I don’t understand polarization to mean violence. Maybe there is something lost in translation here. — NOS4A2

In politics, polarization (or polarisation) refers to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Think of it as views and attitudes going to the opposite polar extremes without no middle ground.

So what's the problem?

Political parties move toward the poles and people increasingly distrust members of the other political party, it has become difficult for politicians to agree on a way forward. Congress is more likely to gridlock and find it difficult to pass legislation, while campaigns and partisan media can become more divisive.

So NOS4A2, you think that political views becoming more extreme, more apart, will help the representative democracy to function better?

In politics, polarization (or polarisation) refers to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Think of it as views and attitudes going to the opposite polar extremes without no middle ground.

So what's the problem?

The problem is polarization doesn’t necessarily beget, nor is it a one-to-one ratio with, violence. As you tried to show, a polarizing issue such as slavery can lead to a relatively bloodless repudiation of unjust treatment of other human beings (though we know that’s not the full story). But whether there is violence or not, we are so much the better for polarization in the cases of slavery, civil rights, because one side lost that argument. MLK, the abolitionists, were labelled extremist. They were right. Their opponents and the compromisers were wrong.

So NOS4A2, you think that political views becoming more extreme, more apart, will help the representative democracy to function better?

No, ssu, I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. There is no compromise when it comes to issues such as slavery and civil rights.

So Trump visits Kenosha and heads straight to a burned-out furniture store because money and material wealth are the center of his value system. Screw the people who died. Screw the issues behind the protests. All that matters is wealth and power.

But whether there is violence or not, we are so much the better for polarization in the cases of slavery, civil rights, because one side lost that argument. — NOS4A2

What the hell are you implying? You think that it's better that something like slavery is abolished ONLY AFTER A VICIOUS BLOODY CIVIL WAR?

I think it's far better when reforms can be done WITHOUT violence, without people getting killed, without extremist delusional and vitriolic opposite views taking over political discourse... and oh wait, that has been possible in many countries.

No, ssu, I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. — NOS4A2

Wrong. It's not.

What is normal the extremist views are exactly what they imply: extreme views only supported by a fringe of the voters. What is normal for democracies is for the TO WORK. People getting in to decide on the issues and if there isn't a consensus what to do or a majority that can win the argument, then a negotiated compromise is found. That's how representative democracies and republics ought to work. Extremists don't go for that, they don't compromise. For them it's win or die as the opposition is the enemy.

No.

That photo above works better than that famous "holding the bible" scene at Lafayette Park.

That's the issue. It's a great photo op.

What the hell are you implying? You think that it's better that something like slavery is abolished ONLY AFTER A VICIOUS BLOODY CIVIL WAR?

I think it's far better when reforms can be done WITHOUT violence, without people getting killed, without extremist delusional and vitriolic opposite views taking over political discourse... and oh wait, that has been possible in many countries.

No, that’s not what I’m “implying”. No need to reach for things I never said.

Wrong. It's not.

Wrong, it is. Opposition and exclusion occur in politics all the time. Only an open conflict of ideas and principles can produce any clarity, especially in a two-party system. Again, compromise cannot exist on some issues, and that’s why people like MLK reviled the moderate.

I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. — NOS4A2

It can also be used strategically as in populism to acquire power, or to ‘divide and conquer’ at a level above that.

Yet radical changes can happen through the democratic system without violence: giving universal voting rights to all men and later women, making land reform and giving land renters their own land etc. all radical departures from what has been before can be made without violence and made by politicians that aren't from the extreme fringes of the political spectrum.

In this thread are two seemingly contradictory themes: 1) that the current US Republican party is (in some senses) the same as the US Democrat party, and 2) that they're different.

The Republican party so-called is not the party it was. Republicans, so-called, are either what used to be Republicans but are now members of a party with the same name but that no longer, nor has for some time, represented their interests and beliefs and they have not yet figured that out. Or those old-style Republicans who did figure it out and are mostly now Democrats, they having discovered that the Democrat party can accommodate them and their beliefs.

There are at least two ways of accounting difference. One way, of course, is as just plain being different. Another more nuanced way is to regard the two as essentially the same but at different stages of evolution in their parts, as people are the same, but differ in their parts. In this latter case it could be argued that potentially they just are the same, but that for various reasons each differs from the other on the details of some issues. Until the 1960s I think the history showed a basic sameness, the anatomy of beliefs and reasoning being similar to a point of sameness, notwithstanding the virulence of some disagreements. This all very fuzzy and general.

A model of similarity could be a) that they are identical, or b) that they are connected on a number of continua and capable of moving along those lines until at some point occupying the same point as the other party, that party presumably having moved to some other point. I reject both.

I hold that the Democrat party in 2020 and since the 1960s has been increasingly and is now essentially different from the Republican party and that in substantive ways the two are not connected at all.

What I'm interested in is the argument that shows me wrong. That shows that right now the parties are essentially the same. I don't think there is one.

And I believe, subject to correction, that it would be an error to suppose that because of some similarities they are the same. An example: criticism of Trump's policy of separating and caging children is sometimes met with the argument that Obama did it. As argument this argument doesn't survive encounter with the facts.

I hold that the Democrat party in 2020 and since the 1960s has been increasingly and is now essentially different from the Republican party and that in substantive ways the two are not connected at all.

What I'm interested in is the argument that shows me wrong. — tim wood

What connects them is that they don't want any competition besides them. They can share the system very well.

Just to give one example, the US electoral system is a single-member district plurality system, a winner takes it all -system that gives the two major parties an advantage. The two parties wouldn't be in favour of a proportional representation system (like for example my country has with the D'Hondt method). And then there are obstacles like the following in Arizona, just to give an example:

If you are a Republican or Democrat, the two major parties in Arizona, you only need to collect about 6,000 valid signatures to appear on the ballot. Dare to be an independent, though, and the number is six times higher — around 37,000 valid petitions are necessary.

Getting 6,000 signatures than 37,000 is more easy, wouldn't you say?

The American people are going to stand back and watch as authoritarianism shatters what's left of their democracy. There is not enough education in America to realize what's happening. Americans worry about cancer when they get it, which is often too late, they will do the same when it comes to a dictator.

Trump encourages North Carolina residents to vote twice to test mail-in system

Ah yes, the President who complains about voter fraud suggests that voters try to commit voter fraud. Great idea. :roll:

Maybe I should try robbing a bank to test their security while I'm at it.

Isn't that incitement and therefore illegal?

Probably. But Trump and his administration can get away with committing crimes because Barr and the Republican majority in the Senate won't hold him accountable for anything because he's on their team.

The Attorney General doesn't know (or more likely, is pretending not to know) if it's illegal to try to vote twice.

Yet again Barr is showing that his primary purpose is to protect Trump, not to do his job properly.

Banana. Republic.

Josh Bernstein Melts Down Over Mail-In Voting

“The Democrat media complex is keeping COVID in the news cycle so that they can push for mail-in ballots instead of voting in person for the 2020 election,” Bernstein said. “Why would that be? Well, pretty simple: Because they have a dementia-riddled piece of crap scumbag, child predator and molester as their nominee, and they know that he doesn’t excite anybody, except maybe pedophiles and sick twisted individuals. … They know that they have no chance, zero chance of winning. There is only one way they can win and that is to steal it, because they’re all a bunch of soulless pieces of crap.”

“These people should have been aborted,” he continued. “These people are disgusting. I’m pro-life too, but man, I would have loved to have these people ripped apart. OK? These people are sick. They’re evil. They’re twisted. They’re Satanic. They are absolute dog shit.”

“This election is truly Trump or death,” Bernstein warned. “It is the death of your America. It is the death of your Second Amendment. It is the death of your right to speak freely, my right to speak freely. OK? Everything is on the line. My career, everything is on the line. Take this serious, please. I am begging you to take this serious.

Democrat derangement syndrome.

Twitterati are trying to say that verifying the tabulation of your vote, re-voting if necessary, is voting twice, as if it will count as two votes. They are blaming Trump for encouraging voter fraud when in fact he’s encouraging us to make sure our vote is counted. It’s hilarious too because they are now admitting the potential for fraud after months of claiming there was none.

In some states you can vote numerous times, for instance if one wants to change his vote. Of course, they only count as one vote.

Trump goaded them into adopting a desperate dumpster fire of a narrative.

Right. So Trump was worried about votes not being counted all that time and not voter fraud? The shapes you'll bend yourself into to defend the guy. :rofl:

Unfortunately, suggesting to check the tabulation by breaking the law is still incitement. Your invented reasons are totally irrelevant.

They are blaming Trump for encouraging voter fraud when in fact he’s encouraging us to make sure our vote is counted. — NOS4A2

I'll be sure to use that kind of excuse next time I try to rob a bank. "I'm not trying to steal money, I'm just testing the security system to make sure it works! I also told a bunch of my buddies to do the same but there's certainly nothing wrong with that right?"

It’s hilarious too because they are now admitting the potential for fraud after months of claiming there was none. — NOS4A2

Wait I thought the whole issue of fraud had to do with mail in voting exclusively? Also wasn't in person voting supposed to be secure? Why is Trump asking his supporters to vote multiple times and commit the fraud they are afraid of in order to "make sure their vote is counted" if in person voting is supposed to be "safe" (you know, apart from the pandemic and all that)?

It’s hilarious too because they are now admitting the potential for fraud after months of claiming there was none. — NOS4A2

How could anyone claim that there's no potential for it?

Trump goaded them into adopting a desperate dumpster fire of a narrative.

Rather, once again he's proved that he's the "Law & Order" president who's above the law and order.

As a matter of federal law the US offers provisional ballots. Depending on the state, if an absentee or mail-in vote does not arrive and is thus not counted, a voter can request a provisional ballot instead. None of this is illegal.

Can someone who requested an absentee ballot vote on Election Day?
State law dictates whether voters who were issued an absentee ballot are permitted to vote at a polling place on Election Day. In some cases, such as when the absentee ballot did not arrive and therefore was not counted, a provisional ballot may be available.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/lb-provisional-ballots.aspx

Track your ballot

Most states, with help from USPS, give your ballot a code. After you've requested it, you can go to the Secretary of State's website and see where you are in the process.

It looks sort of like ordering a pizza from Domino's and being able to see on your phone when it comes out of the oven. Or filing your taxes! The federal government notifies you about that, too.

But not all states offer this feature. And they're not all Southern states opposed to mail-in voting you might suspect. You might expect Texas to require an excuse for voting by mail and not offer a tracking system. But New York also requires an excuse and also does not track your ballot. Connecticut is an example of a Northeast state temporarily allowing absentee voting by mail, although they do not track your ballot.

If it doesn't arrive, you might want to head to your polling place and explore your options, which are probably filling out a provisional ballot.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15/politics/what-matters-august-14/index.html

“B-b-but muh banana republic”

No shame whatsoever, eh? :roll:

Yet again Barr is showing that his primary purpose is to protect Trump, not to do his job properly. — Michael

But in this administration, that is his job, to protect the President of the US from legal charges, indictments and from impeachment etc.

Unfortunately, suggesting to check the tabulation by breaking the law is still incitement. — Benkei

But Benkei, who could have known that? Nobody knew that.

But in this administration, that is his job, to protect the President of the US from legal charges, indictments and from impeachment etc.

The problem is Barr was right, Blitzer was wrong, the Twitter user was wrong, as were those who drank that Koop-aid.

Wasting my time

How could anyone claim that there's no potential for it?

The media have been saying for weeks that mass mail voting is completely safe and fraud free. Twitter and Facebook have censoring diverging opinions. Now suddenly, the narrative is that people can go and double-vote. Never say opinions dont change.

The media have been saying for weeks that mass mail voting is completely safe and fraud free. — Derukugi

No it hasn't. It has correctly reported that voter fraud of all kinds, let alone only mail-in fraud, is exceedingly rare. The Heritage Foundation has found 1,296 proven cases of voter fraud (of all kinds, not just mail-in fraud) going back to 1982. That's out of tens of billions of votes. And as explained by the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, "the State Board conducts audits after each election that check voter history against ballots cast and would detect if someone tries to vote more than once in an election. Because absentee ballots and early voting ballots are retrievable, if someone tries to get around the system, their ballot can be retrieved and not counted, so it will not affect the outcome of an election."

This claim that a mass availability of mail-in voting is going to lead to mass voter fraud and undermine the integrity of the election is propaganda, plain and simple.

Now suddenly, the narrative is that people can go and double-vote. — Derukugi

Everyone can try to double-vote, just as everyone can try to rob a bank or steal a car, but the overwhelming majority of people aren't criminals and/or that stupid, let alone able to succeed, and the President doesn't usually suggest that people try to rob a bank or steal a car to test their security.

The real problem is shutting down polling stations, wrongly purging voter rolls, and removing mail sorting machines.

Will 46 pardon or (karmicly appoint HRC to) prosecute 45 and his junta? :pray:

I prefer toetags all around to monogrammed orange jumpsuits.

:mask:

The real problem is shutting down polling stations, wrongly purging voter rolls, and removing mail sorting machines. — Michael

Yes, for many, organized voter suppression has become a serious election strategy.