I still believe that the many Americans believe in their Republic can get over an election — ssu

I agree many Americans still believe it. They even believe that what Trump is now evidently trying to do is impossible to achieve, that the Republic cannot fall, that this is the kind of things that happens elsewhere but not in the USA.

We are about to find out if this trust is well placed. I hope they are right, to be clear.

You're just making noises with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

Now that's a good example of a lie. Or is it the truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends upon your explanation of what makes a noise or scribble a word, rather than just a noise or scribble.

Also the stock market rose upon the news of a divided and thus ineffectual congress. Really tells you about the class divides in the country when the rich find the poor not getting stimulus "acceptable".

Senator Graham's announcement that there will be no more Republican presidents if they back down from this fight is a call out for civil war as States that lean red will have no reason to remain part of the Union. Of course the only winners of another American Civil War will be Russia, China, and the U.S. military industrial complex.

There is a way to make sure there aren't any more Republican president's without a Civil War. That would be to abolish all political parties, including Democrats.

If you look at right wing media, they're more or less openly discussing the strategy.

Deligitimize the result in key states, prevent them from certifying their results in time or, if republican controlled, send in competing electors, then vote Trump in via the house.

Trump is then in a position to use the police and military to quell the inevitable massive unrest.

But it'd be a huge gamble, and massively destabilising to the country. So again they might not do anything other than sow doubts this time around.

Or do you think that all Biden voters believe that Trump is the new Hitler? — ssu

No, Hitler didn't play several rounds of golf while staging a coup. Say what you like about the Fuhrer, he made an effort.

But it'd be a huge gamble, and massively destabilising to the country. So again they might not do anything other than sow doubts this time around. — Echarmion

We can all agree that the last thing you mentioned the Republicans are indeed doing.

It's one thing that Trump will never give that concession speech to Biden. Another thing that he will go on with a coup and it being successful. The Trumpists do need the "smoking gun" for election fraud, Trump tweeting of huge election fraud isn't enough.

Of course the possibility of the worst outcome is there, even if it's unlikely. I still think the most likeliest issue is a Trumpian mess, the biggest one, lots of confusion and some rioting between the most devoted Trump supporters and the most devoted haters of him. Luckily most of this activity happens online, not on the streets.

We are about to find out if this trust is well placed. I hope they are right, to be clear. — Olivier5

I urge people not to lose faith on your fellow citizens. Even if they can be annoying at times.

No, Hitler didn't play several rounds of golf while staging a coup. Say what you like about the Fuhrer, he made an effort. — Kenosha Kid

Yep. He had a mission which he clearly stated.

What Trump wants is his devoted fans, media limelight and income after his term. What he lacks is dedication and firm determination to truly go full dictator and stage a coup. Because then he would have to do more than bitch and tweet. Just look at the wall, btw. Was it finished?

But it'd be a huge gamble, and massively destabilising to the country. So again they might not do anything other than sow doubts this time around.

Yes, he is a wacko though, so who knows.

the confidence of the whole people [...] divided between exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed. There is no unity to be found with kleptocrats and oligarchs. — StreetlightX

While the government is divided between those who openly back the exploiters, oppressors, kleptocrats, and oligarchs, and those who at least give lip service to the oppressed and exploited — and the people are divided between who supports one of those sides or the other — the people in general are not divided into oppressors and and oppressed: they are almost all oppressed.

Winning the confidence of the poor struggling white men etc who make up Trump’s base is important to do, just so long as it isn’t done by conceding to the rich white men in the Republican party who are exploiting them and everyone else.

Deligitimize the result in key states, prevent them from certifying their results in time or, if republican controlled, send in competing electors, then vote Trump in via the house. — Echarmion

Sounds exactly like what the Dems would be doing if the roles were reversed. Just like the Supreme Court vacancy fiascos at the end if the Obama and Trump administrations where the Reps and Dems reversed roles, one claiming we should wait until after the election while the other said that the president gets to select a new judge.

Its so predictable what each side will do and say in every situation that it has become boring. And the contradictions are such that neither side actually says or does anything different. You all are just a gaggle of automatons that keep voting for same BS. There is no difference between Reps and Dems when they both adopt the others position when the roles are reversed. The fact that you all are unable, or unwilling, to see it just exposes how insignificant the truth actually is to you.

We just might have the same situation in 4 years with the roles reversed and then the democrats are going to be doing the same thing as the republicans are doing right now while conveniently forgetting everything that they said four years prior.

Its amazing how people blind themselves to the simple fact of a two-party system of government, where one party reverses the "progress" made by the other when they are in power. In a two party system of govt., progress isn't one party gets what they want, because that will just be reversed by the other party. Progress in a two-party system is when both parties work together so that everyone gets what they want. The only problem is when both parties don't represent certain citizens, which just means that they don't get what they want. This is why we need alternative choices with new ideas to bring to the mix. Its just that the media is controlling what ideas you have access to.

There is no difference between Reps and Dems when they both adopt the others position when the roles are reversed. — Harry Hindu

The difference is that here, the Republicans could possibly pull it out and keep the White House.

Should any of this lead to riots, another difference is that Trump can rely on thousands of neo-Nazi sympathizers to unleash hell onto peaceful demonstrators. These violent cretins have had wet dreams for years about the Day of the Rope. Yes their dream is to hang all people of color, all white women who ever had biracial sex, as well as all politicians, journalists and intellectuals.

These guys are planning a “Million MAGA March” to “Stop the Steal” this coming Saturday in Washington DC. Let's see how many show up.

Just like the Supreme Court vacancy fiascos at the end if the Obama and Trump administrations where the Reps and Dems reversed roles, one claiming we should wait until after the election while the other said that the president gets to select a new judge. — Harry Hindu

The problem with the SC vacancies issue is hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans. Normal procedure was that when a justice dies the president appoints a new one modulo Senate confirmation. With the late vacancy under Obama the Republican-controlled Senate flatly refused to even consider any confirmation, on the grounds that it was "too close to the election". It was bad enough to break with normal procedure to do that, but with that new precedent established, they should then have done the same with the late vacancy under Trump, and Democrats calling for them to stick to the new procedure that the Republicans just established four years earlier is not hypocritical with the Democrats' earlier opposition to establishing that new procedure. Both times, the Democrats were saying "don't break established procedure just to benefit yourselves". But the Republicans did break the procedure, once in one direction and then later in the opposite direction, contradicting their own earlier arguments, for their own benefits. THAT is hypocrisy.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats as any kind of paragons of virtue, both parties are FUBAR, but that doesn't mean they're both equally bad. "They're all equally bad, there is no difference" is just a lazy way of avoiding having to figure out which is better or worse, every bit as lazy as "my position is right because it just is because it's mine now shut up you're a bad wrong person".

(Hey look, it's my principles against "nihilism" and "fideism" showing up in an unexpected place, again).

WASHINGTON – The members of Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Assistant Director Bob Kolasky, U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair Benjamin Hovland, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) President Maggie Toulouse Oliver, National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) President Lori Augino, and Escambia County (Florida) Supervisor of Elections David Stafford – and the members of the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) – Chair Brian Hancock (Unisyn Voting Solutions), Vice Chair Sam Derheimer (Hart InterCivic), Chris Wlaschin (Election Systems & Software), Ericka Haas (Electronic Registration Information Center), and Maria Bianchi (Democracy Works) - released the following statement:

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

“Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.

“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”

Bolds added.


https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election

tl;dr. "Fuck Trump".

Its amazing how people blind themselves to the simple fact of a two-party system of government, where one party reverses the "progress" made by the other when they are in power. In a two party system of govt., progress isn't one party gets what they want, because that will just be reversed by the other party. Progress in a two-party system is when both parties work together so that everyone gets what they want. The only problem is when both parties don't represent certain citizens, which just means that they don't get what they want. This is why we need alternative choices with new ideas to bring to the mix. Its just that the media is controlling what ideas you have access to. — Harry Hindu

Unfortunately two party politics are pretty much inevitable in a first past the post system of voting. Gotta switch to something like alternative vote, ranked choice, proportial representation, etc. if you want more than two parties.

Should any of this lead to riots, another difference is that Trump can rely on thousands of neo-Nazi sympathizers to unleash hell onto peaceful demonstrators. These violent cretins have had wet dreams for years about the Day of the Rope. Yes their dream is to hang all people of color, all white women who ever had biracial sex, as well as all politicians, journalists and intellectuals. — Olivier5

This is a great example of how emotions cloud your judgment, and the power propaganda has on weak minds.

The problem with the SC vacancies issue is hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans. Normal procedure was that when a justice dies the president appoints a new one modulo Senate confirmation. With the late vacancy under Obama the Republican-controlled Senate flatly refused to even consider any confirmation, on the grounds that it was "too close to the election". — Pfhorrest

The Dems made the exact same argument when Trump had a vacancy to fill. The only difference was that the Reps had control of the Senate. So it seems clear to me that had the Dems had control of the Senate they would have flatly refused to consider any confirmation.

and Democrats calling for them to stick to the new procedure that the Republicans just established four years earlier — Pfhorrest

Thats not the argument they made. The precedent is in the Constitution. It says, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats as any kind of paragons of virtue, both parties are FUBAR, but that doesn't mean they're both equally bad. "They're all equally bad, there is no difference" is just a lazy way of avoiding having to figure out which is better or worse, every bit as lazy as "my position is right because it just is because it's mine now shut up you're a bad wrong person".

(Hey look, it's my principles against "nihilism" and "fideism" showing up in an unexpected place, again). — Pfhorrest

The only problem is that I'm not a nihilist nor do I adopt fideism, nor does anything I've said support such ideas, so your experiencing your delusions of grandeur again.

Your problem is that you think there are only two choices. Those that can only think in black and white terms are the lazy thinkers.

Unfortunately two party politics are pretty much inevitable in a first past the post system of voting. Gotta switch to something like alternative vote, ranked choice, proportial representation, etc. if you want more than two parties. — Michael

I'm not really advocating for more than two parties, although that might be better than what we have now. I'm saying that we should abolish political parties altogether.

I never said it would be easy. I was thinking more of like a run-off. We would replace the primaries with a preliminary election to eliminate most of the candidates so that in the final election there are only two or three candidates.

This is a great example of how emotions cloud your judgment, and the power propaganda has on weak minds. — Harry Hindu

I suppose Timothy Mcveigh was a weak mind, then. Or perhaps his victims?

The Dems made the exact same argument when Trump had a vacancy to fill. The only difference was that the Reps had control of the Senate. — Harry Hindu

The difference is that the Reps had already established a principle about “too close to the election” that had denied the Dems their rightful appointment, so the Reps then denying their own principle was a naked power grab.

You have to consider the two events together. If the Dems had been that hypocritical I would be just as critical of them, but I really don’t think they would have been, since Dems are all about the process and civility and compromise even when the Reps are making naked power grabs in response. (That’s a criticism of the Dems there, BTW; I think that’s a weakness, you don’t respond to cheaters by playing extra fair yourself).

The only problem is that I'm not a nihilist nor do I adopt fideism — Harry Hindu

I put those terms in scare quotes for a reason. “They’re all equally bad” applied to opinions generally rather than political parties is the “nihilism” I’m against, and “mine is right because it just is” applied to opinions generally rather than political parties is the “fideism” I’m against. I realized that the argument I’m making against you is formally analogous to the usual argument against nihilism, just regarding political parties rather than opinions generally.

Your problem is that you think there are only two choices. Those that can only think in black and white terms are the lazy thinkers. — Harry Hindu

I’m explicitly arguing AGAINST black and white thinking here. You act like the only alternative to naked partisanship is “they’re all equally bad”. That’s thinking the only alternative to white is black. I’m arguing that that’s not the case, that there are shades of grey between partisanship and “they’re all equally bad”, that you can recognize the faults of both parties and still see that one has more faults than the other. To deny that is lazy black-and-white thinking.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/404841 (April 2020)

Biden-Harris
• Wins Wisconsin
• Wins Pennsylvania
• Wins Michigan
(• Wins Florida)
(• Wins Arizona)

Electoral College votes
• Biden-Harris > 313 (min. 273) :up:
• Trump-Pence > 218 (max. 258)

US Senate
• Dems +4 seats (or more)

US House
• Dems +15 seats (or more)
— my 2020 predictions

T-minus 21 days. :victory: :mask: — 180 Proof

Post-Nov. 3rd election results as of 1:30pm EST on Friday, Nov. 13th:

Biden-Harris won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, ... and flipped "red states" Arizona & Georgia to "blue" for a total of 306 Electoral votes making INDIVIDUAL-1 a one-term president (and soon-to-be-felon-in absentia).

edit1:

TR45H has lost the popular vote to Joe Biden by the largest margin (+50.9%) since 1932 when "do nothing" Herbert Hoover lost to FDR in the midst of a global depression.

edit2:

306. Landslide. Blowout. Historic. — Kellyanne Conway, Trump Senior Aide

12:35pm - November 28, 2016 (Twitter)

306. Landslide. Blowout. Historic. — Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN

1:19pm - November 13, 2020 (Twitter) :fire:

So much change and hope under Biden :hearts: :heart: :hearts: :flower:

Damn.

That's just the start of it.

"Of the twenty-three people who comprise the Department of Defense agency review team, eight of them — or just over a third — list their “most recent employment” as organizations, think tanks, or companies that either directly receive money from the weapons industry, or are part of this industry. These figures may be an undercount, as the writer was not immediately able to exhaustively source the funding of every employer.

...Of those remaining, one team member works for JPMorgan Chase & Co., another is retired from the State Department, a few work for universities and other organizations, and one works for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which says it strives to “prevent catastrophic attacks with weapons of mass destruction and disruption — nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical and cyber.” Lisa Coe, also on the team, lists as her most recent employer OtherSide Consulting, a defense industry consultant, according to Defense News. However, because we were unable to independently verify this, Coe is not being included in our count of team members funded by the military or weapons industry."

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/joe-biden-transition-team-war-hawks

Not that anyone expected anything different from this fuckface.

Well, hopefully that just signals they take these threats seriously and will surgically strike wherever terrorists are working on WMDs without any intention to abuse their capabilities for cheap geopolitical gain. :rofl:


:cry:

Buyer's remorse already, and you haven't even received the item you bought through the mail. :joke:

I suppose Timothy Mcveigh was a weak mind, then. — Olivier5

Yep.

The difference is that the Reps had already established a principle about “too close to the election” that had denied the Dems their rightful appointment, so the Reps then denying their own principle was a naked power grab.

You have to consider the two events together. If the Dems had been that hypocritical I would be just as critical of them, but I really don’t think they would have been, since Dems are all about the process and civility and compromise even when the Reps are making naked power grabs in response. (That’s a criticism of the Dems there, BTW; I think that’s a weakness, you don’t respond to cheaters by playing extra fair yourself). — Pfhorrest

Like I said, the principle is established in the Constitution. The Congress has the power to determine the organization and constituents of the SC. You don't seem to understand that it is within the power of the Legislative branch to establish new precedents and abolish old ones with new laws and rules. They have done this many times. It is only because we citizens have allowed it to become a partisan issue that we now have fights over which side has more justices, or which way the court leans. The SC is suppose to be a non-partisan body, but thanks to the polarization of the Congress which has the power to basically design the SC any way they see fit, the SC has become an extension of this partisanship that exists. I think the Constitution should be amended to allow us citizens to vote for Supreme Court justices, and they and all members of Congress need to have term limits.

They were both power-grabbing. You are just showing you bias. The bold part just makes me laugh. I mean, where do you get all of your political news - from the DNC? You sound like a religious fanatic. "God is good. Devil is bad."

I’m explicitly arguing AGAINST black and white thinking here. You act like the only alternative to naked partisanship is “they’re all equally bad”. That’s thinking the only alternative to white is black. I’m arguing that that’s not the case, that there are shades of grey between partisanship and “they’re all equally bad”, that you can recognize the faults of both parties and still see that one has more faults than the other. To deny that is lazy black-and-white thinking — Pfhorrest

No. You're not. You are arguing for more of the same TWO-party system. Two-party = Black and White. No parties = No black or white. You seem to think that one's religion or political party makes one more moral than others with a different religion or political party. My point is that politics and religion are inherently immoral as they are both a limitation on personal liberties and freedom of thought. They are essentially a form of group-think. There are good and bad in every group, and that is simply human nature.

Like I said, the principle is established in the Constitution — Harry Hindu

A principle is established in the Constitution, but other less formal principles are established through other means, including mere tradition, or self-consistency. If one group makes an argument that such-and-such is the right way to do things, when it's convenient for them, but then goes against the very thing they argued for when that would be inconvenient for them, they're violating their own claimed principles, even if they're not going against constitutional principles.

No. You're not. You are arguing for more of the same TWO-party system. Two-party = Black and White. No parties = No black or white — Harry Hindu

I am definitely not arguing for the same two-party system. I vote 3rd party whenever possible, including for president this year. I'm talking about the behaviors of the two parties that we currently have within the system that we currently have that makes a two-party system inevitable.

You do realize that political parties are not part of the formal framework of the US government at all, right? The constitution doesn't say anything about parties. George Washington warned against partisanship. The US is set up to be formally a no-party system. But people form parties anyway, and the only way to prevent that is to disallow freedom of association. In practice, "no-party" states are just single-party states.

And because of our first-past-the-post electoral method, it's statistically guaranteed that we will end up with two dominant parties. I don't think either of them are good. I just think one is clearly more bad than the other. And until we can somehow change things so third parties are actually practically viable, which we totally should do, it's only pragmatic to favor the one that's less bad over the one that's more bad.

I love this, thousands protest the 'steal' in DC and Trump passes them by on his way to go golfing.

And the GOP will be better positioned for the midterms than perhaps any party at any midterm ever. Seriously. This could be a midterm swing that approaches 1894 levels. — Baphomet

That's pure hysteria. The senate map in '22 looks decent for Democrats. 2024 isn't as good.

I think the conduct and successes or failures of the Biden administration will effect this, so a bit too early to say.