American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charriu]

Jackson did fight in the revolutionary war. Normally people who fought a war and were affected by it tend to avoid war as much as possible, which could explain why he did that. Just look at the European leaders after World War 2. Their most important goal was to avoid another war.

[Mjmd]

I do not get that sense from Jackson...... Obviously his claim to fame is war of 1812 as well, but ya I've been doing a little digging trying to find some of his thoughts on the matter, but most of the time historians focus on just his outrage and the consequences and not why he didn't choose the more common path historically.

People very easily fall into the path of "I'm in the right here and I'm going to 'make it right' " very easily. Especially early America democracy is fascinating because even with the slavery divide just constantly looming over politics there is still this just matter of fact transfer of power for years and years until it finally came to a head.

I will say Tilden in 1876 was probably much more in the vain of "we just had a civil war, this isn't worth a repeat". And mind you he was CONVINCED he won. He stated he won for the rest of his life, but a key difference obviously is that he let the transfer of power go ahead and in fact fought with his party on stopping them from getting in the way.

[The Black Sword]

I hadn't realised you had accepted that Trump was acting in bad faith to overthrow the election results T-Hawk. A bit strange that you didn't make that clear, people might be confused when you say that 'Republicans were trying to save Democracy' when you believe their leader was trying to do the exact opposite. 

I do understand that you believe other Republicans were acting in good faith.

If your position is that you should not advocate for consequences(at the voting booth or otherwise) for Trump, because economic and other issues are more important, how do you plan to convince people that the Democrat's supposed cheating* should result in consequences for them? Aren't you telling people that in their position you would ignore such cheating anyway? 

The stance seems not only morally wrong but pretty short-sighted to me.

*To state the obvious, I haven't seen anything I consider strong evidence of election fraud by the Democrats.

[Brian Shanahan]

Jackson did fight in the revolutionary war. Normally people who fought a war and were affected by it tend to avoid war as much as possible, which could explain why he did that. Just look at the European leaders after World War 2. Their most important goal was to avoid another war.

This is true, my mother would always say of her father and his closest friends that the one thing they truly hated was the waste of the Irish civil war, they all fought in the War of Independence, but no matter their personal leanings couldn't fight in the civil war.

[T-hawk]

Logically you haven't proven your argument.

You keep saying this, but I'm genuinely confused as to what you want me to prove? We haven't been in dispute over facts, it's all been opinions.

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

Not that - the courts refused the challenges because nobody had standing to challenge, that there are no laws where other states or the federal government can do anything about PA's illegal changes.

I hadn't realised you had accepted that Trump was acting in bad faith to overthrow the election results T-Hawk. A bit strange that you didn't make that clear, people might be confused when you say that 'Republicans were trying to save Democracy' when you believe their leader was trying to do the exact opposite.

Yes, this is a nuance that's hard to get, since both are conflated in the same protest. Protesting against the illegal voting changes in PA is absolutely warranted. Protesting to install Trump may not be, since there may not have been enough of a margin to swing either PA or the whole electoral college. But we don't and can't know - the evidence was disappeared by PA commingling the late-arriving ballots, and we can't know what the totals would have been had PA not changed the rules to mail-in in the first place.

If your position is that you should not advocate for consequences(at the voting booth or otherwise) for Trump, because economic and other issues are more important, how do you plan to convince people that the Democrat's supposed cheating* should result in consequences for them? Aren't you telling people that in their position you would ignore such cheating anyway?

I don't plan to convince anyone - nobody's going to listen anyway. I'm pointing out that neither side is better, both sides are ignoring their own side's cheating.

*To state the obvious, I haven't seen anything I consider strong evidence of election fraud by the Democrats.

You pivoted from "cheating" to "fraud" there. I see through that rhetorical trick. Even if you didn't mean it that way - but the media does, and has been doing that on purpose. "Fraud" is the wrong word, which the media deliberately chose for propaganda, as a strawman target to disprove. I don't think there were boxes of fake ballots counted or anything like that, at least not at any big enough scale to swing anything. (But if you think there were, then protesting is absolutely valid, until we get an election system with enough auditability and verifiability that that can't happen.) "Cheated" is indeed the better word, and pretty obvious by the facts in PA at least.

[Mjmd]

First off "fraud" again is the word Republicans are using.

But lets get to the main logic points AGAIN.

1) Ad nauseum. You haven't proven the 1 issue you have been focusing on. It is hard to prove changes to election law are improper when there were no case rulings. But my argument again is if Republicans thought they were improper they should have challenged them beforehand, which just makes sense. Challenging after the votes are in and you figure out which ways voted more for your opponents and then challenging those, makes no legal sense (again not that America always does, but in this case seems to)

2) False equivalence. You haven't proven even if it was an improper change in election law that it equates to the multiple instances of Republicans voter suppression. As much as I equated them for simplicity to try to get  you to see the main point of my argument, there isn't any equivalent here even if you could prove #1.

3) Tu Quoque. You've keep circling back to the point instance where MAYBE there is something bad the Democrats did instead of addressing all the other actions and lies Republicans took. Again I think false equivalence comes in because the one thing you've accused Democrats did even if you could prove it doesn't add up to trying to overthrow an election.

4) Non-Sequitur. My main argument about the utmost importance of transfer of power which I've argued via pure logic and historical example you haven't even touched. Some simple questions such as "was this worse than Jim Crow?" "how do you think this was worse than the 3 contested elections I brought up?".

The overarching question might be, "how does this one instance you can't prove, override the most fundamental foundations of our government system, and have you actually thought of the consequences?

I would specifically like answers to #4 and the above.

[Mjmd]

When Democracies are overthrown there are typically 3 things my simple brain can think that causes. To note they can easily be present all at the same time or in combinations.
1) People are ignorant. T-Hawk has said he recognizes the attempt to overturn, which is to his credit. Mind you its easy to see, but most would choose ignorance and denial. 2) Tu Quoque - the other side is also bad. You can see it in Boro's arguments against Democracies pretty heavily and Putin has some pretty famous quotes along these lines. Obviously in politics when you are accused of doing something bad this comes up a lot because you try to point to the other sides bad things (red herring as well a lot of times). 3) our side is the only one with the right answers.

Maybe one of the Germans can jump in as I know they study such things more closely there. But as stated in American politics we use the rise of Nazi's to much, so lets look at Italy instead in the most simple phrase.

ME NE FRAGO - I don't care. To note I'm talking about the post WWI use and the rise of fascism and not its use in WWI.
I don't care what my side did. I don't care if I know its wrong and that my side has admitted it. I don't care the extent. I don't care the methods. I don't care to speak up or do something. I will accept what is happening.

People spoke up during the rise of Italian fascism. It wasn't a fast takeover. Rather it was a slow gradual conditioning of accepting the unacceptable.

T-Hawk, "I don't care that my side tried to overthrow the election."

Honestly it almost scares me more that he recognizes it and doesn't care. I know he isn't the only one. The idea is anathema to a Democracy. Its the accepting of something that is unacceptable.

Its incredible important that people who recognize this aren't silent. Its incredible important that people who recognize this stand up and let it be known its not acceptable and stand up again and again and again.

[Ginger()]

*To state the obvious, I haven't seen anything I consider strong evidence of election fraud by the Democrats.

You pivoted from "cheating" to "fraud" there.  I see through that rhetorical trick.  Even if you didn't mean it that way - but the media does, and has been doing that on purpose.  "Fraud" is the wrong word, which the media deliberately chose for propaganda, as a strawman target to disprove.  I don't think there were boxes of fake ballots counted or anything like that, at least not at any big enough scale to swing anything.  (But if you think there were, then protesting is absolutely valid, until we get an election system with enough auditability and verifiability that that can't happen.)  "Cheated" is indeed the better word, and pretty obvious by the facts in PA at least.

I'm a big fan of wordgames, so maybe you'd indulge me T-hawk and explain the difference between fraud and cheating? I assume by fraud you specifically mean the impersonation of voters/double voting, which there as we all seem to agree, there seems to be scant evidence for. Now by cheating do you mean rule-breaking as in against the law or against the spirit of a democracy where one person gets one vote?

So if we call fraud a subgroup of cheating, can you tell us what elements of cheating existed for the democrats in PA, any links or elucidations? I keep hearing democrats did this did, democrats did that, from you, as a sort of ad nauseum, but I don't know exactly what you're referring to. A concrete example of this cheating would be nice to help see your position as less clownish.

If you can't provide this evidence, for a claim which you have repeatedly made, I'll have to assume you're arguing in bad faith and just shotgunning claims without basis and deserve to be ignored.

[darrelljs]

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

Wasn't the Pennsylvania legislature Republican? Anyway I have no illusions if the demographics of likely absentee ballots were Republican the Democrats would have opposed expansion. They do both suck. At the end of the day, if I have to come down on a side it's the one that is trying to ensure as many people as possible can vote.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

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

Wasn't the Pennsylvania legislature Republican?  Anyway I have no illusions if the demographics of likely absentee ballots were Republican the Democrats would have opposed expansion.  They do both suck.  At the end of the day, if I have to come down on a side it's the one that is trying to ensure as many people as possible can vote.

Darrell

Again I would argue that while more people voting is better, its not required for a functioning Democracy. Transfer of power being maintained is.