Expanding the SC aka The end of democracy

[*Nately120*]

Are we picturing Trump bailing on 2024 or are we picturing him losing in the primaries?  Even Biden could win in 2024 if Trump convinced enough people that the GOP nominee rigged the primaries and they should either not vote or write him in or go all 1/6 on the primaries.

I just don't see Trump losing a vote to a rival and then saying you won fair and square, this guy has my support. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2022, 06:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: EDIT that part of my answer got swallowed somehow: What you say is not entirely true. Trump urged republicans to get rid of the filibuster several times. That he wants it is without doubt. Why senate republicans did not comply is another thing, one that possibly results in me giving McConnell some credit. Quite possibly there were too many Trump dissenters back then, Flake, McCain, Corker, Murkowski, Collins.
They're less dissenters now.

I think there are still plenty of GOP senators who would be against eliminating the filibuster for the exact reason we've been discussing.

Quote:I don't. I don't see primary voters going for anyone over Trump, as imho indicated by the fact republicans still kiss his ring and no one else's. But I hope you're right (of course depending on who it is instead; if it's Josh Hawley or Don jr., then whatever).

If it's not Trump the smart money is on DeSantis.  His star is on the rise and then some.  I do tend to agree that if Trump runs he'll win the primary.  But, as I said, there's a lot of time between then and now.

Quote:Yes, pure speculation, guilty as charged. I wanted to know if there's a viable way for, again bluntly, erecting a quasi dictatorship via a move like that. It's this motivation I ascribe to Trump's republicans, not the specific moves that indeed are mere speculation.

Yes, I agree that Trump is less than concerned with democratic norms and would probably view himself as the benevolent dictator the country needs.  

Quote:My use of past tense was not meant to establish the opposite. I'm certain folks talk about it to this day.
Now being within the rules, that's a strange criteria to me to establish a difference. Expanding the court is just as well within the rules. There's a legal way to do it, after all, only the degree of shadyness might differ. It would not be a breach of the constitution to do so, the rules allow for it just as they allowed for nuclear options or the shady Garland move.

True, but even operating within the rules there are degrees of extreme.  Not giving Garland a hearing (which as I've stated was a poor move if for no other reason than the optics.  If he really wanted to stall he should have had the hearings and dragged them out until after the election.  They could then have voted no on Garland and sat on their thumbs until Trump was inaugurated) potentially flipped one seat.  I say potentially because almost everyone thought Clinton was going to win.  Packing the court gives you three seats, automatically with no possibility of rejection or failure.  That's a light years worth of difference.  And, as has been stated previously, what's to stop the GOP from coming in the next time and adding eight more justices of their own?  Absolutely nothing.  You pack the court you might as well kiss it goodbye completely.

Quote:I agree with that assessment.

I used to honestly feel bad for the guy, as he was certainly dealt a raw hand.  But his handling of the school board complaints of "domestic terrorism" alone showed how absolutely unfit he is for any high office.

Quote:I don't know about DC statehood except that it makes sense in principle to me, but maybe you're right, I know too little about that complex situation. With Puerto Rico, I remain totally unmoved though. A resident without the right to vote is not a citizen and the US has no moral right to call them that without granting them the most basic right of any citizen, the right to vote and to be represented in their government.
And I have to say I find it almost cynical to be opposed to PR statehood because they lean democrat. If any other country established a new democracy where people from a certain area couldn't vote and wouldn't be represented in their parliament - and the reason given were that these people would vote a certain way - we would not call this democracy legit.

I think you're misinterpreting my position.  I'm not opposed to Puerto Rican statehood, nor do I think it's the automatic two Dem Senators that many believe.  What I don't like is the obvious motivation and timing behind the push for it.  It's a blatant attempt to get more, perceived Dem votes and congress people.  Believe that the same people clamoring for it would be howling against it if PR was perceived as heavily GOP. 

Quote:I don't think I really have to, I agree with you. It would be quite possibly devastating if Republicans had done it, or if Dems do it now. Even if I were to totally trust them (which I do not) it would be extremely short-sighted. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the filibuster. But of course I see the necessity of a filibuster as the biggest problem to begin with. The filibuster is not part of the constitution, it is not established in the house (why not?), it's just a rule that anyone legally can get rid of at any time if the votes are there, and hence is a wobbly cornerstone of democracy. And yeah, I am convinced that given your current trajectory of an increasingly hostile political divide, it is only a matter of time before one party decides to get rid of it, and it might very well turn out that whoever does it first wins. And hence I think it's a fair question to ask, what if Trump does it (or Dems did it now and it falls into his lap, sure), how would that enable him in his goals. But that's not about Democrats really, except that I believe Biden would be less inclined to usurp power (and would have way less support from his party) than Trump would be.

The House is straight majority rule and the Senate is not by design  Yes, there have been some changes and tweaks to that, but that is how the Framers saw the Senate.  As Jefferson said, it's the saucer on which the tea can cool, to paraphrase.

Quote:I have to reiterate, the clear #1 to me still is disregarding election results. That's imho the essential one. Governing with simple majorities in both legislative chambers instead of just in one chamber does not come close to that, imho. Filibuster or not, you still have elections where what you did and how you ruled is judged by the people through their votes. When you can disregard that, that's the end of democracy.

Well yes, but I didn't think we were including that in this discussion as the thread is about expanding the SCOTUS.  Election integrity, and accepting the results, is of paramount importance.  So, if we're including that then simply shift my previously stated order of importance down by one to accommodate it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2022, 07:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Negative. The Constitution states that DC must be under congressional authority. Now, there is a workaround that does what you state, however a state could be made that does not have its own legislation. There are some options.

OK, thank you.  So, while I was wrong about the rules prohibiting it I was correct that it is indeed possible.  That being the case there is literally zero argument for making D.C. its own state other than stacking the deck for Democrats.  As you have conceded the possibility simply incorporate what is left after "partitioning" D.C. into Virginia or Maryland.  All problems solved.  Residents of D.C. get the representation they want.  How could that be an unacceptable solution unless your real objective is to stack the deck for the Dems?  There's really no other way to view it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-21-2022, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, thank you.  So, while I was wrong about the rules prohibiting it I was correct that it is indeed possible.  That being the case there is literally zero argument for making D.C. its own state other than stacking the deck for Democrats.  As you have conceded the possibility simply incorporate what is left after "partitioning" D.C. into Virginia or Maryland.  All problems solved.  Residents of D.C. get the representation they want.  How could that be an unacceptable solution unless your real objective is to stack the deck for the Dems?  There's really no other way to view it.

To me, it's all about what the people of Washington want. If they held a referendum that made them a part of Maryland or Virginia, I am fine with it. If they hold a referendum and say they want to be an independent state, then I think that should be respected. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm a big fan of self-determination. It's that damn part of me that is so beholden to democracy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2022, 02:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To me, it's all about what the people of Washington want. If they held a referendum that made them a part of Maryland or Virginia, I am fine with it. If they hold a referendum and say they want to be an independent state, then I think that should be respected. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm a big fan of self-determination. It's that damn part of me that is so beholden to democracy.

In most cases I'd agree with you, but not here.  The ramifications of D.C. becoming its own state are far too profound and long term to simply allow them to decide.  Their decision will impact every single American, hence it's not just their decision to make.  They claim to want representation, which I understand.  Getting them that representation without disrupting the political fabric of the entire nation is possible, hence that's the course of action that should be taken.

[hollodero]

Sorry, I answer bottom to top for a change, I feel it gives my reply some clearer theme.

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well yes, but I didn't think we were including that in this discussion as the thread is about expanding the SCOTUS.  Election integrity, and accepting the results, is of paramount importance.  So, if we're including that then simply shift my previously stated order of importance down by one to accommodate it.

OK, good. It was this part I was focused on in the first place. I might just as well have called this thread "Does the US constitution effectively protect against an usurpor" and my answer has to be a resounding no at this point. The alternate elector trope might just work, for example, or loyal state secretaries; when there's clear intention, there's a way, and Trump has clear intentions. In short, get rid of those elections, rule as patron saint.
So nope, I did not talk about the filibuster or whether Dems or GOP talked more extensively about this or other measures and who scores higher on the misconduct scale. I get why in the end such debates always end up being a comparison of two parties and their real or alleged bad intentions; and of course I do it too, eg by believing that only one party has the potential to be supportive of a quasi dictatorship in a one-party system and it's the GOP. Dems, not so much.

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The House is straight majority rule and the Senate is not by design  Yes, there have been some changes and tweaks to that, but that is how the Framers saw the Senate.  As Jefferson said, it's the saucer on which the tea can cool, to paraphrase.

Yeah. I hope this is not offensive to every American, but I find it extremely odd how this argument of the framer's intention gets so overused. These people did a marvellous job, no doubt about it, but they set their frameworks over 200 years ago, clearly not even thinking about 50 states or any situation that resembles today's circumstances. What they intended is not all that relevant any more, can't be, at least it holds no particular value to me. Which is no offense to Jefferson or anyone else.

And looking at the constitution as is, and your whole system of democracy that stems from it, imho there are clear and severe mistakes in there. A two-party system - as an inevitable result of the election system - is inherently toxic and lays the groundwork for an everlasting battle that either can go on for all vile eternity or has to end in the destruction of the enemy party (or a civil war, it's not like that never happened). And I wager this is how many people feel now.
And secondly and maybe even more importantly, the framework of your constitution is far from a fail-proof protection of democracy. Trump was and is testing these waters and the test results are frightening, imho. Now while I do not believe that Trump will actually become dictator - he is too old and honestly too moronic to pull it off - the path to me is clear. One loyal party, that's it, than you can do anything as president and there's no remedy - aside of civil war, of course. The necessary majorities are just a matter of time, your party comes into power regularly no matter what. I just look at the bunch of morons (not all of them, but so very many) that run for the GOP this fall, and yet victory is a certainty. And then one can pull the lever, alternate electors or any other shenanigans. And if the SC makes problems, just expand it (no filibuster needed, but even if) and put Judge Jeanine and other minions in, maybe the Pillow guy, all perfectly fine legally and only breaking "norms", the real basis for your system, norms and customs Trump just doesn't care about. And neither do his voters, and so in the end neither does his party. These things are what my thread was about.

And the filibuster and these instruments being essential, that seems to me to be a faulty fix for a bad initial system. If a simple majority can get rid of it, it can not really be a cornerstone for the opposite idea. It can be under one premise, that all actors are decent people who reliably decide to do the right thing. Then all falls in place maybe, two parties balancing each other out, filibusters as protection, a senate that lets tea cool, presidents that put their country over own ambitions and all that. This imho is another fault of your constitution, its big reliance on good faith actors; and/or on an electorate that will reject all undemocratic ambitions at the voting booth.

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're misinterpreting my position.  I'm not opposed to Puerto Rican statehood, nor do I think it's the automatic two Dem Senators that many believe.  What I don't like is the obvious motivation and timing behind the push for it.  It's a blatant attempt to get more, perceived Dem votes and congress people.  Believe that the same people clamoring for it would be howling against it if PR was perceived as heavily GOP. 

I just figure that it is utterly unimportant what potentially sinister motives move the Democrats on this issue, and you mentioning it so prominently time and again bewilders me a bit. The point you make could always be made anyways, I could also speculate that the GOP would just most likely mirror that bad Democratic behaviour in the end, but all partisanship debates are such a non-factor really. This is just about what's right and fair and in alignment with the most basic democratic values.

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but even operating within the rules there are degrees of extreme.  Not giving Garland a hearing (which as I've stated was a poor move if for no other reason than the optics.  If he really wanted to stall he should have had the hearings and dragged them out until after the election.  They could then have voted no on Garland and sat on their thumbs until Trump was inaugurated) potentially flipped one seat.  I say potentially because almost everyone thought Clinton was going to win.  Packing the court gives you three seats, automatically with no possibility of rejection or failure.  That's a light years worth of difference.  And, as has been stated previously, what's to stop the GOP from coming in the next time and adding eight more justices of their own?  Absolutely nothing.

Absolutely nothing indeed...! That was my initial question. Only that this is also true if the Dems don't do it first.

And I get your point, but I also get that if you get punched and don't punch back, american voters will perceive you as weak and punish you for it. Something I see as a bit of an US specialty. You think the optics were bad on Garland, I say on the contrary the optics for the GOP were excellent. Imho they lost no vote over it, and they were perceived as the punchers, as strong, as imposing their will, as doers and leaders and whatnot, while Obama looked powerless, like the lame duck he was. I feel McConnell knew exactly what he was doing and why, admittedly also because I think this man is too smart to make miscalculations.
That's why I said I would have had sympathies for a savvy countermove. Not saying it is the right thing to do. In the end it's yet another example of how poor the constitution is suited for these days, the way your SC gets filled that is. It's just a huge mess.

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I agree that Trump is less than concerned with democratic norms and would probably view himself as the benevolent dictator the country needs.  

I think it is even more sinister than that really, but I gladly take it as written from you.
I feel if this sentence alone doesn't make all alarm bells ring, one imho needs new alarm bells.

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think there are still plenty of GOP senators who would be against eliminating the filibuster for the exact reason we've been discussing.

That might be true, and for reason stated I have to hope that. But at a certain point, there's an end to that imho. And the house exemplifies it, if Trump wants loyalists and starts badmouthing those that don't do his will - eg getting rid of the filibuster, accepting fake electors etc - and he has the necessary slice of the electorate behind him, these senators will eventually be replaced or pull a dirty weasel Graham move. And Trump had years of work now and hence is possibly way further in that regard then he was when he became president.

Or not, maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm certain Trump would test it he were president again, more vehemently than last time even. 100% loyalty, that's what he would need from the GOP and that's what he demands at every turn or he will eat you. If he gets it, nothing short of a civil war could stop him to become a quasi dictator. The way I see it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-21-2022, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In most cases I'd agree with you, but not here.  The ramifications of D.C. becoming its own state are far too profound and long term to simply allow them to decide.  Their decision will impact every single American, hence it's not just their decision to make.  They claim to want representation, which I understand.  Getting them that representation without disrupting the political fabric of the entire nation is possible, hence that's the course of action that should be taken.

The same could be said for any admission of statehood, or secession for that matter since Texas is mentioning it. Also, it could be said that a state deciding to move to RCV, like happened recently, could also alter things. Or deciding to change how they select their electors.

The point is that there are many things that can alter things politically in major ways and most people don't think about them. States have that potential all the time.

[Belsnickel]

(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think there are still plenty of GOP senators who would be against eliminating the filibuster for the exact reason we've been discussing.

Call me cynical, but I think they would prefer to keep the filibuster because they prefer gridlock. They don't like to actually legislate as they should and many seem to prefer a strong-executive form of government (unless of course it is a Democrat in office).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2022, 07:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The same could be said for any admission of statehood, or secession for that matter since Texas is mentioning it.

It absolutely could.  We already addressed the whole secession thing back in 1861.

Quote:Also, it could be said that a state deciding to move to RCV, like happened recently, could also alter things. Or deciding to change how they select their electors.

State autonomy is a completely different animal than allowing the creation of a new state because the people there "prefer it" to absorption into an existing one.  They complain about lack of representation, they get it with absorption into Maryland.  If they don't like that solution then they don't really want representation, they want new political power.  At the very least, be honest about your actual intentions.

Quote:The point is that there are many things that can alter things politically in major ways and most people don't think about them. States have that potential all the time.

Which, again, is a foundation of our entire nation, a degree of state autonomy.  A completely different subject altogether than the naked D.C. power grab.

(06-22-2022, 07:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Call me cynical, but I think they would prefer to keep the filibuster because they prefer gridlock. They don't like to actually legislate as they should and many seem to prefer a strong-executive form of government (unless of course it is a Democrat in office).

Perhaps, maybe even probably.  Regardless it doesn't alter my point.  That being that the GOP will not eliminate the filibuster as the Dems so often clamor to do.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2022, 09:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sorry, I answer bottom to top for a change, I feel it gives my reply some clearer theme.


OK, good. It was this part I was focused on in the first place. I might just as well have called this thread "Does the US constitution effectively protect against an usurpor" and my answer has to be a resounding no at this point. The alternate elector trope might just work, for example, or loyal state secretaries; when there's clear intention, there's a way, and Trump has clear intentions. In short, get rid of those elections, rule as patron saint.
So nope, I did not talk about the filibuster or whether Dems or GOP talked more extensively about this or other measures and who scores higher on the misconduct scale. I get why in the end such debates always end up being a comparison of two parties and their real or alleged bad intentions; and of course I do it too, eg by believing that only one party has the potential to be supportive of a quasi dictatorship in a one-party system and it's the GOP. Dems, not so much.



Yeah. I hope this is not offensive to every American, but I find it extremely odd how this argument of the framer's intention gets so overused. These people did a marvellous job, no doubt about it, but they set their frameworks over 200 years ago, clearly not even thinking about 50 states or any situation that resembles today's circumstances. What they intended is not all that relevant any more, can't be, at least it holds no particular value to me. Which is no offense to Jefferson or anyone else.

And looking at the constitution as is, and your whole system of democracy that stems from it, imho there are clear and severe mistakes in there. A two-party system - as an inevitable result of the election system - is inherently toxic and lays the groundwork for an everlasting battle that either can go on for all vile eternity or has to end in the destruction of the enemy party (or a civil war, it's not like that never happened). And I wager this is how many people feel now.
And secondly and maybe even more importantly, the framework of your constitution is far from a fail-proof protection of democracy. Trump was and is testing these waters and the test results are frightening, imho. Now while I do not believe that Trump will actually become dictator - he is too old and honestly too moronic to pull it off - the path to me is clear. One loyal party, that's it, than you can do anything as president and there's no remedy - aside of civil war, of course. The necessary majorities are just a matter of time, your party comes into power regularly no matter what. I just look at the bunch of morons (not all of them, but so very many) that run for the GOP this fall, and yet victory is a certainty. And then one can pull the lever, alternate electors or any other shenanigans. And if the SC makes problems, just expand it (no filibuster needed, but even if) and put Judge Jeanine and other minions in, maybe the Pillow guy, all perfectly fine legally and only breaking "norms", the real basis for your system, norms and customs Trump just doesn't care about. And neither do his voters, and so in the end neither does his party. These things are what my thread was about.

And the filibuster and these instruments being essential, that seems to me to be a faulty fix for a bad initial system. If a simple majority can get rid of it, it can not really be a cornerstone for the opposite idea. It can be under one premise, that all actors are decent people who reliably decide to do the right thing. Then all falls in place maybe, two parties balancing each other out, filibusters as protection, a senate that lets tea cool, presidents that put their country over own ambitions and all that. This imho is another fault of your constitution, its big reliance on good faith actors; and/or on an electorate that will reject all undemocratic ambitions at the voting booth.



I just figure that it is utterly unimportant what potentially sinister motives move the Democrats on this issue, and you mentioning it so prominently time and again bewilders me a bit. The point you make could always be made anyways, I could also speculate that the GOP would just most likely mirror that bad Democratic behaviour in the end, but all partisanship debates are such a non-factor really. This is just about what's right and fair and in alignment with the most basic democratic values.




Absolutely nothing indeed...! That was my initial question. Only that this is also true if the Dems don't do it first.

And I get your point, but I also get that if you get punched and don't punch back, american voters will perceive you as weak and punish you for it. Something I see as a bit of an US specialty. You think the optics were bad on Garland, I say on the contrary the optics for the GOP were excellent. Imho they lost no vote over it, and they were perceived as the punchers, as strong, as imposing their will, as doers and leaders and whatnot, while Obama looked powerless, like the lame duck he was. I feel McConnell knew exactly what he was doing and why, admittedly also because I think this man is too smart to make miscalculations.
That's why I said I would have had sympathies for a savvy countermove. Not saying it is the right thing to do. In the end it's yet another example of how poor the constitution is suited for these days, the way your SC gets filled that is. It's just a huge mess.



I think it is even more sinister than that really, but I gladly take it as written from you.
I feel if this sentence alone doesn't make all alarm bells ring, one imho needs new alarm bells.



That might be true, and for reason stated I have to hope that. But at a certain point, there's an end to that imho. And the house exemplifies it, if Trump wants loyalists and starts badmouthing those that don't do his will - eg getting rid of the filibuster, accepting fake electors etc - and he has the necessary slice of the electorate behind him, these senators will eventually be replaced or pull a dirty weasel Graham move. And Trump had years of work now and hence is possibly way further in that regard then he was when he became president.

Or not, maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm certain Trump would test it he were president again, more vehemently than last time even. 100% loyalty, that's what he would need from the GOP and that's what he demands at every turn or he will eat you. If he gets it, nothing short of a civil war could stop him to become a quasi dictator. The way I see it.

Forgive me for not addressing your post point by point, as I feel the following will adequately address the vast majority of it.

The Framers were certainly not gods.  While forward thinkers, especially for their time, they could not, as no one could, create a perfect system that would survive the test of time unaltered.  The problem with your position, and it is shared by much of the left in this country, is that you can only erode, dismantle or dismiss so much of foundational principles before you destroy the fabric of the country itself.  Every day their is a new attack on the foundations of our nation.  We are "systemically and unalterably racist", our government was created by a bunch of "white men" like that's inherently an evil thing.  So much of what is proposed now is a supposed fix for the evils of the past, even when that is demonstrably not so.  You mention civil war above and the reason it looks like a possibility to some, maybe many, is because many Americans feel that their country, that they grew up in and love, is under attack.  And in many ways they are not wrong.  Trump is a reaction to this, a symptom, albeit the largest and most dangerous one to date.  When people feel attacked they will attack back.  When something people love and cherish is under attack, they will defend it.  

[hollodero]

(06-22-2022, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Forgive me for not addressing your post point by point, as I feel the following will adequately address the vast majority of it.

The Framers were certainly not gods.  While forward thinkers, especially for their time, they could not, as no one could, create a perfect system that would survive the test of time unaltered.  The problem with your position, and it is shared by much of the left in this country, is that you can only erode, dismantle or dismiss so much of foundational principles before you destroy the fabric of the country itself.  Every day their is a new attack on the foundations of our nation.  We are "systemically and unalterably racist", our government was created by a bunch of "white men" like that's inherently an evil thing.  So much of what is proposed now is a supposed fix for the evils of the past, even when that is demonstrably not so.  You mention civil war above and the reason it looks like a possibility to some, maybe many, is because many Americans feel that their country, that they grew up in and love, is under attack.  And in many ways they are not wrong.  Trump is a reaction to this, a symptom, albeit the largest and most dangerous one to date.  When people feel attacked they will attack back.  When something people love and cherish is under attack, they will defend it.  

Nah I'm glad to bring answers back to reasonable length. But this stance is an example of where I can not really go along with you. In times where I see Trump actively trying to dismantle the fundamental principles of democracy I can not possibly just focus on the left destroying the fabric of the country. Trump is doing that. Say against the left what you want (I'm sure you do), but collectively they are not in favor of overthrowing elections and don't support a super PC dictator. Most are fierce patriots too and just want progress that's all.
And also I can not possibly blame the left for Trump either. I can blame a faulty system, but if you associate me calling the system faulty with the extremes on the left that want to demonize all whiteness, then I don't really know what to say. 

And saying racism is one of the not so great heritages of former times, well, I think that is in large parts just true; and addresing that, even if one thinks it isn't that much true or that the proposed fixes are wrong, is not attacking the fabric of the country. Notwithstanding that many of these "old white men" tropes are overdoing it and at times are flat-out racist as well, and that I also agree that racism gets mentioned too often, and that I can see the conviction terror by parts of the media and parts of the left spectrum. But that is zero excuse to go with the man that does not support a democratic system to begin with, the most fundamental fabric of the country. You can not defend a system you feel is under attack by overthrowing it completely. Not to mention that this of course further fuels all opposite extremes, and imho understandably so. All tired clichés are thoroughly fed if the other side indeed goes with someone like Trump. They don't look so tired on a Trump rallye really.

Of course, nothing I said was motivated by any of that, I was motivated by describing how inherently prone your system is to becoming a dictatorship. That is not even a left or right issue to begin with, it's just Trump and the GOP that are actually going there. But yeah, your response just confirms my darkest fears really. Saying yeah Trump is a wannabe dictator and all, but the entire left is so out of control, what can you do, it can only be option A or option B. That's where things stand. The US system imho does indeed not survive the test of time and this line of thinking contributes to it. Not that I blame you, of course, I blame the system. I just have less and less doubt about where this is headed.

[Dill]

(06-22-2022, 09:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: And saying racism is one of the not so great heritages of former times, well, I think that is in large parts just true; and addresing that, even if one thinks it isn't that much true or that the proposed fixes are wrong, is not attacking the fabric of the country. Notwithstanding that many of these "old white men" tropes are overdoing it and at times are flat-out racist as well, and that I also agree that racism gets mentioned too often, and that I can see the conviction terror by parts of the media and parts of the left spectrum. But that is zero excuse to go with the man that does not support a democratic system to begin with, the most fundamental fabric of the country. You can not defend a system you feel is under attack by overthrowing it completely. Not to mention that this of course further fuels all opposite extremes, and imho understandably so. All tired clichés are thoroughly fed if the other side indeed goes with someone like Trump. They don't look so tired on a Trump rallye really.

 I doubt that "racism gets mentioned too often," in the U.S., given "the not so great heritage" that you recognize "is in large parts just true."

But aside from that, I want to agree with and praise this post, and previous ones, for keeping the real threat to democracy in sight. People who want to get rid of filibuster are not "dismantling democracy" or some such. States passing "voter integrity" laws while defending Trump's attempted coup are striving to do exactly that. So I just can't endorse systematic/automatic suspicion of Dem motives every time the issue of Constitutional change to preserve democracy arises.

People who don't want the "true parts" of U.S. history taught frequently accuse "the Left" (i.e., people who think the true parts should be taught) of "hating America" and wanting to destroy it. Of course, "the left" is trying to destroy a certain version of U.S. history--one which buries the "true parts"--just as the right is trying to preserve that version.  Teaching the "true parts" threatens the kind of power which grew upon  the refusal to acknowledge them. Hence hostility to things like a "Juneteenth" a national holiday and federal oversight of voting laws. Making "too much" of black people and inequality.

This history debate is a social division much like the science-based ones over evolution and global warming. It's in part about people coming down on different sides of the standards/values which underpin modern science and scholarship, which doesn't exclude "true parts," however uncomfortable they might make us. I think that a lot of Americans (not a majority, but a significant plurality), do not really understand those standards/values, or certainly don't support them where they conflict with received beliefs. 

[Dill]

(06-21-2022, 09:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah. I hope this is not offensive to every American, but I find it extremely odd how this argument of the framer's intention gets so overused. These people did a marvellous job, no doubt about it, but they set their frameworks over 200 years ago, clearly not even thinking about 50 states or any situation that resembles today's circumstances. What they intended is not all that relevant any more, can't be, at least it holds no particular value to me. Which is no offense to Jefferson or anyone else.

And looking at the constitution as is, and your whole system of democracy that stems from it, imho there are clear and severe mistakes in there. A two-party system - as an inevitable result of the election system - is inherently toxic and lays the groundwork for an everlasting battle that either can go on for all vile eternity or has to end in the destruction of the enemy party (or a civil war, it's not like that never happened). And I wager this is how many people feel now.

"Severe mistakes"????

Looks like someone's hatred for our freedom has led him to forget that our Constitution was divinely inspired.   

I'm all for considering that a two-party system may lead to "gridlock" and illiberal solutions, but I don't see a problem with an "everlasting battle" for all eternity--provided both sides remain within the norms of liberal democracy. Or social democracy, if we can eventually get there.

And I don't see why a two-party system is any more likely to lead people to "vilify" opposition than your vaunted parliamentary system.

Your next-door neighbor and one-time partner in empire had a parliamentary system with at least five large parties, and still went the illiberal route, along with now Russia, the Phillipines, and Turkey. Illiberals in parliamentary Italy and Poland are knocking on the door to state power. 

In the U.S. case, I cannot really entertain the "inherently toxic" claim when there are other factors at work which are accidental and not essential to a two-party system, which appear to be generating and amplifying current divisions. E.g., Fox and right wing news media, constantly undermining U.S. democracy by going after those progressives who "hate America." Liberals apparently "cause" this illiberal reaction by wanting to "change" America, granting gays the right to marry and allowing illegal immigrants to attend public schools. 

I used to think parliamentary systems enriched and deepened public discussion of political issues, making it harder to conflate "the left" (liberals and center-right neoliberals) with a real left and the alt right with conservatives, while allowing people to identify more wholly with their party's platform.

But before I can endorse the "two party system=EVIL" thesis, I'd need some closer reasoning and evidence to convince me that what looks accidental to me is really essential, structurally unavoidable. 

[Sled21]

(06-20-2022, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: First, I have a somewhat technical question about that. Could a republican majority in the senate, pretty much a certainty after the midterms and quite possibly beyond, simply pull the nuclear option, expand the court to 13 judges and put 6 strict Trump loyalists in there* [*EDIT in response to previous answers, I understand the president appoints justices, so this would be viable only after 2024 should a republican win]. I'd think they could easily do that [after 2024], but I'm not certain and the internet doesn't really answer that for me.

There's a reason I ask that, imho this could be the last puzzle piece to abandon elections - or say, the necessity to care about them - altogether and establish a one-party system. The rest is pretty much apparent imho, an authoritarian president with a loyal party in the majority in both chambers could do the trick quite easily. Like just using alternate electors from now on, who in the end would stop that if the next VP is on board? Or a president that quite literally can do anything he wants, in any case no impeachment will stop him and apparently no other legal remedy is available. The constitution is levered out quite easily that way, as of yet I have not seen any possibility to stop a president doing anything if his party holds the majorities (actually, a senate majority suffices) and is with him 100%. And this is very likely the case after 2024. Trump (or someone just like him, but probably him) will run and might win, and so will his Congress minions.

As for the SC, I chose 6 Trump loyalists for a reason, it seems Justice Thomas might already be on board. I mean, that would be embarrassing for Tadjikistan really. A wife of a SC justice engages in open subversion attempts - imho already a huge scandal in its own rights - and said judge does not have to recuse himself from related legal matters and hardly anyone seems to care about that, it's that normalized already. My trust in that branch is eroding quickly as well, for that reason and because it apparently turned into an institution just as political (and hence blindly loyal if need be) as the other two branches. Only thing possibly still missing is a majority of blind loyalists (I guess Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disappointed Trump greatly), hence the initial question.

I know folks will call me crazy for putting up a topic like this (and sure, go ahead), but I think this is all way more realistic than people would admit, or despite all conceded hyperboly at least worthy of debate. Eg. the republican party in Texas is about to pass a resolution that calls the election of Joe Biden illegitimate. And hearings discuss whether Trump knew he actually had lost? The Texas GOP doesn't want to see it that way, and I'd say almost the whole republican party does not, and a large part of their electorate. Mitch McConnell of all people apparently holds the fort, but I suppose even he is gone if Trump wins again. Other dissenters leave voluntarily or get primaried out.

Lastly, why do I care? Because that affects me in Europe as well. Hardly any of our tiny domestic topics is as important as an alliance (culturally, morally, value-wise, militarily) with the US that imho can not possibly be relied upon in good faith any longer.

Basically, everything you are worried about Trump doing is what the Democrats are trying to do, not the GOP. You should probably change your news source. The Left has gone so far as to support assassination of sitting Justice's so they can replace them because they know packing the court will never fly.

[hollodero]

(06-23-2022, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote:  I doubt that "racism gets mentioned too often," in the U.S., given "the not so great heritage" that you recognize "is in large parts just true."

But aside from that, I want to agree

Well, agreeing is boring, while of course addressing this part you don't agree with is dangerous. It's sensitive and more that that, there's a grave danger that I trigger you giving an extensive outline about all kinds of historic stages of racism that the country went through and how they are still relevant today. Things that are most likely true and fair.
I'm of course not saying you need to stop to talk about racism. There's plenty of issues where it is necessary to do so, like housing, encounters with law enforcement, inherent biases in the workforce that hamper a black person's chances to advance in the workfield and many more, often a legacy of oppression and a result of current biases. Sure, talk about that please. But I'm distinctly saying that at times, it is too much. Like telling a white woman her wearing dreadlocks is condemnable, because cultural appropration. When we get to racial hairstyle police, it's too much. And it's of course not that topic, it's the sum of topics like these. A loud group of natural born accusers always looking for a thing to be outraged about, quite often coming across as pretty narrow-minded and potentially racist as well. Like dismissing what an old white man says just by pointing out he's an old white man, which happens regularly to the applause of many. Not sober, not helpful.

And sure, these are all little things. But overall, at least when listening to certain people with certain agendas, I feel at times the debate crosses the line of being actually patronizing and condescending even. In a sense of over-victimization, for example. The black person needs constant support in anything, his race has been so beaten up by white oppression that he can't possibly make it without us helping all the way. I also feel it makes no sense to teach white people that they have to walk on eggshells and be ubercautious around black people who are so much hurting and so fragile, and if they make a misstep they need to be demonized. At a point some of those mindsets imho create more diversion between the races instead of less. Like the more extreme parts of critical race theory that the right claims is the whole thing while the left claims it does not exist at all. White people are inherently oppressors through their whiteness and black people are inherently victims and let's make a school project about that. Well, my opinion would be, maybe not. And maybe using "old white man" as an insult isn't such a clever trope either. But I know it's just one more of these tiny things that just sum up, sum up to a plethora of viewpoints where I find myself asking, wait, does this make things better, and does this even make sense? Or is there a tendency to put a racial context to as many things as possible to be a good person and it's sometimes too much and more damaging than helpful.

I will leave out identity politics and popular culture for this explanation of what I meant, for this it is getting out of hand already. I'm not really in a position to talk about these issues.

(06-23-2022, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote: [...] for keeping the real threat to democracy in sight. People who want to get rid of filibuster are not "dismantling democracy" or some such. States passing "voter integrity" laws while defending Trump's attempted coup are striving to do exactly that. So I just can't endorse systematic/automatic suspicion of Dem motives every time the issue of Constitutional change to preserve democracy arises.

People who don't want the "true parts" of U.S. history taught frequently accuse "the Left" (i.e., people who think the true parts should be taught) of "hating America" and wanting to destroy it. Of course, "the left" is trying to destroy a certain version of U.S. history--one which buries the "true parts"--just as the right is trying to preserve that version.  Teaching the "true parts" threatens the kind of power which grew upon  the refusal to acknowledge them. Hence hostility to things like a "Juneteenth" a national holiday and federal oversight of voting laws. Making "too much" of black people and inequality.

This history debate is a social division much like the science-based ones over evolution and global warming. It's in part about people coming down on different sides of the standards/values which underpin modern science and scholarship, which doesn't exclude "true parts," however uncomfortable they might make us. I think that a lot of Americans (not a majority, but a significant plurality), do not really understand those standards/values, or certainly don't support them where they conflict with received beliefs. 

Agreeing is boring, I said, and hence I will say that I feel at times you're oversimplifying the positions of people with a different viewpoint.
Eg. I have no strong opinion on Juneteenth really; but I'm in favor. But if someone said he's against it being a national holiday, I would not automatically assume that this person aims to keep his power over black people preserved. Not even everyone who accuses the left of hating America is a racist that demands revisionist history. But sure, not that I really disagree as a whole with what you say.

[hollodero]

(06-23-2022, 03:24 PM)Dill Wrote: "Severe mistakes"????

Looks like someone's hatred for our freedom has led him to forget that our Constitution was divinely inspired.   

Yeah maybe God isn't such a fan of democracy. I mean, historically he is not, and he's quite the authoritarian himself.

I haven't even mentioned that electors from many states are not required to vote according to the election result. That even happened in 2016, seven electors did not vote as they were supposed to. What a system!

(06-23-2022, 03:24 PM)Dill Wrote: But before I can endorse the "two party system=EVIL" thesis, I'd need some closer reasoning and evidence to convince me that what looks accidental to me is really essential, structurally unavoidable. 

Well, I feel the current climate supports my thesis. But sure, you might call that accidental. But when you blame FOX instead, then there's the first issue where I'd say, FOX is a result of the two-party system. They picked their half and are 100% loyal and half of the voting country are more or less with them. And something at least similar is also happening on the left with their media outlets (Iknow, more subtle, less blunt at somewhat less extreme). As soon as the media plays such an instrumental part in opinionbuilding, you will create this divide. This divide through the middle that also is a result of the two-party system, for it would not happen if there were three or four of them.

A somewhat larger point would be this. By design, every party regains power from time to time in a two-party system. Given that, it seems pretty clear that if one party goes fascist or some other form of illiberate, it will automatically gain power at some point. All they need is patience to wait for the inevitable.

Then there's voter participation, which is critically low in the US. Many people don't find anything for them in a never-changing choice between blue and red. To some extent you have primaries to have some nuance, which isn't always a good thing though, see Donald Trump. But overall, it's blue or red, red or blue, a restriction to two certain mindsets that should provide a fit for everyone in a country of 330 million people. It's an idea-killer, it creates fanatics and disinterested people. Imho it would be much healthier if other movements could form and actually thrive, and gain a certain small number of seats in Congress if say at least 5% of people like their ideas at the voting booth.
But now, impossible. As soon as a third party gains momentum, the one of the two parties that has to lose more will throw all their ressources behind destroying said movement before they could ever gain one single seat. You can at best have a superrich person that can afford to fight back a bit, but in the end, the two parties win, and that's where they align, no third party. Keep the power structures intact.

Which, of course, has to lead me to coruption. Your political system is openly corrupt, at least in my eyes, two parties that have all the power, all the influence. One can simply pay both and never worry again about losing influence, like Wall street certainly does, and who knows who else. And you have so very many congresspeople that only have to worry about a loss in the primaries maybe (but usually have already created all the connections and friends and sources of money to fight all opponents off easily), but never in a general election. Miss Marjorie will win her district, and so would an Orangutan if it only had an R to its name. That is not healthy.

And this is of course also because of demonization of the other side. People just can not possibly vote for the other side, the side they were taught to oppose at every turn for their entire life. Imho the strongest of Trump's assets, how the other side just hates him so much that people on his side like him even more for that. That's the climate, so much is just based on hatred and disapproval of the one everlasting opponent. Your debates are so bi-polar, so nuance-free, each side creates their talking points and rolls with them, these talking points are not meant to create bridges or find common understanding, they are battlecries. They hate America! They hate women! They hate gay people! They hate families! It is unpleasant to watch really. And it creates fanatism, that in times of media and social media has way more fodder than maybe in the better old days.

So that would be my case for declaring the two party system evil. That and that it gave you Donald Trump. Who is a product of said system and said climate.


--- oh and of course I'm not saying multiple party systems are inherently prone to any of such developments. Your example Hungary has totally different issues (eg having structural problems that allowed one man to control the whole media world), Romania nad Bulgaria are corrupt democracies (they are young democracies still), Poland is full of hardcore Christians that often are detrimental to democracy in their values and beliefs, for sure it's not only about two parties or more parties. My own country? Has a history of a two-party system creating a quasi civil war and resulting in fascism, and a current history of multiple parties in which such tendencies do not thrive. But that's also to be seen in historical context and hence not just a result of the system, or course.

[hollodero]

(06-24-2022, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Basically, everything you are worried about Trump doing is what the Democrats are trying to do, not the GOP. You should probably change your news source.

Nope, it's Donald Trump that actually wanted to overthrow an election to stay in power as an usurpor. That is not my take, that is a fact. Get to terms with that before starting whataboutism and telling me I have to change my news sources. Yours apparently misinform you on that.

(06-24-2022, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: The Left has gone so far as to support assassination of sitting Justice's so they can replace them because they know packing the court will never fly.

I am certainly not a fan of Schumer's remarks in I guess 2020? But if you tell me that it actually was his intent to call for the murder of a justice on the behalf of the entire left, then you lose me.

[basballguy]

(06-20-2022, 08:29 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You better believe that if Trump (or someone affiliated with him) were to win anything moving forward, the validity would likely get questioned.
At this point, I wouldn't believe anyone affiliated with Trump would get elected without cheating outside of areas that were already heavily affiliated that way before 2021.

(06-21-2022, 10:15 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm saying that if someone without proof (likely trying to cheat) has tried objecting to the election results from this past election because they didn't believe they lost, I'd have a hard time believing that same person would actually win in an area they previously lost in without cheating.

If they tried to cheat before, why would I believe their win was legitimate this time around?

I wouldn't go to the extent that these yokels did to try to overturn the results, but I would be skeptical.

I'm not sure why nobody has replied to you....maybe because it's absurd lol.  

You're saying "Trump can't win without cheating" which is what Trump said "Biden can't win without cheating".  Why is it ok for you to make that assumption but not for conservatives (or Trump) to make that about Biden?

You're saying by claiming Biden cheated and challenging the results (because he thought the same way you are now) he was cheating instead?

So if Trump gets elected, it's because he cheated?  Not because Biden is quite literally one of the worst presidents we've ever seen?  He's so bad his approval rating is now lower than what Trump's was after the same amount of time.  

If things stay status quo, there's no way Biden wins (if he runs).  The only way democrats would have a chance would be with a totally different nominee.  

I could also just be mincing your words to make my post seem more favorable....I learned how to do this from CNN  

[*ochocincos*]

(06-24-2022, 12:21 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm not sure why nobody has replied to you....maybe because it's absurd lol.  

You're saying "Trump can't win without cheating" which is what Trump said "Biden can't win without cheating".  Why is it ok for you to make that assumption but not for conservatives (or Trump) to make that about Biden?

You're saying by claiming Biden cheated and challenging the results (because he thought the same way you are now) he was cheating instead?

So if Trump gets elected, it's because he cheated?  Not because Biden is quite literally one of the worst presidents we've ever seen?  He's so bad his approval rating is now lower than what Trump's was after the same amount of time.  

If things stay status quo, there's no way Biden wins (if he runs).  The only way democrats would have a chance would be with a totally different nominee.  

I could also just be mincing your words to make my post seem more favorable....I learned how to do this from CNN  

I think the difference is Trump trying to say the election was stolen and claim cheating, so it's easy to make an association that the person claiming stolen election and cheating would end up actually doing the act in order to win.

If Biden (or someone else) pulled the same thing even when there hasn't been sufficient evidence to prove the claim, and then won the following election, I'd be skeptical of their victory too.

[Dill]

(06-24-2022, 12:21 PM)basballguy Wrote: You're saying "Trump can't win without cheating" which is what Trump said "Biden can't win without cheating".  Why is it ok for you to make that assumption but not for conservatives (or Trump) to make that about Biden?

You're saying by claiming Biden cheated and challenging the results (because he thought the same way you are now) he was cheating instead?

So if Trump gets elected, it's because he cheated?  Not because Biden is quite literally one of the worst presidents we've ever seen?  He's so bad his approval rating is now lower than what Trump's was after the same amount of time.  

If things stay status quo, there's no way Biden wins (if he runs).  The only way democrats would have a chance would be with a totally different nominee.  

Most would agree that, at the most general, rhetorical level, Biden/Dem charges of Trump/Repub election fraud are mirror images of Trump/Repub charges of Biden/Dem fraud.

You'll find that most of the false equivalences floated in this forum are rhetorical comparisons--e.g., "Trump refused to concede, but so did Abrams!" That's why courts don't remain on the rhetorical level when judging such charges.

Right now there is considerable evidence that Trump tried to "cheat" in the 2020 election, and it rests on video and voice recordings, emails, memos, and documents like counterfeit lists of Trump electors. And in both 2016 and 2020 he was calling the election "rigged" ahead of time.
So it is not unreasonable that, should he run again, we can expect him to repeat the same tactics. 

Since Biden did none of the above, there is no Biden/Dem mirror image at the level of evidence, facts, etc. So there is no ground to assume that Biden/Dems tend to fraud, while there is ground to assume Trump does. This is why it's not "the same" if Trump/Repubs accuse the Dems of fraud.

If Biden and Trump run in 2024, and Trump wins, it won't be because Biden was a worse president. Trump was worse by all traditional measurements, and will be far worse if he serves again. If he wins it will be because enough electors in the right states put party over country and rule of law to make that happen.