friend/colleague in the building next to mine said earlier this week that the trash in her building and office hasn't been emptied in nearly 2 weeks. I told her to ask about it; we think ICE might have taken their housekeepers, both older people, one Hispanic and one Asian. She asked her chair yesterday, who asked Admin, who wouldn't give a straight answer as to why those people haven't been seen or why the trash is piling up.
Meanwhile Stephen Miller isn't having any problems getting his lawn mowed.
Quote from: AmLitHist on April 11, 2025, 11:04:53 AMI haven't been on campus this spring, but my good friend/colleague in the building next to mine said earlier this week that the trash in her building and office hasn't been emptied in nearly 2 weeks. I told her to ask about it; we think ICE might have taken their housekeepers, both older people, one Hispanic and one Asian. She asked her chair yesterday, who asked Admin, who wouldn't give a straight answer as to why those people haven't been seen or why the trash is piling up.
The start of people being disappeared.
While on a long drive today I passed a pick-up truck towing a trailer. "God, Guns, and Trump -- What Makes America Great" was painted on the back of the trailer. If I had encountered this in a parking lot, I would have enjoyed conversing with the driver to see how he handled the cognitive dissonance. "I'm curious about the godliness of boasting that you grab women by the pussy. And what about burying your children's mother in an untended grave at the edge of a golf course? Is it great to reduce the exports of American soybean farmers?"
Quote from: spork on April 12, 2025, 05:51:17 PMWhile on a long drive today I passed a pick-up truck towing a trailer. "God, Guns, and Trump -- What Makes America Great" was painted on the back of the trailer. If I had encountered this in a parking lot, I would have enjoyed conversing with the driver to see how he handled the cognitive dissonance. "I'm curious about the godliness of boasting that you grab women by the pussy. And what about burying your children's mother in an untended grave at the edge of a golf course? Is it great to reduce the exports of American soybean farmers?"
It's all so depressing.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on April 13, 2025, 06:57:20 AMQuote from: spork on April 12, 2025, 05:51:17 PMWhile on a long drive today I passed a pick-up truck towing a trailer. "God, Guns, and Trump -- What Makes America Great" was painted on the back of the trailer. If I had encountered this in a parking lot, I would have enjoyed conversing with the driver to see how he handled the cognitive dissonance. "I'm curious about the godliness of boasting that you grab women by the pussy. And what about burying your children's mother in an untended grave at the edge of a golf course? Is it great to reduce the exports of American soybean farmers?"
It's all so depressing.
The diehards seem to blaming Musk and/or Trump's advisors for messing up the execution.
Because they still can't admit voting for Trump was a bad idea.
Yes, some of them are like this. But others are rewriting the present, essentially in real time. My pastor said something *in the church pastoral prayer time* this morning which was essentially the opposite of the truth, and when I chatted him up briefly after service he repeated the Trumpanzee disinformation wrt just how much in the way of 'tariffs' various other countries place on us (he either does not understand the diff between tariffs and trade deficits, or does not care (he is no dummy, so I am very tempted to say the latter, sady, whereas many others in the church are incapable, essentially, of delving deeply and understanding this, esp given the extreme propaganda they consume).
Ah, awright, lemme fess up: this really has been a very hard slog for me. I do not know what I will, or should, do...
Maybe a different church (hope that is not offensive----it's not meant to be).
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 13, 2025, 08:58:42 PMYes, some of them are like this. But others are rewriting the present, essentially in real time. My pastor said something *in the church pastoral prayer time* this morning which was essentially the opposite of the truth, and when I chatted him up briefly after service he repeated the Trumpanzee disinformation wrt just how much in the way of 'tariffs' various other countries place on us (he either does not understand the diff between tariffs and trade deficits, or does not care (he is no dummy, so I am very tempted to say the latter, sady, whereas many others in the church are incapable, essentially, of delving deeply and understanding this, esp given the extreme propaganda they consume).
Ah, awright, lemme fess up: this really has been a very hard slog for me. I do not know what I will, or should, do...
Sounds like you are no longer willing to sit in silence and you have some choices to make.
Speak up - maybe others feel the same way?
Find a new church/spiritual community?
Third option?
Harvard to Trump Administration: "Fuck you, see you in court."
About time one of these lily-livered elite replacement factories stood up for itself.
Quote from: spork on April 14, 2025, 05:32:38 PMHarvard to Trump Administration: "Fuck you, see you in court."
About time one of these lily-livered elite replacement factories stood up for itself.
Harvard is going up against the world's best chicken player. He's already taken the steering wheel out of his car.
Let the games begin.
Quote from: spork on April 14, 2025, 05:32:38 PMHarvard to Trump Administration: "Fuck you, see you in court."
About time one of these lily-livered elite replacement factories stood up for itself.
It's somewhat less forceful than that since they begin by conceding there was a problem and say they've fundamentally changed in the last year.
That's not how I'd start my opening statement for a court case if I had fuck you money, but then, I'm also not a lawyer.
I am certainly not offended by this notion, and it certainly has been a thought I have been (present progressive tense) considering. It ain't easy, though, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that here in southern New England evangelical churches are more or less the opposite of thick on the ground, and many I have researched locally seem clearly, for a variety of reasons, to be no better than what I have got now. But the bigger reasons would be that, for several reasons, one of which appalls me and eviscerates my self respect, I have a community here that would not be easily replaced. So right now I am sucking it up-- IMO it appears that I continue to suffer a personal dimunition of my status there that obviously results from last year's 'Evangelicals for Harris' bumper sticker.
(It seems a wee bit weird to me that I have been writing this post whilst watching Rachel Maddow, and when a commercial appeared, it was 'Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist', soliciting membership in the Freedom from Religion Foundation).
There is a story in the Bible about worshipping false gods.
Unfortunately this is still relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7pnPlQLcY&ab_channel=BigThink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7pnPlQLcY&ab_channel=BigThink).
A Columbia honours student (and green card holder) from the West Bank was kidnapped by masked ICE thugs during his citizenship hearing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0332y7xzo
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 15, 2025, 11:15:25 AMA Columbia honours student (and green card holder) from the West Bank was kidnapped by masked ICE thugs during his citizenship hearing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0332y7xzo
yup, and a naturalised US citizen (has been a citizen for 10 years) was detained for several hours at the Canadian border trying to get back to the USA. It was on NBC News
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIegX2hBwOd/
Where students are being targeted: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2025/04/07/where-students-have-had-their-visas-revoked
Since Congress has voluntarily chosen powerlessness, the Trump Administration initiated its attack on the judicial branch by arresting a Michigan judge:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/
(https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/).
First U.S. citizen deported without due process -- a 2 year old.
Quote from: spork on April 27, 2025, 01:00:03 AMFirst U.S. citizen deported without due process -- a 2 year old.
I saw that in the NY Times. It is heartbreaking. Why do you think I would not visit the USA right now?
Quote from: Minervabird on April 27, 2025, 02:38:17 AMQuote from: spork on April 27, 2025, 01:00:03 AMFirst U.S. citizen deported without due process -- a 2 year old.
I saw that in the NY Times. It is heartbreaking. Why do you think I would not visit the USA right now?
It gets worse: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-deport-child-cancer-us-citizen-1235325778/
Quote from: spork on April 27, 2025, 01:00:03 AMFirst U.S. citizen deported without due process -- a 2 year old.
I believe her 11 year-old sibling is also a citizen.
One child deported is a 4-year-old with stage 4 cancer. I believe she might also be a citizen.
Deporting ill children who are citizens...I have no words.
Al Gore has been speaking out about the current administration. Crikey, when Al Gore is angry, you know it has to be very bad.
This may seem pedantic but I think it's actually politically and morally important: you can't "deport" a citizen. If you remove a citizen from their own country you are exiling them. These children were exiled. Calling it deportation, even in horror, starts to play into this administration's attempts to end birthright citizenship.
Quote from: Puget on April 27, 2025, 12:02:34 PMThis may seem pedantic but I think it's actually politically and morally important: you can't "deport" a citizen. If you remove a citizen from their own country you are exiling them. These children were exiled. Calling it deportation, even in horror, starts to play into this administration's attempts to end birthright citizenship.
Thank you Puget.
Lets not only use the correct terms, but note that these children were exiled for the "crime" of having a parent, apparently their mother in some (all?) cases, who was not a US citizen.
This war on women and children is happening at the same time that there are multi-pronged efforts to increase the US birth rate.
Hypocrites, much? Or, just the first steps of a new Eugenics movement? It's horrific, no matter the goal.
Quote from: Puget on April 27, 2025, 12:02:34 PMThis may seem pedantic but I think it's actually politically and morally important: you can't "deport" a citizen. If you remove a citizen from their own country you are exiling them. These children were exiled. Calling it deportation, even in horror, starts to play into this administration's attempts to end birthright citizenship.
Thanks Puget for the salutary reminder. I'm well aware. The UK doesn't have automatic birthright citizenship, and there was a recent case where a British teenager and citizen who was groomed by ISIS was made stateless. The UK revoked her citizenship, but the place she is now will not make her a citizen (she is in a refugee camp). So, those children may also be stateless.
The other thing to keep in mind is the reality that these exiled children will be facing. Their survival is by no means guaranteed.
A bit over 20 years ago I briefly saw Honduras, in all of its contrasts. It started with lunch at the Country Club, looking out over a pristine Olympic-sized pool while choosing all the food I cared to eat from a large and diverse buffet. It continued, after some shopping, with a bus trip to the coast to board a ship. The winding narrow highway was lined with muddy ditches and thin forest with all the vegetation trampled into mud in between the tiny shacks made from tarp scraps and occasionally a bit of plywood. The expression in the eyes of their inhabitants as they watched the rich tourists be driven by kept me from raising a camera. But I didn't need to - it's seared into my brain.
Quote from: Puget on April 27, 2025, 12:02:34 PMThis may seem pedantic but I think it's actually politically and morally important: you can't "deport" a citizen. If you remove a citizen from their own country you are exiling them. These children were exiled. Calling it deportation, even in horror, starts to play into this administration's attempts to end birthright citizenship.
Excellent point.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on April 27, 2025, 12:41:43 PMThe other thing to keep in mind is the reality that these exiled children will be facing. Their survival is by no means guaranteed.
A bit over 20 years ago I briefly saw Honduras, in all of its contrasts. It started with lunch at the Country Club, looking out over a pristine Olympic-sized pool while choosing all the food I cared to eat from a large and diverse buffet. It continued, after some shopping, with a bus trip to the coast to board a ship. The winding narrow highway was lined with muddy ditches and thin forest with all the vegetation trampled into mud in between the tiny shacks made from tarp scraps and occasionally a bit of plywood. The expression in the eyes of their inhabitants as they watched the rich tourists be driven by kept me from raising a camera. But I didn't need to - it's seared into my brain.
I've had similar experiences. The one that sticks with me most is when I encountered a woman carrying a baby while walking along a path in rural Cambodia. Not a great harvest in the area that year and people were already getting low on food. I gave her my lunch, some sticky rice and pork wrapped in a banana leaf. She was immensely appreciative. Now our government has consigned hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people like her to death by ending international aid programs.
Quote from: Puget on April 27, 2025, 12:02:34 PMThis may seem pedantic but I think it's actually politically and morally important: you can't "deport" a citizen. If you remove a citizen from their own country you are exiling them. These children were exiled. Calling it deportation, even in horror, starts to play into this administration's attempts to end birthright citizenship.
Point well taken.
Quote from: Puget on April 27, 2025, 12:02:34 PMThis may seem pedantic but I think it's actually politically and morally important: you can't "deport" a citizen. If you remove a citizen from their own country you are exiling them. These children were exiled. Calling it deportation, even in horror, starts to play into this administration's attempts to end birthright citizenship.
Excellent point.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on April 27, 2025, 12:41:43 PMThe other thing to keep in mind is the reality that these exiled children will be facing. Their survival is by no means guaranteed.
A bit over 20 years ago I briefly saw Honduras, in all of its contrasts. It started with lunch at the Country Club, looking out over a pristine Olympic-sized pool while choosing all the food I cared to eat from a large and diverse buffet. It continued, after some shopping, with a bus trip to the coast to board a ship. The winding narrow highway was lined with muddy ditches and thin forest with all the vegetation trampled into mud in between the tiny shacks made from tarp scraps and occasionally a bit of plywood. The expression in the eyes of their inhabitants as they watched the rich tourists be driven by kept me from raising a camera. But I didn't need to - it's seared into my brain.
I've had similar experiences. The one that sticks with me most is when I encountered a woman carrying a baby while walking along a path in rural Cambodia. Not a great harvest in the area that year and people were already getting low on food. I gave her my lunch, some sticky rice and pork wrapped in a banana leaf. She was immensely appreciative. Now our government has consigned hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people like her to death by ending international aid programs.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on April 27, 2025, 12:32:25 PM[...]
This war on women and children
[...]
Our (I'm an American) government is deliberately attacking people it perceives as being the least able to fight back, and our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle are complicit. As are most citizens.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on April 27, 2025, 12:32:25 PMThis war on women and children is happening at the same time that there are multi-pronged efforts to increase the US birth rate.
Hypocrites, much? Or, just the first steps of a new Eugenics movement? It's horrific, no matter the goal.
The current pronatalist movement is 100% eugenicist. It goes hand in hand with the great replacement theory.
"How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F08.o2Ec.zxd7keU9e0K7&smid=url-share)"
It's already gone.
No it isn't. It wouldn't really be 'gone' until/ unless elections are cancelled.
Quote from: kaysixteen on May 09, 2025, 07:37:47 PMNo it isn't. It wouldn't really be 'gone' until/ unless elections are cancelled.
Even North Korea holds elections.
Don't be foolish. NK 'elections' are one party things with only official candidates allowed to run, and citizens compelled to appear and vote for them. Should this situation end up ours as well, obviously democracy would then be gone. There are other ways to manipulate and thus dedemocracize elections in an erstwhile democratically-run state, but we really have not yet engaged in any such mechanisms here, though some places do run voter ID laws in ways that approach this (and the Democrats, whenever they have been in charge of the US govt (such as 2021-3) did not do anything to stop them, largely because of the bipartisan (as of yet) commitment to the retention of the subdemocratic 'filibuster'. That said, the first-past-the-post system is also perhaps problematic from a democracy standpoint.
It is of course somewhat sad, perhaps even pathetic, to see the (in recent years mostly the Democrats) whining about the supposed threats to 'Democracy' that Trump and his ilk present, when, at least sometimes and to date, more or less all they are complaining about is Trump's utilization of extreme and unprecedented presidential (and cowed by a very complaisant Congress) power, to do stuff Dems do not like... when, like it or not, and as horrifying as it is to admit and acknowledge about one's own countrymen, he got more votes than the Dems did. 'Democracy' at its finest-- sometimes this does not work out the way you would like, but that does not mean you get to stop calling it democracy.
Quote from: spork on May 09, 2025, 08:01:59 AM"How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F08.o2Ec.zxd7keU9e0K7&smid=url-share)"
It's already gone.
Yup.
Trump won't let 'em in. We are lost when he won't let us out.
QuoteThe current pronatalist movement is 100% eugenicist. It goes hand in hand with the great replacement theory.
QuoteTrump Officials Seek to Bring First White Afrikaners to U.S. as Refugees Next Week (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/09/world/africa/trump-afrikaner-refugees.html)
The rapid relocation of the Afrikaners, who President Trump says have been racially persecuted in South Africa, stands in stark contrast to the virtual shutdown of all other refugee admissions.
Quote from: dismalist on May 10, 2025, 02:09:51 PMTrump won't let 'em in. We are lost when he won't let us out.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/us-bc-border-checkpoint-1.7528402 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/us-bc-border-checkpoint-1.7528402)
Quote from: pgher on May 10, 2025, 07:50:23 PMQuote from: dismalist on May 10, 2025, 02:09:51 PMTrump won't let 'em in. We are lost when he won't let us out.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/us-bc-border-checkpoint-1.7528402 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/us-bc-border-checkpoint-1.7528402)
I was thinking of this, not some border checks,
Border Wall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#/media/File:Berlinermauer.jpg)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.p6U4.iEyS_oOppzSa&smid=url-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.p6U4.iEyS_oOppzSa&smid=url-share)
I'm not familiar with the other two, but Timothy Snyder knows what he's talking about.
Quote from: spork on May 14, 2025, 10:45:44 AMhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.p6U4.iEyS_oOppzSa&smid=url-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.p6U4.iEyS_oOppzSa&smid=url-share)
I'm not familiar with the other two, but Timothy Snyder knows what he's talking about.
it is a good video/article. I've already told my niece that if she needs to get out, I'd help her.
Stanley was offered a T1 Canada Research Chair a few years ago, which he declined. So I imagine that the changing conditions in the US are a real driver of the move.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 16, 2025, 08:21:21 AMStanley was offered a T1 Canada Research Chair a few years ago, which he declined. So I imagine that the changing conditions in the US are a real driver of the move.
This is the academic version of a clickbait.
I've been generally hopeful that our democratic institutions will prove strong enough to survive this latest particular crisis, as they've survived previous crises like the Civil War and the Great Depression. People forget that our 200-year-plus history of keeping a large, diverse nation stable, with functioning (however imperfectly) democratic institutions, is actually pretty extraordinary by global historical standards.
Here's what's got me worried about our democracy's long-term future, though, even if we do make it through the current crisis. After the Civil War and the Great Depression/World War II we had new generations ready to step up to the challenge of keeping a civil society viable. I don't see where we have anything like that in the making with today's youth. From a recent
New York Magazine article on ChatGPT's swift adoption by a whole generation of college students:
QuoteIn January 2023, just two months after OpenAI launched ChatGPT, a survey of 1,000 college students found that nearly 90 percent of them had used the chatbot to help with homework assignments. In its first year of existence, ChatGPT's total monthly visits steadily increased month-over-month until June, when schools let out for the summer. (That wasn't an anomaly: Traffic dipped again over the summer in 2024.) Professors and teaching assistants increasingly found themselves staring at essays filled with clunky, robotic phrasing that, though grammatically flawless, didn't sound quite like a college student — or even a human. Two and a half years later, students at large state schools, the Ivies, liberal-arts schools in New England, universities abroad, professional schools, and community colleges are relying on AI to ease their way through every facet of their education. Generative-AI chatbots — ChatGPT but also Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Microsoft's Copilot, and others — take their notes during class, devise their study guides and practice tests, summarize novels and textbooks, and brainstorm, outline, and draft their essays. STEM students are using AI to automate their research and data analyses and to sail through dense coding and debugging assignments. "College is just how well I can use ChatGPT at this point," a student in Utah recently captioned a video of herself copy-and-pasting a chapter from her Genocide and Mass Atrocity textbook into ChatGPT.
Sarah, a freshman at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, said she first used ChatGPT to cheat during the spring semester of her final year of high school. (Sarah's name, like those of other current students in this article, has been changed for privacy.) After getting acquainted with the chatbot, Sarah used it for all her classes: Indigenous studies, law, English, and a "hippie farming class" called Green Industries. "My grades were amazing," she said. "It changed my life." Sarah continued to use AI when she started college this past fall. Why wouldn't she? Rarely did she sit in class and not see other students' laptops open to ChatGPT. Toward the end of the semester, she began to think she might be dependent on the website. She already considered herself addicted to TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Reddit, where she writes under the username maybeimnotsmart. "I spend so much time on TikTok," she said. "Hours and hours, until my eyes start hurting, which makes it hard to plan and do my schoolwork. With ChatGPT, I can write an essay in two hours that normally takes 12."
And a prof's take on what all this says about students:
QuoteWilliams knew most of the students in this general-education class were not destined to be writers, but he thought the work of getting from a blank page to a few semi-coherent pages was, above all else, a lesson in effort. In that sense, most of his students utterly failed. "They're using AI because it's a simple solution and it's an easy way for them not to put in time writing essays. And I get it, because I hated writing essays when I was in school," Williams said. "But now, whenever they encounter a little bit of difficulty, instead of fighting their way through that and growing from it, they retreat to something that makes it a lot easier for them."
Honestly...does this sound like a generation that's going to have anything remotely like what it will take to run a democratic society? Sure, some of them have shown a willingness to engage in protests and the like when some demagogue with a cause stirs them up, but a democracy needs people ready to do the engaged, day-to-day work of running a civil society. Not people that are going to use AI to cheat all the way through their "education" the better to spend more time on TikTok. Or have no interest in forming marriages and families, the most basic of all units for every human society up to now. Or show little or no interest in any sort of commitments, whether religious or secular. This sounds like a generation that's basically going to be perfect fodder for dictators, whether they turn out to be fascist, Marxist, or something else.
So no, I don't expect our democracy to end within the next four years, but it's getting harder and harder to see it still functioning in, say, the next 20 or so. We've been trying so hard for decades to set our young people up for failure, and now it looks like we've finally cinched it. Letting, and indeed encouraging, them to grow up this way is our society's greatest crime.
Quote from: apl68 on May 16, 2025, 11:25:20 AMI've been generally hopeful that our democratic institutions will prove strong enough to survive this latest particular crisis, as they've survived previous crises like the Civil War and the Great Depression. People forget that our 200-year-plus history of keeping a large, diverse nation stable, with functioning (however imperfectly) democratic institutions, is actually pretty extraordinary by global historical standards.
Here's what's got me worried about our democracy's long-term future, though, even if we do make it through the current crisis. After the Civil War and the Great Depression/World War II we had new generations ready to step up to the challenge of keeping a civil society viable. I don't see where we have anything like that in the making with today's youth. From a recent New York Magazine article on ChatGPT's swift adoption by a whole generation of college students:
QuoteIn January 2023, just two months after OpenAI launched ChatGPT, a survey of 1,000 college students found that nearly 90 percent of them had used the chatbot to help with homework assignments. In its first year of existence, ChatGPT's total monthly visits steadily increased month-over-month until June, when schools let out for the summer. (That wasn't an anomaly: Traffic dipped again over the summer in 2024.) Professors and teaching assistants increasingly found themselves staring at essays filled with clunky, robotic phrasing that, though grammatically flawless, didn't sound quite like a college student — or even a human. Two and a half years later, students at large state schools, the Ivies, liberal-arts schools in New England, universities abroad, professional schools, and community colleges are relying on AI to ease their way through every facet of their education. Generative-AI chatbots — ChatGPT but also Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Microsoft's Copilot, and others — take their notes during class, devise their study guides and practice tests, summarize novels and textbooks, and brainstorm, outline, and draft their essays. STEM students are using AI to automate their research and data analyses and to sail through dense coding and debugging assignments. "College is just how well I can use ChatGPT at this point," a student in Utah recently captioned a video of herself copy-and-pasting a chapter from her Genocide and Mass Atrocity textbook into ChatGPT.
Sarah, a freshman at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, said she first used ChatGPT to cheat during the spring semester of her final year of high school. (Sarah's name, like those of other current students in this article, has been changed for privacy.) After getting acquainted with the chatbot, Sarah used it for all her classes: Indigenous studies, law, English, and a "hippie farming class" called Green Industries. "My grades were amazing," she said. "It changed my life." Sarah continued to use AI when she started college this past fall. Why wouldn't she? Rarely did she sit in class and not see other students' laptops open to ChatGPT. Toward the end of the semester, she began to think she might be dependent on the website. She already considered herself addicted to TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Reddit, where she writes under the username maybeimnotsmart. "I spend so much time on TikTok," she said. "Hours and hours, until my eyes start hurting, which makes it hard to plan and do my schoolwork. With ChatGPT, I can write an essay in two hours that normally takes 12."
And a prof's take on what all this says about students:
QuoteWilliams knew most of the students in this general-education class were not destined to be writers, but he thought the work of getting from a blank page to a few semi-coherent pages was, above all else, a lesson in effort. In that sense, most of his students utterly failed. "They're using AI because it's a simple solution and it's an easy way for them not to put in time writing essays. And I get it, because I hated writing essays when I was in school," Williams said. "But now, whenever they encounter a little bit of difficulty, instead of fighting their way through that and growing from it, they retreat to something that makes it a lot easier for them."
Honestly...does this sound like a generation that's going to have anything remotely like what it will take to run a democratic society? Sure, some of them have shown a willingness to engage in protests and the like when some demagogue with a cause stirs them up, but a democracy needs people ready to do the engaged, day-to-day work of running a civil society. Not people that are going to use AI to cheat all the way through their "education" the better to spend more time on TikTok. Or have no interest in forming marriages and families, the most basic of all units for every human society up to now. Or show little or no interest in any sort of commitments, whether religious or secular. This sounds like a generation that's basically going to be perfect fodder for dictators, whether they turn out to be fascist, Marxist, or something else.
So no, I don't expect our democracy to end within the next four years, but it's getting harder and harder to see it still functioning in, say, the next 20 or so. We've been trying so hard for decades to set our young people up for failure, and now it looks like we've finally cinched it. Letting, and indeed encouraging, them to grow up this way is our society's greatest crime.
I really believe that the democracy is already gone. And the fascist dictators are going to find controlling young people very easy indeed. The USA is going to have to go through their own 50-100 years of hell because they cannot learn from history.
Quote from: Minervabird on May 16, 2025, 01:04:06 PMI really believe that the democracy is already gone. And the fascist dictators are going to find controlling young people very easy indeed. The USA is going to have to go through their own 50-100 years of hell because they cannot learn from history.
I really hope you're wrong - because I'm terrified that you might be correct.
Quote from: Minervabird on May 10, 2025, 01:52:43 PMQuote from: spork on May 09, 2025, 08:01:59 AM"How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F08.o2Ec.zxd7keU9e0K7&smid=url-share)"
It's already gone.
Yup.
Is there a word that combines oligarchy and gerontocracy?
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/tnyradiohour/articles/jake-tapper-and-alex-thompson-on-president-joe-bidens-decline-and-its-coverup (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/tnyradiohour/articles/jake-tapper-and-alex-thompson-on-president-joe-bidens-decline-and-its-coverup)
Quote from: spork on May 18, 2025, 09:18:29 AMere a word that combines oligarchy and gerontocracy?
Not quite, but I'd vote for United States of America.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on May 18, 2025, 05:01:48 AMQuote from: Minervabird on May 16, 2025, 01:04:06 PMI really believe that the democracy is already gone. And the fascist dictators are going to find controlling young people very easy indeed. The USA is going to have to go through their own 50-100 years of hell because they cannot learn from history.
I really hope you're wrong - because I'm terrified that you might be correct.
I hope I am wrong too. I left the USA over 20 years ago...one of the reasons was the Homeland Security Act. I wish I (and the ACLU) hadn't been correct in my worries.
Oligarchy IS awful. Gerontocracy has its real challenges too, but so does pedocracy.
Oligarchy is the new word for the Jews.
Which Jews are you referring to? Elon Musk? Donald Trump?
Quote from: kaysixteen on May 10, 2025, 10:38:32 AMDon't be foolish. NK 'elections' are one party things with only official candidates allowed to run, and citizens compelled to appear and vote for them. Should this situation end up ours as well, obviously democracy would then be gone. There are other ways to manipulate and thus dedemocracize elections in an erstwhile democratically-run state, but we really have not yet engaged in any such mechanisms here, though some places do run voter ID laws in ways that approach this (and the Democrats, whenever they have been in charge of the US govt (such as 2021-3) did not do anything to stop them, largely because of the bipartisan (as of yet) commitment to the retention of the subdemocratic 'filibuster'. That said, the first-past-the-post system is also perhaps problematic from a democracy standpoint.
It is of course somewhat sad, perhaps even pathetic, to see the (in recent years mostly the Democrats) whining about the supposed threats to 'Democracy' that Trump and his ilk present, when, at least sometimes and to date, more or less all they are complaining about is Trump's utilization of extreme and unprecedented presidential (and cowed by a very complaisant Congress) power, to do stuff Dems do not like... when, like it or not, and as horrifying as it is to admit and acknowledge about one's own countrymen, he got more votes than the Dems did. 'Democracy' at its finest-- sometimes this does not work out the way you would like, but that does not mean you get to stop calling it democracy.
There have been plenty of cases of democratically elected governments doing away with democracy. Among the more recent examples, it happened in Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Turkey, and it's happening in Mexico, India and Hungary. Democracies don't only fall to tanks on the streets, they are often destroyed from within with broad popular support.
You are right, and this does seem like it might well be happening, at least in embryo, here. What do you think the Democrats could or should be doing about this?
I'm no expert, but IMO: Campaign on bread and butter issues rather than heavily social or ideological issues, use slogans and so on that can appeal to natural allies (something like processing all rape kits instead of undermining the presumption of innocence), focus on what folks have to lose, work on multiple fronts (court cases, protests, congressional maneuvers, laying the groundwork for elections, etc). Focusing on their own base and on those who stayed home last election - fielding candidates that can get traction with these crowds rather than who the party establishment or the SJWs want.
Despite the CNN headlines a couple of years ago, Mexico is not sliding into authoritarianism.
I just finished this book: They Thought They Were Free (https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo27509064.html). There are clearly echoes between Germany circa 1933 and America circa 2024, but there are a number of differences, too. Still a good book to provide perspective.
Quote from: spork on May 14, 2025, 10:45:44 AMhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.p6U4.iEyS_oOppzSa&smid=url-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fascism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.p6U4.iEyS_oOppzSa&smid=url-share)
I'm not familiar with the other two, but Timothy Snyder knows what he's talking about.
I've been wracking my brain on how to solve this problem of incompatible political views. What at first came to my mind was to have most contiguous Democratic voting counties of 2024 secede from the Union and join Canada. The Union would keep a Republican gate to the sea in northern California and southern Oregon, a new Polish Corridor, so to speak.
But Snyder and Co. gave me a much better idea: We can rerun the partition of British India into modern India and Pakistan in 1947. That involved the exchange of large numbers of Muslims for Hindus and vice versa across the new border. This is a good example because it was essentially religious, mirroring our current differences. Alas, there was widespread violence, but I'm sure our own transfer of people would be mostly non-violent.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 19, 2025, 05:16:09 AMDespite the CNN headlines a couple of years ago, Mexico is not sliding into authoritarianism.
They've changed the Constitution to throw out the existing judiciary (the only branch of government not controlled by the ruling party) and set up a new one. There's still freedom of expression, yes, just like there was in Venezuela in the early days of chavismo. Mexico seems to basically be reloading the "perfect dictatorship" - which on paper was a multiparty federal democracy with checks and balances, but in practice Congress was packed with sycophants unconditionally bending the knee to the incumbent President, governors were merely local presidential representatives, etc.
Sad and troubling when, after a quarter-century, a comedian is still doing a better job reporting the news than the actual news media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFeUo-nOxQU&ab_channel=TheDailyShow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFeUo-nOxQU&ab_channel=TheDailyShow).
Kristi Noem's understanding of habeas corpus doesn't give me comfort: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/homeland-security-secretary-kristi-noem-struggles-define-habeas-corpus-rcna207986
Quote from: Stockmann on May 19, 2025, 02:10:41 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on May 19, 2025, 05:16:09 AMDespite the CNN headlines a couple of years ago, Mexico is not sliding into authoritarianism.
They've changed the Constitution to throw out the existing judiciary (the only branch of government not controlled by the ruling party) and set up a new one. There's still freedom of expression, yes, just like there was in Venezuela in the early days of chavismo. Mexico seems to basically be reloading the "perfect dictatorship" - which on paper was a multiparty federal democracy with checks and balances, but in practice Congress was packed with sycophants unconditionally bending the knee to the incumbent President, governors were merely local presidential representatives, etc.
Corruption has long been endemic in the Mexican judicial system. The Plan C reforms include shortening term limits and reducing salaries for the Supreme Court, which are entirely anodyne. The controversial part of the reforms involves having an elected Supreme Court, rather than one appointed by the President. This is a concession of power from the executive branch to the people.
It may or may not be a good idea, and it may or may not be an effective check on corruption. But it's not a slide into authoritarianism.
Now, I happen to agree that this is not a good idea, because I do not think judges should ever be elected. But not do I think they should be appointed by the President (or Prime Minister). The latter is absolutely a vehicle for corruption, and concentrates an awful lot of power in a single person's hands (as we've seen in the US). The former, not so much.
But for all the fearmongering, this is not democratic backsliding.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 20, 2025, 05:08:40 PMQuote from: Stockmann on May 19, 2025, 02:10:41 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on May 19, 2025, 05:16:09 AMDespite the CNN headlines a couple of years ago, Mexico is not sliding into authoritarianism.
They've changed the Constitution to throw out the existing judiciary (the only branch of government not controlled by the ruling party) and set up a new one. There's still freedom of expression, yes, just like there was in Venezuela in the early days of chavismo. Mexico seems to basically be reloading the "perfect dictatorship" - which on paper was a multiparty federal democracy with checks and balances, but in practice Congress was packed with sycophants unconditionally bending the knee to the incumbent President, governors were merely local presidential representatives, etc.
Corruption has long been endemic in the Mexican judicial system. The Plan C reforms include shortening term limits and reducing salaries for the Supreme Court, which are entirely anodyne. The controversial part of the reforms involves having an elected Supreme Court, rather than one appointed by the President. This is a concession of power from the executive branch to the people.
It may or may not be a good idea, and it may or may not be an effective check on corruption. But it's not a slide into authoritarianism.
Now, I happen to agree that this is not a good idea, because I do not think judges should ever be elected. But not do I think they should be appointed by the President (or Prime Minister). The latter is absolutely a vehicle for corruption, and concentrates an awful lot of power in a single person's hands (as we've seen in the US). The former, not so much.
But for all the fearmongering, this is not democratic backsliding.
The ruling party's activists will know exactly who to vote for, and no one else will really if only because of the sheer number of posts being voted for all at once, making it impossible (by design, surely) for ordinary citizens to figure out who they should support in each or even in most instances if only because of the sheer number of campaigns they'd have to follow. So it ensures that the courts will be packed with government supporters and subservient to the President, just as they were under the "perfect dictatorship." I'm not wholly sure but I think Mexico actually had a system in which SC Justices weren't all Presidential nominees, presumably as an actual check on Presidential influence on the courts or as theater (no idea when that was introduced). I don't dispute there was rampant, endemic judicial corruption but I see no reason to assume the new judges will be any better.
Quote from: Stockmann on May 20, 2025, 06:34:05 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on May 20, 2025, 05:08:40 PMQuote from: Stockmann on May 19, 2025, 02:10:41 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on May 19, 2025, 05:16:09 AMDespite the CNN headlines a couple of years ago, Mexico is not sliding into authoritarianism.
They've changed the Constitution to throw out the existing judiciary (the only branch of government not controlled by the ruling party) and set up a new one. There's still freedom of expression, yes, just like there was in Venezuela in the early days of chavismo. Mexico seems to basically be reloading the "perfect dictatorship" - which on paper was a multiparty federal democracy with checks and balances, but in practice Congress was packed with sycophants unconditionally bending the knee to the incumbent President, governors were merely local presidential representatives, etc.
Corruption has long been endemic in the Mexican judicial system. The Plan C reforms include shortening term limits and reducing salaries for the Supreme Court, which are entirely anodyne. The controversial part of the reforms involves having an elected Supreme Court, rather than one appointed by the President. This is a concession of power from the executive branch to the people.
It may or may not be a good idea, and it may or may not be an effective check on corruption. But it's not a slide into authoritarianism.
Now, I happen to agree that this is not a good idea, because I do not think judges should ever be elected. But not do I think they should be appointed by the President (or Prime Minister). The latter is absolutely a vehicle for corruption, and concentrates an awful lot of power in a single person's hands (as we've seen in the US). The former, not so much.
But for all the fearmongering, this is not democratic backsliding.
The ruling party's activists will know exactly who to vote for, and no one else will really if only because of the sheer number of posts being voted for all at once, making it impossible (by design, surely) for ordinary citizens to figure out who they should support in each or even in most instances if only because of the sheer number of campaigns they'd have to follow. So it ensures that the courts will be packed with government supporters and subservient to the President, just as they were under the "perfect dictatorship." I'm not wholly sure but I think Mexico actually had a system in which SC Justices weren't all Presidential nominees, presumably as an actual check on Presidential influence on the courts or as theater (no idea when that was introduced). I don't dispute there was rampant, endemic judicial corruption but I see no reason to assume the new judges will be any better.
Supreme Court justices are all nominated by the President, and ratified by the Senate.
So, while those are perfectly legitimate concerns about the desirability or effectiveness of the reform, on the democracy front, it represents a substantial
diminution of the government's control over the court. Everything you say is even more true of presidential appointments to the court.
The more serious concern, but one which has received less of the media attention, is that now judges at all levels are elected. And I fully agree that that's a bad thing (as I said, I think all judicial elections are a bad thing). But as far as sliding towards authoritarianism is concerned, it seems like a far cry from it until and unless you start to see political capture. After all, there are many judicial elections in the US, and there have been since forever. Their mere existence is not sufficient to ground an authoritarian backslide.
Those justices were mostly (all of them?) nominated by other presidents, in turn all but one from other parties. Replacing them with government supporters gives the current incumbent, and the ruling party, more control over the courts, even if technically the incumbent isn't directly nominating anyone. It's equivalent to the Republicans getting an amendment passed that lets them fire all nine Justices on SCOTUS, and ending up with 8 elected MAGA Justices and Hillary Clinton. Trump would have far more influence over the court, even if none of the new Justices technically would've been appointed by him - except it would actually be a less extreme case as a SCOTUS majority is already Republican, the Mexican scenario is more analogous to all of SCOTUS getting fired and replaced by a MAGA court whenever it was . the last time Democracts had a majority on the court.
Quote from: Stockmann on May 21, 2025, 09:14:05 AMThose justices were mostly (all of them?) nominated by other presidents, in turn all but one from other parties. Replacing them with government supporters gives the current incumbent, and the ruling party, more control over the courts, even if technically the incumbent isn't directly nominating anyone. It's equivalent to the Republicans getting an amendment passed that lets them fire all nine Justices on SCOTUS, and ending up with 8 elected MAGA Justices and Hillary Clinton. Trump would have far more influence over the court, even if none of the new Justices technically would've been appointed by him - except it would actually be a less extreme case as a SCOTUS majority is already Republican, the Mexican scenario is more analogous to all of SCOTUS getting fired and replaced by a MAGA court whenever it was . the last time Democracts had a majority on the court.
I may have misunderstood, but my understanding was that they will continue to serve until their (slightly reduced) terms end, which will not be all at the same time.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-democratic-governors/ (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-democratic-governors/)
Trump openly stating that he only wants to help Republican states is yet another step towards speedrunning tearing the country apart. I mean, I know that this has been the unofficial policy of the right for some time, but openly stating it is just a straight shot to conflict. Why would blue states pay taxes to the federal government if the policy of that government is specifically to harm them? If you were pushing for a civil war how different would your statements and policy be than this?
The crazy thing to me is that cutting Medicaid, SNAP benefits, head start, and other social programs is going to hurt red states more than blue. Not to mention that there are almost as many republicans in California as there are in Texas.
Your only hope is to secede, or at least at first, nullify.
Prickly City does it for me: https://www.gocomics.com/pricklycity
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 21, 2025, 10:23:48 AMQuote from: Stockmann on May 21, 2025, 09:14:05 AMThose justices were mostly (all of them?) nominated by other presidents, in turn all but one from other parties. Replacing them with government supporters gives the current incumbent, and the ruling party, more control over the courts, even if technically the incumbent isn't directly nominating anyone. It's equivalent to the Republicans getting an amendment passed that lets them fire all nine Justices on SCOTUS, and ending up with 8 elected MAGA Justices and Hillary Clinton. Trump would have far more influence over the court, even if none of the new Justices technically would've been appointed by him - except it would actually be a less extreme case as a SCOTUS majority is already Republican, the Mexican scenario is more analogous to all of SCOTUS getting fired and replaced by a MAGA court whenever it was . the last time Democracts had a majority on the court.
I may have misunderstood, but my understanding was that they will continue to serve until their (slightly reduced) terms end, which will not be all at the same time.
That would only make the process gradual rather than sudden.
In related news: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-chapos-former-lawyer-an-ex-drug-smuggler-ballot-be-judges-mexico-2025-05-24/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-chapos-former-lawyer-an-ex-drug-smuggler-ballot-be-judges-mexico-2025-05-24/)
Trump hires all the best people (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html) . . .
and much of America is perfectly fine with it.
Quote from: mahagonny on January 07, 2022, 08:30:18 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 07, 2022, 07:15:59 AMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2022, 05:36:19 PMAgainst this backdrop, there have been several polls revealing that Americans are worried about the state of democracy. This sentiment is shared by Republicans and Democrats, but they disagree on the nature of the problem. Additionally, the US is on a democratic backslide according to several popular measures of democracy.
That repudiation came already as the woke agenda brought the current administration. The voters rejected the "progressive" agenda with healthy margins. Now we can only hope for a return of moderates to the mainstream.
An easy check on the health of democracy would be to look at polls about how optimistic people are about their lives, NOT about how they feel about politics. Identitarianism from both the right and left do a good job of making people enraged, but do nothing to make people feel good about the future. (Pretty much by definition; the way to get people enraged is to make them thing things are hopeless, or almost hopeless.)
Unless and until the emphasis shifts to being on peoples' common humanity, and how we are similar, rather than on how we are different, things will get worse.
I wonder. People on this thread are mostly left-of-center politically, which is their right. Their president is hurting in the polls. It makes things appear gloomy. They are looking for a path forward in which they have input. What's more likely (according to polling today) is a path forward where their priorities are rejected at voting time. That's how democracy works. Tyranny of the majority. Current leftist fetishes like 'anti-racism' a supposed need for anti-voter suppression legislation, treating minorities first for COVID because they suffer more in greater numbers relative to their share of the population (obesity makes you more at risk but some white people are obese too, what about them?), southern border enforcement = bigotry, wokeness invading corporate rank-and-file life, neglecting the safety in urban neighborhoods, etc. The democrats have a portfolio of vividly expressed ideas that the majority doesn't like. Wait and see. There may be a perfect storm of repudiation coming.
I for one am very glad the judiciary is stalling/blocking Trumpian policies.
How can you not feel good about an administration that uses AI so boldly and badly?
https://www.notus.org/health-science/make-america-healthy-again-report-citation-errors
American democracy?
Whenever I have seen people criticize the lack of democratic principles in the US, Americans always remind everyone that "the US is a republic". They are a very selective democracy...
Quote from: spork on May 30, 2025, 04:25:23 AMTrump hires all the best people (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html) . . .
and much of America is perfectly fine with it.
Who will die first? DJT of a heart attack, or ElMo of an overdose?
Or JDV, of stupid?
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/jd-vance-brain-drain-trump-science-rcna210036
Can one die of stupid? Discuss.
Yes, one can die of stupid.
https://darwinawards.com/darwin/
State of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Quote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
UK has a healthy democracy. Not perfect...the anti-union laws stink, I think a lot of the "Great British Energy" plan is misguided, but as a naturalised citizen here, I'm not too concerned about the taking away of my civil liberties.
Quote from: Kron3007 on June 02, 2025, 04:01:30 AMQuote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
In how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
Quote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 02, 2025, 04:01:30 AMQuote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
In how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
You sure the opposition to that idea actually comes from pro-DC statehood folks, and not at least as much from Maryland? In any case, the argument is all but moot, since the GOP is robust and unrelenting in giving these people any representation in Congress, even as part of Maryland.
Quote from: dismalist on June 02, 2025, 09:11:36 AMQuote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 02, 2025, 04:01:30 AMQuote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
In how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
Not a big deal? Isn't the fight against "taxation without representation" the whole point of the USA?
I think you are probably right in practical terms, but if it is not a big deal then why wouldn't they just give them representation in some form?
Quote from: dismalist on June 02, 2025, 09:11:36 AMQuote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 02, 2025, 04:01:30 AMQuote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
In how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
Functionality is a completely different question from it not being a tyranny ("dictatorship of parliament"). Also, plenty of parliamentary systems do have serious formal Constitutional constraints on the power of parliament, such as Germany; Westminster isn't the only model. Personally I'm more of a fan of the Swiss model.
In any case, it seems both George Washington and the anti-Federalists were proved right, on the nefarious effects of partisanship in the former case, and on inadequate checks on Presidential power in the latter case.
Quote from: Kron3007 on June 03, 2025, 08:02:42 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 02, 2025, 09:11:36 AMQuote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 02, 2025, 04:01:30 AMQuote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
In how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
Not a big deal? Isn't the fight against "taxation without representation" the whole point of the USA?
I think you are probably right in practical terms, but if it is not a big deal then why wouldn't they just give them representation in some form?
"Taxation without representation" is a sonorous slogan. Only the rich pay federal income taxes in DC and they live there voluntarily. They vote with their feet.
Thus, it's not a big deal for representation. It's a very big deal for which party wields political power.
QuoteIn any case, it seems both George Washington and the anti-Federalists were proved right, on the nefarious effects of partisanship in the former case, and on inadequate checks on Presidential power in the latter case.
Personally I'm more of a fan of the Swiss model.
Nefarious effects of partisanship? Wouldn't be a problem if we all agreed on everything. We don't.
Inadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
Switzerland is probably my favorite, too. Direct democracy works when one knows one's neighbors, when the jurisdictions are small, and when the population in each is relatively homogeneous in its preferences. None of this applies to the United States. And, in the small, I detest my neighbors!
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMInadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
This is like saying that drinking poison is fine, as long as you don't swallow.
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 03, 2025, 08:02:42 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 02, 2025, 09:11:36 AMQuote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 02, 2025, 04:01:30 AMQuote from: dismalist on May 31, 2025, 03:36:38 PMState of American democracy? Be careful what you wish for!
My sense is that the left thinks of democracy as the Westminster system [preferably with proportional representation]. That system has a nice press, but it boils down to the dictatorship of parliament. Had we a system like that in the US, the left would be in much deeper shit.
I won't worry until there's a wall to keep us in, not out.
Then you won't worry until it's too late.
And as far as dictatorship of parliament, many of these dictatorships have higher measures of freedom than the USA.
In how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
Not a big deal? Isn't the fight against "taxation without representation" the whole point of the USA?
I think you are probably right in practical terms, but if it is not a big deal then why wouldn't they just give them representation in some form?
"Taxation without representation" is a sonorous slogan. Only the rich pay federal income taxes in DC and they live there voluntarily. They vote with their feet.
Thus, it's not a big deal for representation. It's a very big deal for which party wields political power.
QuoteIn any case, it seems both George Washington and the anti-Federalists were proved right, on the nefarious effects of partisanship in the former case, and on inadequate checks on Presidential power in the latter case.
Personally I'm more of a fan of the Swiss model.
Nefarious effects of partisanship? Wouldn't be a problem if we all agreed on everything. We don't.
Inadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
Switzerland is probably my favorite, too. Direct democracy works when one knows one's neighbors, when the jurisdictions are small, and when the population in each is relatively homogeneous in its preferences. None of this applies to the United States. And, in the small, I detest my neighbors!
How can it not be a big deal for representation, yet impact which party is in power? If this group of people having representation would impact who is in power, then their lack of representation has very real impacts on governance and is of consequence. You cant have this both ways.
I think discussing whether everyone gets one vote or representation or taxation or checks on presidential power is smoke and mirrors obscuring what's really at issue: Power.
You don't see them all being related?
Quote from: dismalist on June 05, 2025, 09:02:48 AMI think discussing whether everyone gets one vote or representation or taxation or checks on presidential power is smoke and mirrors obscuring what's really at issue: Power.
Quote from: Kron3007 on June 05, 2025, 09:38:42 AMYou don't see them all being related?
Let me try to be clearer. In contemporary public political discussion one doesn't say "I want to have power" or "I want us to have power", whoever "us" is. That would not fly, and certainly not convince anyone not already in the choir. So, one uses proxies -- proportional representation, checks on presidential power, what have you.
In part, that's simply human, doing stuff, and then trying to make it sound nice. But in other part, there's a real dilemma, nicely illustrated with DC in Congress. If we didn't know how DC would vote, the invocation of principle could be considered genuine, and be worthy of discussion and thought. That is like decision making behind the veil of ignorance. But we do know how DC is going to vote! And we know it with absolute and immutable certainty! So, it's about power, as it must be, and the principles invoked are smokescreens.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 04, 2025, 10:45:09 PMQuote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMInadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
This is like saying that drinking poison is fine, as long as you don't swallow.
Same principle applies here. If we don't know who is going to be the next president, the invocation of principle is credible, and worthy of consideration. But if we
know who is President, most contemporary voters bag the principles until the next election. If my side has won the Presidency but lost the popular vote, I say "electoral college above all". If my side has lost the Presidency, but won the popular vote, I say "power to the people".
Speaking with Groucho Marx,
I have principles. And if you don't like them, I have others.
This discussion is reminding me of Mancur Olson, although in his model the bandits had an incentive to make the populace more productive.
Quote from: dismalist on June 05, 2025, 10:07:19 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 05, 2025, 09:02:48 AMI think discussing whether everyone gets one vote or representation or taxation or checks on presidential power is smoke and mirrors obscuring what's really at issue: Power.
Quote from: Kron3007 on June 05, 2025, 09:38:42 AMYou don't see them all being related?
Let me try to be clearer. In contemporary public political discussion one doesn't say "I want to have power" or "I want us to have power", whoever "us" is. That would not fly, and certainly not convince anyone not already in the choir. So, one uses proxies -- proportional representation, checks on presidential power, what have you.
In part, that's simply human, doing stuff, and then trying to make it sound nice. But in other part, there's a real dilemma, nicely illustrated with DC in Congress. If we didn't know how DC would vote, the invocation of principle could be considered genuine, and be worthy of discussion and thought. That is like decision making behind the veil of ignorance. But we do know how DC is going to vote! And we know it with absolute and immutable certainty! So, it's about power, as it must be, and the principles invoked are smokescreens.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 04, 2025, 10:45:09 PMQuote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMInadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
This is like saying that drinking poison is fine, as long as you don't swallow.
Same principle applies here. If we don't know who is going to be the next president, the invocation of principle is credible, and worthy of consideration. But if we know who is President, most contemporary voters bag the principles until the next election. If my side has won the Presidency but lost the popular vote, I say "electoral college above all". If my side has lost the Presidency, but won the popular vote, I say "power to the people".
Speaking with Groucho Marx, I have principles. And if you don't like them, I have others.
I understand why some wouldn't want DC to have representation. That is an explanation of the situation, but does nothing to justify the situation. It was also mentioned that DC could be rolled into another state, in which case the impact would be much less but they would have representation. I can understand why people would be against DC having the same representation as California, but the same is also said about Wyoming. Obviously the US system is dosn't make a lot of sense through the lens of democracy, but the DC situation is a major hypocrisy given the history and bravado of the US.
Quote from: spork on June 05, 2025, 10:24:40 AMThis discussion is reminding me of Mancur Olson, although in his model the bandits had an incentive to make the populace more productive.
Only the "stationary" bandits, though I don't think he used the term. The movie the
Magnificent Seven, 1960, is a pretty authentic account of what non-stationary bandits do.
Olson's work on interest groups is contemporaneous with a lot of other such work, and I have since always seen interest groups running the government, not Congress. A good true story is the economist driving his daughter down K Street [where the lobbies are in DC, for the unwashed]. Daddy, she asks, why are we driving here? I wanted to show you the government, honey.
I just came across a contemporary, admirably specific, exposition of something quite similar yesterday:
Teles: Minoritarianism (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/minoritarianism-is-everywhere)
At a loss for words on this topic, but here's the latest from NYT on our "democracy".
QuoteLive Updates: Trump Threatens to Cut Elon Musk's Government Contracts as Feud Escalates (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk)
The open acrimony between the two men comes after the billionaire denounced President Trump's signature domestic policy bill as an "abomination."
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 05, 2025, 01:34:28 PMAt a loss for words on this topic, but here's the latest from NYT on our "democracy".
QuoteLive Updates: Trump Threatens to Cut Elon Musk's Government Contracts as Feud Escalates (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk)
The open acrimony between the two men comes after the billionaire denounced President Trump's signature domestic policy bill as an "abomination."
Musk needs the money, and he also needs the pardons. He's probably too high to know any of that, but Trump absolutely has him by the short and curlies.
Hooboy! The plot thickens...
QuoteMusk calls for Trump to be impeached as extraordinary feud escalates (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/05/trump-elon-musk-fallout)
Former adviser taunts president over links to Epstein while Trump threatens to cancel contracts for Musk companies
QuoteMusk says Trump is named in Epstein files (https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5335453-elon-musk-donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-files/)
QuoteThe epic breakup of Trump and Musk's White House bromance (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/05/trump-musk-fight/)
Trump's criticism illuminated the dramatic erosion in his alliance with the world's richest man
Link to the shared article: https://wapo.st/4dOHXHD
What next? A coup d'état resulting in Elon as our new prez?
Quick someone persuade Trump that the best way to get revenge on Elon is to undo all the DOGE cuts!
Shocking that the Trump-Elon bromance has soured - and in such a public way? Who would have thought? This is gearing up to be one saucy season of Trump's America.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 05, 2025, 01:42:50 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on June 05, 2025, 01:34:28 PMAt a loss for words on this topic, but here's the latest from NYT on our "democracy".
QuoteLive Updates: Trump Threatens to Cut Elon Musk's Government Contracts as Feud Escalates (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk)
The open acrimony between the two men comes after the billionaire denounced President Trump's signature domestic policy bill as an "abomination."
Musk needs the money, and he also needs the pardons. He's probably too high to know any of that, but Trump absolutely has him by the short and curlies.
Respectfully disagree? Musk can pour money into every competitive House race in 2026, and Trump could be hurt badly.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 05, 2025, 07:22:42 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on June 05, 2025, 01:42:50 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on June 05, 2025, 01:34:28 PMAt a loss for words on this topic, but here's the latest from NYT on our "democracy".
QuoteLive Updates: Trump Threatens to Cut Elon Musk's Government Contracts as Feud Escalates (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk)
The open acrimony between the two men comes after the billionaire denounced President Trump's signature domestic policy bill as an "abomination."
Musk needs the money, and he also needs the pardons. He's probably too high to know any of that, but Trump absolutely has him by the short and curlies.
Respectfully disagree? Musk can pour money into every competitive House race in 2026, and Trump could be hurt badly.
My understanding is that his assets are over-leveraged, and the only one really worth anything is Tesla, which is heavily overvalued (and suffering from boycotts). The real money in his pocket comes from government contracts, but the tariffs have scuppered a lot of the contracts from foreign governments (Canada, EU, UK, etc.), so much of what's left is US government contracts. If they go, that's his main source of income.
Plus, he has committed federal crimes in his role at DOGE. If Trump really wants to screw him, he can lock him up.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 05, 2025, 07:22:42 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on June 05, 2025, 01:42:50 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on June 05, 2025, 01:34:28 PMAt a loss for words on this topic, but here's the latest from NYT on our "democracy".
QuoteLive Updates: Trump Threatens to Cut Elon Musk's Government Contracts as Feud Escalates (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk)
The open acrimony between the two men comes after the billionaire denounced President Trump's signature domestic policy bill as an "abomination."
Musk needs the money, and he also needs the pardons. He's probably too high to know any of that, but Trump absolutely has him by the short and curlies.
Respectfully disagree? Musk can pour money into every competitive House race in 2026, and Trump could be hurt badly.
Maybe but he wouldn't do it just to hurt Trump. He would personally have to gain from it.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 05, 2025, 08:26:37 PMPlus, he has committed federal crimes in his role at DOGE. If Trump really wants to screw him, he can lock him up.
Bannon wants Trump to deport Musk.
QuoteSteve Bannon Says He Told Trump to Investigate Musk as an 'Illegal Alien' (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/us/steve-bannon-trump-elon-musk.html)
In an interview, the former top aide to the president said that Mr. Trump should cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts.
The article below:
QuoteStephen K. Bannon, one of Elon Musk's most vocal critics, said he was advising the president to cancel all of the tech billionaire's contracts and launch several investigations into the world's richest man.
"They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately," Mr. Bannon, the former top aide to President Trump who is now an influential ally and informal adviser, said in an interview.
Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump had a public falling out on Thursday, as each attacked the other on social media. Mr. Musk, who leads the electric car manufacturer Tesla, the rocket company SpaceX and the artificial intelligence start-up xAI, left his role last week as a special government adviser tasked with slashing federal spending.
Mr. Musk's companies have received billions in federal contracts over the years, and in 2023, his companies were promised $3 billion across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies.
Mr. Bannon said the Trump administration should also investigate Mr. Musk's drug use, as reported by The New York Times, and his effort to get a classified briefing on China from the Pentagon.
Mr. Musk's security clearance should be suspended during these investigations, he added.
See also the item in NYPost
QuoteSteve Bannon calls on Trump to deport Elon Musk: 'Strong belief that he is an illegal alien' (https://nypost.com/2025/06/05/us-news/steve-bannon-calls-on-trump-to-deport-elon-musk-strong-belief-that-he-is-an-illegal-alien/)
Poor Elon, this must be hard, coming on the heels of the black eye incident.
QuoteA Black Eye at the White House: Did Somebody Punch Elon? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/politics/elon-musk-black-eye.html)
Behind a paywall, just google "Musk black eye" to see non-paywalled articles.
The list of possible suspects seemed long.
Quote from: dismalist on June 05, 2025, 10:38:21 AMQuote from: spork on June 05, 2025, 10:24:40 AMThis discussion is reminding me of Mancur Olson, although in his model the bandits had an incentive to make the populace more productive.
Only the "stationary" bandits, though I don't think he used the term. The movie the Magnificent Seven, 1960, is a pretty authentic account of what non-stationary bandits do.
Olson's work on interest groups is contemporaneous with a lot of other such work, and I have since always seen interest groups running the government, not Congress. A good true story is the economist driving his daughter down K Street [where the lobbies are in DC, for the unwashed]. Daddy, she asks, why are we driving here? I wanted to show you the government, honey.
I just came across a contemporary, admirably specific, exposition of something quite similar yesterday:
Teles: Minoritarianism (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/minoritarianism-is-everywhere)
That's a good article. Public choice theory again rears its ugly head.
The political scientists who do comparative work often distinguish between elite and popular democracies. When a candidate representing majoritarian interests wins, it can take a while for the elites to regain power, but they always do. E.g., the case of Thaksin Shinawatra.
In my view democracy in the USA has always been elite/minoritarian.
I want Elon Musk kicked out of the Royal Society. Abomination he is still a fellow after how he has acted.
Had t
Quote from: spork on June 05, 2025, 10:24:40 AMThis discussion is reminding me of Mancur Olson, although in his model the bandits had an incentive to make the populace more productive.
Had to look him up. Interesting.
Quote from: Minervabird on June 06, 2025, 12:25:28 AMI want Elon Musk kicked out of the Royal Society. Abomination he is still a fellow after how he has acted.
Wait, what?! Which one, and how the fuck?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 06, 2025, 06:28:30 AMQuote from: Minervabird on June 06, 2025, 12:25:28 AMI want Elon Musk kicked out of the Royal Society. Abomination he is still a fellow after how he has acted.
Wait, what?! Which one, and how the fuck?
He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of London for his scientific work. A lot of the fellows wanted him ousted for his Nazi gestures and misogynistic statements.
https://royalsociety.org/people/elon-musk-13829/
For an article about attempts to oust him, see here
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/25/royal-society-decides-not-to-take-disciplinary-action-against-elon-musk
Meanwhile the fallout from the Twitter-TruthSocial war could be interesting.
Will they finally 25th DJT?
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 06, 2025, 06:54:56 AMMeanwhile the fallout from the Twitter-TruthSocial war could be interesting.
Will they finally 25th DJT?
We can only hope.
I actually think JDV is sane, albeit slimy. But he lacks charisma and does, I believe, have a sense of shame and pride.
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 06, 2025, 06:54:56 AMMeanwhile the fallout from the Twitter-TruthSocial war could be interesting.
Will they finally 25th DJT?
In contests between power and wealth, power always wins. To wit: Putin, oligarchs.
In an ideal world, one would be impeached and the other deported. Keeping fingers crossed.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on June 05, 2025, 03:24:16 PMShocking that the Trump-Elon bromance has soured - and in such a public way? Who would have thought? This is gearing up to be one saucy season of Trump's America.
I swear... half the time I think about this insanity, I have to wonder if it's scripted just to keep people distracted.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2025, 11:21:38 AMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on June 05, 2025, 03:24:16 PMShocking that the Trump-Elon bromance has soured - and in such a public way? Who would have thought? This is gearing up to be one saucy season of Trump's America.
I swear... half the time I think about this insanity, I have to wonder if it's scripted just to keep people distracted.
No, they are both too impulsive and egotistical to play along.
To put it in Trumpian terms, what cards does Elon have to play? He quickly noticed that threatening to de-Space X the space program before Trump gets the chance will only serve to get him kicked out of his own company after turning its value into mush. His best play is to STFU, get the most out of his companies, and become the first trillionaire. I don't know why he felt the need to become a Batman/Bond villain in addition to all else. He should have been smarter than to get involved in all of this. I think the ketamine is pickling his brain.
I have no sympathy for either anyway.
Quote from: Puget on June 05, 2025, 02:45:40 PMQuick someone persuade Trump that the best way to get revenge on Elon is to undo all the DOGE cuts!
I like the way you think!
_____
On another forum, I (only half-)jokingly said that everything I really like either goes to Hell rapidly, falls apart easily, or disappears from the world entirely--certain fast-food favorites, pop-up headlights on cars, manual transmissions, the habit of reading books aloud in public, empathy, common decency, democracy . . .
Others agreed and/or said "that escalated quickly!" Well, yeah. But if you ask me right now how I'm feeling about the state of American democracy, I feel as though I'm an untrained person forced into the role of an EMT who's watching the patient die because I don't know how to prevent him/her/them from bleeding out.
They both think that power and money gives them the right to behave like irresponsible juveniles. More thoughtful leaders know that power and money actually force them *not* to behave in such a manner because so much is at stake.
Trump's mantra will be "I kept him when it was good, and I booted him when it was bad."
Democrats will get voters in two years (and in less than a year in Virginia) to "think back to Elon"
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 06, 2025, 01:33:18 PMTo put it in Trumpian terms, what cards does Elon have to play? He quickly noticed that threatening to de-Space X the space program before Trump gets the chance will only serve to get him kicked out of his own company after turning its value into mush. His best play is to STFU, get the most out of his companies, and become the first trillionaire. I don't know why he felt the need to become a Batman/Bond villain in addition to all else. He should have been smarter than to get involved in all of this. I think the ketamine is pickling his brain.
I have no sympathy for either anyway.
Elon having been high this whole time was the least surprising thing ever.
I'm low-key riding with Trump on this one. Awful as he is, Elon is truly a next-level piece of work.
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 06, 2025, 07:00:33 AMI actually think JDV is sane, albeit slimy. But he lacks charisma and does, I believe, have a sense of shame and pride.
No, he has no shame. I think he's totally bought and would be more disciplined about destroying democracy.
Royal Society of what? On what possible qualifications?
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 06, 2025, 07:40:17 PMRoyal Society of what? On what possible qualifications?
MinervaBird says London, above. But, yeah, his only qualification for anything has always been just being rich and owning stuff. The mind reels.
Are these memberships for sale?
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 07, 2025, 12:29:22 AMAre these memberships for sale?
Yup. Just like US passports: Elon, Murdoch,
et al.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 07, 2025, 12:29:22 AMAre these memberships for sale?
Normally, you're nominated by the membership, who then elects you. There are different categories of membership, however, not all of which require direct contributions to scholarship.
Ah. Well they at least are not actually attemtpting to claim Musk is a 'scholar', right, so he has some sort of honorary membership?
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 07, 2025, 11:12:14 AMAh. Well they at least are not actually attemtpting to claim Musk is a 'scholar', right, so he has some sort of honorary membership?
Dunno. I can't bring myself to look it up. Seems likeliest, though.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 06, 2025, 10:18:56 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on June 06, 2025, 07:40:17 PMRoyal Society of what? On what possible qualifications?
MinervaBird says London, above. But, yeah, his only qualification for anything has always been just being rich and owning stuff. The mind reels.
It is The Royal Society of London. It was founded in the 17th century during the Restoration of Charles II. It is one of the oldest scientific societies in the world. Fellows are nominated and approved by Council. It is a very high honour to have the nominals FRS as a scientist. And, no these memberships are not bought and sold. Stephen Hawking is an FRS, as are several other Nobel Prize winners. Newton was president of the Society during his day.
I was thinking this was the same royal society, and that the rules as Minerva describes are the rules there are. So how does this qualify Musk for membership?
Why is this echoes of Ronald Reagan, Berkeley, and the 1960's?
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-raids-los-angeles-2d1d5e2f638da600c4b34fe8bf8cf3aa
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 07, 2025, 07:16:54 PMWhy is this echoes of Ronald Reagan, Berkeley, and the 1960's?
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-raids-los-angeles-2d1d5e2f638da600c4b34fe8bf8cf3aa
This is the new Summer of Love!
Quote from: dismalist on June 07, 2025, 07:26:50 PMQuote from: ciao_yall on June 07, 2025, 07:16:54 PMWhy is this echoes of Ronald Reagan, Berkeley, and the 1960's?
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-raids-los-angeles-2d1d5e2f638da600c4b34fe8bf8cf3aa
This is the new Summer of Love!
Like January 6 was a "Day of Love."
Woohoo. A whole summer of this.
Musk was elected in 2018. This is his profile at the Royal Society.
https://royalsociety.org/people/elon-musk-13829/
Elon Musk is the CEO and co-founder of SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink and The Boring Company.
As lead designer at SpaceX, Elon oversees the development of rockets and spacecraft for missions to Earth orbit and ultimately to other planets. The SpaceX Falcon 1 was the first privately developed liquid fuel rocket to reach orbit, in 2008. In 2017, SpaceX made further history by re-flying both a Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft for the first time. By pioneering the development of reusable rockets, SpaceX is pursuing the long-term goal of making humans a multi-planet species.
At Tesla, Elon oversees product design, engineering and manufacturing. The Tesla Roadster debuted in 2008, followed by Model S in 2012, the Model X SUV in 2015 and in 2017 the Model 3, a mass-market electric car. Tesla produces a unique set of energy products – Powerwall, Powerpack and Solar Roof – making it the world's first vertically-integrated sustainable energy company. Tesla's mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy.
Neuralink is developing ultra-high bandwidth brain-machine interfaces to connect the human brain to computers.
The Boring Company is combining fast, affordable tunneling technology with an all-electric public transportation system in order to alleviate soul-crushing urban congestion and enable high-speed long distance travel.
Previously, Elon co-founded and sold PayPal, the world's leading Internet payment system, and Zip2, one of the first internet maps and directions services.
*******
Because the Society was given a royal charter in 1662, Prince William is an honorary fellow
https://royalsociety.org/people/hrh-prince-william-mountbatten-windsor-10960/
Prince William is left handed and signed the charter book with a feather quill made from the wing that curved the correct way.
In the past, most nobles could be fellows if they wanted to be and paid the fee and were nominated by a few other fellows, but now it is for scientific achievement. You can search the current fellows' directory here
https://royalsociety.org/fellows-directory/
Past fellows' directory here with biographies:
https://catalogues.royalsociety.org/CalmView/personsearch.aspx?src=CalmView.Persons
Wowee. Prob is, all these companies use tech that was developed elsewhere, and often at taxpayer expense. Musk and cos improved these things in various ways, but this is not Ben Franklin developing bifocals or discovering electricity.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 08, 2025, 05:42:49 PMWowee. Prob is, all these companies use tech that was developed elsewhere, and often at taxpayer expense. Musk and cos improved these things in various ways, but this is not Ben Franklin developing bifocals or discovering electricity.
I don't think you need to be Ben Franklin for this. As much as I dislike Musk, this dosnt seem too crazy.
A lot of researchers are there from work done by their students and postdocs. Likewise with Nobel prizes, and any other award of this type.
The idea of the lone genius working into the night in the lab is for comic books.
Great article in the New Yorker about all this.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile
TLDR they all think they should be Plato's Philosopher-King.
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 03, 2025, 08:02:42 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 02, 2025, 09:11:36 AMQuote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMIn how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
Not a big deal? Isn't the fight against "taxation without representation" the whole point of the USA?
I think you are probably right in practical terms, but if it is not a big deal then why wouldn't they just give them representation in some form?
"Taxation without representation" is a sonorous slogan. Only the rich pay federal income taxes in DC and they live there voluntarily. They vote with their feet.
Thus, it's not a big deal for representation. It's a very big deal for which party wields political power.
QuoteIn any case, it seems both George Washington and the anti-Federalists were proved right, on the nefarious effects of partisanship in the former case, and on inadequate checks on Presidential power in the latter case.
Personally I'm more of a fan of the Swiss model.
Nefarious effects of partisanship? Wouldn't be a problem if we all agreed on everything. We don't.
The problem isn't disagreement on policies or on principles, that's natural and healthy. The problem is when it's "my party, right or wrong" - when policies or facts become irrelevant and party loyalty (or just to a leader) is all that matters. Taken to its logical conclusion, that can only produce either complete gridlock or a sycophantic majority giving the leadership pretty much unlimited power, or a breakdown of Constitutional order.
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMInadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm really not a fan of the "as long as the king is a good man, we don't need checks and balances" line of thinking. Everyone should have checks and balances, including the majority (protection of minorities, individual rights, personal liberties, etc). Checks are clearly inadequate when Congress has abdicated its Constitutional authority to determine taxes, and the courts have given the President blanket immunity.
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMSwitzerland is probably my favorite, too. Direct democracy works when one knows one's neighbors, when the jurisdictions are small, and when the population in each is relatively homogeneous in its preferences. None of this applies to the United States. And, in the small, I detest my neighbors!
I wasn't thinking of the referendums in particular, though that is an important check on the power of politicians as a whole. I was thinking more of how the Swiss Executive works - very well set up to prevent extremists backed by a large minority or even a narrow majority from exercising unconstrained power without compromises - which makes sense in a country divided both by language and religion. Another important feature is how in some areas that in the US are exclusively Federal in Switzerland the Cantons also have a say, like immigration and naturalization, serving as a check on Federal power.
More broadly, what distinguishes a democracy worthy of the name from a tyranny of the majority isn't voting or popular support (Nazi Germany had plenty of both), or even voting with multiple parties on the ballot (Mexico's "perfect dictatorship" had that), but constraints on power such as the rule of law.
Quote from: Stockmann on June 09, 2025, 12:22:34 PMQuote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMQuote from: Kron3007 on June 03, 2025, 08:02:42 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 02, 2025, 09:11:36 AMQuote from: Stockmann on June 02, 2025, 07:25:35 AMIn how many "dictatorships of parliament" do the citizens living in the capital not have representation in Parliament?
That's not a big deal. The question, meant critically, implicitly assumes that universal suffrage, one person, one vote is optimal, or necessary, for a functioning self-governing polity. It is not.
DC is a creature of the States, but is largely self-governing and even gets to vote in presidential elections. Colonies typically had no representation in the metropolitan country, though the rigged Algerian voting system is an exception. People in the US colonies don't vote in national elections. My favorite British colony was Hong Kong. Hugely successful and free, and not even a democracy.
We all know that the biggest barrier to DC getting representation in Congress is that it could often tip the place to the Democrats [though not last time]. A creative way of handling that objection is to merge DC with Maryland, but the pro-representation side resists. We can infer that the political fight is not about representation.
Not a big deal? Isn't the fight against "taxation without representation" the whole point of the USA?
I think you are probably right in practical terms, but if it is not a big deal then why wouldn't they just give them representation in some form?
"Taxation without representation" is a sonorous slogan. Only the rich pay federal income taxes in DC and they live there voluntarily. They vote with their feet.
Thus, it's not a big deal for representation. It's a very big deal for which party wields political power.
QuoteIn any case, it seems both George Washington and the anti-Federalists were proved right, on the nefarious effects of partisanship in the former case, and on inadequate checks on Presidential power in the latter case.
Personally I'm more of a fan of the Swiss model.
Nefarious effects of partisanship? Wouldn't be a problem if we all agreed on everything. We don't.
The problem isn't disagreement on policies or on principles, that's natural and healthy. The problem is when it's "my party, right or wrong" - when policies or facts become irrelevant and party loyalty (or just to a leader) is all that matters. Taken to its logical conclusion, that can only produce either complete gridlock or a sycophantic majority giving the leadership pretty much unlimited power, or a breakdown of Constitutional order.
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMInadequate checks on Presidential power? Only when the wrong President is in office.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm really not a fan of the "as long as the king is a good man, we don't need checks and balances" line of thinking. Everyone should have checks and balances, including the majority (protection of minorities, individual rights, personal liberties, etc). Checks are clearly inadequate when Congress has abdicated its Constitutional authority to determine taxes, and the courts have given the President blanket immunity.
Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2025, 12:50:17 PMSwitzerland is probably my favorite, too. Direct democracy works when one knows one's neighbors, when the jurisdictions are small, and when the population in each is relatively homogeneous in its preferences. None of this applies to the United States. And, in the small, I detest my neighbors!
I wasn't thinking of the referendums in particular, though that is an important check on the power of politicians as a whole. I was thinking more of how the Swiss Executive works - very well set up to prevent extremists backed by a large minority or even a narrow majority from exercising unconstrained power without compromises - which makes sense in a country divided both by language and religion. Another important feature is how in some areas that in the US are exclusively Federal in Switzerland the Cantons also have a say, like immigration and naturalization, serving as a check on Federal power.
More broadly, what distinguishes a democracy worthy of the name from a tyranny of the majority isn't voting or popular support (Nazi Germany had plenty of both), or even voting with multiple parties on the ballot (Mexico's "perfect dictatorship" had that), but constraints on power such as the rule of law.
That's quite thoughtful.
QuoteThe problem isn't disagreement on policies or on principles, that's natural and healthy. The problem is when it's "my party, right or wrong" - when policies or facts become irrelevant and party loyalty (or just to a leader) is all that matters. Taken to its logical conclusion, that can only produce either complete gridlock or a sycophantic majority giving the leadership pretty much unlimited power, or a breakdown of Constitutional order.
The problem is us! If you have nice single peaked distributions of preferences over single issues we can have these nice compromises to let the median voter win. Actually, both parties would gravitate there in their own self interest.
If the electorate has very different preferences, say double peaked, the median voter still wins, but everybody hates democracy! Think slavery vs. non-slavery. The US Senate saw duels long before the Civil War. [Senators had to eventually check their swords in at the cloak room!] For a contemporary issue think abortion rights. Looks to me like the distribution of preferences across the population has multiple peaks. That's why I think
Dobbs is efficient. Democracy works really badly under such circumstances, but if sliced and diced with federalism, there is hope.
Yes, I only implicitly said that a strength of Switzerland is its federalism. It's a actually a great big deal.
Milan W. Svolik, "Polarization versus Democracy," Journal of Democracy 30, 3 (2019): 20-32.
I feel worse every day, and this kind of quid pro quo doesn't lift my mood. It is now rampant and conducted completely in the open:https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-legal-complaint-geo-group-trump
And now the DOJ wants this from my state:https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/nx-s1-5426097/trump-justice-department-voter-data-colorado
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 11, 2025, 02:44:00 PMAnd now the DOJ wants this from my state:https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/nx-s1-5426097/trump-justice-department-voter-data-colorado
Indeed it looks like a fishing expedition.
Quote from: spork on June 11, 2025, 03:47:00 AMMilan W. Svolik, "Polarization versus Democracy," Journal of Democracy 30, 3 (2019): 20-32.
Interesting and informative. Only thing I am missing is symmetry.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
Quote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
If I understand correctly, two of the three members of each Province's Electoral Commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. After some public brouhaha, the decisions are approved by the Governor-in-Council, essentially the Federal Cabinet. It is political, as it must be.
Quote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
In California we have an independent citizens board draw our boundaries. Works well.
Quote from: dismalist on June 11, 2025, 04:25:27 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
If I understand correctly, two of the three members of each Province's Electoral Commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. After some public brouhaha, the decisions are approved by the Governor-in-Council, essentially the Federal Cabinet. It is political, as it must be.
But as MarathonRunner implies, I can't recall
ever, in over 4 decades of voting, hearing complaints that new ridings were created in a way that is intended to favour a specific party. (And other than creating new ridings because of population growth, boundaries aren't changed.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 12, 2025, 03:01:51 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 11, 2025, 04:25:27 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
If I understand correctly, two of the three members of each Province's Electoral Commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. After some public brouhaha, the decisions are approved by the Governor-in-Council, essentially the Federal Cabinet. It is political, as it must be.
But as MarathonRunner implies, I can't recall ever, in over 4 decades of voting, hearing complaints that new ridings were created in a way that is intended to favour a specific party. (And other than creating new ridings because of population growth, boundaries aren't changed.)
No complaints? That means the cartel is working!
This gets into something discussed above -- the distribution of preferences across the population. [The problem is us.] I am guessing, perhaps inferring, that the population in Canada is less fractured in its preferences than the population of the US.
ETA: One can safely assume that the preferences of the Quebecois are different from the preferences of Anglophone Canada. While this doesn't matter at the riding level, it does matter at the provincial level. And for that we might see a "Curley Effect", after the infamous, long serving mayor of Boston. He essentially did reverse gerrymandering, which can work under some conditions, including fixed boundaries. Curley pursued policies to drive out the English Protestants but keep the Irish residents. It worked, keeping him in power forever! It has been said that the Quebec ruling party propagated or pursued a mild form of Curley's policies, with anti-English language use. Call it Curley
lite.
Quote from: dismalist on June 12, 2025, 12:02:07 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on June 12, 2025, 03:01:51 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 11, 2025, 04:25:27 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMIn Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
If I understand correctly, two of the three members of each Province's Electoral Commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. After some public brouhaha, the decisions are approved by the Governor-in-Council, essentially the Federal Cabinet. It is political, as it must be.
But as MarathonRunner implies, I can't recall ever, in over 4 decades of voting, hearing complaints that new ridings were created in a way that is intended to favour a specific party. (And other than creating new ridings because of population growth, boundaries aren't changed.)
No complaints? That means the cartel is working!
This gets into something discussed above -- the distribution of preferences across the population. [The problem is us.] I am guessing, perhaps inferring, that the population in Canada is less fractured in its preferences than the population of the US.
Less fractured? I'm not sure, but less
binary, since every province has at least 3 parties that typically win seats, and the three aren't even the same in each province. (And some provincial parties kind of distance themselves from their own federal parties.)
So there's much more acceptance of
nuance.
QuoteETA: One can safely assume that the preferences of the Quebecois are different from the preferences of Anglophone Canada. While this doesn't matter at the riding level, it does matter at the provincial level. And for that we might see a "Curley Effect", after the infamous, long serving mayor of Boston. He essentially did reverse gerrymandering, which can work under some conditions, including fixed boundaries. Curley pursued policies to drive out the English Protestants but keep the Irish residents. It worked, keeping him in power forever! It has been said that the Quebec ruling party propagated or pursued a mild form of Curley's policies, with anti-English language use. Call it Curley lite.
That's a much longer term effect. Changing who wants to live in an area may shift voting patterns over years or decades, but jerrymandering changes them
from one election to the next. And with voters registering by party, as in the US, it can be done with much more predictable results.
Gerrymandering is usually associated with bad behavior, such as disempowering the already less powerful, or creating political coaltions.
Independent boards theoretically draw maps to ensure broader, more equitable representation through geographical and economic interests.
We just set in motion WW III.
QuoteWhat we know about Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and military commanders (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj9vj8glg2o)
Did no one remember what happened in Iran after propping up the Shah? Or think that the neighboring countries are going to "cry uncle"?
Santayana's famous quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." should be framed and on the office wall of every higher up in the US DOD.
Quote from: dismalist on June 12, 2025, 12:02:07 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on June 12, 2025, 03:01:51 AMQuote from: dismalist on June 11, 2025, 04:25:27 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
If I understand correctly, two of the three members of each Province's Electoral Commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. After some public brouhaha, the decisions are approved by the Governor-in-Council, essentially the Federal Cabinet. It is political, as it must be.
But as MarathonRunner implies, I can't recall ever, in over 4 decades of voting, hearing complaints that new ridings were created in a way that is intended to favour a specific party. (And other than creating new ridings because of population growth, boundaries aren't changed.)
No complaints? That means the cartel is working!
This gets into something discussed above -- the distribution of preferences across the population. [The problem is us.] I am guessing, perhaps inferring, that the population in Canada is less fractured in its preferences than the population of the US.
ETA: One can safely assume that the preferences of the Quebecois are different from the preferences of Anglophone Canada. While this doesn't matter at the riding level, it does matter at the provincial level. And for that we might see a "Curley Effect", after the infamous, long serving mayor of Boston. He essentially did reverse gerrymandering, which can work under some conditions, including fixed boundaries. Curley pursued policies to drive out the English Protestants but keep the Irish residents. It worked, keeping him in power forever! It has been said that the Quebec ruling party propagated or pursued a mild form of Curley's policies, with anti-English language use. Call it Curley lite.
Quebecois have different opinions on some things, but are largely aligned on many others. Obviously there are some loud differences about specific things, but in the end I dont know that their preferences are that different than much of Canada. As much as I dislike them being a federal party in Canada, I feel much more aligned on most things with the Bloc than I do the CPC for example.
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 11, 2025, 07:15:50 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
In California we have an independent citizens board draw our boundaries. Works well.
California illustrates my point very well. It doesn't matter how one determines congressional districts there -- virtually every district will be overwhelmingly composed of Democratic voters. California has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There is nothing to disagree about!
Apologies, when I hear "independent commission" or "non partisan commission" my hands start shaking. :-)
Quote from: dismalist on June 13, 2025, 02:13:08 PMQuote from: ciao_yall on June 11, 2025, 07:15:50 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
In California we have an independent citizens board draw our boundaries. Works well.
California illustrates my point very well. It doesn't matter how one determines congressional districts there -- virtually every district will be overwhelmingly composed of Democratic voters. California has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There is nothing to disagree about!
Apologies, when I hear "independent commission" or "non partisan commission" my hands start shaking. :-)
Alternatively maybe the D party happens to speak more clearly to Californians as a whole?
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 13, 2025, 04:43:59 PMQuote from: dismalist on June 13, 2025, 02:13:08 PMQuote from: ciao_yall on June 11, 2025, 07:15:50 PMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 11, 2025, 04:07:12 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2022, 09:00:10 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2022, 08:52:21 AMJerrymandering is an sin of both parties.
The Republicans have been far worse.
The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations. They enact laws which target certain demographics.
So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.
In Canada the borders of our electoral ridings are set my an independent, non-partisan group appointed by Elections Canada and they are only altered in response to population changes. Seems much better than the weird US system with incredibly tortured borders between ridings. Our first past the post system has its own issues, but at least we don't have gerrymandering.
In California we have an independent citizens board draw our boundaries. Works well.
California illustrates my point very well. It doesn't matter how one determines congressional districts there -- virtually every district will be overwhelmingly composed of Democratic voters. California has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There is nothing to disagree about!
Apologies, when I hear "independent commission" or "non partisan commission" my hands start shaking. :-)
Alternatively maybe the D party happens to speak more clearly to Californians as a whole?
While I don't like "as a whole", we're saying the same thing with different words.
The assassinations have started.
Edited to add: the assassin will be a Caucasian male, so not a "terrorist."
Quote from: spork on June 14, 2025, 08:30:37 AMThe assassinations have started.
Edited to add: the assassin will be a Caucasian male, so not a "terrorist."
He was impersonating a police officer to carry the killings out...very convincingly.
Quote from: Minervabird on June 14, 2025, 10:13:06 AMQuote from: spork on June 14, 2025, 08:30:37 AMThe assassinations have started.
Edited to add: the assassin will be a Caucasian male, so not a "terrorist."
He was impersonating a police officer to carry the killings out...very convincingly.
I think we'll find that he has strong ties to law enforcement, if not a cop himself somewhere else
Good turnout for No Kings today in my Boston suburbs town, despite a steady rain and unseasonably cool temps and a lot of people probably choosing to go into Boston for the big combined pride/protest parade. All ages from elders in wheelchairs to babies in strollers (plus people and dogs in costumes!). Most drivers honked enthusiastically and waved -- only 1 middle finger that I saw. No police presence at all, and no trouble unless you count occasional jaywalking, which is considered a fundamental right in these parts.
Quote from: RatGuy on June 14, 2025, 11:15:27 AMQuote from: Minervabird on June 14, 2025, 10:13:06 AMQuote from: spork on June 14, 2025, 08:30:37 AMThe assassinations have started.
Edited to add: the assassin will be a Caucasian male, so not a "terrorist."
He was impersonating a police officer to carry the killings out...very convincingly.
I think we'll find that he has strong ties to law enforcement, if not a cop himself somewhere else
Ding ding ding. "Vance Boelter, the man identified as the suspect in the attacks on two lawmakers, is listed as the director of security patrols on the website of a Minnesota-based private security group."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/14/us/minnesota-shootings
It was probably only wishful thinking to assume he was guilty of impersonating a cop, and although now it appears he is a rent-a-cop, wanna lay odds he has real coppery on his resume as well?
Quote from: Puget on June 14, 2025, 12:45:08 PMDing ding ding. "Vance Boelter, the man identified as the suspect in the attacks on two lawmakers, is listed as the director of security patrols on the website of a Minnesota-based private security group."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/14/us/minnesota-shootings
More details - he is exactly who you would expect:
"Mr. Boelter worked at a funeral home, owned guns and had voted for President Trump last year, he said. . .Mr. Carlson said Mr. Boelter is a Christian who strongly opposed abortion. . . He said Mr. Boelter had been experiencing financial and mental health challenges. . . Mr. Boelter has delivered several sermons at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In a video of one that was posted online, he appeared to criticize gay and transgender people."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/us/politics/minnesota-shootings-gunman-suspect.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PE8.-dfI.2zqihKnRiUHG&smid=url-share
TACO backed down again, this time on arresting workers in agriculture and hospitality.
Quote from: Puget on June 14, 2025, 07:17:28 PMQuote from: Puget on June 14, 2025, 12:45:08 PMDing ding ding. "Vance Boelter, the man identified as the suspect in the attacks on two lawmakers, is listed as the director of security patrols on the website of a Minnesota-based private security group."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/14/us/minnesota-shootings
More details - he is exactly who you would expect:
"Mr. Boelter worked at a funeral home, owned guns and had voted for President Trump last year, he said. . .Mr. Carlson said Mr. Boelter is a Christian who strongly opposed abortion. . . He said Mr. Boelter had been experiencing financial and mental health challenges. . . Mr. Boelter has delivered several sermons at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In a video of one that was posted online, he appeared to criticize gay and transgender people."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/us/politics/minnesota-shootings-gunman-suspect.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PE8.-dfI.2zqihKnRiUHG&smid=url-share
This is why I am so glad I live in a country with strict gun laws. I used to live in Minnesota, and it is a genteel place...fairly non confrontational. I feel so sorry for the families of the victims.
This is cray-cray.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/va-doctors-can-refuse-to-treat-democrats-after-donald-trump-order/
In
The Atlantic:
QuoteShrinking the Tent
(The Democratic Party Slides into Irrelevance)
QuoteThis past weekend marked a high for opposition to Donald Trump, and another low for the opposition party.
From Chula Vista, California, to Portland, Maine, and from Bellingham, Washington, to Key Largo, Florida, Americans demonstrated against the president, in "No Kings" protests scheduled to coincide with Trump's military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. The parade, desultory and poorly attended, set a striking contrast with the marchers, whom observers estimated to number in the millions. That would make Saturday's protests some of the largest in American history. Three of the biggest sets of U.S. demonstrations have taken place while Trump has been president, an indication of intense grassroots opposition toward him and his vision for the Republican Party.
So these ought to be boom times for America's other major party. But Democrats seemed almost entirely irrelevant last weekend. While many ordinary Americans engaged in the most kinetic kind of politics, the Democratic National Committee was splintering acrimoniously, and some of the party's most prominent leaders were busy attending a glitzy Hamptons wedding that brought together two venerable, aging dynasties: the Soros family and the Clinton political machine. Although Democratic officials attended and spoke at many of Saturday's rallies, the No Kings protests were not driven by the Democratic Party—which may have been one of the protests' strengths.
Not every Democratic politician is missing in action. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who spent recent months clumsily attempting to moderate his image by inviting MAGA figures on his podcast, now finds himself as the nation's foremost Trump foil. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz won praise for his handling of the response to the assassination of one state legislator and the wounding of another this past weekend. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York have drawn huge crowds at rallies around the country.
As a whole, however, the Democratic Party seems unprepared and uninspired. Internally, the party is more consumed with relitigating 2024 than with looking toward 2026. It has no apparent leader: Barack Obama is apathetic, Joe Biden is obsolete, and Kamala Harris lost. The congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are hapless, declaring red lines that they have no evident means or intent of enforcing. (Did they not learn their lesson from Obama's red-line follies?) That means de facto leadership falls to the DNC. The party elected a new chair, Minnesota's Ken Martin, in February, but Martin has so far failed to inspire or unify the party.
Martin's term has been most preoccupied with trying to manage David Hogg, the young gun-control activist who was elected DNC vice chair in February and then announced plans to spend millions backing primary challengers to sitting Democrats in safe seats. Challenging sitting officeholders isn't bad per se—in fact, it's often good for revitalizing politics—but for a top party official to be driving those seems to cut against the idea of a party organization.
Democratic leaders first tried to badger Hogg into giving up the plan, but he refused. Then they stumbled on a solution of sorts that got rid of Hogg but validated every stereotype of Democrats as obsessed with procedure, consumed by elaborate diversity rules, and generally incompetent. A woman who'd unsuccessfully run against Hogg for vice chair argued that the DNC had violated its own rules and unfairly benefited two male candidates. The DNC concluded that the challenge was correct; invalidated the election of Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta; and ordered a do-over. Hogg opted not to run in the new election. Problem solved!
Along the way, however, audio in which Martin whined about how it had all affected him was leaked to Politico. "I'll be very honest with you," he said. "The other night, I said to myself for the first time, I don't know if I wanna do this anymore." Addressing Hogg, he went on: "I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to. So it's really frustrating."
No doubt, this has been unpleasant for Martin, but it's not encouraging that the guy Democrats chose to lead them as they take on a budding authoritarian is crumbling in the face of a 25-year-old activist with a relatively small war chest.
Then, on Sunday, reports surfaced that Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, had left the DNC; they complained that Martin was, in Weingarten's words, "not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities." Both had backed one of Martin's challengers for chairperson, and Weingarten had supported Hogg; before resigning, they'd been kicked out of seats on the powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Weingarten is a lightning rod, and teachers unions are controversial among Democrats. But the DNC can hardly afford to lose the buy-in of major unions. Organized labor provides both funding and foot soldiers for Democratic candidates. This has long been true, but the situation is more fragile than ever, as Trump has made gains among union members and union leaders. In 2024, he was able to persuade both the Teamsters and the International Association of Fire Fighters to forgo endorsements altogether. Forget enlarging the tent—the DNC appears to be in danger of shrinking it.
The good news for Democrats is that the midterms are more than a year away, and the 2028 election is more than three years away—an eternity in politics. Trump can't figure out his position on even his signature issue of immigration, his administration is understaffed and underprepared, and public disapproval is strong; when he's been in office, voters have rejected him and his allies at the ballot box. But if anyone can figure out how to fumble the situation, it's the Democratic Party.
Feeling confident in counter-terrorism efforts. Loving the expertise: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-thomas-fugate-cp3-terrorism-prevention
And, the U.S.A. has now bombed Iran
I don't even know where to start... & so far as the possible ends???
The man is bat-shit crazy--what more is there to be said? We're all going to be dragged down with him. Does he really think that Iran and its allies are going to acknowledge him as their lord and master?
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 21, 2025, 08:07:28 PMThe man is bat-shit crazy--what more is there to be said? We're all going to be dragged down with him. Does he really think that Iran and its allies are going to acknowledge him as their lord and master?
The man
acts bat-shit-crazy. Scares the shit out of his adversaries. The point of Iran is not lord and master; the point is no nukes.
Quote from: Sea_Ice on June 21, 2025, 05:45:18 PMAnd, the U.S.A. has now bombed Iran
I don't even know where to start... & so far as the possible ends???
I didn't think we'd see another criminal war of aggression just twenty-two years after the last, since I thought the last was such a widely acknowledged debacle that some lessons were learned. But no.
On the plus side, I guess that probably means Greenland, Panama, and Mexico can breathe easier.
He did it. War.
"Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate," Trump
Classic...
Quote from: dismalist on June 21, 2025, 08:14:30 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on June 21, 2025, 08:07:28 PMThe man is bat-shit crazy--what more is there to be said? We're all going to be dragged down with him. Does he really think that Iran and its allies are going to acknowledge him as their lord and master?
The man acts bat-shit-crazy. Scares the shit out of his adversaries. The point of Iran is not lord and master; the point is no nukes.
You have been drinking the cool aid again I think.
That may indeed be his thoughts process, but what actual deals has this delivered?
It has cost America a lot in terms of global image and reliability, and what has it delivered?
MAGA has not read the boy who cried wolf. Other countries can't negotiate with America on good faith anymore because he lies and changes course constantly.
This is the perfect example, where he told them they have two weeks to negotiate a settlement or else, then two days later bombs them. How can they (or anyone) actually negotiate?
This isn't some genius negotiating tactic, it is just him being a grifter. The problem is that you can only gridt for so long before everyone knows what you are.
Nary a peep from the NYT editorial board or the Dems.
He did it to distract from the budget bill that is going down in flames.
Gabbard herself said Iran doesn't have nukes.
Another proxy war for cheap oil, using Israel as a military base and "protecting the Jews" as an excuse.
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 22, 2025, 08:04:19 AMNary a peep from the NYT editorial board or the Dems.
Because they are on the same side as Trump and his White House sycophants -- profits for me, not for thee.
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 22, 2025, 08:49:25 AMHe did it to distract from the budget bill that is going down in flames.
Gabbard herself said Iran doesn't have nukes.
Another proxy war for cheap oil, using Israel as a military base and "protecting the Jews" as an excuse.
Yup, the war is what in UK terms is called a dog whistle to distract from the mess that is the budget and the sputtering economy, as well as the pushback from the NO kings protests.
I have a lot of former and current (this spring and summer) students who are active duty and/or reservists. One, who's been in since the 2010s, already got sent to the region about 2 weeks ago. Another, an experienced pilot, has been worried sick since the election that she'd get called up before year's end. She's attached to the base in MO where the flights/operation originated.
Old men send young men and young women to die. It's bad enough in just wars, but this? And the slaughter of Palestinians and the war in Ukraine aren't any of our business? No words.
How long before Putin gets his hackles up and finally gets tired of screwing around with Trump?
In a related vein, see various outlets' coverage of IL Senator Tammy Duckworth raking Hegseth over the coals this past week. She gets it, in a way the various "veterans" in the Admin and MAGA don't seem to.
Quote from: dismalist on June 21, 2025, 08:14:30 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on June 21, 2025, 08:07:28 PMThe man is bat-shit crazy--what more is there to be said? We're all going to be dragged down with him. Does he really think that Iran and its allies are going to acknowledge him as their lord and master?
The man acts bat-shit-crazy. Scares the shit out of his adversaries. The point of Iran is not lord and master; the point is no nukes.
Trump is no Nixon. And Rubio is no Kissinger. When force is the strategy, force will be used in response. Equal and opposite reaction and all. Nukes are the excuse not the reason. This half-baked plan will not end well.
My nephew is 20 and I am really hoping there is not a draft. My dad served in Korea in the Navy on a destroyer for four years. It is a miracle he wasn't killed, but he carried around trauma from all the action he saw his whole life.
I don't think it is a distraction. The parade was a bust, making him look weak; blowing shit up looks strong. Also, he told Israel 'no' and they went ahead anyway, and it was looking successful so he wanted in on the credit.
That's all.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2025, 01:33:29 PMI don't think it is a distraction. The parade was a bust, making him look weak; blowing shit up looks strong. Also, he told Israel 'no' and they went ahead anyway, and it was looking successful so he wanted in on the credit.
That's all.
That's what I think is going on in a lot of ways. He hasn't produced any big trade deals; basically almost nothing he has tried to achieve has happened, so he needs something to support his ego. Jumping on someone else's bandwagon and then claiming it's his own is completely normal for him.
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 22, 2025, 08:04:19 AMNary a peep from the NYT editorial board or the Dems.
FWIW, the NYT editorial board ran this last Wednesday.
ETA link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/opinion/iran-war-israel-trump.html
What should the Dems be doing?
Quote from: AmLitHist on June 22, 2025, 02:09:10 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on June 22, 2025, 08:04:19 AMNary a peep from the NYT editorial board or the Dems.
FWIW, the NYT editorial board ran this last Wednesday.
ETA link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/opinion/iran-war-israel-trump.html
That was the pre-attack editorial. Post attack, the op-eds are from "guests" and a few of the regular columnists.
The latest---
Wishful thinking on our part:
QuoteTrump speculates about regime change in Iran after US strikes (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8m3861637o)
Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz:
QuoteStrait of Hormuz: What happens if Iran shuts global oil corridor? (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n6p09pzno)
The US wants China to intervene--I thought China was Enemy #1!
QuoteHegseth warns China poses 'imminent' threat to Taiwan and urges Asia to boost defence (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c071xm4x7g7o)
QuoteUS asks China to stop Iran from closing Strait of Hormuz (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056pyv723vo)
Not surprisingly, there have been protests condemning the invasion:
QuoteUS strikes on Iran trigger protests internationally (https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c4g2wxwel5qo)
Demonstrators in cities around the world have taken to the streets to protest against President Donald Trump's decision to launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Protesters in France, Pakistan, Greece and the Philippines condemned the attack, which was a significant escalation in the war between Iran and Israel.
But wait, I thought Pakistan was nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize:
QuotePakistan to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyx5yw8y28o)
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 22, 2025, 04:49:58 PMWhat should the Dems be doing?
Good question. The DNC is asking, daily, whether I can chip in $2. Perhaps the state of world affairs can draw their attention away from that task.
I donate. But I need them to run candidates!
Senator Murkowski's thoughts: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/24/nx-s1-5442717/lisa-murkowski-republican-trump
She and Susan Collins should have become independents long ago. There is no such thing as a moderate R, as long you remain an R.
Fora, what do we think about the results of the NYC Mayoral primary?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/nyregion/democratic-party-zohran-mamdani.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Rk8.p7RL.3I4FkS6uCGaD&smid=nytcore-android-share
Personally I'm tired of D's trying to walk the narrow middle and not "lose" MAGA, resulting in not saying anything.
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 25, 2025, 07:12:27 AMFora, what do we think about the results of the NYC Mayoral primary?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/nyregion/democratic-party-zohran-mamdani.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Rk8.p7RL.3I4FkS6uCGaD&smid=nytcore-android-share
Personally I'm tired of D's trying to walk the narrow middle and not "lose" MAGA, resulting in not saying anything.
How about starting a new thread? There were other elections as well yesterday.
Disclaimer: I'm registered as an Independent, for a variety of reasons.
Collins is a hack whose only interest is staying in office. Doesn't matter what party she belongs to.
Dead conservatives are grave turning at this: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/29/nx-s1-5409608/citizenship-trump-privacy-voting-database
Y
Quote from: spork on June 25, 2025, 11:09:48 AMCollins is a hack whose only interest is staying in office. Doesn't matter what party she belongs to.
Yup. She votes with her leader when the chips are down. I know why Murkowski caved: Item in the bill to support Alaskan fishermen. The Lord giveth with one hand and takes away health care and food with another.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 29, 2025, 10:33:41 AMDead conservatives are grave turning at this: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/29/nx-s1-5409608/citizenship-trump-privacy-voting-database
And worm brain wants us all to wear some sort of health tracking gizmo.
QuoteTillis Announces He Won't Run Again as Trump Threatens Him With a Primary (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/us/politics/thom-tillis-retirement.html)
The day after President Trump castigated the North Carolina Republican senator Thom Tillis for opposing the bill carrying his domestic agenda, Mr. Tillis said he would not seek a third term.
Also in today's NYT, an article about whether or not Trump should be added to Mt. Rushmore. NYT, are you out of your fricking mind? I stopped at the headline--refused to read even a line from the article.
I just read the blurb on the homepage, after the headline. It said something to the effect that some people were arguing that Trump should indeed be added to Rushmore, which it said had also been floated about by various folks during his first admin. That was more or less as far as I could stomach myself, but it did get me to thinking-- could this Congress, egged on by Drumpf, actually pass a law ordering this to be done? Are there any documents or contracts or covenants that a court could use to forbid it?
The article says no for a variety of reasons.
1) It is considered a completed work of art, so it can't be changed. For example, you can't add another figure to the Mona Lisa or Last Supper.
2) The stone is too weak to handle another face. There were design compromises already made to get the 4 up there.
Those are the 2 on the top of my mind, but there were others.
Quote from: ciao_yall on Today at 02:49:49 PMThe article says no for a variety of reasons.
1) It is considered a completed work of art, so it can't be changed. For example, you can't add another figure to the Mona Lisa or Last Supper.
2) The stone is too weak to handle another face. There were design compromises already made to get the 4 up there.
Those are the 2 on the top of my mind, but there were others.
Oh, fantastic!! Yet another thing that he can easily ruin just by insisting on being part of it... [/snark]
The case law on artists' moral rights in the US isn't great, so I wouldn't put much stock in (1). (2) Is where the action is.
He might still get some other mountain, though. Maybe a nearby one? Or one of the useless faces could get a makeover.
I agree with para on #1-- American law, apparently almost singularly, really gives artists no rights to the control of any work that they have sold, and certainly assigns no rights to heirs. If the French authorized me to buy the Mona Lisa, I bought it and took it here, I could paint a mustache on her.
I certainly can alter a painting I bought at the Salvation Army, display it in its altered form in my house, outside on my lawn, etc., or sell it that way to whomever I chose. And if in turn that Salvaitonist-found artwork were discovered to actually be the work of some famous artist, same deal. Even if artist is still alive.
I am not generally a libertarian, far from it. I am not at all sure I disagree with our view of art rights, however, esp since to offer such rights, the state, some court, etc.,, would also get to dictate what exactly qualifies as a 'work of art'.
Sadly, there is something the GOP congress can do, and I suspect we will see it soon. They can rename lots of stuff for Trump-- who is to stop them? I especially expect things named after known Democrats, liberals, blacks, etc,, to be targeted. And whatever happens in this area now, at least till the 2026 election and subsequent seating of a new Dem majority in either house should one be elected, what do you suppose the current GOP shitshow would do should Trump stroke out tomorrow?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on Today at 04:06:21 PMThe case law on artists' moral rights in the US isn't great, so I wouldn't put much stock in (1). (2) Is where the action is.
He might still get some other mountain, though. Maybe a nearby one? Or one of the useless faces could get a makeover.
It's not technically illegal. It's just not done.
Which President would be swapped out?
Roosevelt could have his glasses and mustache removed, but he is way in the back and DJT wouldn't stand for that.
He would want Washington's spot... maybe grow pampas grasses on the head to give him hair?
There's an unfinished Crazy Horse memorial down the road from Rushmore. Maybe DJT could use the north side of the Crazy Horse memorial since the infrastructure is already in place. Bonus - he'd be staring down the other 4 presidents. It's certainly practically and metaphorically appealing.