US Politics: Biden vs. Ron DeCardassian in the Delta quadrant

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Because for most of US history huge swathes of the population was completely disenfranchised. We call ourselves the world's oldest democracy (which isn't true anyway, thanks Iceland), but by most modern standards we didn't become one until 1965.  We eventually became one though, and, while I don't want to be cavalier about the future (or how bad things might get in the short-term), I don't see why we can't become one again. Just like there is no immutable rule that progress is permanent, there is no rule that backsliding is forever either. This is especially true when you look at the variation in beliefs and attitudes by age.

I'm 34 right now. I fully expect politics in my 40s and 50s to be pretty terrible, but I can easily see things getting a lot better again in my 60s. Assuming technology and profit motives can save us from climate change. And assuming there isn't another pogrom against Jews.

I agree we've only been a true democracy since 1965, but generally speaking we've been consistently moving in the direction of expanding democracy, voter restriction laws aside. That all goes out the door if the president-elect isn't seated, and if that does happen there's no reason to assume it won't happen again and again for the foreseeable future. And even if we can break out of that cycle at some point, the damage done will be immense, politically and even more importantly with regards to climate change. I'm not saying this will happen, but the fact that it could would have been mostly unthinkable just a few years ago. The right has become so radicalized, and will only continue to do so. If they have to choose between democracy and conservatism, they ain't picking the former. 

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree we've only been a true democracy since 1965, but generally speaking we've been consistently moving in the direction of expanding democracy, voter restriction laws aside. That all goes out the door if the president-elect isn't seated, and if that does happen there's no reason to assume it won't happen again and again for the foreseeable future. And even if we can break out of that cycle at some point, the damage done will be immense, politically and even more importantly with regards to climate change. I'm not saying this will happen, but the fact that it could would have been mostly unthinkable just a few years ago. The right has become so radicalized, and will only continue to do so. If they have to choose between democracy and conservatism, they ain't picking the former. 

Depending on exactly what happens, I'm not sure the President-elect not getting seated in 2024 would be any more scandalous than Rutherford B. Hayes becoming President in 1887. Now the circumstances of that certainly did long-lasting damage, setting back civil rights by 80 years (though I suspect it would've happened within a cycle or two even if Tilden had become President), but it did not permanently alter our system of government. 

This isn't to diminish the likelihood of bad things in our future; I just think it's worth remember how much bad stuff is in our past too. The last 50 years are not the norm.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Depending on exactly what happens, I'm not sure the President-elect not getting seated in 2024 would be any more scandalous than Rutherford B. Hayes becoming President in 1887.

*1877.  It should be noted that twelve years later - the 1888 election - was one of the other five times the winner of the popular vote (Cleveland) did not win the electoral vote.  In addition to corruption and polarization, the fact the last 20 years and the post-Reconstruction era entailed two of these types of presidential elections (or 4 of the 5 ever) is a pretty striking similarity.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

*1877.  It should be noted that twelve years later - the 1888 election

*Eleven years.

 

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

*Eleven years.

 

The election for 1877 was held in 1876.  So no, still twelve years.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

49 minutes ago, DMC said:

The election for 1877 was held in 1876.  So no, still twelve years.

I am gonna double down on your technical argument.

While the election took place in 1876, he did become President 1877 (OP was placing that in 1887 which you corrected to 1877). So the event in question was Hayes taking office in 1877, not the election a year prior. So that was eleven 11 years before the election 1888.

[Corvinus85]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I am gonna double down on your technical argument.

While the election took place in 1876, he did become President 1877 (OP was placing that in 1887 which you corrected to 1877). So the event in question was Hayes taking office in 1877, not the election a year prior. So that was eleven 11 years before the election 1888.

Well if you want to be technical about it, it's 11 years, 8 months, and 2 days, so it's closer to 12 than 11.

[Zorral]

Bad things coming in our future?  Gee, somehow I feel bad things have already come right now in the present and have been coming for a long time.  We are already deep in our version of the 1920'30's fascist ascension.  You know  a whole lotta women have been feeling like this for a very long time, particularly when comes to their reproductive rights.  It's not like Texas is going to destroy a woman's right to access to abortion next year.  They've already done it.  And They have done it vast areas of the nation already and for a long time.  And there's so much more They've already effectively done. It's the present, babee, not the future.

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So the event in question was Hayes taking office in 1877, not the election a year prior. So that was eleven 11 years before the election 1888.

If the event in question is when each president took office, then it'd still be March 4, 1877 to March 4, 1889, or exactly twelve years.  I  your .

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Depending on exactly what happens, I'm not sure the President-elect not getting seated in 2024 would be any more scandalous than Rutherford B. Hayes becoming President in 1887. Now the circumstances of that certainly did long-lasting damage, setting back civil rights by 80 years (though I suspect it would've happened within a cycle or two even if Tilden had become President), but it did not permanently alter our system of government. 

This isn't to diminish the likelihood of bad things in our future; I just think it's worth remember how much bad stuff is in our past too. The last 50 years are not the norm.

I’m not sure it’s all that helpful to use an example from nearly 150 years ago. The world is far too different for that to really matter.

Not seating Biden in this hypothetical would be a disaster. Global markets would freak out, protests and riots would likely happen immediately and Congress Critters would be at each other’s throats. Idk what would happen in the immediate aftermath because nobody really can, except to say it would make 1/6 look like a walk in the park. Now that said, I think the chances of all of this going down are still pretty low at this point, but it’s not something we can ignore and it’s fair to guess that the parties will be even more divided by the time 2024 rolls around.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

If the event in question is when each president took office, then it'd still be March 4, 1877 to March 4, 1889, or exactly twelve years.  I  your .

Not really. Read your own damn post, instead of moving the goal posts. You jumped from President taking office, in 1877, to the election in 1888. If you want to claim a win on a technicality, you have to be precise.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

*1877.  It should be noted that twelve years later - the 1888 election - was one of the other five times the winner of the popular vote (Cleveland) did not win the electoral vote.  In addition to corruption and polarization, the fact the last 20 years and the post-Reconstruction era entailed two of these types of presidential elections (or 4 of the 5 ever) is a pretty striking similarity.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not really. Read your own damn post, instead of moving the goal posts. You jumped from President taking office, in 1877, to the election in 1888. If you want to claim a win on a technicality, you have to be precise.

I assumed people would know the presidencies starting in 1877 and 1889 were based on the elections of 1876 and 1888, respectively.  Sorry for holding the reader to that high of a standard.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I assumed people would know the presidencies starting in 1877 and 1889 were based on the elections of 1876 and 1888, respectively.  Sorry for holding the reader to that high of a standard.

The onus is on the poster, not the reader. Wasn't there a in defense of intent thread somewhere?

Or to quote a master piece of modern philosophy.

 

 

[polishgenius]

18 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The onus is on the poster, not the reader.

 

I mean, to a point. Do you want him to explain that he's talking about elections in the country of the United States where the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, just to make sure everyone has the precise context for what he means?

There was nothing unclear about his language.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Enough of this derail. Either discuss a topic on U.S. politics or go get hit by lightning. [/mod]

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:32 PM, Fragile Bird said:

I see Republican Jim Banks is reported as saying that if the Republicans take back the House they have a moral duty to punish those investigating the events of January 6th.

Let that one sink in.

The Republican Party has abandoned any semblance of moral or political principles. Their only purpose is to gain and hold power.  They are a plauge on the United States.

:|

[A True Kaniggit]

How do ya'll deal with politics in the workplace?

I thought the polite thing to do was pretend politics didn't exist while you were at work. That's what I did when Trump was president, even though I despised the bastard.

But last week I had to listen to a conversation an office over about how President Biden was a puppet and wasn't actually in charge of the country.

Then today I heard a conversation that included "someone needs to put a bullet in Biden's head".

I'm sending an email to HR tomorrow asking them to remind people to leave that shit out of the workplace. We'll see if it does any good shutting up these idiots.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Republican Party has abandoned any semblance of moral or political principles. Their only purpose is to gain and hold power.  They are a plauge on the United States.

:|

That was true a long time ago. They're now at the point where basic rational thinking and behavior is out the window as well. Like @Week said on the last page, they're literally killing their own voters to piss off liberals. 

Someone please remind them that Zapp Brannigan rose to power by sending wave after wave of his own men to their deaths at the hands of the Killbots.  

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone please remind them that Zapp Brannigan rose to power by sending wave after wave of his own men to their deaths at the hands of the Killbots.  

The army decided women weren’t fit for combat roles. Not when Republicans are in charge.
 

https://youtu.be/J3aF_yMvRwE

 

[Mindwalker]

56 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That was true a long time ago. They're now at the point where basic rational thinking and behavior is out the window as well. Like @Week said on the last page, they're literally killing their own voters to piss off liberals. 

Someone please remind them that Zapp Brannigan rose to power by sending wave after wave of his own men to their deaths at the hands of the Killbots.  

Perfectly rational, they are not planning to win by getting enough votes in a fair election.