Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

Yesterday Donald Trump was asked whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. His answer was indescribably dangerous, autocratic in spirit, and sociopathic. He could have said that he has a right to contest the outcome of a close election through legal means but that if he lost he would ensure a smooth transition. What he in essence said was that he anticipates fraud, he doesn't believe he can lose unless there's cheating, that if he loses it will mean that something went awry with the process and that the only way there will be order is if he remains President.

Nobody who supports him can ever be taken seriously as a person with integrity. He was impeached because he used the power of his office to try to ensure his re-election and since then he has actively tried to suppress voter participation and sow doubts about the legitimacy of any result that doesn't end with him winning.

I will never view this country, the only country I've ever been a citizen of, the same way after the last four years. I don't believe in giving in to feelings of despair about electoral results but the utter corruption of the Republican party and the fact that it has barely cost them politically challenges really tests that. How on Earth can even 40% of people in this country think his conduct is okay no matter what benefit they derive from it?

[Stavros]

Mitch McConnell assures his fellow citizens that there will be a smooth transition if his party loses the Presidency. In light of what he has said this past 10 days, you will have to make your own judgment of his sincerity.

I have just finished reading Anne Applebaum's The Twilight of Democracy, in which she charts a course from 2000 to today in which she has lost friends who shared her belief that on New Year's Eve 1999 the world was in a better place than it had been since 1945, and that people of her political persuasion were right to feel a sense of triumph followin the end of the Cold War.
American, Jewish, Liberal, multi-lingual and multi-cultural, one wonders why she has been a Republican rather than a Democrat all her life -but is concerned to chart the course of a politics that to her, has departed from the norms and values she has cherished, watching her ex-friends become Nationalist Bigots who believe the rule of law is 'nice to have, but not need to have', because in those 20 years the world has lapsed into a crisis and nice things no longer work, be it the Constitution, the Rule of Law, or just preferring truth to lies, even when the truth might hurt and be politically damaging- or because it is so.

For Applebaum, the people responsible, people whom she knew and regarded as friends (eg, Lauran Ingraham whom I assume is more familiar to you than she is to me) have betrayed the values through the Cold War they maintained defined what is was to be free, to be American.

These are the people who have no sense of shame in supporting a man who represents so much of what they regard to be America's moral problem -Ingraham, a Catholic convert who claims God saved her from Cancer, yet lauds a man who, whatever he says, she knows has no religion and does not share her values. Ingraham dated him a couple of times, and it went nowhere, apparently not even the bedroom -he spent all the time talking about himself, and she concluded he needed two cars - "one for himself, the other for his hair" (p167). People she knew who were neither anti-Semitic and dissented from the Communist rule they grew up with in Hungary, now not only praise Orban and condemn George Soros, but defend the autocratic take-over of State institions by Orban and Fidesz.

Your probem, as I see it, is that this President has given legitimacy to the kind of public action that no President before him would have done, and that this goes beyond the beltway and his useful idiots in Congress, to endow armed militias and extremist political groups like QAnon, the Proud Boys and so on. These are the people whom Applebaum argues were always there in the USA, who believe that the US is not just their country but exclusively so, and that they do not revere either the Constitution or the Rule of Law, seeing everything in existential terms, and that they must either fight for their country, or lose it. These are the people who probably believe the Election has already been stolen from them, and if the Loser finds all his friends in Congress desert him on the 4th of November, the people will not. They used to be fringe lunatics, now they 'defend' Federal property from 'antifa', 'BLM', with or without fatalities; they plotted to take on BLM and peaceful protestors in Portland, prepared to kill if the situation arose, and have been seen outside polling statons in Virginia, intimidating voters.

Thus, the question is, will they fight, or will their guns stay silent? And if the Loser turns out to be the winner, what will the Democrats do? On the one hand, the last four years might turn out to have been an experiment too far for most Americans, that however criitical they might be of Washington DC as remote from their daily concerns, since 2017 they have been asked to look into the Abyss, and are going to turn around in November (or right now, in some States) and say No!, giving Biden and Harris the opportunity to repair the damage, and restore 'business as usual', even though in the light of Covid 19 and the wreckage of the last four years, that might not be enough.

But Applebaum makes an important point: from war being diplomacy by other means, she feels a lot of contemporary politics, from Poland (her husband is a Polish politician), to Brexit, to 'America First', politics is now war by other means, and quotes someone called James DiGenova-

"The suggestion that there's ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over...it's going to be total war...I do two things, I vote and I buy guns" (p167).

[filghy2]

How on Earth can even 40% of people in this country think his conduct is okay no matter what benefit they derive from it?

Probably because 40% of Americans appear to be disposed towards authoritarianism, and are willing to set aside law-based democracy if they become convinced that it is necessary to defend against some threat. This tendency was probably always latent - it just required the right demogogue (aided by supportive media) to trigger it. https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...rianism-420681

It's interesting that Republicans seem unwilling to directly criticise Trump for his comments, even though they say the right things about a peaceful transition. Some of them are also playing the false equivalence game, equating Hillary Clinton's advice about not conceding a close election until the processes are completed with what Trump said.

[filghy2]

But Applebaum makes an important point: from war being diplomacy by other means, she feels a lot of contemporary politics, from Poland (her husband is a Polish politician), to Brexit, to 'America First', politics is now war by other means, and quotes someone called James DiGenova-

The famous von Clausewitz quote is actually that war is a continuation of politics by other means. The idea that political questions should be decided by popular vote is fairly recent - full democracy only dates from the late 19th or early 20th century. For most of human history political questions were decided either by war or by appointing someone as absolute ruler. The transition to democracy occurred only because most interests eventually came to accept that it was a better way to manage political conflict (and it never happened in much of the world). We may be entering a period in which that social contract is tested as never before.

[filghy2]

These are the people whom Applebaum argues were always there in the USA, who believe that the US is not just their country but exclusively so, and that they do not revere either the Constitution or the Rule of Law, seeing everything in existential terms, and that they must either fight for their country, or lose it.

I'm sure such people have always existed, but what seems to have changed is that they are no longer getting much pushback from the supposed mainstream right. If there are Republicans expressing concerns about the rise of right-wing extremism and discussing what to do about it then I must have missed it. In addition to laws, the key thing that restrains bad behaviour is the recognition that miscreants will pay a price by being ostracised by others in their peer group.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Mitch McConnell assures his fellow citizens that there will be a smooth transition if his party loses the Presidency. In light of what he has said this past 10 days, you will have to make your own judgment of his sincerity.

I have just finished reading Anne Applebaum's The Twilight of Democracy, in which she charts a course from 2000 to today in which she has lost friends who shared her belief that on New Year's Eve 1999 the world was in a better place than it had been since 1945, and that people of her political persuasion were right to feel a sense of triumph followin the end of the Cold War.
American, Jewish, Liberal, multi-lingual and multi-cultural, one wonders why she has been a Republican rather than a Democrat all her life -but is concerned to chart the course of a politics that to her, has departed from the norms and values she has cherished, watching her ex-friends become Nationalist Bigots who believe the rule of law is 'nice to have, but not need to have', because in those 20 years the world has lapsed into a crisis and nice things no longer work, be it the Constitution, the Rule of Law, or just preferring truth to lies, even when the truth might hurt and be politically damaging- or because it is so.

For Applebaum, the people responsible, people whom she knew and regarded as friends (eg, Lauran Ingraham whom I assume is more familiar to you than she is to me) have betrayed the values through the Cold War they maintained defined what is was to be free, to be American.

These are the people who have no sense of shame in supporting a man who represents so much of what they regard to be America's moral problem -Ingraham, a Catholic convert who claims God saved her from Cancer, yet lauds a man who, whatever he says, she knows has no religion and does not share her values. Ingraham dated him a couple of times, and it went nowhere, apparently not even the bedroom -he spent all the time talking about himself, and she concluded he needed two cars - "one for himself, the other for his hair" (p167). People she knew who were neither anti-Semitic and dissented from the Communist rule they grew up with in Hungary, now not only praise Orban and condemn George Soros, but defend the autocratic take-over of State institions by Orban and Fidesz.

Your probem, as I see it, is that this President has given legitimacy to the kind of public action that no President before him would have done, and that this goes beyond the beltway and his useful idiots in Congress, to endow armed militias and extremist political groups like QAnon, the Proud Boys and so on. These are the people whom Applebaum argues were always there in the USA, who believe that the US is not just their country but exclusively so, and that they do not revere either the Constitution or the Rule of Law, seeing everything in existential terms, and that they must either fight for their country, or lose it. These are the people who probably believe the Election has already been stolen from them, and if the Loser finds all his friends in Congress desert him on the 4th of November, the people will not. They used to be fringe lunatics, now they 'defend' Federal property from 'antifa', 'BLM', with or without fatalities; they plotted to take on BLM and peaceful protestors in Portland, prepared to kill if the situation arose, and have been seen outside polling statons in Virginia, intimidating voters.

Thus, the question is, will they fight, or will their guns stay silent? And if the Loser turns out to be the winner, what will the Democrats do? On the one hand, the last four years might turn out to have been an experiment too far for most Americans, that however criitical they might be of Washington DC as remote from their daily concerns, since 2017 they have been asked to look into the Abyss, and are going to turn around in November (or right now, in some States) and say No!, giving Biden and Harris the opportunity to repair the damage, and restore 'business as usual', even though in the light of Covid 19 and the wreckage of the last four years, that might not be enough.

But Applebaum makes an important point: from war being diplomacy by other means, she feels a lot of contemporary politics, from Poland (her husband is a Polish politician), to Brexit, to 'America First', politics is now war by other means, and quotes someone called James DiGenova-

"The suggestion that there's ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over...it's going to be total war...I do two things, I vote and I buy guns" (p167).

Not buying Mitch Connell's assurance that there will be a peaceful transition of power if his party loses the presidency,because he is an enabler and is willing to do whatever the Demagouge Donald Trump tells him and his cohorts to do,including ramming through a nominee for the supreme court,so Trump can challenge the results of the presidential election if he loses,because they believes the supreme court will rule in his favor.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Yesterday Donald Trump was asked whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. His answer was indescribably dangerous, autocratic in spirit, and sociopathic. He could have said that he has a right to contest the outcome of a close election through legal means but that if he lost he would ensure a smooth transition. What he in essence said was that he anticipates fraud, he doesn't believe he can lose unless there's cheating, that if he loses it will mean that something went awry with the process and that the only way there will be order is if he remains President.

Nobody who supports him can ever be taken seriously as a person with integrity. He was impeached because he used the power of his office to try to ensure his re-election and since then he has actively tried to suppress voter participation and sow doubts about the legitimacy of any result that doesn't end with him winning.

I will never view this country, the only country I've ever been a citizen of, the same way after the last four years. I don't believe in giving in to feelings of despair about electoral results but the utter corruption of the Republican party and the fact that it has barely cost them politically challenges really tests that. How on Earth can even 40% of people in this country think his conduct is okay no matter what benefit they derive from it?

Not surprised by Donald Trump's answer to the question on whether he would commit a peaceful transfer of power,shows how desperate he is to hold on to power by continuing to use underhanded tactics to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the presidential election,and is afraid of losing the election and is unwilling to accept the results,and agree that nobody who supports him can ever be taken seriously as a person with integrity,because the 40% of people in this country who think that his conduct is okay no matter what benefit they derive from it,because they live in an alternative reality just like he does where they view him as the protagonist and the media and everyone else are the antagonists

[Stavros]

The famous von Clausewitz quote is actually that war is a continuation of politics by other means. The idea that political questions should be decided by popular vote is fairly recent - full democracy only dates from the late 19th or early 20th century. For most of human history political questions were decided either by war or by appointing someone as absolute ruler. The transition to democracy occurred only because most interests eventually came to accept that it was a better way to manage political conflict (and it never happened in much of the world). We may be entering a period in which that social contract is tested as never before.

I stand corrected, if an easy mistake to make. Margaret MacMillan has a new study of War coming out in book form in October which may address your argument in some detail (it is availabe in Kindle form)-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-How-Con.../dp/1984856138

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/b...ret-macmillan/

"Michael Caputo, the now-former assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, claimed left-wing Americans were planning an armed revolt.

“When Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said on Facebook. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.” "
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/election-d...111808071.html

[Stavros]

Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian offers some alternative options to what might become a crisis if the election is contested -
a) State legislators who support the President can select the members of the Electoral College, rather than the voters, thereby assuring that no matter how many people vote against the President, he cannot lose the election.

b) noting the extent to which Republican states have used 'State's Rights' to ignore the Constitution, Freedland revives something from the USA's past called 'Nullification' suggesting Democrat States could simply Nullify Congressional and Presidential decisions. It means that Secession need not become an issue in physical terms, as States would in effect, become independent of the Federal Government.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tives-power-us

As the Proud Boys descend on Portland -why?- I wonder if in fact what the threats of violence I have noted in previous posts actually is intended to achieve, other than criminality and disruption. I don't see much scope for the violent overthrow of Congress just to keep one man and his family in Office, so it may be that this is mostly just practical rage, though the dreaded possibility that some people will die cannot be ruled out.

Meanwhile, I note there has not been much discussion of US Cities being declared by the President's Wind-up-Monkey as 'Anarchist Jurisdictions', though it has had the bizarre result that now, no matter which radical Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, Antifa, BLM group is calling for police departments to be de-funded, we know that it is actually being done by -the Federal Government!-

"Alongside Seattle and Portland, New York City earned the official “anarchist jurisdiction” label from Attorney General Bill Barr on Monday. Other cities under Democratic leadership are likely to be added to this farce of a naughty list, targeting areas where potent antiracist, antifascist protests have erupted this summer. The designations are the latest act in President Donald Trump’s theater of the absurd.
Because of the designation, the localities now stand to lose significant federal funding. There’s no subtlety in Trump’s cynical base-pandering, aided once again by Barr’s Justice Department in service as the president’s private law firm.
.....Yet the material consequences for residents in the designated cities could be all too real. White House Budget Director Russ Vought is set to issue guidance to federal agencies on withdrawing funds from the cities in less than two weeks. The New York Post, which broke the story, noted that “it is not yet clear what funds are likely to be cut, but the amount of money siphoned from New York City could be massive, given the Big Apple gets about $7 billion in annual federal aid.” City coffers, devastated by the pandemic, now face more brutal cuts."
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/...-york-seattle/

Defund Police Departments!

[broncofan]

Public servant announcement for those reading the politics forum, who have posted here for 15 years and think the word "chicom" is clever. People can see who voted for their posts and if you look at your profile, you'll see who voted for yours. Hint: it wasn't the "chicoms".