Ser Reptitious

Interesting, but even if he were to somehow pull out a win (which is in itself still a long-shot, imo), he would almost certainly have to deal with a Republican legislature, so what could he really accomplish? He might be able to veto some stuff, but would that be enough to get re-elected and/or help the Democrats in other ways? Would he still have an impact on districting maps, or would that already be all wrapped up by the time he'd be sworn in? But still, it's great to see a prominent Democrat potentially eyeing a state-level office, instead of always almost exclusively focusing on the federal level.

Well, it's probably partly true, since he undoubtedly was very unhappy with how things ended (i.e. the coup attempt failing). On a separate note, with Black History Month about to come to a close, I found this video very enlightening (and infuriating) about how even the building of the interstate highways had a very (deliberate) detrimental effect on black communities:

But again you're overlooking the very real fear of physical violence that such candidates have to face if they cross Trump. This is likely why McConnell and his ilk voted to acquit. McConnell got about as much use out of Trump as he could. It would have been entirely in character for him to throw Trump to the curb now, especially given the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt (and his obvious dislike of McConnell and "establishment" Republicans). And he's not up for re-election for almost 6 years. But I imagine he worries about Trump sending his rabid hounds on him.

@Winterfell is Burning, I hope your overall assessment turns out to be correct. It is certainly possible that things will turn out that way. Personally I doubt a true split will happen in the Republican party. Rather, it will continue to radicalize, and those (few) with a conscience who can't stand it any longer will leave. A big problem will be the very real threat of violence towards "enemies" and especially perceived "traitors". The GOP will become more and more like a mafia. In theory that should indeed make them unelectable, but the overall balance is close enough that with their willingness to shamelessly cheat in whatever way it takes, they very well might still pull off some wins here and there. They don't need the trifecta (although if they ever somehow do get that in the next decade or so, U.S. democracy is probably doomed), but just controlling a lot of states and gaining control of the House or the Senate (or both) could seriously gum up the works.

I wouldn't consider it a foregone conclusion either, but the danger of it happening is very real, and that alone is already deeply frightening. Hence the need to take action before it's too late. I appreciate your more optimistic outlook and hope you will turn out to be right. But the U.S. truly stands at a crossroads at the moment, and Americans wanting to avoid a slide into authoritarianism can't be complacent and expect things to somehow automatically sort themselves out. You will have to fight like hell to preserve the democracy you have. The fact that it lasted two and a half centuries so far is no guarantee in itself that it will continue. Trump was the first to so brazenly (and thankfully rather incompetently) test the system, and it barely held. Just him somehow getting re-elected to another four year term probably would have been enough to destroy it.

I think this merits a separate thread outside of the day-to-day U.S. Politics thread, especially given that the question posed in the title will inevitably (unfortunately) affect the whole world. I don’t live in the U.S. and never have (and don’t ever plan to), yet (as pointed out above) the U.S.’s decisions on things like climate change, pandemic control (or lack thereof), upholding the rule of law, supporting democracies (or instead fascist dictatorships), nuclear war, etc. etc. will impact those of us who never get to cast a vote in any U.S. election all the same. So (1) where do you see the the U.S. 10 and 20 years from now? and perhaps what I’m even more interested in is (2) what realistic solution do you see for resolving the current extreme pendulum swing? My answers: (1) If nothing fundamentally changes, the Trumpists/Fascists will be firmly in charge (at least federally). They just came off a trial run to overturn democracy, and it went surprisingly well (from their point of view). They just need to weed out a few ‘traitors’ here and there in critically important positions, plus ‘tweak’ the electoral registrations a bit more. And voilá, they’re set! The people in the Democratic Party who clearly see the true danger are still too powerless, and Fox News and the rest of the rightwing biosphere will anyway ensure there is enough misinformation out there about who actually is the ‘bad guy’ that needs to be hunted down and eliminated. (2) Texas seems to once again threatening secession (as it did when Obama won). I know that the (first?) civil war established that no state can secede unilaterally*, but at this point I think letting Texas and some of the other Deep South states go would be the lesser of the two evils (see my otherwise prediction in point 1). With those states gone, it would definitely eliminate the threat of Trumpism/dictatorship from the remaining U.S., which I think at this point needs to be the overriding concern! Yes, this will leave unhappy minorities in the other’s territory, but if the split is reasonably amicable enough (i.e. long before things reach civil war level), perhaps an EU-style compromise can be worked out where trade and movement of people is largely unrestricted, meaning that anyone who is feeling repressed (real or imagined) can move, no questions asked. *I’m glad the Union won the first go-around, since the thought of slavery sticking around way beyond the mid-1860s (and possibly even until today *shudder*) is too evil to countenance, but nowadays the bitterness of the losers seems to seriously threaten to undo everything that has been accomplished since at least the 1960s in ALL of the U.S.! Time, perhaps, to let the most extreme states leave peacefully so that the rest of the union can be saved, before it gets dragged down the road of democratic destruction?

Thanks for the thorough reply. Much appreciated!

So did Trump just get lucky that a vacancy came up at the right moment? How long does a term last? (Apologies for all these questions. I'm just intrigued, because I don't know much of the inner workings of the USPS.)

How is DeJoy still in charge? Can't Biden fire him and replace him with somebody NOT determined to destroy the USPS?

I'm confused. Did you mean to say "can't"? Anyway, I think it'd be amusing to interview her, but only ask her questions that are not even remotely related to "cancel culture".

Oh don't worry, the rest of the world will always see the US as something special alright.

Apologies for the nitpick, but I'm fairly sure it was Tyrion who thought that. Anyway, I agree that seems like a decent comparison (except that Cersei can also be quite vicious, something that I don't think that, for all his numerous other faults, normally applies to Boris).

You didn’t, and that was the point. Re-read the first word of my fourth/last paragraph (imagine it in bold, if that helps), and then re-read the rest of it, because you obviously clearly didn’t get the overall meaning the first time around. That’s a very different argument from what you said earlier. If you personally feel that eliminating the death penalty is a low priority, just say so from the get-go! It’s a valid personal opinion (even if I strongly disagree with it). But have the guts to own it. Don’t bullshit people with [paraphrasing] ‘that could only be done in conjunction with a thorough, systematic reform of the entire U.S. justice system, which has to all take place at the same moment.’ Justice reform (both federally and on the state level) will have to happen incrementally. You know this. You are basically Mr. Incremental personified on this board. You yourself have (in other contexts, such as health care) said yourself that those who push for too much, too soon, will fail, and thereby unwittingly perpetuate the status quo. So you suddenly pretending to be a convert to the “go big or go home” crowd seems rather odd. Unless you’re perfectly happy for the status quo to prevail, but are unwilling to say so...?

I realize that you are (once again) trying to joke/banter your way out of a corner, but this actually gets to the very heart of the problem. When people are discussing fundamental changes that are necessary (ex. health care, income inequality) you lecture, belittle, or angrily scream at them (occasionally with all caps) about how slow and steady incrementalism is the only way to go (something that, depending on the topic at hand, I don't necessarly disagree with, btw). But then when people are discussing a potential incremental step, such as in this case the elimination of the death penalty as a step towards overall justice reform (or banning tear gas as a step towards police reform, as per that other thread) then all of a sudden you argue that such an incremental step can't be taken on its own and that the complete reform has to be done in one fell swoop. It feels like you're sandbagging people. If health care is too big and complex to change in one go and needs to be done incrementally (again, I tend to agree) to then argue that complete justice reform (which would require not only the cooperation of all three branches of the federal level, but also the same in every one of all 50 states, all at once!) can be (and according to you needs to be) done all in one single step is completely disingenuous, because you very well know that will never, ever happen. If you're fine with the status quo on a particular topic, have the guts to say so. If you're constantly arguing against all proposed changes (because they are either too incremental or not incremental enough), then the status quo remaining in place is the logical outcome of your position anyway. You're actually very consistent on that.

I thought incrementalism was your thing?