So what form does the resistance take?

[Susheel]

A percentage that large would likely be a broad cross section, not a niche type? One in four voters are Latino, half of which are Democrats (49%), and the broad trend is as it is nationwide- young and urban people tend to lean Dem. 52%of white cats voted red, and 43% blue. Seems fairly evenly split?

I mean I'm not sure what you are driving at? Arizona is a swing state for a reason.

Economic divide? Farm owners as opposed to farm workers, wage laborers...etc. somehow this idea that the less economically privileged depending on their weekly pay cheque would willingly vote Republican seems bizarre.

 

[Thermal]

Economic divide? Farm owners as opposed to farm workers, wage laborers...etc. somehow this idea that the less economically privileged depending on their weekly pay cheque would willingly vote Republican seems bizarre.

Yeah, it does. Yet they do. A conservative mindset can make you vote against your/country's best interests. Say you are on the side of god to a blue collar Catholic and you're in like Flynn.

 

[dudalb]

Anybody who thinks the US breaking up will not be a bloodbath is living in fantasy land. I can see it being like when Yugoslavia broke up.

 

[dudalb]

mechanism: governing will be more local. It will still not be perfect and there will still be urban-rural tensions - with some significant inter-state disparities. Yes, there likely will be a number of authoritarian states. And some people will be OK with that (likely many in Utah). But there will be a number of states more free from views they find abhorrent.

So you think the US will last forever? Again, there many indications that the US is effectively done as a cohesive unit. And - as I've noted - there are many stressors that will continue to wreak havoc and exacerbate tensions.

Things got worse under Trump 1. People - even more people - voted for him again - so no, that scenario is not terribly plausible. Also politicians lie - people are likely not going to know how to vote to make things better.

With regard to political violence/partisanship/people (particularly the right) not wanting unity - yes you must have missed something in the news this week. That being said, there are many other indications of these things that have been escalating over the last 10-15 years at least.

If they have no resources that we want or are of no strategic importance, sure. But that's not a lot of countries. The US has been historically quite happy to involve itself in the politics of other countries, even when there's not much at stake for us.

The idea that California isn't going to care about an authoritarian Utah or Idaho anymore than we care about Bahrain is implausible. If nothing else, they're inconveniently located nearby.


And most of those people will never have any real power, so it's neither here nor there. Once you're in power, breaking up the country becomes a lot less appealing.


You're advocating for something here, so you ought to be considering possible future consequences, even if people don't.


We are talking about what we want, but more crucially about what is possible without a great deal more violence than we're currently seeing.


It was a keystone koup with no real chance of ever succeeding, because nobody bothered to secure support behind the scenes. Yes, it's pretty bad, but things will get worse once someone vaguely competent decides to organize a coup.


That's largely a function of turnout and an unusual election cycle. Harris also got more votes than Clinton did in 2016. Yes, there's still a base of support for Trump, but I don't see any reason to believe it's completely independent of actual outcomes. His much-ballyhooed gains in support among minority voters have already cratered.


Abolishing political parties isn't just a won't problem. It's a dumb idea that gets perennial play as if it were at all feasible. No democracy in the world has done so--the countries that ban political parties altogether are all authoritarian states. Think about what doing this would actually entail for a democracy.

A much more realistic plan would be electoral reform towards multi-party elections. This would lessen polarization by eliminating many of the incentives for demonization of the "opposition" party, because there isn't just one.

We won't do that, either, because our dumb constitution makes serious electoral reform nearly impossible, but it's a clearly preferable approach. And I suspect that as things continue to get worse, our support for current constitutional arrangements will weaken.

And just let, pray tell, would you replace the Consitution with?
And what the hell do you mean by Multi Party elections?
I got a sick feeling that your new COnsituiton would mean an overwhelmng powerful central government, with the states reduced to admisitraitve conviences for the Federal govement. Count me out.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Anybody who thinks the US breaking up will not be a bloodbath is living in fantasy land. I can see it being like when Yugoslavia broke up.

who said it will break up?

The prevailing attitude from the people and institutions who could do something to stop this seems to be "this, too, shall pass" and are just waiting out the storm.
And since they won't be really affected, they are probably right: even the 1,000year Reich had a rather short shelf life.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Apparently the one form the resistance absolutely will not take is assassinating "nazi" mouthpieces. That has to be something else. Nobody in the resistance would ever resist like that.

/s

Well, given that the killing of last nazi mouthpiece was seemingly caused by a disagreement withing the MAGA family itself, so far that seems to remain true.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the alleged Healthcare CEO shooter was a libertarian with no contacts to any Dem or Lib organization.
the alleged Kirk shooter was a Mormon kid from a Republican Trump family with no contacts to any Dem or Lib organization.

I guess you could group them as the "lone wolf" kind of actors, but since Republicans made it absolutely clear that they never count as right-wing, it is plainly dishonest to claim that they were in any way associated with the political Left.

 

[mumblethrax]

And just let, pray tell, would you replace the Consitution with?

A different constitution that addresses the flaws of the current constitution.

And what the hell do you mean by Multi Party elections?

The same thing everyone means by multiparty elections.

Multi-party system - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I got a sick feeling that your new COnsituiton would mean an overwhelmng powerful central government, with the states reduced to admisitraitve conviences for the Federal govement.

Well, then, take it to the feeling hospital. If you think someone arguing against authoritarianism wants “an overwhelmng powerful central government“, that’s a you problem.

 

[dann]

Unfortunately, Google's AI says that this is fake news:
BREAKING: MADDOW, COLBERT, AND KIMMEL JUST WALKED AWAY FROM THE SYSTEM — AND BUILT A NEWSROOM THAT HAS NETWORKS SHAKING (BuzzReport247)

The claim that Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, and Jimmy Kimmel launched an independent newsroom that is shaking networks is false. This claim appears to be a piece of misinformation circulating on social media, particularly Facebook, with headlines designed to generate attention and shock value, rather than reflecting actual news events. There is no evidence or reliable news reports to suggest that these individuals have left their network positions to create a joint newsroom.

Why the claim is false:

• Lack of credible sources:
  There are no reports from reputable news organizations or media outlets confirming the existence of this independent newsroom.
  
  
• Focus on misinformation:
  The headlines and text snippets found on social media sources like Facebook are sensationalized and use emotionally charged language to attract clicks and shares.
  
  
• Misrepresentation of individuals' roles:
  Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert are prominent figures at MSNBC and CBS, respectively, and are still actively involved with those networks, while Jimmy Kimmel hosts his late-night show on ABC.
  
  
• Circulation on platforms known for misinformation:
  The story originates from and is primarily shared on platforms like Facebook, which are known to host a significant amount of misinformation and fake news.

In summary, the idea of Maddow, Colbert, and Kimmel forming an independent, disruptive newsroom is a compelling narrative that is being spread as a clickbait headline but is not supported by facts.

But now that the idea is out there ....
Taylor Swift could do it - on her own.

And what will the media moguls do if the talent leaves?!
Does anybody think that the people who have been watching Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon will switch to watching Greg Gutfeld and other less than mediocre comedians?

I think that the media oligarchs would soon beg to be allowed to finance them.

 

[dudalb]

A. Please detail the flaws.
B, The COnsituion does not even mention political parties. There is nothing in the consitution keeping the US voters from voting for a number of parties. You seem to want a law to fix a problem that law cannot fix.
C. Multi party states have their own set of problems. in case you have not noted.Small, extreme parties can gain huge power by being the balance of power with just a couple of votes which can lead to constant chaso. I give you Italy and Israel as examples. There is no easy fix for the problmes of govenrment.
D. I think changes need to be made to the COnsituion, but for throwing it ouw entirely, when you can shoe me people who are the equvilent of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the people who wrote the consitution then maybe I will listen.
E. It's easy to spout crap on the intenet, where your ideas will never be put to the test of the real world.

 

[Trebuchet]

What resistance? Aside from dudalb predicting civil war?

 

[Thermal]

We are not having a Civil War, and if we do, dudalb can scream "called it!" while knee deep in fallout ash.

 

[mumblethrax]

A. Please detail the flaws.

How much time do you have? Our undemocratic constitution effects an undemocratic system of government, a malapportioned Senate, a completely idiotic electoral college, a system of check and balances that has never worked, a process of removing a corrupt sitting president that has never worked, an amendment process so ludicrously difficult that it's effectively impossible to pass new amendments, a weird de facto tricameral legislative process, etc.

B, The COnsituion does not even mention political parties. There is nothing in the consitution keeping the US voters from voting for a number of parties. You seem to want a law to fix a problem that law cannot fix.

Yes, failing to account for the inevitability of political parties is one of the constitution's many flaws.

The law can address Duverger's law just fine.

C. Multi party states have their own set of problems. in case you have not noted.Small, extreme parties can gain huge power by being the balance of power with just a couple of votes which can lead to constant chaso. I give you Italy and Israel as examples. There is no easy fix for the problmes of govenrment.

There is no perfect system of government. It does not follow that there are no easy fixes for the problems of government. There are lots of fixes available for the flaws of the US constitution.

D. I think changes need to be made to the COnsituion, but for throwing it ouw entirely, when you can shoe me people who are the equvilent of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the people who wrote the consitution then maybe I will listen.

You're defending ancestor worship with more ancestor worship. We have plenty of bright, fair-minded people who are more than matches for these deeply flawed men.

E. It's easy to spout crap on the intenet, where your ideas will never be put to the test of the real world.

They will and have been put to the test in the real world. They're called "other countries".

 

[arthwollipot]

Multi party states have their own set of problems. in case you have not noted.Small, extreme parties can gain huge power by being the balance of power with just a couple of votes which can lead to constant chaso. I give you Italy and Israel as examples. There is no easy fix for the problmes of govenrment.

This is a feature, not a bug. Big parties have to negotiate and form coalitions with people who don't always agree with them.

 

[steenkh]

This is a feature, not a bug. Big parties have to negotiate and form coalitions with people who don't always agree with them.

Exactly, and the examples of Italy, and Israel are examples of the system working: the government that is supported by extreme parties is doing it because a majority of the voters see it as the least evil. They have lots of other parties to vote for, and their voting systems ensure that smaller parties also get some influence, whereas in the US system there is only one other party to vote for, and not even a majority of the voters may have voted for the party that wins all.
Note that in the US system the entire government is taken by the winning extreme party, whereas in Italy and Israel, only some government positions are taken by the extreme parties.

 

[arthwollipot]

It is my belief that the American two-party system also polarises voters and drives them to the extremes of the left and the right. Because there's only two sides, if you're not with us you're agin' us. There's no room for anything else.

 

[Susheel]

It is my belief that the American two-party system also polarises voters and drives them to the extremes of the left and the right. Because there's only two sides, if you're not with us you're agin' us. There's no room for anything else.

Apart from the argument falling into a "bothsidist" black hole...the so called "extreme left" in the US is largely a chimera generated from the beer, ignorance, and paranoia fuelled imagination of the Right wing.

 

[arthwollipot]

Apart from the argument falling into a "bothsidist" black hole...the so called "extreme left" in the US is largely a chimera generated from the beer, ignorance, and paranoia fuelled imagination of the Right wing.

That's true.

 

[steenkh]

But let's face it: much of the wokeness that has caused so much ire and caused center voters to vote Trump, was driven by - perhaps not the extreme left, but politicians and organisations that are much more left than most of the voters. If the US had a system with more than two parties, these would be isolated on the wings, and not gain the agenda in the fashion that actually happened.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not how many, but what kind? What demographic do they belong to?

Democrat voters in Arizona are highly concentrated in wealthier urban areas. Extremely high concentration in Scottsdale and Paradise Value in the Phoenix-metro area, moderately high throughout central and northern Phoenix, gets more red as you move to bedroom communities and less affluent suburbs. Phoenix itself would probably be considered purple, it's part of what makes AZ a swing state. It could go either way in any election, as there's a pretty high volume of independent voters across the area.

There's also a concentration in Sedona and Flagstaff, also associated with wealthier demographics in semi-urban areas. Tucson also has a persistently high democratic voting block, it's been blue for a long time. There's some affluence, though not nearly as much as in Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Sedona, and Flagstaff. There's also a very high hispanic population which may contribute.

The rest of the state is pretty solidly red - including the Navajo Nation and most of the native american reservation lands. Even the more metropolitan-ish clusters outside of Phoenix and Tucson tend to lean right.