American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

Edit: I want to say that T-Hawk has made valid arguments (along side some not so valid), but many people here are now saying "don't listen to anything he says". This is exactly the wrong attitude and proves both the above even in this small sphere.

+1 to this, his point of view is clearly not popular here, he’s been repeatedly attacked personally, but he continues to engage without responding in kind .

Darrell

[Nicolae Carpathia]

He continues to engage because people here are too decorum-obsessed to tell him to fuck off.

[Mjmd]

Without thoughtful considerate people we would just be left with 2 pigs wrestling in the mud. The pigs might like it, but nothing is actually going forward.

If you have problems posting thoughtful, logical, and fact based rebuttals to the opposite sides junk than you are a pig. I'm not saying T-Hawk isn't a pig a lot, but that doesn't give the people on the other side a reason to also be a pig. Its important to recognize we are all human and because of this often have flawed views and opinions, which because we are on the internet we like to oink out as loudly as we can.

[Jowy]

He continues to engage because people here are too decorum-obsessed to tell him to fuck off.

You could just not read this thread.

[Commodore]

]

One complicating factor for the perceptions of fraud is that most of what Dems (and their CNN mouthpiece) think is fraud isn't.  Things like voter registration requirements, registration purges for previous inactivity or whatever reason, ballot verification based on dates or signatures or residence or whatever - all this proceeds lawfully even if Dems complain about it (and CNN will eagerly help outrage them into believing what they want to believe.)

The possible cases I'm bringing up are what's on thedonald.win, that's no secret.  Of course I know the credibility is going to be low or none.  I don't even believe it's likely that Trump wins, his odds are maybe about 10% by now.  I'm just keeping the possibility open.  Yes he needs multiple states to swing against what appear to be the current results - and Dominion is both the most questionable aspect at the moment and the way that would be correlated across multiple states.  Cyneheard keeps talking about the court cases -- we'll see if any happen, and if not, then it goes to Biden.

As I said, I draw the line at the electoral college outcome.  If that votes against Trump, then he's done IMO.  There can be a remaining gray area about the electoral college itself -- if there's any controversy about what electors get designated by a state or recognized federally somehow.  That happened once before, in 1878 or whatever it was in Reconstruction.  I'm not sure how I would think if SCOTUS gets involved in some state issue - it would depend on the details.

So another honest question, I see a mountain of circumstantial evidence and plenty of common sense arguments about fraud, but what provable and immediate actionable evidence do you envision being brought before a judge not also compromised (assuming your priors about corruption are true)? I'm just not able to see a legal challenge or magic voting software debugging that changes this outcome, so I'm curious what you are looking at.

This election was never going to result in an outcome seen by north of 65% of core US subjects as legitimate.

[T-hawk]

Edit: I want to say that T-Hawk has made valid arguments (along side some not so valid), but many people here are now saying "don't listen to anything he says". This is exactly the wrong attitude and proves both the above even in this small sphere.

Right. Do we realize that the attitude of the left is converging on "we refuse to ever be convinced so you have to stop trying"?  That's not a process, that's mob rule.

As for the insults, I'm ignoring them, I let one loudmouth bait me before but won't do that again.

Yeah, there's nothing new in the rest of the points, but I have one response to make here:

A steal in electoral college with faithless electors voting AGAINST what the people in their state voted for is not democratic.

Do you realize the circularity of this argument?  You're defining "what the people voted for" by the results of the fraud.  The point is if the current apparent result wasn't the will of the people.

So another honest question, I see a mountain of circumstantial evidence and plenty of common sense arguments about fraud, but what provable and immediate actionable evidence do you envision being brought before a judge not also compromised (assuming your priors about corruption are true)? I'm just not able to see a legal challenge or magic voting software debugging that changes this outcome, so I'm curious what you are looking at.

I'm not an insider or lawyer, I don't know anything firsthand.  I have no idea where the standard of evidence or burden of proof would be in a legal sense.  Rudy Giuliani is working on that, not me.  One report was that Giuliani was talking to whistleblowers inside Dominion.  Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't.  The best guess I can make is Dominion could be shown to be sabotaged or faulty enough to warrant a more comprehensive recount without it.  I have no idea if there's any process in a legal procedural sense that gets to that outcome, maybe there isn't, and if not there is no legal recourse for Trump.

[Amicalola]

Edit: I want to say that T-Hawk has made valid arguments (along side some not so valid), but many people here are now saying "don't listen to anything he says". This is exactly the wrong attitude and proves both the above even in this small sphere.

Right. Do we realize that the attitude of the left is converging on "we refuse to ever be convinced so you have to stop trying"?  That's not a process, that's mob rule.

Maybe you could argue that this is a problem in the left, but it's definitely a huge problem in the American right. The book "Right Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort" is a great and well-regarded read on this. A lot of it is historical, but there is also a sizeable section on the modern-day.

To (drastically) sum up that section, essentially beginning in the 1970s in the South, Republicans correctly identified that rhetoric wins them a lot more votes than truth, and so that is what they have been campaigning on, for both social (e.g. the falsehood that 'sexism/racism no longer exists in the modern US') and economic (e.g. the falsehood that 'welfare breeds laziness') issues, and even baseless political attacks (e.g. remember the whole Obama 'birther' thing?). Not truth; rhetoric. Many Republican voters now are typically either people who believe the rhetoric, people who don't but vote Republican for personal gain, or a mish-mash of both.

[Mjmd]

I would argue the right is very much in the we refuse to listen to logic camp as well. I've outlined my proposed compromise to the republicans unproven fraud allegations, but that ain't happening and honestly haven't even heard anyone nationally suggest such a radical thing as an independent investigator. Again it is human nature to assume you are right / that your side is right.

We are going to enter a sphere where neither side believes anything the other says. Both sides will go further left / right. Anyone like me who has traditionally been disgusted by both and hates voting for either is going to be left choosing a side. Or just stop participating, which is obviously bad because losing reasonable people in the middle just means the extremes gain further power.

My only solution is to bar anyone from voting who can't name 5 things the other party "says" they believe that they agree with. Right now I'm disgusted with Republicans and have no clue what they believe in anymore. I probably should be bared from voting. (In the past I voted for McCain for reference and have voted for some Republicans lower in the ballot. In the past I've mainly voted democrat on lower races because they were more moderate / I didn't want one side to have all the power which is always dangerous)

[GeneralKilCavalry]

I would argue the right is very much in the we refuse to listen to logic camp as well. I've outlined my proposed compromise to the republicans unproven fraud allegations, but that ain't happening and honestly haven't even heard anyone nationally suggest such a radical thing as an independent investigator. Again it is human nature to assume you are right / that your side is right.

We are going to enter a sphere where neither side believes anything the other says. Both sides will go further left / right. Anyone like me who has traditionally been disgusted by both and hates voting for either is going to be left choosing a side. Or just stop participating, which is obviously bad because losing reasonable people in the middle just means the extremes gain further power.

My only solution is to bar anyone from voting who can't name 5 things the other party "says" they believe that they agree with. Right now I'm disgusted with Republicans and have no clue what they believe in anymore. I probably should be bared from voting. (In the past I voted for McCain for reference and have voted for some Republicans lower in the ballot. In the past I've mainly voted democrat on lower races because they were more moderate / I didn't want one side to have all the power which is always dangerous)

"Enlightened centrism" is a radicalism of its own. And no, both sides will not go further left/right, both sides will go further right. This is a fact of the past 50 years, and I emphasize the word fact. The New Deal and its successor Great Society have been dismantled by sequential republican and now democrat administrations. The only shift democrats have made is towards performative identity politics. They are no longer invested in any form of working class solidarity whatsoever (even if it is dubious that they ever were, they did use to pass social reform).

Frankly, what you're saying is worse than any of T-hawk's statements, in the sense that T-hawk is usually open about his disrespect for democratic values and respect for the rule of law (read power). What you keep saying is that "we need to listen to each other, look at me, I'm the forgotten center", when you're simply giving credence to people like T-hawk by saying "he's said a lot of valid things", after he has directly stated his contempt for democracy by hoping the electors will decide (by the way T-hawk, you're losing my respect here, go out and say what you mean no need to hind behind pretenses. Just tell everyone what you wish to happen, which is for your orange-faced tyrant in senior citizen diapers to win through an institution that is utterly contrary to any modern principles of democracy.). What next, are you gonna tell us to listen to a Mussolini? He has some nice points too?

All I see from rightoids is a massive victim complex when they are the ones who have been in power for generations. It's per-pubescent behavior.

[darrelljs]

I was a McCain supporter in 2000, but he lost me in 2008 with Palin.  Lately I’ve been voting Democrat more and more, because the Republican party has completely lost their way.  I’m pissed as hell that I no longer have a viable choice.  I want that back.  My worst nightmare is the Democratic party overreacts and becomes what you see from some posters in this forum.  I’d honestly prefer Trump.

Basically Mjmd, I’m as depressed about the current state of affairs as you seem to be and I have lost hope that it will turn around .  I think I need to take a break from this forum for a while.  I really appreciate the conversation with most of you and I’ve certainly learned a lot through the dialogue.

Darrell