I’m gravely concerned about the state of the Union

[Terabith]

I'm trying hard not to be political here, but I think that I'm going to share this article anyway, because I think it has important information for people on both sides of the aisle.  Coups are started by both right and left wing groups.  We need to think and prepare for a coup.  https://wagingnonviolence.org/2020/09/10-things-you-need-to-know-to-stop-a-coup/?fbclid=IwAR0rh0xi92ee3D-Xxr2gx0oNTW3srUt6bSS8wAqlGJtiNSSLiIkfyu1IZ0I

[vonfirmath]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I know. I just wish we could agree on this one in the middle of a pandemic. That's part of what the OP is complaining about, I think. We ALL benefit from functional mail-in ballots in the middle of a pandemic. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.  

But if you oppose mail-in ballots for really legitimate reasons before the pandemic -- those concerns about fraud/ballots not making don't magically disappear because you are now in a pandemic.

 

(And are we in a pandemic anymore? I thought it had been downgraded to epidemic?)

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by vonfirmath

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, vonfirmath said:

But if you oppose mail-in ballots for really legitimate reasons before the pandemic -- those concerns about fraud/ballots not making don't magically disappear because you are now in a pandemic.

But perhaps it tips the balance towards making them work for now, even if you're going to go back to opposing them later. 

[vonfirmath]

Just now, Not_a_number said:

But perhaps it tips the balance towards making them work for now, even if you're going to go back to opposing them later. 

No.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Assuming that everything is the same as it ever was

I'm not assuming everything is the same as it ever was.

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, vonfirmath said:

But if you oppose mail-in ballots for really legitimate reasons before the pandemic -- those concerns about fraud/ballots not making don't magically disappear because you are now in a pandemic.

 

(And are we in a pandemic anymore? I thought it had been downgraded to epidemic?)

 

There are legitimate concerns about mail in ballots, but there are also lots of advantages to them, and I would think that the advantages in a pandemic outweigh the disadvantages.  

We're definitely still in a pandemic.  Multiple countries are having widespread infection.  

[frogger]

I actually prefer locked drop boxes rather than mail- in. Our muni has been doing that for some time and it seems reasonable. I know that that is really a local issue though. 

 

I am glad that though I see more polarization than previous in my lifetime, the last year or so I've seen more and more people step back and say, "this is wrong.".  So there is hope. We need to quit giving the screamers a platform or an audience.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, vonfirmath said:

No.

Yes, I noticed. So now we have a pandemic that makes people worry about mail-in votes, no faith in mail-in votes, and no interest in making them more robust. I am failing to see how this is a huge win for anyone, but that's fine. 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I'm trying hard not to be political here, but I think that I'm going to share this article anyway, because I think it has important information for people on both sides of the aisle.  Coups are started by both right and left wing groups.  We need to think and prepare for a coup.  https://wagingnonviolence.org/2020/09/10-things-you-need-to-know-to-stop-a-coup/?fbclid=IwAR0rh0xi92ee3D-Xxr2gx0oNTW3srUt6bSS8wAqlGJtiNSSLiIkfyu1IZ0I

Quoting from the article: 

 

"We know it’s a coup if the government:

- Stops counting votes;

- Declares someone a winner who didn’t get the most votes; or

- Allows someone to stay in power who didn’t win the election.

These are sensible red lines that people can grasp right away (and that the majority of Americans continue to believe in)." 

 

And here's the question: do we all agree on these? I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just wondering. 

[cjzimmer1]

I'm going to take a risk here and throw my very Christian thoughts out and hope that non-believers don't throw too many tomatoes at me.  I'm not any great Bible scholars but the commentaries I've read all seem to agree that at the end there is no mention of the US.  China is there, Russia is there but the US is not.  As hard as it is for my brain to wrap around the idea of the US no longer being a superpower at some point I do believe it will end.  Bring that make to the current mess the US is in, it's hard for me to not believe that this is the beginning of the end.  Whether the "end" is 5 years or 50 years, or longer, I can't say but I truly believe that the US days are numbered.  

[vonfirmath]

2 minutes ago, cjzimmer1 said:

I'm going to take a risk here and throw my very Christian thoughts out and hope that non-believers don't throw too many tomatoes at me.  I'm not any great Bible scholars but the commentaries I've read all seem to agree that at the end there is no mention of the US.  China is there, Russia is there but the US is not.  As hard as it is for my brain to wrap around the idea of the US no longer being a superpower at some point I do believe it will end.  Bring that make to the current mess the US is in, it's hard for me to not believe that this is the beginning of the end.  Whether the "end" is 5 years or 50 years, or longer, I can't say but I truly believe that the US days are numbered.  

I've had the same thoughts.

When I was a kid I thought enough of the US was raptured to make us not a world power anymore. But as I've gotten older. Well. yes. We just cease to be relevant.

Edited September 24, 2020 by vonfirmath

[klmama]

1 minute ago, cjzimmer1 said:

I'm going to take a risk here and throw my very Christian thoughts out and hope that non-believers don't throw too many tomatoes at me.  I'm not any great Bible scholars but the commentaries I've read all seem to agree that at the end there is no mention of the US.  China is there, Russia is there but the US is not.   

????  I'd be curious to know what you are talking about.  I just finished Revelation and didn't see anything that implied "China" or "Russia."  

As for the whole confrontational attitude going on right now, it isn't new.  I'm older than many of you and have seen a lot of elections.  Every time, someone is convinced the whole world will end if the other side gets elected.  One side is devastated by election results while the other is relieved and can finally feel at peace.  Then it reverses and the first one is devastated and anxious.  It just reminds me that we aren't to put our faith in worldly rulers.  

3 minutes ago, cjzimmer1 said:

As hard as it is for my brain to wrap around the idea of the US no longer being a superpower at some point I do believe it will end. 

 

Why is this hard to believe?  The Story of the World is about the rise and fall of one superpower after another.  Every single one as fallen.  Some last longer than others, but they all fall.  I think advancing technology and communication hastens both the rise and the fall.  

[Home'scool]

Just my two cents but I think some of the unrest we are seeing is being stirred up (created?) by the media.

It used to be that you could catch the news in the morning or in the evening. And they just reported the news. Just the facts ma'am.

Now they have multiple stations running 24 hours. It's almost like watching a home shopping show. By the time they have spent 30 minutes explaining why some new useless gadget is the best thing you are on the phone buying it. It gets your riled up and bought in. 

The news knows the best way to get people to tune in is to have something bad or controversial. Or just plain stupid, but repeated over and over again.

I saw a clip of Trevor Noah reporting on President Trump. The President was quoting figures but screwed it up by saying something like "One trillion million thousand" or something like that. Well, that was at least 15 minutes of the show! With all that is going on they focus on flubs. Really?

Someone misspoke and the news makes it like that is an indication of incompetence by playing it over and over and reveling in it.

That's not just for the President either, they will do that with any candidate. But they have air time to fill. Lots and lots of it. 

Remember when Howard Dean was running for President and at one political stop he tried to rile up the crowd by yelling "Yeeeeaaah" but it came out screechy? The news played it over, and over, and over, and eventually his Presidential bid was over. Not because of ineptitude but because the media made fun and the sheep all listened. 

I remember early on in homeschooling watching the news with my children when they were reporting on a snowstorm. They were interviewing a commuter who was stuck on the highway due to the snow and the commuter said "This is the worst storm I have seen in 25 years!" - I remember pointing out to my girls that what that man said was his opinion, but because it is on the news it sounds like fact. Someone watching it will then call their neighbor and say "They said on the news it is the worst storm in 25 years!" and on and on.

[Moonhawk]

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

And, the president didn't mean he was going to start a violent insurrection or anything. He's not likely to concede on election day, just like the other side has said they are unlikely to do. No one actually believes this election is going to be solved on election day, so to start throwing one party under the bus is part of the problem that we have today. 

 

2 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

There is so very much of hypocrisy and fomenting more division on this thread I’d love to quote and point out, from some of the very people supposedly decrying it, but it’s not worth the headache.

Needless to say when you characterize your neighbor or random peaceful citizen as a fascist or a socialist because of policy preferences, and ignore the ones actually burning and looting and shooting cops or threatening violence over election results? There is a bigger blind spot here that can’t be addressed through someone else simply pointing it out.

I will add that, as obnoxious as I find our president, his current words about ‘accepting the election’ have been pretty blatantly misconstrued - it’s an idiotic question for either candidate, because there are numerous possible scenarios that have taken place and could do so again that would necessitate one or both candidates sit and wait for courts and recounts and possibly even new elector slates to clarify the election results. Only a moron would commit to a course of action NOW, without the actual tally and situation at hand being reality. It’s like fantasy football for overheated idiots to play with various scenarios and jump straight to “AND THE MILITARY WILL ENFORCE A DICTATORSHIP!!!!1!!one!1!” from a president who has been the slowest to jump to military action in my entire lifetime. And in a situation with as many unique and unpredictable variables as one barely-competent candidate and a sitting president who much of the country hates and the rest loves or tolerates, in a pandemic, with civil unrest and violence already happening.

Anyone who is doing more than sitting back, watching, and waiting to see the fallout before judging either side is being foolish and short sighted. This is complex, real people and lives are involved, and jumping to the absolute worst possible characterization of half the country or their chosen candidates is just making it WORSE.

I am a voter, not a fascist loving racist bigot. And you are a voter, not a socialist police hating baby killer. Before policing your neighbor, check your own thinking and motives and heart. Then sit the hell down and show some love to another person instead of adding to the polarization. Sheeeeeesh.

So, actually, I figured any media hype about the president not accepting results was just hype and I dismissed it outright. I was more concerned about some different "insider reports" about contingency plans depending on the results (both sides, btw). Generally though I've decided for my mental health and for the business's progress (which translates directly to the wellbeing of my kids) I can't look at political news much, so I hadn't looked much more into this.

Since you both brought it up I went to look at his particular remarks and (assumed) be outraged with you for the miscontruance.

Guys, I am now alarmed because what I just read (and saw, because I then went for the video to see if it just "read badly") is not a "misunderstanding" or a mischaracterization of what he said. The thing I saw wasn't about just election day at all, it was about the full results. That was a pretty blatant red flag to me.

I actually haven't decided how to cast my ballot yet, so I guess I need to start tuning in more thoroughly and checking things, not dismissing because it's too crazy or inflammatory to actually be true. 

This did not give me warm fuzzies. 

[Laura Corin]

4 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not in fear of a civil war.  Parts of our country are not going to leave it to form their own country.  

Civil war does not necessarily have secession as an aim. For example, the Chinese civil war of the early 20th century was a fight for power over the whole country. Taiwan's eventual self-government was not the aim of either of the combatant groups.

[lewelma]

32 minutes ago, frogger said:

I actually prefer locked drop boxes rather than mail- in.

DH dropped our ballots in the diplomatic pouch at the embassy yesterday.  He was not allowed inside the embassy, but was asked to watch as they bomb checked it, x-rayed it, and put it in the slot on a closed pouch. He said that they had to really push it in as so many Americans here in NZ had voted within 3 days of receiving the emailed ballots.  The diplomatic pouch gets priority on the planes, which is important because mail is taking up to 3 months to get to the USA at this point because so few planes are flying. DH went all around town looking for the proper sized envelope and was told by many store owners that other Americans were doing the same, and that some of them were paying up to $70 for certified mail to make sure that their ballot got there in time.

 

[Not_a_Number]

16 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

 

So, actually, I figured any media hype about the president not accepting results was just hype and I dismissed it outright. I was more concerned about some different "insider reports" about contingency plans depending on the results (both sides, btw). Generally though I've decided for my mental health and for the business's progress (which translates directly to the wellbeing of my kids) I can't look at political news much, so I hadn't looked much more into this.

Since you both brought it up I went to look at his particular remarks and (assumed) be outraged with you for the miscontruance.

Guys, I am now alarmed because what I just read (and saw, because I then went for the video to see if it just "read badly") is not a "misunderstanding" or a mischaracterization of what he said. The thing I saw wasn't about just election day at all, it was about the full results. That was a pretty blatant red flag to me.

I actually haven't decided how to cast my ballot yet, so I guess I need to start tuning in more thoroughly and checking things, not dismissing because it's too crazy or inflammatory to actually be true. 

This did not give me warm fuzzies. 

I generally haven't found the media to exaggerate his words that much, not because that's NEVER done, but because they tend to be... newsworthy enough verbatim. I've checked against videos a few times and that has been my impression. 

[historically accurate]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I generally haven't found the media to exaggerate his words that much, not because that's NEVER done, but because they tend to be... newsworthy enough verbatim. I've checked against videos a few times and that has been my impression. 

Yeah, no spin necessary on a quote like "Get rid of the ballots." 😢

I am very concerned as well about the state of the union. I don't know other than voting what anyone in general, and I in particular, can do about it. I feel like I'm in a speeding car heading into a crash with no way to put on the brakes. 

[Terabith]

This is what Dan Rather said last night about the president's words:  

There is no more time for silence. There is no more time for choosing party over country. There is no more time for weighing the lesser of two evils. All women and men of conscience must speak or they are complicit in America lurching towards a dangerous cliff of autocracy and chaos.

 

This is a moment of reckoning unlike any I have seen in my lifetime. I have seen this country in deep peril, as the hungry begged for sustenance during the Great Depression, as the Nazis marched across Europe and the Japanese across Asia, as missiles were moved into Cuba, as our political leaders were murdered, as a president ran a criminal conspiracy from the Oval Office, as planes were hijacked into skyscrapers. All of these were scary times, but through it all I never worried about a president actively undermining American democracy and inciting violence to do so - even Nixon, for all of his criminal activity.

 

What Donald Trump said today are the words of a dictator. To telegraph that he would consider becoming the first president in American history not to accept the peaceful transfer of power is not a throw-away line. It's not a joke. He doesn't joke. And it is not prospective. The words are already seeding a threat of violence and illegitimacy into our electoral process.

I suspect he is doing this because he feels he needs to. It is the same reason he sought dirt on Joe Biden, because he is deeply afraid of losing. Losing an election could mean losing in a court of law. It could mean prison time and ruin. But I suspect Trump's motives are more instinctual. He needs to hold on to power for the sake of power. He cannot lose, even if he has to cheat to win. Even if he has to blow up American democracy. He considers little if any about 200,000 plus deaths from COVID. Why would he care about our Constitution or Bill of Rights?

There is no sugarcoating the dangers and darkness we live in. But I remain heartened that the majority of Americans do not want this. Trump is in danger of losing states that he should be winning handily. Yes, his base is energized and numerous. But so is the opposition. I have seen opposition parties in foreign countries channel the morality of their causes to bring great change. And most of those opposition movements didn't have the strength, power, and resources of those who stand against Donald Trump.

 

Donald Trump has himself defined the stakes of the election. This is a battle for American democracy as we've known it. We are well past warning shots. Allies across the political spectrum are ringing alarm bells. Right now, all those seeking to defeat Donald Trump know winning a close election may not be enough. The size of a victory will likely matter. Failing that, what happens? I don't know. But I would say we all should try to remain steady. Try to conserve our energy for the battles ahead. Be committed to your community, your country, and your conscience. If enough Americans of decency and courage come together, the future of this nation can be better, fairer, and more just.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Terabith

The aftermath of the US Civil War had a profound impact on many.  Oliver Wendell Holmes, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Civil War veteran said "Certitude leads to violence".  I feel like we are in an age of too much certitude.

[Pawz4me]

6 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

Yeah, no spin necessary on a quote like "Get rid of the ballots." 😢

I am very concerned as well about the state of the union. I don't know other than voting what anyone in general, and I in particular, can do about it. I feel like I'm in a speeding car heading into a crash with no way to put on the brakes. 

It amazes me that so many still try to excuse what he says. I put the George Orwell quote in my signature line after the last election. I never really thought it would be so appropriate, though.

[Moonhawk]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

Yeah, Dan Rather isn't exactly non-partisan and a paragon of truth. 

I like how when Trump says he's not going to concede the election that he's a dictator, but when the other side says it, they're just trying to keep our democracy going and credible. 

I know you didn't reply to me. I have no particular view on Dan Rather, I'll have to look into his background since you mention it.

And yes, generally, when someone says they will not concede an election if they legitimately lose after ballot counts (not just election NIGHT), that is a dictatory thing to do. 

If you want me to get mad at "the other side", too, please give me a link where they say the same thing. These "insider comments" are vaguely interesting to me but a bit exclusionary. I'd accept either Pelosi or Biden (or I guess Harris) as the best sources to be equal grounds for outrage, not just twitter bots.

I don't care which side says it, let's call it out.

[Moonhawk]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I know you didn't reply to me. I have no particular view on Dan Rather, I'll have to look into his background since you mention it.

And yes, generally, when someone says they will not concede an election if they legitimately lose after ballot counts (not just election NIGHT), that is a dictatory thing to do. 

If you want me to get mad at "the other side", too, please give me a link where they say the same thing. These "insider comments" are vaguely interesting to me but a bit exclusionary. I'd accept either Pelosi or Biden (or I guess Harris) as the best sources to be equal grounds for outrage, not just twitter bots.

I don't care which side says it, let's call it out.

whoops, quoted instead of Edit:

here's my edit nw edited to this post

eta: I'm serious, all my Google found was a much more nuanced thing from Hillary Clinton about how Biden shouldn't concede until all the results are in. So I'd appreciate the links.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I like how when Trump says he's not going to concede the election that he's a dictator, but when the other side says it, they're just trying to keep our democracy going and credible. 

Which Democrat said they will not concede the election if they lose the vote? 

[Spy Car]

52 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I know you didn't reply to me. I have no particular view on Dan Rather, I'll have to look into his background since you mention it.

And yes, generally, when someone says they will not concede an election if they legitimately lose after ballot counts (not just election NIGHT), that is a dictatory thing to do. 

If you want me to get mad at "the other side", too, please give me a link where they say the same thing. These "insider comments" are vaguely interesting to me but a bit exclusionary. I'd accept either Pelosi or Biden (or I guess Harris) as the best sources to be equal grounds for outrage, not just twitter bots.

I don't care which side says it, let's call it out.

Dan Rather had a fine history as a broadcast news reporter and anchor. One of the best.

He got caught up in a hoax that mixed an actual bombshell story over how one (then) presidential candidate evaded military service with other materials where there was fraud perpetrated on the part of the source, which was inadequately fact-checked prior to being run by Rather on the air.

The whole thing blew up and Rather left CBS disgraced. 

One can decide for themselves whether one failure in an long and excellent news career make a person incredible (or not), but he did run with a story that had serious issues and falsehoods that were mixed with hard-facts. 

Bill

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Spy Car

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Anyone going into an armed conflict needs a certain amount of physical fitness to have any chance of surviving it or conquering the enemy. That's why the military has fitness standards, even during world wars.   Granted, being overweight isn't relevant to firing a gun accurately, but let's remember that being in battle is incredibly physically demanding in so very many ways.  Overweight people don't do well in physically demanding situations. They tend to need regular meds, something tough to get in war zones.  Yet I'm seeing middle aged guys with big guts going on about fighting civil war.

Not at all true.  You are conflating overweight with Obese and with Morbidly Obese.  Overweight is no more likely to be not physically fit than normal weight or low weight.  It all depends on their level of fitness.  

[Not_a_Number]

One of the fascinating things to watch has been the following cycle: 

(a) Trump says something alarming. 

(b) People who are opposed to him freak out and issue dire warnings. 

(c) Supporters of Trump point to (b) as evidence of the fact that their opponents are hysterical and opposed to the president no matter what he does. 

(d) Rinse and repeat. 

I am not sure what the way out of this is. I always figure it's people setting internal goalposts so they can TELL when their own values have been violated. Otherwise, people don't even notice their values shifting. But then people largely don't set internal goalposts so they just slide along with conventional wisdom. People are innately very social and tribal and easily affected by what other people around them say... (And by "people," I don't mean "those other guys." I mean myself as well.) 

I can't make anyone do this, of course, but I'd personally counsel people to think about what someone (doesn't have to be Trump!) would have to do before you decided they, say, were trying to undermine democracy, or being less provocative, trying to hold on to power without any particular reference to principles. Again, I'm not saying you should only check this against the current president. It's just a good idea to have an explicit idea of what your values ARE. 

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

There are legitimate concerns about mail in ballots, but there are also lots of advantages to them, and I would think that the advantages in a pandemic outweigh the disadvantages.  

We're definitely still in a pandemic.  Multiple countries are having widespread infection.  

I voted in the Municipal elections with an absentee ballot.  I am going to vote in person in Nov.  I do not like the whole comparing signatures.  I would rather go with fingerprints. I have RA and it affects my hands,  I have no idea if my signature is the same as it was in July or Aug 2011 when I registered but I do not want my vote thrown out because it changed.

[TravelingChris]

CA never counted military ballots in 16 and many other absentee ballots.  

[Sneezyone]

I don’t have a choice about voting absentee, neither does DH. It’d be nice if I could count on State elections officials to not be assholes about it and just count our votes.

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Not_a_number said:

Quoting from the article: 

 

"We know it’s a coup if the government:

- Stops counting votes;

- Declares someone a winner who didn’t get the most votes; or

- Allows someone to stay in power who didn’t win the election.

These are sensible red lines that people can grasp right away (and that the majority of Americans continue to believe in)." 

 

And here's the question: do we all agree on these? I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just wondering. 

CA stopped counting votes in 2016.  They are probably not the only state either.

[gaff]

6 hours ago, MEmama said:

It is positively surreal to watch a democracy slide into fascism. And that Americans are voting for it to happen. 
That is all.

honest question, what is your problem with fascism? and i don't mean your problems with 1930s germany. give me some specifics about the political philosophy of fascism that you have an issue with.

[SanDiegoMom]

When one side of the media reports, non-stop, on protesters, looters, cop-killers, and the other side focuses on police aggression and peaceful protesters, then how can ANYONE accurately state, with any real certainty,  that LOOTERS AND RIOTERS are out of control, or COPS ARE KILLING EVERYONE.  I am so very tired of hearing, first of all, of protestors being lumped with rioters and looters, and second of all, of very intelligent people not discerning that the media plays up what their viewers want and therefore distorts the magnitude. We all know this -- it happened with child abductions -- when the media started reporting them suddenly every parent was paranoid that their kids are going to be snatched off the street. Even as crime dropped and even as the largest percentage of abductions were done by someone familiar, not a stranger.  

And regarding the presidential transfer of power -- there is no other way to construe them.   This is the quote:

“A reporter this afternoon asked Trump if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election. "Well, we’re going to have to see what happens," Trump said. "You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster." He went on to say: "Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer frankly, there’ll be a continuation." 

HOW is that misconstrued? He's not talking about vote counts, he is talking about literally "continuing" as president regardless of the vote.   So outside the norm that Mitch Mconnell had to walk back his statement for him. 

 

 

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

This is what Dan Rather said last night about the president's words:  

There is no more time for silence. There is no more time for choosing party over country. There is no more time for weighing the lesser of two evils. All women and men of conscience must speak or they are complicit in America lurching towards a dangerous cliff of autocracy and chaos.

 

This is a moment of reckoning unlike any I have seen in my lifetime. I have seen this country in deep peril, as the hungry begged for sustenance during the Great Depression, as the Nazis marched across Europe and the Japanese across Asia, as missiles were moved into Cuba, as our political leaders were murdered, as a president ran a criminal conspiracy from the Oval Office, as planes were hijacked into skyscrapers. All of these were scary times, but through it all I never worried about a president actively undermining American democracy and inciting violence to do so - even Nixon, for all of his criminal activity.

 

What Donald Trump said today are the words of a dictator. To telegraph that he would consider becoming the first president in American history not to accept the peaceful transfer of power is not a throw-away line. It's not a joke. He doesn't joke. And it is not prospective. The words are already seeding a threat of violence and illegitimacy into our electoral process.

I suspect he is doing this because he feels he needs to. It is the same reason he sought dirt on Joe Biden, because he is deeply afraid of losing. Losing an election could mean losing in a court of law. It could mean prison time and ruin. But I suspect Trump's motives are more instinctual. He needs to hold on to power for the sake of power. He cannot lose, even if he has to cheat to win. Even if he has to blow up American democracy. He considers little if any about 200,000 plus deaths from COVID. Why would he care about our Constitution or Bill of Rights?

There is no sugarcoating the dangers and darkness we live in. But I remain heartened that the majority of Americans do not want this. Trump is in danger of losing states that he should be winning handily. Yes, his base is energized and numerous. But so is the opposition. I have seen opposition parties in foreign countries channel the morality of their causes to bring great change. And most of those opposition movements didn't have the strength, power, and resources of those who stand against Donald Trump.

 

Donald Trump has himself defined the stakes of the election. This is a battle for American democracy as we've known it. We are well past warning shots. Allies across the political spectrum are ringing alarm bells. Right now, all those seeking to defeat Donald Trump know winning a close election may not be enough. The size of a victory will likely matter. Failing that, what happens? I don't know. But I would say we all should try to remain steady. Try to conserve our energy for the battles ahead. Be committed to your community, your country, and your conscience. If enough Americans of decency and courage come together, the future of this nation can be better, fairer, and more just.

You people are nuts.  And Dan Rather is discredited,. He tried to throw an election and got kicked out of CBS news as a result.  His ballot remarks refer to the mass mail in ballots that no one requested and that are super suspect.  

We are having a regular election.  The only crazy rhetoric I am hearing is from the left about how they aren't going to accept an election, aren't going to accept grand juries, aren't going to accept Supreme Court decisions, etc.

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

CA stopped counting votes in 2016.  They are probably not the only state either.

In what context? As in, they had an overwhelming winner and counted most of the votes? 

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

You people are nuts.  And Dan Rather is discredited,. He tried to throw an election and got kicked out of CBS news as a result.  His ballot remarks refer to the mass mail in ballots that no one requested and that are super suspect.  

We are having a regular election.  The only crazy rhetoric I am hearing is from the left about how they aren't going to accept an election, aren't going to accept grand juries, aren't going to accept Supreme Court decisions, etc.

Great. I'm delighted to hear that we're having a regular election, because I want a regular election. So I assume that claims of voter fraud will not sway you? If Trump is winning on Election Night but stops the count as the Biden-skewed mail-in ballots come in, that'll be a problem for you?

I'm not trying to be paranoid. I would actually LOVE IT if we all agreed on that, because it's exactly that kind of shared value that keeps systems functioning. Democracy by itself is no answer. We've already seen this in former USSR republics... how many of them have what we think of as functioning democracies nowadays? For democracy to take, you need a citizenry that agrees on the rules of the game. 

[TravelingChris]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

In what context? As in, they had an overwhelming winner and counted most of the votes? 

Well that is what they claimed.  However, the problem is that not only do we vote for the President every four years, we are also voting for US reps every 2 years and all sorts of other offices and issues.  It is BS to stop counting votes.

[Not_a_Number]

14 minutes ago, gaff said:

honest question, what is your problem with fascism? and i don't mean your problems with 1930s germany. give me some specifics about the political philosophy of fascism that you have an issue with.

Why don't you define fascism for me and I'll give it a try.

[SanDiegoMom]

7 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

 

We are having a regular election.  The only crazy rhetoric I am hearing is from the left about how they aren't going to accept an election, aren't going to accept grand juries, aren't going to accept Supreme Court decisions, etc.

Links? Quotes? Because I am NOT hearing this.   

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

Well that is what they claimed.  However, the problem is that not only do we vote for the President every four years, we are also voting for US reps every 2 years and all sorts of other offices and issues.  It is BS to stop counting votes.

Were the other offices also obviously decided or not? I need some context here. 

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

You people are nuts.  And Dan Rather is discredited,. He tried to throw an election and got kicked out of CBS news as a result.  His ballot remarks refer to the mass mail in ballots that no one requested and that are super suspect.  

We are having a regular election.  The only crazy rhetoric I am hearing is from the left about how they aren't going to accept an election, aren't going to accept grand juries, aren't going to accept Supreme Court decisions, etc.

Can you provide a source for that? The only wide scale ballot fraud I'm aware of is what the Rs did in NC 9 last election.

[frogger]

15 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

One of the fascinating things to watch has been the following cycle: 

(a) Trump says something alarming. 

(b) People who are opposed to him freak out and issue dire warnings. 

(c) Supporters of Trump point to (b) as evidence of the fact that their opponents are hysterical and opposed to the president no matter what he does. 

(d) Rinse and repeat. 

I am not sure what the way out of this is. I always figure it's people setting internal goalposts so they can TELL when their own values have been violated. Otherwise, people don't even notice their values shifting. But then people largely don't set internal goalposts so they just slide along with conventional wisdom. People are innately very social and tribal and easily affected by what other people around them say... (And by "people," I don't mean "those other guys." I mean myself as well.) 

I can't make anyone do this, of course, but I'd personally counsel people to think about what someone (doesn't have to be Trump!) would have to do before you decided they, say, were trying to undermine democracy, or being less provocative, trying to hold on to power without any particular reference to principles. Again, I'm not saying you should only check this against the current president. It's just a good idea to have an explicit idea of what your values ARE. 

Trump issues a lot of statements that he back tracks on when he doesn't have the power to enforce. I really liked how Governors mostly ignored him when he said he would say when America opened. Sure, he fires a lot of people when  they try to explain reality to him. 

The media makes him out to be scary but often he looks to be a spoiled frat boy who appears increasingly senile and irrelevant. 

Top brass have spoken reminders that their duty is to the Constitution. 

Governors have at times ignored him. 

At times the Supreme Court has ruled against him. 

 

We are a nation of checks and balances. I hope they continue to do their job. 

 

[TravelingChris]

1 minute ago, Not_a_number said:

Great. I'm delighted to hear that we're having a regular election, because I want a regular election. So I assume that claims of voter fraud will not sway you? If Trump is winning on Election Night but stops the count as the Biden-skewed mail-in ballots come in, that'll be a problem for you?

I'm not trying to be paranoid. I would actually LOVE IT if we all agreed on that, because it's exactly that kind of shared value that keeps systems functioning. Democracy by itself is no answer. We've already seen this in former USSR republics... how many of them have what we think of as functioning democracies nowadays? For democracy to take, you need a citizenry that agrees on the rules of the game. 

Trump has no power over any vote or any counting.  All this is hysteria.  I don't know anyone preparing for a coup or a civil war.  What I do know is that plenty of people are very concerned about increasing lawlessness that arises out of nothing- a lot of times.  Like suddenly we see fires being set over some supposed injustice somewhere else long ago.  The fact that these often roving rioters are going around to different cities is causing a lot of concern.  It really has little to do with current politics except for Kamala Harris who contributes to a fund to get the rioters out of jail.  But locally, none of the Dems or Republicans are for rioters or for coups or civil wars.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

I am reading "the ballots" to mean the mail in ballots....because he's been all kinds of freaked out over the valitity of mail in ballots.  Do people think he meant all the ballots?  Was that clarified?

 I agree. But we're going to have a lot of mail-in ballots. Discounting them will mean he wins. 

[TravelingChris]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Were the other offices also obviously decided or not? I need some context here. 

I have no idea--- there are so many jurisdictions and offices in CA.  But as a former military absentee voter, I found it very distasteful.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Trump has no power over any vote or any counting.  All this is hysteria.  I don't know anyone preparing for a coup or a civil war.  What I do know is that plenty of people are very concerned about increasing lawlessness that arises out of nothing- a lot of times.  Like suddenly we see fires being set over some supposed injustice somewhere else long ago.  The fact that these often roving rioters are going around to different cities is causing a lot of concern.  It really has little to do with current politics except for Kamala Harris who contributes to a fund to get the rioters out of jail.  But locally, none of the Dems or Republicans are for rioters or for coups or civil wars.

He has no power, but state-level governments do, right? So you'd have a problem with them ceasing to count the ballots because of fraud concerns as the Biden-skewed ballots trickle in. 

Again, I would much rather this turns out to be hysteria. But we agree that this would be a problem? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

I have no idea--- there are so many jurisdictions and offices in CA.  But as a former military absentee voter, I found it very distasteful.

Ah, got it. If you link an article with more details, I'll be interested. California isn't always the most sensibly run state, lol. 

[TravelingChris]

7 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Can you provide a source for that? The only wide scale ballot fraud I'm aware of is what the Rs did in NC 9 last election.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=NY

I just chose NY,  You can go to the site and chose any state you want.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

But, I guess what I thought was that he was trying to prevent the mail in ballots in the first place.  I guess that's what I thought he meant.  (not that he's going to succeed with that....just that thought that was what he was pushing.)

Interesting. That'd be a more innocent interpretation, I agree. My personal take is he means both.