US Politics: Choking our Democracy

[Jace, Extat]

The current president had his agents destroy postal boxes because "if they get to vote or vote by mail, no Republican will be elected." He called on his supporters to vote multiple times YESTERDAY amidst a year-long effort to de-legitimize the November election. His most rabid followers are embedded throughout a number of law enforcement agencies and willingly team up off the clock to round up dissidents. There was no consequence for any of this activity. This is shit that happened in the last three months.

What a fantasy you live in.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

What a fantasy you live in.

Accurately understanding terms is a fantasy?

[Kalbear]

50 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Actually, the notion that any stable democracy is predestined to descend into despotism is patently absurd.

I think the quibble is more about the stable part of the above argument wrt the US. A democracy that has had at best 30 years of actual representative democracy for their ethnic minorities and is rapidly attempting to reverse that isnt a great sign. A system that routinely elects the person with fewer votes is not a great sign of stability either. Nor are elections where 80% of the candidates are shoeins based on party. Or the absurd stability of trumps approval despite the insane last four years. 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Irrespective of the form of local institutions there is a widespread theory that the extent of civil liberties and in-group inclusion are directly correlated to the perception of economic health. In simpler words: if humans think resources are or are becoming scarce, they will tend to support centralized power, stronger regimentation of society and of the economy, and become -dramatically- more intolerant.
I'm not sure I can point to where this theory comes from exactly (i.e. the literature), and I'm not sure it can be proven "scientifically." Nonetheless, it seems to me that it's pretty intuitive and hard to debunk.
Applied to a situation in which we have a global environmental crisis, the logical conclusion is that as a species we're "mechanically" headed for fascism and genocide.
The puzzling thing -to my eyes- is that the predictable consequences of climate change... are already here, even though we're barely starting to feel its impact, almost as if our "societies" had, on some unconscious or instinctive level, already accepted it, and were in the process of adapting to it.
Which would mean that this is just the beginning, and we can expect unimaginable violence and numerous genocides in the coming decades.

I think the idea that an increase in scarcity results in a corresponding increase in the viciousness of competition and therefore also increases in polarization, intolerance and the rest is relatively uncontroversial. However, I disagree that the consequences that are already here have anything to do with climate change. The latter is projected to be harder to stop the longer we wait to implement countermeasures, but it's not expected to arrive in force for another few decades and the effects that are here now are nowhere near to having a major impact.

There does exist what amounts to an increase in scarcity for the vast majority of the population of industrialized nations, but it's a purely distributional effect. In these countries, the economic gains of the past few decades have gone to the people at the very top (not even the 1%, but the 0.1% or 0.01%) and to the laborers in poorer countries to whom a great deal of work was outsourced. The result is that most people of these places are now relatively poorer and a non-trivial fraction of them are actually poorer even in absolute terms. Thus, the scarcity is already here, but it doesn't have much to do with climate change (not yet, anyway).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for Arendt, she was VERY conservative in labeling regimes totalitarian.  Her writings thoroughly suggest she'd be quite critical of all the chicken littles around here.

Yes, we are still some ways off. However, the gaslighting and support by a propaganda/media machinery is there. The current administration is displaying quite a few of the traits she described.

So I think she would feel more than a bit uneasy looking at it.

 

[Jace, Extat]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Accurately understanding terms is a fantasy?

Narrowing definitions to exclude anything save hyper-specific academic measurables is willful ignorance blanketed in statistics.

I didn't cite this woman's scale of totalitarian nations, I said America is categorically unstable and destined for despotism. Don't try and reroute my arguments. I honestly don't give a livered fuck what some chart says about America's status as a democracy when I've been watching it sink into the mud for 25 years. Cling to your trivial differentiations on what someone else defined as stable in a day long passed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

  Second, in such a situation Trump's reaction will almost certainly be to take it to court - that's been his MO throughout his entire life/career.  And the only court that matters in a dispute to decide the presidential election is SCOTUS.  If Roberts can find a legitimate reason to swing the direction towards Trump, he probably will.  But his behavior/decisions throughout the Trump administration make it clear he's not going to risk the legitimacy of the court simply to appease Trump/the GOP on any of their policy goals - let alone nakedly gifting him a second term.  Frankly I doubt Gorsuch would do that either.  

How long would it take to pack the court? Assuming all rules and norms were discarded? 

[Guest]

So, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out - Trump has blood in the water right now. This reporting has been confirmed on Fox, and because Trump can only counterpunch, he can only keep drawing attention to it, which means that it will start penetrating the bubble.

"Traditional" conservatives actually have a choice to make; if they're ever going to defeat Trumpism, now is the time to strike. If Trump loses his apologists, he will lose some of his base; not all, but enough. If small-government, low-tax conservatives want to win the day, they can take their licks now and allow Trump to be defeated, and then try to revamp like they did after Goldwater's defeat.

Now, I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario. Most likely, they'll continue being spineless hacks. But, if they were ever going to pull a Brutus to Trump's Caesar, now is the time.

 

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

A democracy that has had at best 30 years of actual representative democracy for their ethnic minorities and is rapidly attempting to reverse that isnt a great sign. A system that routinely elects the person with fewer votes is not a great sign of stability either. Nor are elections where 80% of the candidates are shoeins based on party. Or the absurd stability of trumps approval despite the insane last four years. 

Most "stable democracies" haven't had true universal suffrage for too much longer (and I don't know where you're getting the "30 years" from.  What is that - 1966-96?  76-2006?  Seems the period you're referring to is considerably longer).  The incumbency advantage is hardly limited to the US among stable democracies.  Twice in the last five contests is not a good look, sure, but 53 out of 58 looks a hell of a lot better.  The EC winner lost the popular vote twice from 1876-1888, and that didn't lead to a descent into despotism/whatever.  As for Trump consistently getting 40%, that's obviously more a reflection of the electorate - which isn't really a factor other than ensuring their rights when considering the facets that define democratic stability.

9 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I think that a bit of sky is falling thinking is an appropriate hedge against complacency.  

I think the cynicism that underlies such narratives is actually cancerous and much more liable to enable a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Pretty sure a positive message of "our democracy is under the gravest of threats which is why it is imperative we not only need to defeat Trump but defeat him by a large margin" is a much better way to actually, ya know, put up a fight.  And btw, that was pretty much Obama's thesis at the DNC.

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So I think she would feel more than a bit uneasy looking at it.

No one's arguing we're under extreme threat.  Doesn't mean it's inevitable though.

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Narrowing definitions to exclude anything save hyper-specific academic measurables is willful ignorance blanketed in statistics.

Not when that academic definition is how I was using the term that you then took issue with.  That's called clarifying my position, hardly being willfully ignorant.  As for these definitions being from "a day long past."  These operational definitions were updated last fucking year.  If you don't want to abide by the way people continue to build mutual knowledge and understanding of political phenomena that's your prerogative.  But don't shit on me and them because we'd like to look at these things with something other than a nihilistic perspective.

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

America is categorically unstable and destined for despotism. Don't try and reroute my arguments.

I'm not.  I'm saying your definition of "stable" is different than how my use of stable democracy is understood.  And I'm objecting to your assertion we're destined for despotism.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How long would it take to pack the court? Assuming all rules and norms were discarded? 

If a party has unified government - and, perhaps more importantly, can unite their entire caucus in both chambers - then they could pack the court pretty damn quickly if they want to discard all rules and norms.

[Guest]

Just now, Triskele said:

Trump does seem to think that this story threatens him a bit.

Yup, and if you look at some right-wing media, they're spilling just as much ink trying to defend him as they are trying to spin the law-and-order messaging.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Yup, and if you look at some right-wing media, they're spilling just as much ink trying to defend him as they are trying to spin the law-and-order messaging.

I'm skeptical it's going to change any votes, but it does look like it's gonna eat up 4, 5 maybe even an entire week of news cycles.  Pleasantly surprised by that, and with only two months left, that ain't nothin.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I think Murdoch is slowly disentangling Fox from Trump. Not fully, though, but if toad-faced Hannity starts running stories critical of Trump then its over.

Still, I think Trump has more sway with the folks who are both his supporters and watch Fox news, and they may just switch to OAN. That still leaves a fairly sizable chunk of people who are conservative Fox news viewers but not hard-core Trumpies. Maybe they can be convinced to just stay at home.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm skeptical it's going to change any votes, but it does look like it's gonna eat up 4, 5 maybe even an entire week of news cycles.  Pleasantly surprised by that, and with only two months left, that ain't nothin.

That's the biggest hope I see. This is eating up the clock.

ETA: I just watched an interview with Dr. Fauci yesterday where he threw down the gauntlet to the FDA, saying (paraphrasing) "The FDA promised to follow the science, so I damn well expect them to do what they say." Regardless what happens at the FDA, I am confident Dr. Fauci will tell us exactly how safe it is.

He's been keeping his powder dry, just for this moment.

[Durckad]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Trump does seem to think that this story threatens him a bit.

Is this going to be the Pussygate of 2020 then?

[A True Kaniggit]

Just now, Durckad said:

Is this going to be the Pussygate of 2020 then?

Hope not. He won in 2016. 

[Durckad]

Just now, A True Kaniggit said:

Hope not. He won in 2016. 

My point exactly. [/cynicalfucker]

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

If a party has unified government - and, perhaps more importantly, can unite their entire caucus in both chambers - then they could pack the court pretty damn quickly if they want to discard all rules and norms.

They only need the Senate and the Presidency. Which they have. So why not pack the court while the election is litigated. If the rules don't matter, what's stopping Trump from YOLOing here? 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They only need the Senate and the Presidency.

No, changing the composition of the court requires an act of Congress.  You need the House too.

[Kalbear]

So many bits to choose from. Reality has a liberal bias, blue wave, sea change, etc

 

[Lollygag]

Me too on seeing a lot for Biden but virtually nothing for Trump.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/president-trump-has-used-dollar584-million-in-campaign-donations-for-legal-bills-nyt-reports?ref=home

Quote

President Donald Trump’s many legal battles since 2015 come with an expensive price tag—one covered using $58.4 million in campaign donations, according to a The New York Times tally. His hefty spending has been used for personal endeavors, like nondisclosure agreements in business ventures, as well as legal costs associated with impeachment and the Russia scandal. “Vindicating President Trump’s personal interests is now so intertwined with the interests of the Republican Party they are one and the same—and that includes the legal fights the party is paying for now,” Matthew T. Sanderson, a former campaign finance lawyer to presidential candidates, told the Times.

Forbes has tracked Trump campaign money being moved into his private business. No doubt there's more.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/08/25/trump-has-now-moved-23-million-of-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business/#545d73f5773c

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/07/28/non-partisan-watchdog-accuses-trump-campaign-of-laundering-170-million/#378e5e9d6128

Quote

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission Tuesday accusing the Trump campaign of “laundering” $170 million through numerous companies, some with connections to former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale.

Add to this reports of Trump yelling at his donors for not putting up enough and regular people ticked off with the campaign's bullying tactics...

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/trump-supporters-fume-at-the-presidents-campaign-for-spamming-them-with-sleazy-text-messages/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/08/trump-antagonizes-sheldon-adelson-phone-call-392688

He also has loans coming due.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/donald-trump-loans-deutsche-bank/

Quote

On financial disclosure forms, Trump has reported holding 14 loans on 12 proper­ties. At least six of those loans, representing about $479 million in debt, are due over the next four years. Some are guaranteed by Trump himself, meaning a creditor could come after his personal—not corporate—­assets if he defaults. If he holds onto the White House, the refinancing of these debts could take his conflicts of interest to absurd new heights. How will the public know if these deals are on the up and up or whether Trump is receiving sweetheart terms from a bank that wants an in with the president? And what might a lender desire in return for helping Trump out of a financial jam?