Thought for the Day

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?

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

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

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!

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Public servant announcement

---

I get the master of the malapropism award for yesterday. I don't think there were any other nominees but I'd like to self-nominate and graciously accept the award.

You'll need to lift your game if you want to compete with the master and his tenants' innuendos.

Two thoughts-

1) I would love to ban the word ‘misspoke’, because it does not mean a lingual mistake. A politician says something he or she believes, that others find offensive, or that reveals that he or she has not been briefed on their policy. That is not ‘misspeaking’, it is either the natural thought expressed, or a matter of incompetence. Boris Johnson did not ‘misspeak’, he couldn’t be bothered to read the detail of his government’s policy on Covid-19. The President did not ‘misspeak’ when he said “stand down and stand by”, it came to him naturally.

2) There is a presumption that if the result of the election goes to the Supreme Court, the in-built Conservative majority will rule in favour of the incumbent, even if, should Amy Barrett be selected, she were to recuse herself from the judgment. I am not sure that this is a predictable outcome, first, because we don’t yet know, if the case goes forward, what the legal arguments might be. And second, because even Kavanaugh has voted against his sponsor, and in the past Conservative justices have voted on the basis of law, rather than political party.

All rise for Congresswoman Katie Porter. This is what the scrutiny of policy looks and sounds like.
Her confrontation of Redfield is an outstanding example of an elected politician doing what they are elected to do.

California, can we borrow her please? I want her to kebab Boris Johnson!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/katie-porter-whiteboard-congresswoman

As a general rule I think people should not wish harm or death even on bad people. This rule is challenged if and when the harm comes to someone who repeatedly causes harm to others. But then to be comfortable wishing harm on that person one has to take a utilitarian view.

So let me cut to the chase. I think Donald Trump has caused between 50 and 100 thousand deaths because he is selfish and incompetent. His messaging on mask wearing has been inconsistent because his imperative is not to protect the public but to try to find some advantage, either by mocking mask-wearers, by flouting mask-wearing recommendations, or even in one case by questioning the effectiveness of broad compliance with mask wearing by the public.

He's caused a lot of deaths, continues to cause death and this is why so many people don't know what to say about his illness. He's not the only person who's gotten ill. Thanks to him over 7 million people in the U.S. have. Thanks to him, those who repeatedly downplay the danger of the virus and make ignorant arguments against public health precautions don't face much political cost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...43f_story.html

Another example of how Trump has been reckless about the safety of others. He heard that he had been exposed to the virus on Wednesday and a day later he flew to New Jersey and met with dozens of people but was not wearing a mask.

Those of us here who are not covidiots know that masks are not (primarily) to protect the wearer but other people. One reason for this is that virus laden saliva projected from a sick person's mouth diffuses and is most likely to be caught by a mask right when it's expelled. Therefore, whatever limitations masks have in terms of microscopic particles passing through them is far less significant if an infected person wears a mask. This is the President though...

If Trump dies we end up with the bobblehead...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ce-bobblehead/
https://gop.world/products/vice-pres...xoC-pwQAvD_BwE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

If Trump dies we end up with the bobblehead...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ce-bobblehead/
https://gop.world/products/vice-pres...xoC-pwQAvD_BwE

---

The more time passes the more reckless his behavior appears to have been. If he didn't develop symptoms that were bad enough to scare him would he have revealed his diagnosis? I'm going to wait until our knowledge of the timeline is certain but it looks very bad. The Trump era needs to be behind us as soon as possible....and Pence wouldn't be any better.

Trump was very likely infectious on Tuesday for his debate with Biden even if he didn't know it and certainly didn't tell him as soon as he was diagnosed.

The number of infections from their super spreader event also keeps rising.

The 30 th Annual Ig Nobel Science Awards' for 2020 theme was "bugs" , a nice coincidence considering Pence's "head fly" . Including an operetta"Dream,Little Cockroach" crocodiles sniffing Helium ,and all kinds of fun stuff.
https://www.improbable.com/ig-about/...rize-ceremony/

A weird 24 hours. Not sure Speaker Pelosi needs to formally investigate the 25th Amendment, as the President is demonstrating a bizarre spiral of hysterical twittery that suggests to me the Democrats should stand back and stand by while the 45th, so physically fit, so young, makes the case for the funny farm rather than four more years.

And yet, some thoughts-

1) "A top Republican senator has said that “democracy isn’t the objective” of America’s political system.....Lee, who is among a swath of Republicans who recently tested positive for coronavirus, wrote: ‘The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-lee-democracy

-Hmmmm...."We, the People..." Start from there Mr Lee, and replace the word 'People' with 'Demos' and you might discover something you clearly don't know or understand.

2) According to the President, Senator Harris is a 'Communist' and a 'Monster' -but without Communists and Monsters, we mght not have the baked potato.

3) “I want you to get the same care that I got,” he said. “You’re going to get the same medicine. You’re going to get it free, no charge, and we’re going to get it to you soon.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/u...gtype=Homepage

-Free at last, free at last...

4) "I’m back because I’m a perfect physical specimen and I’m extremely young.”
-Nurse, come quickly!

If politics were always about being objective I would agree with Pelosi. Trump is dangerously incompetent and unstable. However, we are a month away from an election and Trump is doing very poorly in the polls and there are people who will see her actions as politically motivated and an attack. And she is very unlikely to succeed.

I never imagined we'd get to a point where Republicans are being cagey about whether they have covid and refusing to get tested because they're afraid they'd have to be responsible and isolate. It appears that's where we're at but I want to leave this as a hint because I believe that story is going to develop. Hint: Lindsey Graham has refused a test, but I believe we'll find out more about other top Republicans.

There was a recent plot to kidnap Governor Whitman in Michigan. Early in the course of the pandemic Trump took to twitter to encourage people to violate public health orders in Michigan. He also spent time vilifying Whitman while she was trying to deal with outbreaks, so this is very much something he helped incite.

Now he is more than incompetent. Using filthy words on public platforms signals the decline of values at the top of American Government, for whatever language they use in private, Americans have the right to expect decency and respect from their President, not the 'F' word. But as this man has described Americans as 'total scum, they're human scum', and is believed to owe money to foreign dictators, and has refused to condemn armed militias of the kind that plotted to kidnap and 'execute' the Governor of Michigan, your President now appears to be the Godfather of American Terrorism, and a Traitor.

And as the wheels come off this runaway truck, I suspect his language will get worse, his public rants more hysterical, his abuse spead far and wide to anyone who does not adore him. As for Lindsay Graham, it is the contempt for his voters that I find so astonishing. But this is not unique to the US, as just this week Boris Johnson approved of decisions affecting the North of England without bothering to talk to any of the North's Mayors to let them know what he was doing.

People don't like being treated like they don't exist. One just yearns for this manufactured lunacy to end, so that politics can revert to the boring task of doing things that work, if that is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

If politics were always about being objective I would agree with Pelosi. Trump is dangerously incompetent and unstable. However, we are a month away from an election and Trump is doing very poorly in the polls and there are people who will see her actions as politically motivated and an attack. And she is very unlikely to succeed.

I never imagined we'd get to a point where Republicans are being cagey about whether they have covid and refusing to get tested because they're afraid they'd have to be responsible and isolate. It appears that's where we're at but I want to leave this as a hint because I believe that story is going to develop. Hint: Lindsey Graham has refused a test, but I believe we'll find out more about other top Republicans.

There was a recent plot to kidnap Governor Whitman in Michigan. Early in the course of the pandemic Trump took to twitter to encourage people to violate public health orders in Michigan. He also spent time vilifying Whitman while she was trying to deal with outbreaks, so this is very much something he helped incite.

---

Also never imagined that we would to point where Republicans are being cagey about whether or not they have covid and refusing to get tested,however not surprised at at all that Republicans are refusing to get tested for covid because it will reveal how irresponsible they are and not taking the pandemic serious,and will have to self quarantine. and also believe that we will find more about top Republicans who attended the so-called ceremony at the rose garden. and agree that Trump's Toxic Rhetoric has helped incite the recent kidnap plot againist Michigan Governor Whitmer.

If Trump loses the election and Republicans lose the House and Senate I think Democrats should be ruthless. Although bipartisanship is important when there is another party to work with, Republicans have consistently acted in bad faith. I support expansion of the Supreme Court through legislation, and no pardons for any Republicans who are prosecuted for crimes they committed during the Trump administration.

I'd actually be interested to hear the alternative view. How could Democrats afford to act like this last four years was not an abomination that completely undermined the rule of law? Can rule of law be re-established without consequences for Republicans? Can Republicans ever understand that they cannot invent rules like the one they did for Merrick Garland and then apply them inconsistently unless that kind of partisan behavior is deterred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'd actually be interested to hear the alternative view. How could Democrats afford to act like this last four years was not an abomination that completely undermined the rule of law? Can rule of law be re-established without consequences for Republicans? Can Republicans ever understand that they cannot invent rules like the one they did for Merrick Garland and then apply them inconsistently unless that kind of partisan behavior is deterred?

---

I agree that they shouldn't turn the other cheek and 'play nice' because the other side will never stop behaving badly if they don't suffer consequences for it. However, you also don't want the system to devolve further into a 'tit for tat' game where both sides seek maximum advantage whenever they have the opportunity. So I think they need to focus on lasting reforms to address the shortcomings in the system that Republicans have taken advantage of. Maybe the Dems need a carrot and stick approach where they go harder if Republicans refuse to cooperate, but are prepared to moderate if the other side cooperates in supporting system reforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I agree that they shouldn't turn the other cheek and 'play nice' because the other side will never stop behaving badly if they don't suffer consequences for it. However, you also don't want the system to devolve further into a 'tit for tat' game where both sides seek maximum advantage whenever they have the opportunity. So I think they need to focus on lasting reforms to address the shortcomings in the system that Republicans have taken advantage of. Maybe the Dems need a carrot and stick approach where they go harder if Republicans refuse to cooperate, but are prepared to moderate if the other side cooperates in supporting system reforms.

---

This is definitely the right answer. I was recommending tit for tat and do see its limitations. The list of systemic reforms is going to be long of course. Although I am pessimistic about what I see, I should also consider that it took Trump four years to fully corrupt the Justice Department. Even now, there are career lawyers and law enforcement professionals who are committed to their work. The courts have blocked various attempts by Trump to interfere with the election by challenging the constitutionality of drop boxes for mail in ballots. The senate and house were there to enable him and had an opportunity to remove him from office for clear-cut impeachable offenses and didn't. They will likely face electoral consequences. I won't say the system is working how it should but reforms can impede future instances of the corruption we've seen. The system is not beyond reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Maybe the Dems need a carrot and stick approach where they go harder if Republicans refuse to cooperate, but are prepared to moderate if the other side cooperates in supporting system reforms.

---

The best reforms would be those that make our system more responsive to the will of the people. Gerrymandering takes place at the state level and the electoral college will take an amendment to eliminate. I think they are here to stay. A different court could have tackled partisan gerrymandering, but the current Supreme Court will not find a constitutional violation for gerrymandered congressional districts.

I'm sure there are things we can do though to ensure the integrity of elections and help prevent voter suppression. Republicans will likely face a big hit at the polls if things continue the way they're going.

Pardon my carry on comedy, but I did have a laugh at the attempt made by Lara Trump to prove Joe Biden is suffering from cognitive decline, referring to his apparent difficulty in public speaking which she put like this:

“Every time he comes on stage or they turn to him, I’m like, ‘Joe, can you get it out?”...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jake-tappe...021808253.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Pardon my carry on comedy, but I did have a laugh at the attempt made by Lara Trump to prove Joe Biden is suffering from cognitive decline, referring to his apparent difficulty in public speaking which she put like this:
[FONT="]
“Every time he comes on stage or they turn to him, I’m like, ‘Joe, can you get it out?”...

[/FONT]https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jake-tappe...021808253.html[FONT="]
[/FONT]

---

Lara Trump is just as delusional and uneducated as her Demagouge And Malignant Narcissist of a father in law is,and if anyone has an apparent difficulty in public speaking,it's the clown she works for.

And a President who uses dirty words on public platforms, and who insults and abuses the very same people who have helped shape his policy, is unfit for public office. I looked at this morning’s press and media in the hope of seeing universal condemnation of his filthy language but find, as usual, a degree of indifference bordering on permission that underlines how far American political discourse has fallen.

I read a comment to a NYT article that suggests the President if he loses the election, can still be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Given that COVID-19 seems to be rampant in the White House and the two top guys don’t care and have even tried to cover it up, are there not legal grounds for removing them if it can be shown they are guilty of ‘reckless endangerment’ in relation to White House staff?
It would mean Nancy Pelosi being caretaker President until January, and the first woman to be President.

i had hoped she would retire but maybe she wants to beat Dianne Feinstein’s record. Or maybe a reform should force Senators and Congressional reps to retire at 65?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I agree that they shouldn't turn the other cheek and 'play nice' because the other side will never stop behaving badly if they don't suffer consequences for it. However, you also don't want the system to devolve further into a 'tit for tat' game where both sides seek maximum advantage whenever they have the opportunity. So I think they need to focus on lasting reforms to address the shortcomings in the system that Republicans have taken advantage of. Maybe the Dems need a carrot and stick approach where they go harder if Republicans refuse to cooperate, but are prepared to moderate if the other side cooperates in supporting system reforms.

---

I think this is going to be important although it will be difficult to patch up all the areas that can be exploited if one party acts in bad faith and the other does not. I've thought about it and one tit for tat I still support is adding more Justices to the Supreme Court.

The effect of Republicans stealing one seat is that they have a majority that can impede voting reforms that prevent voter suppression and they can roll back civil rights, which they are primed to do. Without their made up rule, they would have appointed one Justice and Garland would be on the Court.

I also think that Democrats should restore rule of law, which does not require passage of new laws but restores an institution that will enforce the law without respect to partisan politics. That means the new Attorney General will be unimpeded in prosecuting corruption and other violations of criminal law by members of the Trump administration.

Edit: this is all a hypothetical assuming the Democrats win the election and both houses of Congress, both of which are far from a sure thing. If you look at the Supreme Court ruling on Wisconsin and the likely effect it will have on at least some ballots, it's even more uncertain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I think this is going to be important although it will be difficult to patch up all the areas that can be exploited if one party acts in bad faith and the other does not. I've thought about it and one tit for tat I still support is adding more Justices to the Supreme Court.

---

It's like the old joke about the Irishman who was asked for directions: "If I wanted to be going there I wouldn't be starting from here".

Interestingly, the Australian government has just announced two new appointments to our highest court (which don't need to be confirmed by Parliament). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-...ralia/12823720
It's so uncontroversial that the average Australian would probably be unaware of it. That's probably how it should be, but I can't tell you how to get there from where you are.

Even if Biden wins the Presidency, and it looks more likely to be him than the other guy, the big takeway from this election is the fact that 'Trumpism' is here to stay, though we don't know fow how long. David Smith put it well-

"When some Americans protested “This is not who we are”, Trump voters replied: “This is exactly who we are – and we’re not going anywhere.”
“The so-called moral outrage around Trump’s presidency did not produce any substantive shift in his Republican support,” tweeted Eddie Glaude, a professor at Princeton University and author of Democracy in Black. “In fact, he expanded his base among white voters. Trump continues to flourish in the intersection of greed, selfishness and racism.”
Now, if Trump wins the election, Trumpism wins. But if Trump loses the election, Trumpism wins too.
A sense of grievance over a narrow defeat, fuelled by the president’s bogus claims of fraud and amplified by conservative media, will thrive again a Democratic president. The “Make America Great Again” movement – with its nostalgia for a country that never was – was built for opposition rather than incumbency."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ntial-election

Here is the thought for the day: he may be tied up in litigation over the next four years, but as the man who created this 'base' that now defines the Republican Party, not as the Party of Lincoln, but the Party of Trump, I can not only see him maintaining four more years of rallies across the country, and insult and abuse across Social Media, the question now posed is: can anyone replace him and maintain his broad message, that Government is the Problem, not the Solution?

So who will run for the POT in 2024? The man who lost in 2020. Will anyone dare to challenge him for the leadership?

In the end, he wasn't debt and buried, but survives, and we do in fact get 'Four More Years'...and you thought it was all over...

And here we are, as predicted-

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1613613.html

Unless Tom Cotton, or Nikki Haley decide their time has come...

The chilling thought for the day is that Bannon was not being sarcastic, and that merely by making such an outrageous statement he exhibits the contempt for Democracy in the US that underlines so much of the anxiety many people, inside and outside the US have about the way the country is going, and what its divisions mean for its future governance.

"Steve Bannon said a second term for Donald Trump should start by displaying the severed heads of Dr Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray on the White House "as a warning".
Speaking on his podcast The War Room, Mr Bannon - the president's former campaign strategist and senior counsellor - said putting their heads on pikes would be more suitable than a simple firing.
"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci, no I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man," Mr Bannon said.
"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put their heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the programme or you're gone."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1627108.html

Trump is now so hounded by debt,civil and federal lawsuits that many experts think he may leave the country . Also there is talk that he may have the audacity to "pardon himself " from the federal suites before leaving office.
Excellent article from The New Yorker here https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...afford-to-lose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

Trump is now so hounded by debt,civil and federal lawsuits that many experts think he may leave the country . Also there is talk that he may have the audacity to "pardon himself " from the federal suites before leaving office.
Excellent article from The New Yorker here https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...afford-to-lose

---

I'm going to read this right now. Without having read this article I have always wondered how the pre-emptive pardon would work. Does he have to admit the crime first? How specific does he have to be? Can they be blanket pardons for unenumerated crimes or acts? I might find out in the article or someone else, but this looks like it will be a good read. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm going to read this right now. Without having read this article I have always wondered how the pre-emptive pardon would work. Does he have to admit the crime first? How specific does he have to be? Can they be blanket pardons for unenumerated crimes or acts? I might find out in the article or someone else, but this looks like it will be a good read. Thanks!

---

Very good read. It says the issue of a self-pardon is an undecided legal question. It might not hold up in court. The reason I ask how it's done is that pardons often state the crimes or acts that are being pardoned. I don't know if Trump knows all the sources of legal liability he faces that are within the statutes of limitation. I did just see online that Nixon's pardon by Ford was a "full, free, and absolute" pardon for a time period. I don't think that should be allowed nor do I think the self-pardon should be either.

The good news is that pardons don't reach state level crimes. In New York this is a major source of legal liability he faces and the only way to avoid it is to remain President where his second term might outlast the statutes of limitation. He has possibly committed crimes for the Stormy payments and in bank loan and/or tax documents.

I wonder how his Real Estate empire can be sustained if he really can't get loans like the quoted banker in the article says. He has lots of debt coming due and foreclosures on properties would be the coup de grace for his ego.

He can probably be successful starting a media empire but I don't know if he or the people around him have the organizational ability to exploit his popularity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The chilling thought for the day is that Bannon was not being sarcastic, and that merely by making such an outrageous statement he exhibits the contempt for Democracy in the US that underlines so much of the anxiety many people, inside and outside the US have about the way the country is going, and what its divisions mean for its future governance.

"Steve Bannon said a second term for Donald Trump should start by displaying the severed heads of Dr Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray on the White House "as a warning".
Speaking on his podcast The War Room, Mr Bannon - the president's former campaign strategist and senior counsellor - said putting their heads on pikes would be more suitable than a simple firing.
"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci, no I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man," Mr Bannon said.
"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put their heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the programme or you're gone."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1627108.html

---

Nope the right wing racist Steve Bannon sure wasn't being sarcastic when he made those despicable and vile comments,which got him banned from Twitter.