2020 Elections

[mahagonny]

This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 

That would be editorializing more than reporting. Not that I disagree.

[eigen]

This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 

That would be editorializing more than reporting. Not that I disagree.

That depends on whether it was something written by the staff, or whether they were reporting it being said by another party.

[jimbogumbo]

This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 

That would be editorializing more than reporting. Not that I disagree.

That depends on whether it was something written by the staff, or whether they were reporting it being said by another party.

It was reporting, a statement attributed to  a Presidential staffer (not named).

[writingprof]

Already Kamala Harris has said one thing that isn't accurate. Joe Biden wasn't the one who 'broke the barrier' by selecting a female running mate. Walter Mondale was.
Now she's doing the 'systemic racism' riff. It doesn't take long with some people, does it?
i think I agree with Writingprof. Gridlock is better than a lot of things.

I'll say this for Harris: She really believes her talking points. "Systemic racism" is not just a phrase written on a notecard; it's the idea that animates her entire political existence.  Happily, this ensures that she will never win a national election on the top of the ticket.  "Just shut up about it," they said.  "I literally can't," she answered.

[marshwiggle]

Already Kamala Harris has said one thing that isn't accurate. Joe Biden wasn't the one who 'broke the barrier' by selecting a female running mate. Walter Mondale was.
Now she's doing the 'systemic racism' riff. It doesn't take long with some people, does it?
i think I agree with Writingprof. Gridlock is better than a lot of things.

I'll say this for Harris: She really believes her talking points. "Systemic racism" is not just a phrase written on a notecard; it's the idea that animates her entire political existence.  Happily, this ensures that she will never win a national election on the top of the ticket.  "Just shut up about it," they said.  "I literally can't," she answered.

The thing that makes me sad is that this is despite the fact that her husband is white.

[mamselle]

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Anyone else in the US having friends from afar emailing and texting to congratulate you on the election results?

So far, a cousin in Belgium, two friends in two different parts of France, one French/British couple, and a UK cousin have written, implying in a few cases that they were waiting with baited breath to see if we'd do it (i.e., dump Trump).

I do follow the French, UK, and Belgian events as well, but I don't recall having this many notes before.

M.

[kiana]

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Anyone else in the US having friends from afar emailing and texting to congratulate you on the election results?

So far, a cousin in Belgium, two friends in two different parts of France, one French/British couple, and a UK cousin have written, implying in a few cases that they were waiting with baited breath to see if we'd do it (i.e., dump Trump).

I do follow the French, UK, and Belgian events as well, but I don't recall having this many notes before.

M.

Yes, from Germany, Australia, Canada, the UK, and Czech Republic so far.

[ciao_yall]

I'm still too relieved to be happy and excited.

And still too anxious about the fact that it was as close as it was.

[mamselle]

Yes. A friend and I both agreed as the first night's counting went on, it shouldn't have been this close.

M.

[Sun_Worshiper]

It was too close for comfort, but also not as close as it seemed because of the way votes were counted.

[marshwiggle]

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

[Puget]

I realized the strange languid Sunday morning feeling I'm having is the long-forgotten feeling of not having to think (very much*) about what the Trump administration is up to. I'm very much looking forward to years of not having to think all that much about the executive branch because I can trust that competent people of good will are busy doing their jobs.

*They can of course still do quite a lot of damage on the way out the door, but not all that much that can't quickly be reversed with executive orders.

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

[writingprof]

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person? 

[mamselle]

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person?

Oops, sorry, I missed the part where you are the baseline judge of all things, against whom and which everything else is to be compared.

Guess I will have to go see about recalibrating my life expectations now....

M.

[marshwiggle]

Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)