American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Again, we aren't even as bad as Jim Crow. We aren't on the last act yet. The US has had 1 civil war over actual slavery and even the south didn't dispute that Lincoln won the election, they were just afraid he would be the start of a decline in their power. I've been equating democratic efforts to increase access to voting as the same as republican ones to decrease for simplicity because again I consider this SO FAR below the level needed. Its sadly normal political history in America, but honestly if you say "one side is trying to increase access to voting vs one side is trying to decrease it" and then you say the side trying to increase it is worse and we should overthrow them because o f it....... I don't even know what to say, again, so far below in my mind, but at the same time wtf.

I can't even tell what your saying in your last post, because it sounds like you are saying you'll support the side fighting for voting right?  I've quoted myself just in case you missed it.

I want to emphasize that Democrats are doing this because they think the math favors them. Overall its the right thing to do, but its not shocking Republicans are trying to restrict. Again its a weakness of giving politicians power over election laws is they will try to change them to benefit themselves. The US has suffered from this weakness before and will continue to do so. The difference this time is a party actively trying to overthrow the election results after they took place in multiple states without any proof or legal backing. Maybe T-Hawk can't see how this is a dangerous path? If a party overturns an election on grounds some random nerd on the internet can keep poking new holes in via logic and historical example, what are the odds that overturn of the election is seen as valid? How will the other side respond? Does the military get involved? If they get away with it once they will certainly do so again. There are a lot of unknowns, but none of them are very good. That is why just like other times in history when people have felt their liberty has been repressed in the US I would urge peaceful protest, debating the issues, and overall trying to overturn via lawful channels. It hasn't always been easy or pleasant, but its been done and its the far better alternative than just one side deciding they have some "reason" for overturning democracy.

I also realize T-Hawk may just be trying to get the last word in. Most arguments I don't care. This one I will continue to point out the logical fallacies. I will continue to make the case that the transfer of power in Democracy is far more important than a repeated unproven accusation that at best rates as something we've dealt with in less damaging ways before. This is too important to leave one doubt that a line has been crossed. You may think Trump is the best leader of all time and Biden the worst. It doesn't matter, because the core of Democracy is more important than either.

[T-hawk]

Maybe T-Hawk can't see how this is a dangerous path?

You're worried about this, when the more dangerous path is what the Democrats have already done? They illegally changed and violated the rules to favor themselves, and got away with it because those changed results favored themselves. This is how a former-democracy turns into an authoritarian one-party state.

Yes, it's right to be worried about Republicans doing the same thing - but you're turning a blind eye to your own side that already did it.

[Mjmd]

Again, we aren't even as bad as Jim Crow. We aren't on the last act yet. The US has had 1 civil war over actual slavery and even the south didn't dispute that Lincoln won the election, they were just afraid he would be the start of a decline in their power. I've been equating democratic efforts to increase access to voting as the same as republican ones to decrease for simplicity because again I consider this SO FAR below the level needed. Its sadly normal political history in America, but honestly if you say "one side is trying to increase access to voting vs one side is trying to decrease it" and then you say the side trying to increase it is worse and we should overthrow them because of it....... I don't even know what to say, again, so far below in my mind, but at the same time wtf.

I've pointed out the logical fallacies in your argument. I've pointed out above how even if it were true its not even close to other past instances the US hasn't had to overthrow our democratic process. Like do you think the democrats trying to make it easier for people to vote is worse than Jim Crow? Are you that deluded? I've pointed out you haven't proven any of it. I've pointed out that legally there is nothing supporting you. I've pointed out legally that if you don't like changes to election law it makes sense that it should be BEFORE the election.

I've provided a plethora of argument from logical, historical, and moral points of view. You have provided the same thing over and over and over again.

[Mjmd]

To more directly answer you question, YES. My entire base argument is there is nothing worse than disrupting the democratic transfer of power. I wrote a whole mini paper on this just so I couldn't be accused of also participating in ad nauseum .......

[Mjmd]

I like history. Here is some more to support my main argument.

1824

Andrew Jackson got the most popular and electoral vote, but because he didn't get half, it went to the house and it ended up Adams was selected. Jackson didn't try to overturn the election and HE WAS PISSED (and maybe rightly so). Instead of trying to overturn the election he immediately started efforts to win the next election.

1876 - this is a very fascinating rhyming historical comparison.

20 disputed electoral vote. Actual provable fraudulent voting via bribery, corruption, and intimidation especially in the south. Electoral commission vote 8/7 Hayes was elected president. Deals were made that ended reconstruction which was bad...... but the transfer of power was maintained. Democrats did threaten to delay inauguration via procedural and violent methods. Democrats were extremely mad like Republicans are today. Tilden the Democrat candidate believed he was the rightful winner BUT he refused to go along with his party and supporters along this path because he believed in the transfer of power. As stated southern states used allegations of voter fraud to disenfranchise black voters....... Sound vaguely familiar? But the transfer of power was still maintained even if for the next 90 odd years an entire group of people were repressed from voting.

2000

I've gone over this one, but Gore conceded immediately after the supreme court decision despite winning the popular vote and despite a lot of Democratic anger over the decision.


I want to note a common theme of the losers all conceding and allowing the transition of power to continue despite people around them telling them to fight. Its so tempting when you think you are in the right, but there is a higher principle in Democracies.

I can start going into other countries histories both good and bad if you really want.

[darrelljs]

T-Hawk I’ve been researching the issues you’ve raised, and they were essentially well intentioned measures to make voting safe in the middle of a pandemic no existing laws anticipated, and no legislative body was equipped to deal with. It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of what Trump tried to do. If he knew now what he knew in 2016 and had four years to put the wrong people in the right positions, he would have gotten away with it. The man remains the most dangerous threat to our Democracy since FDR, and maybe since Jefferson Davis.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

The most dangerous threat is that there hasn't been consequences, the dangerous threat is that it is being accepted, the dangerous threat is that a large portion of the population is just treating this like politics as normal (edit IE that it is somehow on the same level as other things like T-Hawk has been arguing). Trump is dangerous yes, but the ideas and lies he's spreading being accepted both in a party and in the populace are FAR more dangerous.

[T-hawk]

"Well intentioned" is a subjective matter of opinion. The Democrats knew perfectly well they were benefitting themselves.

The most dangerous threat is that there hasn't been consequences, the dangerous threat is that it is being accepted, the dangerous threat is that a large portion of the population is just treating this like politics as normal

You realize that every word of this describes what the PA Democrats did? The dangerous threat is that they got away with changing the rules to favor their side. And the courts wouldn't let anyone challenge it.

You call Trump the dangerous one, when he didn't actually succeed in anything, while the Democrats blatantly violated election laws, stole PA, and got complete support from the propaganda machine.

The most dangerous thing to a democracy is on a higher level than any of those particular cases on either side. It's silencing opposition. The Democrat media propaganda machine was the one banning even any mention and discussion of the possibilities of election stealing.

[Mjmd]

Logically you haven't proven your argument. Even if you had "changing rules to favor their side" is sadly a historical weakness in our democracy and does not rise to the level of overthrowing it. The reason the courts wouldn't let the challenges go through is my understanding that election laws should be challenged PRE people relying on the system to make their vote (which logically again makes sense to me). You also are equating making it easier to vote with Republican efforts to limit voting in multiple states. The logical fallacies are obvious, but you keep on repeating the same thing over and over and over without actually trying to prove any of my arguments wrong.

So trying and failing to overthrow Democracy makes it ok??? He has succeeding in introducing the dangerous idea that overthrowing the election on lies and pretexts is somehow warranted. You arguing the point proves that. I've listed several historical examples where in much worst instances people choose the right path. Seriously, you're losing the moral argument to Andrew Jackson of all people..... When you lose the moral high ground to Andrew Jackson........... Again there is always a reason to take what you might see as "the easy path" and just taking power, but its so dangerous and destructive of an idea. It makes it easier next time someone thinks they are in the right. Democrats are constantly winning the popular vote. What is to stop them from overthrowing a Republican election because they claim massive Republican voter suppression (and that is before you factor in they could lie).

Bias media is a fact of life. The important thing is government isn't silencing opposition and the United States has survived such things before. The level needed to overthrow a democratic government is somewhere around repeated government slaughter in response to protest. Mind you, the civil rights movement still was able to get change peacefully despite many members in that movement dying often to government forces (and when they died to counter protests the government didn't protect them).

[Mjmd]

Sidebar on teaching history in the US. I took AP US history in high school and it hasn't occurred to me until recently how weird the 1824 election was. Like I learned about it, but it wasn't seen as weird Jackson just let it happen.

However, now that I've sampled history from a lot of other countries I am just actually astonished. A populist, hot head, morally questionable general wins the majority of the vote but then the political elite decide the 2nd place finisher is going to be the leader. "and then their was a civil war" would be how this would end normally. It wouldn't be remotely weird at all that that was the outcome. Its actually super weird it didn't end that way. People may look down on Andrew Jackson now, but I can't stress how weird it is that he didn't just kick off a civil war after that.