U.S. Politics: Leaving On A Jet Plane

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I don't know how anyone could effectively reach these people, and the end result is they support authoritarian actions.

Yeah that's the point.  Dylan Mathews had a piece yesterday on whether to call Trump a fascist or not and raised a lot of the same points you are.  The most important being that fascists did actually oppose democracy while these people seem to genuinely think they are defending democracy.  These arguments are valid at the academic level, but I really don't care about that distinction.  If you watched the events on 1/6 and still support Trump, you support fascism, whether you know it or want to or not.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah that's the point.  Dylan Mathews had a piece yesterday on whether to call Trump a fascist or not and raised a lot of the same points you are.  The most important being that fascists did actually oppose democracy while these people seem to genuinely think they are defending democracy.  These arguments are valid at the academic level, but I really don't care about that distinction.  If you watched the events on 1/6 and still support Trump, you support fascism, whether you know it or want to or not.

That however implies, that a majority (if not all) actually believe the orange calf won the election. I take the liberty of questioning that premise. So those Trumpists are fascists. Whether he believes his own shit is not really relevant as far as his supporters being fascists is concerned. I also think, he knows that he lost the election.

[DMC]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That however implies, that a majority (if not all) actually believe the orange calf won the election. I take the liberty of questioning that premise. So those Trumpists are fascists. Whether he believes his own shit is not really relevant as far as his supporters being fascists is concerned. I also think, he knows that he lost the election.

Not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I agree that the amount of people that actually believe Trump won is much lower than what a poll will tell you.  Same goes, the other way around, for those that will admit they actually support authoritarian rule.

[Week]

I would like to see Democrats come out with some smart policies that will actually effect noticeable change on a day to day basis. (Not that any or all are possible but let's brainstorm)

-- Postcard tax filing

-- Fix TSA -- I don't care if the answer is throwing money at it -- make it work and work more quickly. The theater is tired and has to be an economic drain

-- Legalized Marijuana (YMMV)

-- Cuts to the military with direct increases to veterans care and mental health

Ok, I ran out of steam because I've barely had coffee and need to work. Been thinking about this ever since the FIRST thing Charlie Baker did was eliminate all toll boths for an automated system. Immediate good will an a no-brainer type of change that needed to happen which can always be pointed to as a win.

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah that's the point.  Dylan Mathews had a piece yesterday on whether to call Trump a fascist or not and raised a lot of the same points you are.  The most important being that fascists did actually oppose democracy while these people seem to genuinely think they are defending democracy.  These arguments are valid at the academic level, but I really don't care about that distinction.  If you watched the events on 1/6 and still support Trump, you support fascism, whether you know it or want to or not.

Sure. I get that. My counter though is: how many of these people actually saw the events of 1/6? Versus, how many saw the events as conveyed by Hannity and others? Its idiotic, but I think there's a non-neglible number that truly believe the false flag garbage. Or pay so little attention that they never watched any footage and don't know how this was different from any Mall protest.

And I think this is relevant because while I don't know how you reach these people, I think theoretically there is a way. And that makes them different from those who know what's going on and actively support it.

[Week]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Now - smart and educated centrist or right-leaning pundits - they're the ones who can tell me something I don't already know. They are the ones who can cause me to strengthen my own ideas and arguments by poking holes in them; forcing me to either strengthen or abandon them. In short - they're the ones who have at least some chance of being useful. (same goes for left pundits and right-wing audience, as well).

For the US, this is where the big tent of the Left can have a debate between Ta-Nehisi Coates, Matt Ygglesias, Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, etc. and have an debate. There is worthy debate to be had over carbon tax, cap and trade, nuclear, batteries, carbon capture etc. -- That debate cannot happen with anyone denying climate change (and pollution) or concerned about coal companies (workers and areas previously dependent on coal, yes. Coal itself, no).

What recently has debate from the Right benefitted your ideas? Genuinely curious for an example.

Relevant article:

https://theweek.com/articles-amp/915855/how-social-conservatives-traded-causes-clichs

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

And I think this is relevant because while I don't know how you reach these people, I think theoretically there is a way. And that makes them different from those who know what's going on and actively support it.

Theoretically, sure.  And if you wanna keep trying be my guest.  Practically, though, I think it's time to view them as a sunk cost.

[Fez]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Theoretically, sure.  And if you wanna keep trying be my guest.  Practically, though, I think it's time to view them as a sunk cost.

Well, I have an idea involving FEMA reeducation camps that I love to secure funding and IRB approval for.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Well, I have an idea involving FEMA reeducation camps that I love to secure funding and IRB approval for.

Fuckin IRBs!

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Is there any reason that, each time I breach "people should talk to and debate each other" argument,  you immediately bring up Nazis? Almost without exception.

They are a useful example to demonstrate why the mindset of “everything should be up to debate and everyone need be given any platform that would be most effective  in promoting their beliefs!”  can be really naive.

 

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

It's an age-told truth, unfortunately, as old as politics itself - that many people will always use the worst example of of rival group in order to justify their dismissal of them. For you, it's the "Nazis". For right-wingers, it could be "stalinists" For non-muslims, it's "jihadists". Et cetera, et cetera.

I made it a point to say not everyone to the right of me is a nazi.

I’ve made my position rather clear but I will restate; I do not believe every idea need the chance to be pushed on every platform least of all private ones.

I’ve given some examples to which unfortunately many Americans do believe; that sodomy laws should be and keeping America white because America would be worse.

I know from our previous conversations you think these sorts of bigoted wants are extremely rare

They’re not.

Here’s another example of an idea I do not see any point in trying to humor or pretend there’s a reasonable debate to be had; the idea that theres a possibility the election was stolen.

That idea nearly got congress lynched last week and an end to Democracy in America.

It was helped that many members in congress pretended that there wasn’t a debate that Biden won the election.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, Inkdaub said:

I'd also like to say that we are already better than the other group.  It does no good at all for us to pretend that isn't the case. 

Also, I worry that many people are aware of these programs but aren't actually watching.  So you have your righty people seeing their guy on the tube owning the libs...but they don't actually understand or even watch the 'debate' or whatever it might be presented as.  Their guy being on tv writes it's own narrative. 

I would love it if pointing out the idiocy of the right had some sort of effect but I just don't think it does.  I have to come down on the side that platforming these people does more harm than good. 

I agree. Have you ever had your mind changed by some person coming in and telling you what an idiot you are for doing something wrong? Has that ever worked for anyone. (Waits for inevitable boarder anecdote--and replies: yeah, but that's an anecdote, so let's move back to my original point)

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I agree. Have you ever had your mind changed by some person coming in and telling you what an idiot you are for doing something wrong? Has that ever worked for anyone. (Waits for inevitable boarder anecdote--and replies: yeah, but that's an anecdote, so let's move back to my original point)

Something I'm unclear about is how legitimately successful is the denazification in West Germany considered these days? Did it actually work or was it just a matter of waiting for them to all die off?

We don't have the same powers available to us that the Allies had in post-war Germany, and most of the American wannabe authoritarians aren't as bad as the literal Nazis (though there are some like the "Camp Auschwtiz" guy); but seems like there's maybe some lessons learned.

[Gorn]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

Something I'm unclear about is how legitimately successful is the denazification in West Germany considered these days? Did it actually work or was it just a matter of waiting for them to all die off?

We don't have the same powers available to us that the Allies had in post-war Germany, and most of the American wannabe authoritarians aren't as bad as the literal Nazis (though there are some like the "Camp Auschwtiz" guy); but seems like there's maybe some lessons learned.

Denazification was actually far harsher and more thorough in the East Germany than in the West. However, in the long term, it was more effective in the West, since former East Germany has a much higher percentage of Nazis among its present-day population.

On the other end of the scale, you have Italy, where no similar de-fascistification was even attempted, and where fascists were basically permitted to continue to freely organize and participate in elections, with MSI (the neo-fascist successor party) having membership in the hundreds of thousands. As a result, Italy had roughly two decades of both right- and left-wing political terrorism ("Years of Lead") which left hundreds dead, as well as an attempted neo-fascist coup.

The conclusion would be that the correct way to deal with fascism is somewhere in the middle between Soviet-style oppression and Italy's "whatever" approach.

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Twenty Nine Percent

To me one of the more interesting paragraphs in the Pew report linked to above is this:

Quote

About six-in-ten Democrats (62%) say Biden should try to work with Republican leaders “even it means disappointing some of his voters.” Far fewer (37%) want Biden to “stand up” to Republicans even if it’s harder to address critical issues.

Maybe it's because a high percentage of my reading of political discussions is on this thread, but I would have expected a somewhat higher % of Democrats to want Biden to "stand up" to Republicans even if it's harder to address critical issues.  

[Mindwalker]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

To me one of the more interesting paragraphs in the Pew report linked to above is this:

Maybe it's because a high percentage of my reading of political discussions is on this thread, but I would have expected a somewhat higher % of Democrats to want Biden to "stand up" to Republicans even if it's harder to address critical issues.  

No, I think that's part of the problem: That many Dem voters are pro bipartisanship, while most Rep voters are not (and Rep. politicians only pay lip service to it anymore).

 

[Fragile Bird]

CNN is reporting the first conspiracy charges arising out of the 6th have been filed, against the 65-year old leader of the Oath Keepers in Virginia. He was an organizer of the attack, surrounded by a group of about a dozen people in Oath Keepers gear. The guy's name is Thomas Caldwell (sp).

The charges carry a sentence of up to 20 years.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The three fifth compromise curtailed slave states attempts to garner more power through saying they represented people they effectively owned.

Since wealth in the southern states literally was embodied in the bodies of their 'property' it ensures the slave-owning class held all the reins of power in their states, and were the only ones to represent the states in D.C., thereby ensuring them keeping the reins of federal power for themselves too.  So many years of owning the presidency only enforced their conviction, held even before the ratification of the Constitution, they, and they alone were entitled to run everything.

In the South, only people with a certain level of wealth could stand for offices, and only they could vote.

Which is how, for instance, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the 1860 election in their states.

 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can win while being better at the same time. Would Biden have won if he sank into the mud with Trump? I'm not so sure.

Citation needed. Do you have evidence that you can win and be better? 

Its also a false equivalence. I'm not saying folks need to mudsling. I'm saying folks need to do a lot more deplatforming of people. And in Bidens case they did just that - they largely ignored fox news, ignored the idiotic requests for debate from other sources, and encouraged others to do the same.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I don't think that's quite right. I don't know the exact percentages, but I think there is some amount of that 33% that don't want authoritarianism. Instead, it's that they are caught in an information bubble where every source they trust has told them over and over that the election was fraudulent and Trump was the legitimate winner and they honestly believe that. And they furthermore believe that every Trump action they hear about (which isn't all of them, there are plenty that Fox News and others gloss over or ignore completely; and they learn about) is justified because he is the one defending Democracy.

I don't know how anyone could effectively reach these people, and the end result is they support authoritarian actions. But I think there is an important difference between them and the white supremacists, or the "We know this is bad, but we really want judges/tax cuts/deregulation, so we're okay with it." If Trump had stolen the election, a lot of us would be calling for extraordinary actions to be taken, and these people believe Biden stole the election. 

To be really really clear I'm not talking about recent events- I'm talking about the well documented breakdown of people's moral frameworks across the world. And in general somewhere between 20 and 30% of all populations literally desire a strongman singular leader and authoritarianism over other things. It is to some degree built into our ape brains. 

Right now those people are basically ALL for the GOP. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Two National Guard members have been removed from duty protecting Biden's inauguration because of connection to far right militia groups. That number seems awful low - if 20000 are there in DC, I'd put the number more at 200 or thereabouts. Its hard to vet for these things though, you only catch the stupid ones who make public posts on social media etc...