Political Roundtable Part XXXII

[popper]

Interesting article.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

Interesting article

https://wapo.st/4aQhfft

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]

Interesting article.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

Interesting article

https://wapo.st/4aQhfft

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

oh are we just trolling without reading the article? I can do that, I will gladly not bother reading this trollbait article

[popper]

Interesting article

https://wapo.st/4aQhfft

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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.

... 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]

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?

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]

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.

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. 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.

[Zonkerbl]

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.

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."

[Zonkerbl]

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.

[doclinkin]

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 assassinates, threatens or jails anyone who votes to impeach or convict him? Nothing, it is an official act. He is immune.

[popper]

... 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."

I hear you Zonk, I just don't have the same fear/concern as you have described above. As I've posted here before, I'm a Conservative (if that is defined as "conserving those institutions and policies that IMO serve the best interest of my family and the country") that usually votes R. I recently changed my registration from Independent to R so I could vote against Trump in the primary.

[verbal8]

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.

If nothing else Noem has done something that no other Republican has been able to accomplish, stealing the spotlight from Trump. She might be having her own "grab them bu the p**$y" moment - sure her party is disgusted, but they might not end up actually doing anything to her. People have resigned for way less.

[Zonkerbl]

I was going to post a big rant about popper not being worried but he is, in fact, agreeing with me so

IGNORE ME

[pancakes3]

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.

"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.

[dobrojim]

... 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.

...and acts in Good Faith so that it will.

From what I have seen, there is a considerable cadre of the GOP that so fears their declining
influence and who have decided that the other side is such a severe threat to what they
believe, that extraordinary ie anti-democratic measures are required in order to 'save' the country.
There are now several members of the RNC (which consists of 2 members from each state) who
now have been indicted in the false electors scheme, a flagrantly anti-democratic plan,
not to mention a shocking development, criminally indicted persons holding national positions in the GOP.
Think about that. What could be more mainstream within a political party than a member,
or multiple members holding national leadership positions, who have conspired to overthrow an election. A disdain
for democracy has thoroughly infected the GOP.

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.

Tim Snyder, Yale historian and author

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/-another-window-into-trump-corruption-weissmann-explains-new-docs-case-material-209941061987

Movements towards fascism and authoritarianism are not new in America.

Maddow's best selling book Prequel describes this

#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.

I suspect you might try to dismiss this. Maddow is exactly the kind of person, a lesbian and academic,
that many on the right. *Not saying you are either biased against LGBTQ people or academics. I am saying
that many of your fellow Republicans are. And they are accepted into the party.

History tells us that there are things in the Constitution that were included to in order to get
the slave holding southern colonies to sign on which are clearly anti-democratic and in need
of reform starting with the electoral college and the 2 senators per state US Senate. But the
GOP recognizes that if those 2 things were reformed or eliminated, the GOP would completely
lose power. I don't hear good faith objections to these reforms so I'm not naive enough
to believe they will happen. But I do believe we would have a less dysfunctional govt if they did.

[dobrojim]

[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.

The GOP is a completely bad faith actor re voting. They have been aware for decades
that their influence wanes when voting participation increases.

And their efforts towards 'election integrity' are completely in bad faith.

The data do not show any significant problems in this area. And the
majority of the small number of cases that have happened have mostly been done
by Republican partisans.

[Zonkerbl]

well this is unexpectedly good news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/04/30/marijuana-restrictions-loosen/

Biden's re-election's in the bag now

[popper]

... 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.

There's so much to unpack here Pancakes that I don't know where to begin. I appreciate that you pointed out that both parties are corrupt. That is true. You seem to believe R's are more corrupt. I don't think so but it would take days to compare the historical array of corruptions by each party. I'll skip that impossible exercise.

If I'm not mistaken, D's raised far more money in 2020 and in the 2022 midterms (including a significant advantage in dark money). So if R's are more corrupt than D's then somehow they fell short in the money grab (or pay to play corruption if you will). You mention NC. Do you think it is more corrupt than IL or NY? Do you think union domination of CA elections is good for their democracy.

I don't have the answer Pancakes except to say that at one time I supported a law that would make any political donation illegal unless it came from an individual US citizen (and fully disclosed). But even that simple proposal has so many complicating issues it's to going to take someone far smarter than I am to sort it out. I'm also a big proponent of outlawing political affiliations and party factions.

If you and others believe that R's are more corrupt than D's then there is no way on this thread that I'll convince you otherwise. It's enough for me to recognize that our system of government is generally corrupt and that a large number of our citizens are ill equipped to understand its nature and change its trajectory. Ugh

[popper]

I was going to post a big rant about popper not being worried but he is, in fact, agreeing with me so

IGNORE ME

Yes. Trump was a bad choice for the R's in 2020 and he'll be a bad choice this year as well. Unfortunately I'll have to vote for him again if Biden is his opponent.