Interesting indeed.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/former-punk-rock-lead-singer-cherie-currie-renounces-the-democratic-party-after-realizing-she-fell-for-its-lies/ar-AA1nFtOd
Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
popper wrote:
Interesting indeed.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/former-punk-rock-lead-singer-cherie-currie-renounces-the-democratic-party-after-realizing-she-fell-for-its-lies/ar-AA1nFtOd
Zonkerbl wrote:
oh are we just trolling without reading the article? I can do that, I will gladly not bother reading this trollbait article
popper wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:
oh are we just trolling without reading the article? I can do that, I will gladly not bother reading this trollbait article
I'm just pulling your chain Zonk. No offence intended. I did read your article and it seems a bit overwrought.
Zonkerbl wrote:popper wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:
oh are we just trolling without reading the article? I can do that, I will gladly not bother reading this trollbait article
I'm just pulling your chain Zonk. No offence intended. I did read your article and it seems a bit overwrought.
The last article you posted I responded to in good faith
popper wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:popper wrote:
I'm just pulling your chain Zonk. No offence intended. I did read your article and it seems a bit overwrought.
The last article you posted I responded to in good faith
You did. Many of the articles I've read lately (including the one you posted) seem to promote the notion that "Trump=End of Democracy." I view them as expressions of extreme hyperbole but fear mongering is a tried and true political strategy for both parties I guess.
pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:
The last article you posted I responded to in good faith
You did. Many of the articles I've read lately (including the one you posted) seem to promote the notion that "Trump=End of Democracy." I view them as expressions of extreme hyperbole but fear mongering is a tried and true political strategy for both parties I guess.
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:
You did. Many of the articles I've read lately (including the one you posted) seem to promote the notion that "Trump=End of Democracy." I view them as expressions of extreme hyperbole but fear mongering is a tried and true political strategy for both parties I guess.
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
I don't think anything about the 2020 election was normal, including Trump's behaviour. My view is that he (and many others in the country) thought the election was manipulated. He was angry and his actions reflect a rather desperate attempt to right a perceived wrong. It didn't work. I'm comfortable with the ability of the other co-equal branches of government to block and hold to account power hungry politicians that may try to skirt the law. Maybe I'm naive in that regard. Who knows.
popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:
You did. Many of the articles I've read lately (including the one you posted) seem to promote the notion that "Trump=End of Democracy." I view them as expressions of extreme hyperbole but fear mongering is a tried and true political strategy for both parties I guess.
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
I don't think anything about the 2020 election was normal, including Trump's behaviour. My view is that he (and many others in the country) thought the election was manipulated. He was angry and his actions reflect a rather desperate attempt to right a perceived wrong. It didn't work. I'm comfortable with the ability of the other co-equal branches of government to block and hold to account power hungry politicians that may try to skirt the law. Maybe I'm naive in that regard. Who knows.
Zonkerbl wrote:I want to remind everyone reading this thread that Hitler didn't advertise that he planned to murder all the Jews. It came as a huge surprise after WWII ended. Stalin never said "What we should do is round up everyone we don't like and send them to prison camps where a lot of them will starve to death." Dictators don't announce their evil intentions. And yet if you pay attention you can guess, and to be honest trump really hasn't been that subtle about what he plans to do.
Zonkerbl wrote:popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
I don't think anything about the 2020 election was normal, including Trump's behaviour. My view is that he (and many others in the country) thought the election was manipulated. He was angry and his actions reflect a rather desperate attempt to right a perceived wrong. It didn't work. I'm comfortable with the ability of the other co-equal branches of government to block and hold to account power hungry politicians that may try to skirt the law. Maybe I'm naive in that regard. Who knows.
Also, I've gotta say. It's just not ok to question the integrity of our elections. Dems got flat out cheated out of the Presidency in 2000. We groused about it a little bit, but at no point did we mount a nationwide campaign to moan and whine and complain about it that culminated in a mob of rioters storming the capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes. Not even close, and we had MUCH MORE evidence that shenanigans had occurred.
Trump's claim that the election was manipulated was a flat out lie with zero basis in fact and it is absolutely not ok to blithely accept his lies about the 2020 election as something that is totally normal and ok. He wasn't trying to right a perceived wrong, he was lying in order to desperately and illegally cling to power, and the Republicans condoned and supported this.
This isn't about Trump being the bad guy - it happens. We've had bad guys like Trump every generation or so. But they have never had the full throated support of one of the major political parties. It's not ok. It is wrong of you to perceive this as some sort of normal occurrence that falls within the bounds of normal political behavior that will blow over. There is a very good chance that this upcoming election will turn our country into a Putin style kleptocracy, with all future elections 100% won by Republicans.
I know you are a Republican. Maybe you are thinking this is a good thing, for the evil Democrats to be shut out of holding any political offices forever. For them to be persecuted, gathered up into camps, assassinated. Better them than me! My friend, I can assure you, it is not.
So first of all, that would be bad, even if you personally are a "true believer" and are safe. Second, it's just not true - when it is illegal to be a Dem, the violence inherent in a totalitarian system will eventually turn against the "true believers," just as it did during the purges in the Soviet Union in the thirties. And the thirties was, what, 13 years after the revolution? When the Republican purges start 13 years from now, you might still be around, Popper. I want you to think of that before you casually dismiss concerns about a future Trump presidency as "overwrought."
doclinkin wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:I want to remind everyone reading this thread that Hitler didn't advertise that he planned to murder all the Jews. It came as a huge surprise after WWII ended. Stalin never said "What we should do is round up everyone we don't like and send them to prison camps where a lot of them will starve to death." Dictators don't announce their evil intentions. And yet if you pay attention you can guess, and to be honest trump really hasn't been that subtle about what he plans to do.
Subtle? They're not even bothering to pretend. His lawyers are arguing in the Supreme Court that as long as it is he is performing an "official act" of the presidency, rightly or wrongly, he can stage a coup, hunt down political enemies etc. And the only check or balance on that is if he is impeached and convicted. So what happens if he hunts down or threatens or jails anyone who votes to impeach or convict him? Nothing, it is an official act. He is immune.
popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:
You did. Many of the articles I've read lately (including the one you posted) seem to promote the notion that "Trump=End of Democracy." I view them as expressions of extreme hyperbole but fear mongering is a tried and true political strategy for both parties I guess.
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
I don't think anything about the 2020 election was normal, including Trump's behaviour. My view is that he (and many others in the country) thought the election was manipulated. He was angry and his actions reflect a rather desperate attempt to right a perceived wrong. It didn't work. I'm comfortable with the ability of the other co-equal branches of government to block and hold to account power hungry politicians that may try to skirt the law. Maybe I'm naive in that regard. Who knows.
The body failed to invoke cloture on the measure, in a 49-49 vote. Every Republican present voted against the measure, while every Democrat voted for it.
Zonkerbl wrote:popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
I don't think anything about the 2020 election was normal, including Trump's behaviour. My view is that he (and many others in the country) thought the election was manipulated. He was angry and his actions reflect a rather desperate attempt to right a perceived wrong. It didn't work. I'm comfortable with the ability of the other co-equal branches of government to block and hold to account power hungry politicians that may try to skirt the law. Maybe I'm naive in that regard. Who knows.
well it's interesting you say that because that's exactly what the article I posted was about. That article posits that Trump is precisely the kind of phenomenon the founding fathers worried would destroy Democracy, precisely because the idea of the co-equal branches of government being reliable checks on each other assumes that every participant actually wants Democracy to continue.
Zonkerbl wrote: It is entirely possible for a candidate, with the support of his voters, to decide that Democracy ends, today. That Trump has pretty much said as much. That there have, in fact, been anti-American forces pushing against democracy since the very founding of this country. None of them had the support of one of the major political parties until now.
Unless you consider what is going on in Russia "democracy." That would be naive, I think.
#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • Rachel Maddow traces the fight to preserve American democracy back to World War II, when a handful of committed public servants and brave private citizens thwarted far-right plotters trying to steer our nation toward an alliance with the Nazis.
“A ripping read—well rendered, fast-paced and delivered with the same punch and assurance that she brings to a broadcast. . . . The parallels to the present day are strong, even startling.”—The New York Times (Editors’ Choice)
Inspired by her research for the hit podcast Ultra, Rachel Maddow charts the rise of a wild American strain of authoritarianism that has been alive on the far-right edge of our politics for the better part of a century. Before and even after our troops had begun fighting abroad in World War II, a clandestine network flooded the country with disinformation aimed at sapping the strength of the U.S. war effort and persuading Americans that our natural alliance was with the Axis, not against it. It was a sophisticated and shockingly well-funded campaign to undermine democratic institutions, promote antisemitism, and destroy citizens’ confidence in their elected leaders, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the U.S. government and installing authoritarian rule.
That effort worked—tongue and groove—alongside an ultra-right paramilitary movement that stockpiled bombs and weapons and trained for mass murder and violent insurrection.
pancakes3 wrote:[snip]
Re: Barriers: the list is long. felony disenfranchisement. closure of polling stations in dem-leaning districts. eliminating ballot drop boxes. prohibiting handing out food and water to voters at polling places. purging/non-renewal of voter registrations. restricting mail-in ballots. voter ID laws. Oklahoma introduced a law where mail-in ballots had to be notarized. Other states have banned student ID's from being valid voting ID's, or requiring 2 forms of ID - which in the grand scheme of voter IDs, as the government, you can't be draconian about needing a voter ID without also providing a voter ID. With the DMV being the dominant issuer of photo ID's (and not say, the Secretary of State), you're basically saying, we only want people who drive to be voting.
pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:
... so a) the slates of fake electors; b) georgia vote solicitation; c) jan 6/pressuring Pence to not certify the votes are what... normal acts within the bounds of free and fair elections?
I don't think anything about the 2020 election was normal, including Trump's behaviour. My view is that he (and many others in the country) thought the election was manipulated. He was angry and his actions reflect a rather desperate attempt to right a perceived wrong. It didn't work. I'm comfortable with the ability of the other co-equal branches of government to block and hold to account power hungry politicians that may try to skirt the law. Maybe I'm naive in that regard. Who knows.
"Politicians that may try to skirt the law" within the context of skirting election law is by definition, undermining democracy. When "politicians that may try to skirt the law" win elections, it is the end of democracy. Putin did it in Russia. It's not hyperbole or fear mongering. If an American presidential candidate can "skirt the law" and win, that's the end of democracy.
Independent, non-American assessments of the "Democratic Backslide" in America has rated the US as a "flawed" democracy.
https://archive.is/IjUEd
These assessments all pointed to three main areas wherein Americans have loss political liberties in the past 20 years (the largest, most significant backslide in democratic rights in the US since Jim Crow):
1) barriers to voting
2) influence of money in politics; and
3) gerrymandering.
Re: Barriers: the list is long. felony disenfranchisement. closure of polling stations in dem-leaning districts. eliminating ballot drop boxes. prohibiting handing out food and water to voters at polling places. purging/non-renewal of voter registrations. restricting mail-in ballots. voter ID laws. Oklahoma introduced a law where mail-in ballots had to be notarized. Other states have banned student ID's from being valid voting ID's, or requiring 2 forms of ID - which in the grand scheme of voter IDs, as the government, you can't be draconian about needing a voter ID without also providing a voter ID. With the DMV being the dominant issuer of photo ID's (and not say, the Secretary of State), you're basically saying, we only want people who drive to be voting.
Re: Influence of money in politics - well, it's been talked to death here. Citizens United is probably the most damaging SCOTUS case in American history, and also one of the most nakedly corrupt. Money = speech, and corporations have the right to unrestricted "speech" in the form of political spending. It makes no sense. We can talk about how Dems are corrupt too (and they are) but guess which party is the one that's blocking FEC reform?The body failed to invoke cloture on the measure, in a 49-49 vote. Every Republican present voted against the measure, while every Democrat voted for it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3656002-republicans-block-bill-requiring-dark-money-groups-to-reveal-donors/
Re: Gerrymandering.
When North Carolina's state legislature becomes so gerrymandered that when the voters come in at 50% of popular vote going R and 49% popular vote going D, but the results yield 69 seats to R's and 51 seats to D's (57%/43%), that's the end of democracy as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_North_Carolina_House_of_Representatives_election
There's a consistent throughline in all of these backslides - it's being driven by the Republicans. There's another consistent throughline - none of these have anything to do with actual political issues - it's simply about making it easier for Republicans to stay in power. A shrinking party that is desperate to cling to power, and will use whatever political capital, abuse whatever political processes, and spend whatever dark money necessary to stay in power.
Zonkerbl wrote:I was going to post a big rant about popper not being worried but he is, in fact, agreeing with me so
IGNORE ME