Jump to content

Menu

I’m gravely concerned about the state of the Union


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I anticipate that, no matter your political stripe, most of us can probably agree that these are troubled times. From issues both small and large, I see a very concerning trend towards distrust and co

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

I'm with you. I am deeply concerned about the erosion of civil discourse and social norms.  The whole post-truth mentality on both the right and the left is truly frightening.  I am hoping that t

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

“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." 

Ok wait, I am confused.  I am not a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him last time and this time due to complications of our move I am unable to vote here.

But I think I am reading that completely differently than others.

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?

Also, "there'll be a continuation".....is that what people are taking to mean that he won't concede?  

I read the statement as meaning....'get rid of the mail in ballots and we won't have to worry about a transfer of power because I will win."   Is that not what was meant?  Was that clarified?

 

If that's too political for this forum, feel free to delete it, it's not really something I am terribly invested in debating.  I just think I have read the statement completely differently than others and am trying to figure out if it was clarified somewhere so I can correct my reading of it if I was wrong.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

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

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.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

Please see my above statement on media magnifying the extent of these occurrences. Do we have hard numbers, or do we have scenes of chaos being played over and over in the media? It reminds me of someone in my family that was seriously on high alert because she was afraid of jihad.  And yet the actual threat was close to zero and it had just been hyped up all the time in the media. Where has all the fear of jihad gone? It just kinda...slipped away. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gaff said:

it is an honest question, i am not trying to play rhetorical games. 

Neither am I. I'm not interested in debating your definitions, so if you tell me what you mean by fascism, I'll tell you why I don't like it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Not_a_number said:

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

I have never heard of the term "continuation" of power.  Only winning a reelection.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok wait, I am confused.  I am not a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him last time and this time due to complications of our move I am unable to vote here.

But I think I am reading that completely differently than others.

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?

Also, "there'll be a continuation".....is that what people are taking to mean that he won't concede?  

I read the statement as meaning....'get rid of the mail in ballots and we won't have to worry about a transfer of power because I will win."   Is that not what was meant?  Was that clarified?

 

If that's too political for this forum, feel free to delete it, it's not really something I am terribly invested in debating.  I just think I have read the statement completely differently than others and am trying to figure out if it was clarified somewhere so I can correct my reading of it if I was wrong.  

I understood it to mean mass mail in ballots that were instituted without purging of people who have moved, died, etc.  Not the established ones like in WA and not absentee ones.  Also I believe he meant he is going to win.  The question asked will you transfer power if you win, tie or lose?  If he wins, he doesn't transfer power.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TravelingChris said:

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

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

????

One or two fraudulent votes per election? That's quite literally nothing. Oh wait, 2016 was apparently a banner year. Four whole votes in the entire state of NY. And that appears to cover ALL types of voter fraud.

Your link just proved that it's not a problem.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

That has been changing, especially since the '08 crash and is continuing at a more rapid pace.  I live in the second largest R&D city with the largest percentage of PhDs and we are red.  But there are many other red places with well educated people too.  Number one R&D is in a mostly red state too.

I'm not sure I'd call Madison County "red."  If you look at the % who vote straight party, you'll see 46% voted Dem. While Hillary did poorly here, there were a lot of votes for Jill Stein and and Gary Johnson. I think Madison County is quite diverse, and not strongly affiliated with either party. I wouldn't be shocked to see a slight edge to Biden this election. 

I do think that we are at an inflection point and on the brink. There is rule of the majority by a minority (if you look purely at numbers, i.e. the majority of voters are Dems, but GOP has majority Senate. Also Rep. senators represent a minority of the country, yet control a majority of the senate). There is a very real possibility of a contested election, with no one conceding and no one accepting the determination of the Supreme Court. My prediction? The military won't allow the presidency to go to Pelosi, and instead will step in and enforce... something. Whether it's the decision of the popular vote, electoral college or the supreme court is an open question. There will be massive protests on either side, and martial law imposed. There will be violence and chaos. 

I think the only way to avoid this very likely scenario is for one candidate or the other to win with absolutely overwhelming, undeniable majorities both in the popular and electoral votes. That would require more people voting than ever have, and unfortunately most folks just don't care. So, I recommend preparing (food, water, supplies, cash).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

David French, a non-Trumpian conservative writer, has published a few thoughtful pieces on these topics recently:

The Hate at the Heart of Conspiracy Theory

Yes, America Could Split Apart

On one hand, I see division and polarization and demonization and duhumanization and people seemingly SO INVESTED in their "side." It's exhausting and, yes, a little scary to think there's no way this season ends well without a serious change of heart and discourse. As others have pointed out, some areas of our country already feel much like a civil war. 

On the other hand, when I turn off the news, log off from social media, and turn to my real-life neighbors and friends, I'm heartened. We can (and do) disagree about a lot of things--IMPORTANT things--but we still like each other, we're still there for each other, we still want to see each other thrive.

Not an answer to the question, but I am finding comfort and rest in spending most of my time away from any screen that's trying to fill me with contempt, anger, fear, and lies. (And let's be honest, that's pretty much every news channel and every social media feed these days.)   

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

????

One or two fraudulent votes per election? That's quite literally nothing. Oh wait, 2016 was apparently a banner year. Four whole votes in the entire state of NY. And that appears to cover ALL types of voter fraud.

Your link just proved that it's not a problem.

I think the best argument I've heard about voter fraud of this kind is that it's stupid. It's not an effective way to win an election. It's MUCH better to gerrymander or to make sure there are more polling stations in areas friendlier to you or to get endorsements from influential people who can skew the vote in their church/synagogue/whatever. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lauraw4321 said:

The military won't allow the presidency to go to Pelosi, and instead will step in and enforce... something.

I'm confused by this. Why would the presidency go to Pelosi in the first place, and second, you think the military will act independently instigate its own coup? What would make you expect that?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Eh, I won't quibble over that. 

What I think is it is that type of language -- imprecise and not conventional -- that creates the opening to push farther away from the norms.  But with enough cover to retreat and say "oh that's not what I meant".  Dems are just being hysterical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

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? 

I have a problem with anyone not counting ballots.  I have lived in a place where my voting district ballots were mysteriously misplaced until found the next day and there were a lot of errors in that election (NM).  

The way ballot counting is done is without the counters knowing who voted how.  I don't see how anyone would know who is voting which way and be able to discount ballots because of that.   As it is, in the NYC primary,, 25% of the ballots weren't counted and I don't think NYC is a hotbed of Republicans denying Dems the vote.  This was Dems denying Dems.  In fact, i in my state, the only instance of probably voter fraud occured in a Dem v Dem race with 300 ballots being registered at a single house, etc.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PeachyDoodle said:

I'm confused by this. Why would the presidency go to Pelosi in the first place, and second, you think the military will act independently instigate its own coup? What would make you expect that?

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion over what would or could happen if a candidate wasn't certified. One interpretation of the relevant parts of the Constitution seems to indicate that the speaker of the house would become the acting president, at least temporarily until things were sorted out.

The military brass have made it clear that interfering in elections (or the aftermath) isn't in their job description.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I have a problem with anyone not counting ballots.  I have lived in a place where my voting district ballots were mysteriously misplaced until found the next day and there were a lot of errors in that election (NM).  

The way ballot counting is done is without the counters knowing who voted how.  I don't see how anyone would know who is voting which way and be able to discount ballots because of that.   As it is, in the NYC primary,, 25% of the ballots weren't counted and I don't think NYC is a hotbed of Republicans denying Dems the vote.  This was Dems denying Dems.  In fact, i in my state, the only instance of probably voter fraud occured in a Dem v Dem race with 300 ballots being registered at a single house, etc.

Great. So if ballot counts stop before the mail-in ballots are in, we're in agreement that this would be a bad thing 🙂 . 

And hopefully there are enough Americans who would find that outrageous that it won't happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion over what would or could happen if a candidate wasn't certified. One interpretation of the relevant parts of the Constitution seems to indicate that the speaker of the house would become the acting president, at least temporarily until things were sorted out.

The military brass have made it clear that interfering in elections (or the aftermath) isn't in their job description.

Thanks. I haven't heard that interpretation, although I could see the speaker stepping in temporarily as a stop-gap measure should things not be sorted out by Jan 20. 

My understanding is that if the electoral college fails to elect a president, the responsibility falls to the House itself, not the speaker and that the deadline for that should come before Jan 20. But I could be wrong.

Either way, I agree with you that the military is not going to interfere with anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pawz4me said:

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion over what would or could happen if a candidate wasn't certified. One interpretation of the relevant parts of the Constitution seems to indicate that the speaker of the house would become the acting president, at least temporarily until things were sorted out.

The military brass have made it clear that interfering in elections (or the aftermath) isn't in their job description.

It could go to Pelosi because there would be no president or VP. All we have are people agreeing to play by the rules. And neither side trusts that the other does/can/will. So...? I foresee chaos. And probably 4 more years of Trump and horrible disruptions to society as a result.

No military leader would ever say publicly or on the record anywhere that they would have a role in the transfer of power because under the constitution they clearly DON'T. But imagine that there is truly no winner similar to Gore v. Bush and neither candidate concedes and both claims to be the winner. Do you think the military would really just sit back and let pandemonium ensue?  No, governors would call in national guard and there would be martial law until some kind of back room deal is brokered. And there will be terrible economic and social disruption in the meantime.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

It is this sort of behavior, or Reza’s lovely comments about burning things down, for example, that are very frustrating to this particular woman. Because at the end of the day the right defends and supports the constitution and orderly government as a basic ethos and modus operandi, and if you think people like me wouldn’t be lining up to throw a dictator from EITHER side of the aisle out of office with our not inconsiderable firepower, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what animates the other side of the country.

Great. I'm genuinely, honestly glad you feel that way. Because if everyone agrees with you, regardless of the side of the aisle, we're fine. 

Now, here's the million dollar question. What does it MEAN for someone to be a dictator? What are your lines that must not be crossed. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hjffkj said:

I think the contempt has always been there.  For many reasons, people are more comfortable allowing it to show through.  Social media certainly plays a hand at that.  The other reason I can't mention because they are too political.   But with regard to social media, I really think things seem worse because we are seeing it more than before with our own eyes not because it is happening significantly more.  Everyone has a camera on their phone so when things happen they get recorded and added to social media.  Previously, every single account couldn't be spread nationally the way today we can literally see it all with the sswipe of a finger.

Of course social media has also fed those people who have longed for an audience.  But I don't think those people were hiding in the shadows before.  Thier voices were just more quiet because their audience was smaller.

You could be right, I don't know.   I do think that things like religion have become far more entwined with politics, for example, and that has fueled things differently than in the past.  And in my parents' generation (they're both in their early 90's), they've said that they usually didn't even know their neighbor's or their colleague's or sometimes even their friends' political party.   So, they wouldn't have even had that type of contempt that we have nowadays.  Maybe they had it for different reasons though.  Perhaps contempt just focuses on different things in different generations?  And sometimes it's easier to remain outside of it and doesn't seem to involve the entire country.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lauraw4321 said:

 

No military leader would ever say publicly or on the record anywhere that they would have a role in the transfer of power because under the constitution they clearly DON'T. But imagine that there is truly no winner similar to Gore v. Bush and neither candidate concedes and both claims to be the winner. Do you think the military would really just sit back and let pandemonium ensue?  No, governors would call in national guard and there would be martial law until some kind of back room deal is brokered. And there will be terrible economic and social disruption in the meantime.

 Even in this event (which IMO isn't likely at all) there's no credible reason to assume the military would back Trump. His current polling with them is . . . not good.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I'm not sure I'd call Madison County "red."  If you look at the % who vote straight party, you'll see 46% voted Dem. While Hillary did poorly here, there were a lot of votes for Jill Stein and and Gary Johnson. I think Madison County is quite diverse, and not strongly affiliated with either party. I wouldn't be shocked to see a slight edge to Biden this election. 

I do think that we are at an inflection point and on the brink. There is rule of the majority by a minority (if you look purely at numbers, i.e. the majority of voters are Dems, but GOP has majority Senate. Also Rep. senators represent a minority of the country, yet control a majority of the senate). There is a very real possibility of a contested election, with no one conceding and no one accepting the determination of the Supreme Court. My prediction? The military won't allow the presidency to go to Pelosi, and instead will step in and enforce... something. Whether it's the decision of the popular vote, electoral college or the supreme court is an open question. There will be massive protests on either side, and martial law imposed. There will be violence and chaos. 

I think the only way to avoid this very likely scenario is for one candidate or the other to win with absolutely overwhelming, undeniable majorities both in the popular and electoral votes. That would require more people voting than ever have, and unfortunately most folks just don't care. So, I recommend preparing (food, water, supplies, cash).

I am not sure what your point is about Madison County.  There were not a lot of votes for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson here.  Madison County has no one even running as a Dem in any local races at all.  This is not a hotbed of Dems.  Yes, this area is not typical Republican but it sure is Republican.  Most Republicans just don't vote straight ticket but that doesn't mean we don't vote Republican.  I don't think I have ever checked the straight party box in any election.   And I don't even know where you are getting the idea that the majority is Dem in the country.  It is evenly split with a sizeable group not identifying as either.  That is why the elections have been so close.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Promises to protest if the president wins outright, and promises to burn things down even more, is also not doing anything but pissing people off and making them scared. And do you really honestly hear that same sentiment from the voters backing Trump? That if Biden won they’d burn down Main Street and back him in assuming power regardless of the votes. No, because that isn’t what your average boring Republican does in response to changes in power, and even if Trump wanted to he knows his support is contingent upon honoring those basic foundational values and NOT being a dictator. He only has the support he has now precisely because he talks trash and blathers on but his actual record, along with the senate, is one the voters have been happy enough with to want him in longer.

Domestic terrorism isn't restricted to either party.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Read Aslan to Hillary Clinton to Don Lemon to Jonathan Chait and numerous elected and currently serving members of the house, along with several senators. 

Link a specific one? Then we can have a substantive discussion. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pawz4me said:

 Even in this event (which IMO isn't likely at all) there's no credible reason to assume the military would back Trump. His current polling with them is . . . not good.

Exactly. There is a lot of assumption in this argument that the military is monolithic in its political views, which it is not. And most military members I know, while they certainly have their own political viewpoints, feel their duty first and foremost to the country and the constitution and would be hesitant at best to act on orders to serve a person who was not duly elected, regardless of party.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Since you like "polarization" (LOL), let me say that I disagree entirely.

The problem of our age is the rise of "populism," a type of political movement that rests on dividing societies in two, fomenting rage and creating divisions for the political benefit of demagogues.

Liberal democracies require a citizenry that relies on reason to guide their decision making. Honest people can (and do) reach different positions depending on where their reasoning leads them, but reasonable people can find accommodations and compromises.

Rage is the enemy of reason. And fueling rage is intrinsic to populism. Political irrationality has brought our nation to where we are at this moment.

It's a damn shame IMO. 

Bill

 

 

 

 

You've been going on and on about this for 4 years. Populism is a natural result of a deeply unequal society. Rage is also the natural result of inequality and injustice. 

Why haven't reasonable people who followed the "norms," i.e. said the right things that made everybody feel good, addressed the injustice and inequality? 

And your "LOL," is such a perfect example of who you are. 

Your whole "reasonable people" thing means you and people who agree with you. That's always the trap of "reasonable people." Who's reasonable? Let me guess - people who think like you, talk like you, etc. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Neither am I. I'm not interested in debating your definitions, so if you tell me what you mean by fascism, I'll tell you why I don't like it. 

why do you think i want a debate, about definitions or otherwise? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Your whole "reasonable people" thing means you and people who agree with you. That's always the trap of "reasonable people." Who's reasonable? Let me guess - people who think like you, talk like you, etc. 

Well, always, right? Most of us that "reasonable" requires people to think somewhat like us. The question is only how strict those boundaries are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I am not sure what your point is about Madison County.  There were not a lot of votes for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson here.  Madison County has no one even running as a Dem in any local races at all.  This is not a hotbed of Dems.  Yes, this area is not typical Republican but it sure is Republican.  Most Republicans just don't vote straight ticket but that doesn't mean we don't vote Republican.  I don't think I have ever checked the straight party box in any election.   And I don't even know where you are getting the idea that the majority is Dem in the country.  It is evenly split with a sizeable group not identifying as either.  That is why the elections have been so close.  

The reasons there are no dems running locally (I also live in Madison County) has a lot more to do with the wretched state of the Alabama democratic party.

And you're simply incorrect regarding the number of democrats vs. republicans. From wikipedia: As of May 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republican, and 40% as Independent.[3] Additionally, polling showed that 50% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 38% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners" when Independents are asked "do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"[3]

The reason presidential and other elections are close are because of a) electoral college (I assume you agree that Hillary won the popular vote) and b) gerrymandering.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

Exactly. There is a lot of assumption in this argument that the military is monolithic in its political views, which it is not. And most military members I know, while they certainly have their own political viewpoints, feel their duty first and foremost to the country and the constitution and would be hesitant at best to act on orders to serve a person who was not duly elected, regardless of party.

The reason I think Trump would continue in power isn't because I think that's the military's choice, but rather because I think the democrats would be the first to back down in a truly contested election. (But that's probably my bias talking).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lauraw4321 said:

The reason I think Trump would continue in power isn't because I think that's the military's choice, but rather because I think the democrats would be the first to back down in a truly contested election. (But that's probably my bias talking).

Yeah, probably. 

I don't see what dems backing down first has to do with the military supporting any candidate though. But I guess I'm just not following your line of thought. I completely disagree that the military will take sides in any way, shape, or form here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

 

Promises to protest if the president wins outright, and promises to burn things down even more, is also not doing anything but pissing people off and making them scared. And do you really honestly hear that same sentiment from the voters backing Trump? That if Biden won they’d burn down Main Street and back him in assuming power regardless of the votes. No, because that isn’t what your average boring Republican does in response to changes in power, and even if Trump wanted to he knows his support is contingent upon honoring those basic foundational values and NOT being a dictator. He only has the support he has now precisely because he talks trash and blathers on but his actual record, along with the senate, is one the voters have been happy enough with to want him in longer.

 

We have a deeply unequal society where the vast majority of us are losers with downward mobility. It pushes people to the edge. So there are voices, on both sides, who threaten violence. 

Like I wrote earlier, it's a natural reaction to an unequal system. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "continuation" came directly from Trump's mouth yesterday.  

A bipartisan group gathered this summer to role play the election and period up through the inauguration, running many different scenarios to figure out where issues could come into play.  

They had trouble finding scenarios in which society did not break down into at the least, massive civil unrest, and at worst civil war.  

They eventually abandoned the attempt, because they NEVER GOT TO AN INAUGURATION, no matter who won, no matter how the voting went.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/?fbclid=IwAR1kESsnWstd5oabEDnJ02SsA9IOhc_RMYL3BqhgCI11t61aEJvN4RG-XeI

Edited by Terabith
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bagels McGruffikin said:

It’s not. If you’re looking at the current damage, injuries, arrests, and shootings... I could clip six hours of footage and articles worth of perusal rather quickly. And about 2% of it would fall into the right wing voter perpetrating unprovoked violence and property damage category. And I have no tolerance for that on my side, and no interest in minimizing it.

I don't think clipping articles is the right way to do statistics, though. And I'm not sure people who are looting at protests are anything in particular, politically. They are using the protests as cover. I have zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. 

This is an interesting question... how would we quantify this? What counts as political violence? 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...