Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[mgidm86]

Sounds to me like your more of a slightly left of center Dem.

As I discuss other topics with people I wonder if more of my stances will shift. I mean it started with hating Trump, then the eyes opened wider...so I'm not sure where I will stand on many issues once I rethink them. It's like a domino effect. I am reserving naming myself anything for awhile


You're probably on the mark though for now.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm going to have to disagree with this. It may very well be that the women's marches all over the world the day after the election didn't have an immediate effect, and later the GOP Dump cultists kept Dump from impeachment. But that doesn't mean it had no effect. It set the stage for the Dump presidency and he didn't get reelected cultists or not. In addition the cultists are slowly but surely shrinking in numbers.

Granted who knows what proportion of the Dump backlash can be attributed to what. But I thought the worldwide women's march had an impact around the world.

Sometimes things look like 2 steps forward (in this case for women) and one step back. But the women's marches after Dump was elected put the world on notice, women have taken 2 steps forward.

Everything has some effect, even if miniscule, but I can't see any consequential effects of the marches.

"women have taken 2 steps forward." HOW?

 

[gabeygoat]

How about huge, organized marches? Large scale strikes? You know, a little more than tut-tutting via thumbs on a screen.

There were massive women's marches, significant marches against trumps Muslim ban, significant marches against trumps immigration policy and even a few BLM marches last year

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm sure you are, just not in the peculiar US sense of the word (I speak as a Brit). "Liberal" stands in opposition to "authoritarian", and I doubt you're the latter. "Conservative" stands in opposition to "radical", and you may well be the former.



I'm no great fan of radicalism myself, but I won't deny circumstances sometimes demand it.

Actually Conservative is in opposition to Progressive. Radicalism is an extreme version of a progressive liberal ideology similar to Anarchy and Socialism being extreme left progressive ideologies.

 

[Lurch]

Bull. The majority cannot do anything about the electoral college because of the way the Constitution sets it up and how it keeps a majority of people from changing it by amendment.

Then the people should fight hard to amend the Constitution; there's precedent for that. Or get those last few States to enter into a compact to render the EC moot.

Either way, the blueprint is clear. Work to end the tyranny of the minority, and get closer to a proper democracy. Just moaning about how the 'system' disadvantages the majority is no bloody excuse. The fight today is about as important as that fought against Fascism in the '40s.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

 

[Lurch]

Actually Conservative is in opposition to Progressive. Radicalism is an extreme version of a progressive liberal ideology similar to Anarchy and Socialism being extreme left progressive ideologies.

There is no radicalism in the world of the conservative? It applies only to liberals? That's a new one.

 

[slyjoe]

There is no radicalism in the world of the conservative? It applies only to liberals? That's a new one.

On the conservative side, isn't it called reactionary(ism)?

 

[Ladewig]

Yes. If the People are inattentive, acquiescent, hoodwinked or tentatively supportive while these despots were consolidating their power, they effectively allowed what happened. A government generally comes from the people; it's not beamed in, ready made. It's up to a People to chart their destiny.

Ben Franklin's admonition, "A Republic, if you can keep it," is based on this recognition. Today's political mess would be among the scenarios he'd have had in mind with that quip.

So, the North Koreans deserve to be ruled by the despotic Kim family even though the vast majority of them were not born when the Kim’s took over?

You really believe there is not a single exception to this rule?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Everything has some effect, even if miniscule, but I can't see any consequential effects of the marches.

"women have taken 2 steps forward." HOW?

That's a long list and it's off topic. It needs its own thread which I don't have time for right now. But if you want to start one I'll be along to answer this question.

Just consider it is a lot of small steps and only a couple of very large ones like the first woman VP. Biden was pretty much committed to having a woman VP due to public pressure.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually Conservative is in opposition to Progressive. Radicalism is an extreme version of a progressive liberal ideology similar to Anarchy and Socialism being extreme left progressive ideologies.

"Reactionary" is in opposition to "Progressive". Either can be combined with "Conservative" or "Radical". Fascism is Reactionary and Radical. It's also Authoritarian (as opposed to Liberal). Trump, of course, is all over the place.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then the people should fight hard to amend the Constitution; there's precedent for that. Or get those last few States to enter into a compact to render the EC moot.

Either way, the blueprint is clear. Work to end the tyranny of the minority, and get closer to a proper democracy. Just moaning about how the 'system' disadvantages the majority is no bloody excuse. The fight today is about as important as that fought against Fascism in the '40s.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

You do realize it takes 3/4ths of all states to amend the Constitution? Why on earth would the red states, which are in the majority, vote to change the electoral college system when it benefits them? You might as well ask them if they want to give Democrat led states 3 senators per state while they only have 2 per state.

You've yet to suggest a feasible action 'the people' can take. The system disadvantaging the majority is a FACT and the only recourse we have right now is to bitch about it cuz the Republicans sure as hell aren't going to vote to change it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I find it interesting how so many folk look to politicians to save them. For instance, many Liberals are counting on their representatives to prevail against the authoritarian right. But really, it comes down to the people themselves. As ol' Ben famously put it, "A republic, if you can keep it." The Dems (with that sensible fraction of the non-affiliated) is the majority. But if their desire to maintain a democracy is eclipsed by the fervor of the Right to smash it, they could be having to do some new saluting all too soon.

A people always gets the government it deserves.

So what do you suggest 'the people' do other than vote for representatives in government that they think will uphold their values? Should we have attempted a coup during Trump's administration when he was acquitted in the first impeachment trial? I suppose we could have armed ourselves and stormed the White House.

How about huge, organized marches? Large scale strikes? You know, a little more than tut-tutting via thumbs on a screen.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Everything has some effect, even if miniscule, but I can't see any consequential effects of the marches.

"women have taken 2 steps forward." HOW?

That's a long list and it's off topic. It needs its own thread which I don't have time for right now. But if you want to start one I'll be along to answer this question.

Just consider it is a lot of small steps and only a couple of very large ones like the first woman VP. Biden was pretty much committed to having a woman VP due to public pressure.

The question was not how the marches affected the DEMS or women, but how they affected or changed anything the Republicans did. I say they did nothing. Lurch seems to think marches by the other side are how the people who oppose what the government is doing get action. No, they don't. Did the BLM protests change what the GOP controlled government under Trump was doing? Hell no.

 

[dudalb]

So, the North Koreans deserve to be ruled by the despotic Kim family even though the vast majority of them were not born when the Kim’s took over?

You really believe there is not a single exception to this rule?

What annoys me about the attitude we are discussing is the damn "Oh, I am so above it all and so damn superior to the stupid Proles" element of it.
I think Orwell, as usual, in 1984 was astute in realizing that some on the left , despite the rhetoric, had a deep contempt for the working class.

 

[Stacyhs]

What annoys me about the attitude we are discussing is the damn "Oh, I am so above it all and so damn superior to the stupid Proles" element of it.
I think Orwell, as usual, in 1984 was astute in realizing that some on the left , despite the rhetoric, had a deep contempt for the working class.

So do the Republicans. And they hardly hide it with all their tax breaks to the rich and corporations. It's no coincidence that most very wealthy people are Republicans. Remember that only 'little people' pay taxes.

 

[Lurch]

I may be misread. The state of a society that exists just prior to and during the rise of a despot is the key period at issue. I realize that subsequent to the consolidation of power it's much more difficult to effect change, much less reverse course. To the matter at hand...

If just enough votes had gone Dump's way in '20, that would indicate that the combination of the established and 'agreed upon' electoral system and the people supporting him had conferred to the Turd a legal, Constitutional and rightful win. The nation would have deserved him because of this. In spite of the majority wishing otherwise.

Not satisfied? Then do the bloody WORK necessary to achieve a better democracy. Until then, y'all deserve whatever dictator might get his hooks into power. The current citizenry, in the here and now, determines the course of history. Whatever you do or do not, you get precisely what you deserve. Action and inaction have consequences.

I'm trying to make a broader philosophical point. The US is currently at a very consequential fork in the road. What the people do now, through their elected representatives or by dint of their own individual activism, will set the course taken. Whichever route, resulting from the net action of the People collectively, will be that path chosen by the nation in aggregate. Who will fight harder?

 

[varwoche]

You do realize it takes 3/4ths of all states to amend the Constitution? Why on earth would the red states, which are in the majority, vote to change the electoral college system when it benefits them? You might as well ask them if they want to give Democrat led states 3 senators per state while they only have 2 per state.

2/3.

 

[wareyin]

2/3.

2/3 of both the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of states.

 

[newyorkguy]

My understanding of the Electoral College is -- in part based on discussions we had here in 2016 -- it was set up to ensure that the big states would not dominate the small states when electing a national president. The Presidency being the only office that is elected by voters in all states.

In that regard it seems to work. I don't think any president has ever won without at least tying his opponent for the number of states won, as Biden did in 2020. Biden won 25 states plus DC; trump won 25 states. Biden won some of the big states and wound up with 306 electoral votes to trump's 232.

It's interesting in looking at the figures -- and Wikipedia has them in an easy-to-use format Wikipedia 2020 Presidential Election -- exactly how trump fell 38 votes short (of the necessary 270) in the Electoral College. The three states he lost by less than 1% -- Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin -- would have still left him one vote shy in the EC had he won them. He had to also win Pennsylvania, which he lost by 1.16%.

The 120,000 vote margin in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that gave Biden the victory is reminiscent of the 76,000 vote margin trump had over Clinton in 2016 in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Had Clinton won those states she would have been elected. In 2016 trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. In 2020 his losing margin was over 7 million. But because of the way the Electoral College works, each time fewer than 125,000 votes out of the 125-150 million votes cast decided the result.

But the electoral college was set up to ensure that small states would be partners in electing a national chief executive, not essentially irrelevant. That will be very hard to change. If it is put to state referendums, arguing for NO CHANGE will be an easy argument to make in small states. In that regard, little has changed in the past 200 years.

 

[Belz...]

Let's not forget that, at the start, voters didn't elect the president by proxy. The Electors did that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's sort of the Electoral Process and a major elephant in the room.

A group of elites who could as a safety net and override the people if they made a dump decisions is exactly the Electoral College was meant to be.