2020 Election

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 11:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: We fight wars and have fought wars against extremist. 
Enemies foreign and domestic. It's not hard for me identify the guy running the dylan roof fan club calling for raping and murdering and trying to get an illegal weapon as a bad guy.

No one is arguing against the guy being a POS.  However, being a horrible person is not against the law.

Quote:And... So you are calling me extreme for wanting a sub with nukes? wtf 2nd amendment bro this isn't for personal defense 

"You can't impose a tyrannical state on an armed populace.  The Framers knew this, hence the 2nd amendment."


a tyrannical prez like trump could nuke cali because qanon senators voted for it because of pizzagate. nuclear sub is the only way to protect against that type of shit...

I suppose we could take any argument to the extreme.  For example, instead of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate let's just drag them from their homes, kill them and then spread their wealth to the "needy".  The problem is extreme arguments are just that.  If you can't distinguish the difference between a 30 round magazine and a nuclear weapon then there's no discussion to be had.  Lastly, if it comes down to the scenario you're describing, and you survive, you're going to want those 30 round magazines. 

[hollodero]

(08-16-2020, 05:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll have to find the posts in which I advocated against a free press, independent judiciary and fair and free elections.  Then you'd have the basis for making this argument against me.  I'll wait.

In advance, I am not saying that, but some might say that not being inclined to vote Trump out of office is a form of opposing the things Trump opposes. And Trump, that much I will say, can easily be seeen as being opposed to a free press, an independent judiciary and free and fair elections.

Which is why in general it might be the wrong time to move this debate along, for even if it's seen as exaggeration by many and probably by you as well, I also think that reelecting Trump would be a great danger to all of these things and no one's guns would probably do much against what might turn into some sort of tyrannical system under Trump II.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2020, 12:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: In advance, I am not saying that, but some might say that not being inclined to vote Trump out of office is a form of opposing the things Trump opposes. And Trump, that much I will say, can easily be seeen as being opposed to a free press, an independent judiciary and free and fair elections.

Yeah, and I have zero time for anyone with that absolutist, "you're either with us or against us" attitude.  I'll vote third party again because I don't like either candidate.  Not that it matters in Till vote for anything with a D next to their name CA.

Quote:Which is why in general it might be the wrong time to move this debate along, for even if it's seen as exaggeration by many and probably by you as well, I also think that reelecting Trump would be a great danger to all of these things and no one's guns would probably do much against what might turn into some sort of tyrannical system under Trump II.

I'm constantly intrigued by this notion.  People seem to forget that law enforcement and military are just people like themselves.  To assume they'd blindly follow a tyrant simply because of what they do for a living is odd to me.

[Vas Deferens]

(08-17-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm constantly intrigued by this notion.  People seem to forget that law enforcement and military are just people like themselves.  To assume they'd blindly follow a tyrant simply because of what they do for a living is odd to me.

So are WH staff, aides, cabinet members and senators. They’ve proven a willingness to blindly follow a tyrant exists.

Self-preservation is a hell of a drug.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2020, 10:22 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So are WH staff, aides, cabinet members and senators.  They’ve proven a willingness to blindly follow a tyrant exists.  

Self-preservation is a hell of a drug.

I don't think you can honestly compare people immediately dependent on the administration with those who do a difficult job , frequently out of large sense of duty, who are not.

[hollodero]

(08-17-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, and I have zero time for anyone with that absolutist, "you're either with us or against us" attitude.  I'll vote third party again because I don't like either candidate.  Not that it matters in Till vote for anything with a D next to their name CA.

Oh, right... it really doesn't matter.
One thing that interests me about that. How comes you can live in California and time and again have to face the reality that your vote really does not matter, that all your electors will turn blue, unrelentingly, and yet you do not come to hate the electoral college. I find that surprising.

(08-17-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm constantly intrigued by this notion.  People seem to forget that law enforcement and military are just people like themselves.  To assume they'd blindly follow a tyrant simply because of what they do for a living is odd to me.

Yeah well, this might be a matter of perspective or even one of definition.

I just imagine if Erdogan and Turkey first impose an absurd and preposterous burden (what was it in the US, funding pensions 75 years in advance? something like that) on an otherwise profitable post office. By that just accidentally gaining a governmental stranglehold over it, because hey they need some funding now with these totally unprecedented laws. And then, an election comes, and Erdogan fears mail in ballots might just undo him. So he runs a presidential propaganda campaign against mail in ballots, full of lies, false claims, accusations of fraud, wild conspiracies, that in his words are true everywhere but Fl...istanbul for there he has a buddy governor and he might just win there.
And then he remembers the post office stranglehold and that he has a buddy running things there, a guy who has shares with post office competitors, who gave him lots of money, who just loves him some Recep Tayyip. Now isn't that nice, that sure helps things along. Let's just not fund the post office properly, just let them struggle, sabotage maybe a bit and put some machines away, make sure there is doubt ballots will even arrive in time. See who's sending in mail ballots now. Whos get lost, whos never arrive. Might seem proper that mail in ballots can't be done at all, right? So sorry folks, also sorry to all the people that didn't get their medicine and stuff because of that. Sweet, right? Now Erdogan sure wouldn't be as dumb as to lay out that plan openly, in fact Erdogan might never try that in the first place. There's a great chance there'd be mass protests on the street.

Which leads me to a) How are Americans so chill about that and b) of course, now I don't know if that is a tyrannical system, but it sure is an authoriatarian one, one that undermines all american ideals of democracy. That's not me interpreting stuff. But hey, maybe that still is not quite tyrannical yet. An armed populace sure doesn't do anything about it though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2020, 11:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh, right... it really doesn't matter.
One thing that interests me about that. How comes you can live in California and time and again have to face the reality that your vote really does not matter, that all your electors will turn blue, unrelentingly, and yet you do not come to hate the electoral college. I find that surprising.

That's a good question.  Largely because I respect the Framers vision, that we are a collection of states with largely independent, but wholly dependent governments.  The Senate exists as it does for this exact reason, to guard against the tyranny of the majority.  You see many leftists tout the rule of the majority now, but would have reviled it during the age of segregation or opposition to same sex marriage.  As Franklin stated, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.  Popular rule is a good and desireable thing, most of the time.  When it isn't it as vile and reprehensible as any government.  

Quote:Yeah well, this might be a matter of perspective or even one of definition.

I just imagine if Erdogan and Turkey first impose an absurd and preposterous burden (what was it in the US, funding pensions 75 years in advance? something like that) on an otherwise profitable post office. By that just accidentally gaining a governmental stranglehold over it, because hey they need some funding now with these totally unprecedented laws. And then, an election comes, and Erdogan fears mail in ballots might just undo him. So he runs a presidential propaganda campaign against mail in ballots, full of lies, false claims, accusations of fraud, wild conspiracies, that in his words are true everywhere but Fl...istanbul for there he has a buddy governor and he might just win there.
And then he remembers the post office stranglehold and that he has a buddy running things there, a guy who has shares with post office competitors, who gave him lots of money, who just loves him some Recep Tayyip. Now isn't that nice, that sure helps things along. Let's just not fund the post office properly, just let them struggle, sabotage maybe a bit and put some machines away, make sure there is doubt ballots will even arrive in time. See who's sending in mail ballots now. Whos get lost, whos never arrive. Might seem proper that mail in ballots can't be done at all, right? So sorry folks, also sorry to all the people that didn't get their medicine and stuff because of that. Sweet, right? Now Erdogan sure wouldn't be as dumb as to lay out that plan openly, in fact Erdogan might never try that in the first place. There's a great chance there'd be mass protests on the street.

Which leads me to a) How are Americans so chill about that and b) of course, now I don't know if that is a tyrannical system, but it sure is an authoriatarian one, one that undermines all american ideals of democracy. That's not me interpreting stuff. But hey, maybe that still is not quite tyrannical yet. An armed populace sure doesn't do anything about it though.

Because it's not sustainable, our system doesn't allow it.  This is hardly the first time such measures have been used in the US.  The ship has always righted itself. Whether it does again I suppose remains to be seen, but I have faith that it will.  Although, we may be near the base of the wick at this point.  Hopefully someone can come along and recast the mold.  It sure as hell isn't Biden or Harris.

[Vas Deferens]

(08-17-2020, 10:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you can honestly compare people immediately dependent on the administration with those who do a difficult job , frequently out of large sense of duty, who are not.

Fair enough. But I’m sure mine was an abbreviated list.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2020, 12:06 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Fair enough.  But I’m sure mine was an abbreviated list.

Who has the time for the full list?  

[Belsnickel]

(08-17-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm constantly intrigued by this notion.  People seem to forget that law enforcement and military are just people like themselves.  To assume they'd blindly follow a tyrant simply because of what they do for a living is odd to me.

I think if shit hit the fan we would see a split in LE and military just like we have in our society. You would probably see the largest portion just step away because they would not want anything to do with it. You'd have a portion that would back the tyrant and a portion that would fight against them. The big reason behind the way police and military are viewed stems from the leftist and libertarian points of view where they are tools of the state. The propaganda from the left is that they are "fascist tools of the bourgeois." From a libertarian point of view, police and military are a representation of the state holding more power than it should. These institutions stem from a conservative ideology of people giving up freedoms for the government to encourage order, so it's really just an ideological battle.

Now, pragmatically, it's obvious these institutions are necessary for a civil society. We must recognize that the people in these institutions are people and not just "tools." However, we need to insure that these institutions exist for the benefit of society and not for the detriment of it.

[*Nately120*]

(08-17-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm constantly intrigued by this notion.  People seem to forget that law enforcement and military are just people like themselves.  To assume they'd blindly follow a tyrant simply because of what they do for a living is odd to me.

Ida know, I had more faith in this notion before I saw video evidence of an older man being pushed and cracking his head on the pavement and in response a bunch of fellow officers resigned in solidarity...or whatever that was.  I sort of lost track of that story in the whole sweep of everything else going on.

At any rate, tyrants don't assert their power overnight and they're a lot more charismatic than people think. Trump is capable of convincing people that tyranny is bad, but what he's doing isn't tyranny and the people being oppressed are enemies of the people and so on and so forth.  The federal government, and particularly Trump, have been quite adept at convincing people that a segment of the population has through their own actions put themselves on the same level as hostile foreign enemies of the USA.

Maybe that's a little extreme, but it just seems like "the media" and "rioters" have become the evil terrorists we've been after all these years.  Maybe I'm not giving law enforcement and the military enough credit, but I don't see what would make them so resistant to being told that a certain group is out to get them and they need to defend themselves at any cost.

Trump says this group/entity/process/freedom is bad will aid your enemy and people who claim to be all about freedom seem to be cheering tyrannical actions that they see as being justified.  Of course Trump isn't the first president to do stuff like this, but lordy does he seem to enjoy being the iron fisted leader where past presidents were a lot more diplomatic about it.  


But yea, it's just so simple...most people would agree a person in this country has rights until his/her actions lead said rights to become null and void. You can protest, and you shouldn't be attacked/killed by the government and we should be able to have free elections and voting.

BUT protesters are violent rioters and our free election is rife with corruption and fraud ergo those rights and freedoms are rightfully being terminated and you only have to fear losing your rights if you're one of those dastardly people doing the wrong thing. Sorry, not sorry.

[hollodero]

(08-17-2020, 11:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a good question.  Largely because I respect the Framers vision, that we are a collection of states with largely independent, but wholly dependent governments.  The Senate exists as it does for this exact reason, to guard against the tyranny of the majority.  You see many leftists tout the rule of the majority now, but would have reviled it during the age of segregation or opposition to same sex marriage.  As Franklin stated, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.  Popular rule is a good and desireable thing, most of the time.  When it isn't it as vile and reprehensible as any government.  

The tyranny of the majority sounds odd for an election in a democracy... but actually I get what you say. What I do not get is why the EC is connected with states' rights. Imho these two issues inherently don't have to do anything with each other. The one is about picking the president, the other is about what he can do. Separate.

(08-17-2020, 11:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because it's not sustainable, our system doesn't allow it.

How'd you say, I'm constantly intrigued by this notion. Because you don't know that. Also, if the system were failproof, you wouldn't need an armed populace to avoid tyranny in the first place :) - And it probably always needs people doing the right thing, and overall vigilance and an effort of everyone, to keep the democratic system in place. Congress as safeguard already sort of failed, now as kind of a "next safeguard up" it might just be the electorate's turn to say, no Trump, not like that. I kind of see it that way.

(08-17-2020, 11:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is hardly the first time such measures have been used in the US.  The ship has always righted itself. Whether it does again I suppose remains to be seen, but I have faith that it will.  Although, we may be near the base of the wick at this point.  Hopefully someone can come along and recast the mold.  It sure as hell isn't Biden or Harris.

Well, it sure as hell isn't Trump. In the first instance, Biden would kind of recast the mold just by not pulling the same kind of stunts.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2020, 11:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: The tyranny of the majority sounds odd for an election in a democracy... but actually I get what you say.[b] What I do not get is why the EC is connected with states' rights.[b] Imho these two issues inherently don't have to do anything with each other. The one is about picking the president, the other is about what he can do. Separate.

The idea that the EC is about states' rights is a myth perpetuated quite freely. The purpose of the EC was to have the people choose people to come together solely for the purpose of electing the president without any parties/factions getting involved and without the influence of the already seated Congress. States were tasked with choosing electors and almost immediately they transitioned to a popular vote in the state to select them. The reasoning here is that the common people would not be likely to know much about those running for president, so they would elect people to make the choice on their behalf. The other primary reason for the EC was because the southern states would never have gone for the popular election because it would've given the northern states an advantage whereas using the Congressional counts favored the southern states because even though it combined the Senate and House, the population boost from slaves gave the south an advantage.

[Dill]

(08-18-2020, 10:36 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Maybe that's a little extreme, but it just seems like "the media" and "rioters" have become the evil terrorists we've been after all these years.  Maybe I'm not giving law enforcement and the military enough credit, but I don't see what would make them so resistant to being told that a certain group is out to get them and they need to defend themselves at any cost.

Trump says this group/entity/process/freedom is bad will aid your enemy and people who claim to be all about freedom seem to be cheering tyrannical actions that they see as being justified.  Of course Trump isn't the first president to do stuff like this, but lordy does he seem to enjoy being the iron fisted leader where past presidents were a lot more diplomatic about it.  

Don't forget those so called "protesters," whose main goal is to give the rioters cover and cast a mantle of 1st Amendment legitimacy over criticisms of our president and police. UnAmericans using their rights against Americans.

We need to see ALL of them for what they are--people unable to recognize propaganda for what it is. 

They aren't just enemies of the Constitution.

[Dill]

(08-18-2020, 11:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: The tyranny of the majority sounds odd for an election in a democracy... but actually I get what you say. What I do not get is why the EC is connected with states' rights. Imho these two issues inherently don't have to do anything with each other. The one is about picking the president, the other is about what he can do. Separate.

Tyranny of the majority problem, though not connected to the rationale for the EC as a check on the popular vote, was a primary concern in the US from the beginning. One check against concentrated power is the notion that we have two systems of government, our state governments and our federal government.

The core of current "illiberal democracies" seems to be that they are tyrannies of the majority. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, and I have zero time for anyone with that absolutist, "you're either with us or against us" attitude.  I'll vote third party again because I don't like either candidate.  Not that it matters in Till vote for anything with a D next to their name CA.


I'm constantly intrigued by this notion.  People seem to forget that law enforcement and military are just people like themselves.  To assume they'd blindly follow a tyrant simply because of what they do for a living is odd to me.

And yet Army commanders responded by deploying active duty infantry troops to DC armed with live rounds and bayonets for a police action (which is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.)

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2020, 10:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you can honestly compare people immediately dependent on the administration with those who do a difficult job , frequently out of large sense of duty, who are not.

Yeah, those people are actually in a position to advise the president rather than issue apologies for their involvement after the fact like GEN Milley.

https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/14/milley-a-flawed-general-who-learned-a-lesson/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2020, 12:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The idea that the EC is about states' rights is a myth perpetuated quite freely. The purpose of the EC was to have the people choose people to come together solely for the purpose of electing the president without any parties/factions getting involved and without the influence of the already seated Congress. States were tasked with choosing electors and almost immediately they transitioned to a popular vote in the state to select them. The reasoning here is that the common people would not be likely to know much about those running for president, so they would elect people to make the choice on their behalf. The other primary reason for the EC was because the southern states would never have gone for the popular election because it would've given the northern states an advantage whereas using the Congressional counts favored the southern states because even though it combined the Senate and House, the population boost from slaves gave the south an advantage.

I have a quick second so I wanted to respond to this.  It's not really a myth, but an interpretation, and evolved one form the original intent.  Your assessment of the EC's original intent is spot on.

[Dill]

(08-18-2020, 11:49 AM)hollodero Wrote:  Also, if the system were failproof, you wouldn't need an armed populace to avoid tyranny in the first place :) - And it probably always needs people doing the right thing, and overall vigilance and an effort of everyone, to keep the democratic system in place. Congress as safeguard already sort of failed, now as kind of a "next safeguard up" it might just be the electorate's turn to say, no Trump, not like that. I kind of see it that way.

People need to know and agree on the right thing first.

Anyway, Wondering if you remember this Colorado elector from 2016.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/faithless-elector-betrayed-his-state-s-voters-you-won-t-n1120551

Baca, in the weeks before the December 2016 Electoral College elections ... had gotten in touch with dozens of other electors, hoping to find at least 37 Republicans willing to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump.

Had he been able to, he said, both Trump and Clinton would have been short of 270. In that scenario, the House of Representatives would then have elected the president, choosing from the three candidates who got the most electoral votes.
"I thought this plan would give Colorado voters a better deal," Baca said. "They didn't want Trump. They wanted anybody but Trump. I thought that if it got kicked to the House and they picked a more moderate Republican, it would have been good for Colorado voters."

In the end, Colorado's secretary of state threw out Baca's vote and immediately replaced him with another elector, who voted for Clinton. Only a handful of other faithless electors joined Baca, including three in Washington state (where Clinton won the popular vote) who cast ballots for Colin Powell.

Washington accepted the votes of its faithless electors but fined them for violating a state law requiring them to conform to the popular vote. The electors challenged the fines, but the state Supreme Court upheld the law.

In Colorado, however, Baca sued in federal court, and the case eventually reached the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which ruled that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate.

Faithless electors have not been much of an issue in U.S. political history. But in an election that could be decided by a razor-thin margin in the Electoral College, a small handful of faithless electors could sway a presidential race — which many legal scholars say is good cause for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president
The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2020, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a quick second so I wanted to respond to this.  It's not really a myth, but an interpretation, and evolved one form the original intent.  Your assessment of the EC's original intent is spot on.

The states' rights argument for the EC falls flat, though. The POTUS is not in charge of the states, he doesn't represent the states, he represents the people. Several of the framers wanted a popular vote for president because of this, but they knew it wouldn't float for the south.