Our constitutional crisis is already here

[Dill]

(09-29-2021, 02:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: I will have to disagree on that. Regarding that one of the two major parties claims voter fraud in advance, therefore promoting a narrative that the democratic institutions are grossly undermined by enemies and can not be trusted any longer - and in addition, also the courts and of course all democrats in general. And the sentiment is taken over quite broadly, in the conservative electorate and amongst the GOP, who also adapted the stance that a Capitol storm is not a big deal and to a large part even justified.

To this I would that that other major party not only CLAIMS fraud but has acted on the claim by proposing/passing legislation in swing states which will deliver election challenges to Republican legislatures for decision,

and the replacement of state officials whos allegiance to rule of law makes them "unreliable" in handling such challenges. 

It looks like Trump is going to run again in '24. If he wins the same states as 2020, engineered electoral college results in swing states could deliver a second term in office. 

So we have a party deliberately breaking the system to force results.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2021, 04:23 PM)Dill Wrote: So we have a party deliberately breaking the system to force results.

Just curious, how does this differ with Democrat efforts to abolish the filibuster or pack the SCOTUS?  We all know the only reason neither of those two have happened is because two senators, Sinema and Manchin, have shown a spine and refuse to go along with them.  Also, please don't bother with the unconstitutional argument, as we all know that if what the GOP was doing in the states you reference were unconstitutional they'd have already been challenged on those grounds.  Both efforts include changing the rules to benefit the party advocating for them.  Neither has actually occurred but you only seem to be concerned with one.  Why is that?  Also, please don't bother responding with a two page essay, I literally have no patience for it.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-29-2021, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just curious, how does this differ with Democrat efforts to abolish the filibuster or pack the SCOTUS?  We all know the only reason neither of those two have happened is because two senators, Sinema and Manchin, have shown a spine and refuse to go along with them.  Also, please don't bother with the unconstitutional argument, as we all know that if what the GOP was doing in the states you reference were unconstitutional they'd have already been challenged on those grounds.  Both efforts include changing the rules to benefit the party advocating for them.  Neither has actually occurred but you only seem to be concerned with one.  Why is that?  Also, please don't bother responding with a two page essay, I literally have no patience for it.

Talking a bill to death is stupid and unproductive. The number of members of the SCOTUS has changed over time.

Your two examples involve fixing something that is broken or rigged in the system.
Rigging elections via legislation involves breaking the system in which democracy works. That’s how I view the differences.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2021, 06:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Talking a bill to death is stupid and unproductive.

In your opinion.  I somehow think you'd have a different opinion with a GOP controlled Congress and POTUS.

Quote:The number of members of the SCOTUS has changed over time.

Indeed, when was the last time the numbers changed?  What happened the last time someone proposed "packing the court?"  Also, what would you opinion be on the subject if Trump had attempted it?

Quote:Your two examples involve fixing something that is broken or rigged in the system.

Again, in your opinion.  

Quote:Rigging elections via legislation involves breaking the system in which democracy works. That’s how I view the differences.

If and when it happens you'll have a point.  As it has yet to occur you do not.  You're indulging in partisan speculation, which is rather par for the course these days.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of many of the recent GOP moves, but I'm also not a fan of many of the recent Dem moves.  I certainly don't see this as a clear cut case of good versus evil as you appear to do.

[Dill]

(09-29-2021, 06:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Talking a bill to death is stupid and unproductive. The number of members of the SCOTUS has changed over time.

Your two examples involve fixing something that is broken or rigged in the system.
Rigging elections via legislation involves breaking the system in which democracy works. That’s how I view the differences.

Bulls eye. 

Fixing what is broken to retain democracy vs rigging the system to break democracy.

[Dill]

(09-29-2021, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just curious, how does this differ with Democrat efforts to abolish the filibuster or pack the SCOTUS?  We all know the only reason neither of those two have happened is because two senators, Sinema and Manchin, have shown a spine and refuse to go along with them.  . . .  Also, please don't bother responding with a two page essay, I literally have no patience for it.

Let's see if I can accommodate your attention span here.

Voting to abolish the filibuster to re-establish majority rule is an effort to restore and maintain democracy against superminority control.

Creating laws to place control of election certification in one party's hands is an effort to negate democracy to maintain superminority control. Same for laws restricting voting rights.

Democrats have been and are seriously discussing the filibuster. That is an "effort." But so far as I know, there is no party push to pack the courts--though that could come in response to McConnell's awarding court appointments to Trump which belonged to Obama and Biden.

(09-29-2021, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Also, please don't bother with the unconstitutional argument, as we all know that if what the GOP was doing in the states you reference were unconstitutional they'd have already been challenged on those grounds.  

Well, I don't know that "if what the GOP was doing in the states [I] reference were unconstitutional they'd have already been challenged on those grounds." They have been challenged on their voter rights restrictions.

The question now is how the challenge will be received by a court with three Trump justices. Laws shifting certification to legislatures will probably not be tested until 2022.

And there is also the question of "what is Constitutional?" One party is pushing legal and political practice into grey areas not yet addressed by Constitutional law, and perhaps not the Constitution itself. That is why Kagan is using the word "crisis."

(09-29-2021, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Both efforts include changing the rules to benefit the party advocating for them.  Neither has actually occurred but you only seem to be concerned with one.  Why is that? 

With reference to changing the rules, why do you say "neither has actually occurred"? Many states have passed new voter restriction laws, and Georgia has already bypassed its Secretary of State: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/upshot/georgia-election-law-risk.html.

Certainly ALL legislators' efforts to change rules are to "benefit the party advocating for them." But no serious political analyst takes that "revelation" to mean all such efforts are therefore equivalent, equally partisan, equally hostile to public interest and the greater good.

One determines that by looking at the intended (which may be unstated) effects of laws and their actual beneficiaries. 

So I "only seem to be concerned with one" because that party appears bent on changing rules to keep power it could not win in open and free elections. 

"Both sides" aren't doing it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2021, 11:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's see if I can accommodate your attention span here.

With that opener the answer is no.  Don't ever question why discussion here is dying, you're as guilty of killing it as anyone.

[Dill]

(09-30-2021, 01:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With that opener the answer is no.  Don't ever question why discussion here is dying, you're as guilty of killing it as anyone.

People stop discussing a topic when it is "mined out" for them.  They've said their piece and heard others. A natural process. 
Or a troll is jamming discussion with personal attacks.

No one stops because one poster answers another's questions. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2021, 11:37 AM)Dill Wrote: People stop discussing a topic when it is "mined out" for them.  They've said their piece and heard others. A natural process. 
Or a troll is jamming discussion with personal attacks.

No one stops because one poster answers another's questions. 

Incorrect.  Many people stop when they grow tired of pedantic condescension.  But of course, Dill doesn't see it.  It consistently amazes me how a man as old as you can apparently possess zero capacity for introspection.  Anyways, in the words of Depeche Mode;

Enjoy the silence.

[Dill]

(10-01-2021, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  Many people stop when they grow tired of pedantic condescension.  But of course, Dill doesn't see it.  It consistently amazes me how a man as old as you can apparently possess zero capacity for introspection.  Anyways, in the words of Depeche Mode;

Enjoy the silence.

No, dill doesn't see it.

You weren't really interested in the Op Ed, then?

Kagan's analysis of Trumpism?

[Dill]

While analyzing the roots of our current Constitutional crisis, Kagan also identifies something about the relation between Trump and followers which seems new to US politics. 

It connects the anti-vax stance of so many Trump followers to their anti-democratic politics. 


What makes the Trump movement historically unique is not its passions and paranoias. It is the fact that for millions of Americans, Trump himself is the response to their fears and resentments. This is a stronger bond between leader and followers than anything seen before in U.S. political movements. Although the Founders feared the rise of a king or a Caesar, for two centuries Americans proved relatively immune to unwavering hero-worship of politicians. Their men on horseback — Theodore Roosevelt, Grant, even Washington — were not regarded as infallible. This was true of great populist leaders as well. William Jennings Bryan a century ago was venerated because he advanced certain ideas and policies, but he did not enjoy unquestioning loyalty from his followers. Even Reagan was criticized by conservatives for selling out conservative principles, for deficit spending, for his equivocal stance on abortion, for being “soft” on the Soviet Union. . . .

... But their bond with Trump has little to do with economics or other material concerns. They believe the U.S. government and society have been captured by socialists, minority groups and sexual deviants. They see the Republican Party establishment as corrupt and weak — “losers,” to use Trump’s word, unable to challenge the reigning liberal hegemony. They view Trump as strong and defiant, willing to take on the establishment, Democrats, RINOs, liberal media, antifa, the Squad, Big Tech and the “Mitch McConnell Republicans.” His charismatic leadership has given millions of Americans a feeling of purpose and empowerment, a new sense of identity. While Trump’s critics see him as too narcissistic to be any kind of leader, his supporters admire his unapologetic, militant selfishness. Unlike establishment Republicans, Trump speaks without embarrassment on behalf of an aggrieved segment of Americans, not exclusively White, who feel they have been taking it on the chin for too long. And that is all he needs to do.

There was a time when political analysts wondered what would happen when Trump failed to “deliver” for his constituents. But the most important thing Trump delivers is himself. His egomania is part of his appeal. In his professed victimization by the media and the “elites,” his followers see their own victimization. That is why attacks on Trump by the elites only strengthen his bond with his followers. That is why millions of Trump supporters have even been willing to risk death as part of their show of solidarity: When Trump’s enemies cited his mishandling of the pandemic to discredit him, their answer was to reject the pandemic. One Trump supporter didn’t go to the hospital after developing covid-19 symptoms because he didn’t want to contribute to the liberal case against Trump. “I’m not going to add to the numbers,” he told a reporter.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2021, 02:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: I will have to disagree on that. Regarding that one of the two major parties claims voter fraud in advance, therefore promoting a narrative that the democratic institutions are grossly undermined by enemies and can not be trusted any longer - and in addition, also the courts and of course all democrats in general. And the sentiment is taken over quite broadly, in the conservative electorate and amongst the GOP, who also adapted the stance that a Capitol storm is not a big deal and to a large part even justified.

This alone cries out crisis to me. Not to mention everything Trump stands for, including establishing a system based on personal loyalty rather than rules and laws. Trump argued in court that a president should be allowed to do anything without repercussion, including actually shooting someone. He avoided conviction from Mueller to a large part based on a policy that a president shall not be indicted, and conviction in the second impeachment just through party loyalty over factual evidence. And these approaches fly with a critical mass of people that in the end are basically bound to reach the conclusion that democracy is infiltrated by evil liberals and other bad people and that court decisions or election results no longer have meaning.

I don't disagree with many of your positions here.  Where I see a danger that I believe you do not is in the speculation of the actions detailed in OP being presented as if they are a fait accompli.  If so, then is not any action appropriate to deal with such a danger?  The danger here is convicting people of future crime and thus taking "appropriate" steps now.  In much the same way that we both had issues with Miley acting preemptively, that is my issue here.  

Quote:I'd find way more stuff, but I will just mention one more thing, the GOP actilvely goes after/censures people now that do not go along with the "stop the steal" narrative, eg for the eternal sin of reporting the election results as counted or for claiming that incitiong a Capitol riot is bad. This alone is a move that cries out looming crisis to me. Especially since none of these things seem to disgust their electorate much.

If you're referring to Cheney, they was a lot of resistance to any form of punishment for her initially.  It was only after she continued to raise the subject publicly, even when it was not the topic at hand, that eventually resulted in her censure.

[Dill]

(10-01-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with many of your positions here.  Where I see a danger that I believe you do not is in the speculation of the actions detailed in OP being presented as if they are a fait accompli.  If so, then is not any action appropriate to deal with such a danger?  The danger here is convicting people of future crime and thus taking "appropriate" steps now.  In much the same way that we both had issues with Miley acting preemptively, that is my issue here.  

The bolded just inverts cause and effect, making those who recognize of the problem the "real" problem.

It's the Trumpers who are "convicting people of future crime"--stealing elections. 
That's why anti-democratic legislation and even violence are now "appropriate steps" for the Trump base.

The OP offers, first, a largely structural analysis of the current political crisis, including legislation actually passed and a violent assault on the Capitol. It then draws out the crisis' likely implications--none of which is that "any action is appropriate to deal with such danger." 

Quite the opposite.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2021, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: The bolded just inverts cause and effect, making those who recognize of the problem the "real" problem.

It's the Trumpers who are "convicting people of future crime"--stealing elections. 
That's why anti-democratic legislation and even violence are now "appropriate steps" for the Trump base.

The OP offers, first, a largely structural analysis of the current political crisis, including legislation actually passed and a violent assault on the Capitol. It then draws out the crisis' likely implications--none of which is that "any action is appropriate to deal with such danger." 

Quite the opposite.

I wasn't speaking to you.  That has proven as pointless as it is ponderous.

[Dill]

(10-01-2021, 05:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wasn't speaking to you.  That has proven as pointless as it is ponderous.

"Pointless" for anyone who wants to pronounce on Kagan's Op Ed without actually reading it. 

You asked me a question, to which I gave a serious answer.

You dodged the answer with the bogus "condescension" charge--a standard you hold others to when it suits you, but never yourself. 

Now you're riding that dodge to avoid another post which dismantles your groundless worry about the "danger" of convicting people of a future crime by simply recognizing the reality and danger of anti-democratic politics.



 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-01-2021, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  Many people stop when they grow tired of pedantic condescension.  But of course, Dill doesn't see it.  It consistently amazes me how a man as old as you can apparently possess zero capacity for introspection.  Anyways, in the words of Depeche Mode;

Enjoy the silence.

This whole section is just a 4-5 man circle jerk. It’s basically back to the same 3 people starting all the threads with the same 5 people nodding their heads, with a few Fritz crazy threads sprinkled in between.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2021, 11:13 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: This whole section is just a 4-5 man circle jerk. It’s basically back to the same 3 people starting all the threads with the same 5 people nodding their heads, with a few Fritz crazy threads sprinkled in between.

Dill doesn't see it, though. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-02-2021, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill doesn't see it, though. 

Good post.



Sound familiar

[GMDino]

(10-02-2021, 11:13 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: This whole section is just a 4-5 man circle jerk. It’s basically back to the same 3 people starting all the threads with the same 5 people nodding their heads, with a few Fritz crazy threads sprinkled in between.

On the first page (10/2/21 @ 8:29am) there are currently (under the "normal threads") 17 threads started by 8 different posters. On the second page it is 9 of 20 created by different posters.

Most have multiple pages of replies.

One or two regular posters have personal agendas against other posters and try to derail every one of their threads.  The other casual and semi-regular contributors get bored with it and stop posting at all because of the fighting while a few try to bring new topics or fresh information.

Discussions would be great if people cared enough to do that vs attacking the posters and adding nothing to conversation.  

That's why there was a PNR 2.0 created in the first place.

Edit to add: That the constant bickering and off topic response filled with personal assumptions about the poster is one reason I left for months and is something I am trying hard to avoid since I came back. Even THIS response is too much so I'll stop here.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-03-2021, 09:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: On the first page (10/2/21 @ 8:29am) there are currently (under the "normal threads") 17 threads started by 8 different posters. On the second page it is 9 of 20 created by different posters.

Most have multiple pages of replies.

One or two regular posters have personal agendas against other posters and try to derail every one of their threads.  The other casual and semi-regular contributors get bored with it and stop posting at all because of the fighting while a few try to bring new topics or fresh information.

Discussions would be great if people cared enough to do that vs attacking the posters and adding nothing to conversation.  

That's why there was a PNR 2.0 created in the first place.

Edit to add: That the constant bickering and off topic response filled with personal assumptions about the poster is one reason I left for months and is something I am trying hard to avoid since I came back. Even THIS response is too much so I'll stop here.

Well at least we’re all bengals fans. I think? Besides my only compadre in this area lol. Oh and Baltimore Pat yeah?

You should post more in the football sections. I can’t stand Fred in here, but we have fun with football at least.