On the news in Germany there was speculation about Trump not accepting a lost election, and the reporters even asked German politicians what they thought about him maybe using the army or trying to change laws.
But (German) politicians answered that they were confident that democracy is strong, that institutions like Congress and Supreme Court remain fully functioning, and that it's not likely that Trump will be able to successfully resist if he loses the election.
Still, it speaks volumes that there was an open discussion on one of our most reliable and serious news channels about whether it's possible that Trump might consider making a move like, let's say, one would expect in Belarus, or the way Putin has done.
Of course that shouldn't even be possible in a functioning democracy, but it reveals that people consider him capable of that and only kept in check by external circumstances.
The idea of riots involving armed militia in the streets is bad enough and unfortunately not too difficult to imagine. I don't understand how it can even be allowed for non-military people to strut around openly carrying assault rifles (if that's what they are. Sure looked like it) and ammunition, but I guess that subject alone could fill its own thread.
I love democracy. I'm worried to see its foundations crumble in some countries next to my own in Europe, and seeing similar attitudes sprouting around the globe.
If people feel the need to carry weapons on the street then it is not a safe country.
That's true, but people feel the need to do lots of illogical things. To give in to that need is not necessarily the best solution.
I mean, look at the police. People carry guns to feel safe. Police shoots too quickly, especially at black people, using the excuse that the other person might carry a gun. So, wouldn't everyone be less likely to be shot by the police (or at least not give them the easy excuse for it) and therefore be safer if they were NOT carrying guns?
Scared people do a lot of things, but few of them are reasonable.
@Arvia "So, wouldn't everyone be less likely to be shot by the police (or at least not give them the easy excuse for it) and therefore be safer if they were NOT carrying guns?"
In a different society where police function as actual law abiding protectors of the people, sure. But not our police. You can already be searched, cuffed, or even disabled and they will still murder you.
On the news in Germany there was speculation about Trump not accepting a lost election, and the reporters even asked German politicians what they thought about him maybe using the army or trying to change laws.
But (German) politicians answered that they were confident that democracy is strong, that institutions like Congress and Supreme Court remain fully functioning, and that it's not likely that Trump will be able to successfully resist if he loses the election.
Still, it speaks volumes that there was an open discussion on one of our most reliable and serious news channels about whether it's possible that Trump might consider making a move like, let's say, one would expect in Belarus, or the way Putin has done.
Of course that shouldn't even be possible in a functioning democracy, but it reveals that people consider him capable of that and only kept in check by external circumstances.
The idea of riots involving armed militia in the streets is bad enough and unfortunately not too difficult to imagine. I don't understand how it can even be allowed for non-military people to strut around openly carrying assault rifles (if that's what they are. Sure looked like it) and ammunition, but I guess that subject alone could fill its own thread.
I love democracy. I'm worried to see its foundations crumble in some countries next to my own in Europe, and seeing similar attitudes sprouting around the globe.
Fever dreams of the deluded. We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society. If you repeat something long enough I guess you don't need to justify it, it just becomes true by default. Echo chambers are so strong these days most don't even realize they are there, and this goes double from those who manufacture opinion in the media.
It is just so obvious, in terms of actual policy, that the previous two administrations had far less respect for guaranteed constitutional rights.
Yeah, these are people I trust to give me accurate scientific information free of their personal biases and social pressure. Later on it encourages psychologists to be "activists", which is exactly what you want in practicing the scientific method. Activism, putting your beliefs before the pursuit of truth.
Almost comical how soft sciences have been utterly corroded by american educational institutions and their ideological brain rot. It is now so bad in the West that most don't care about even the corruption of science. Is the replication crisis this field is notorious for any surprise at this point? They aren't even pretending to be scientists.
We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society.
I mean, recently? Just this month, protestors have been shot and Trump has refused to agree to honor the results of an election that hands Biden the presidency. I just read an article about a 16-year-old girl who got tear gassed and hit with a police baton for peacefully protesting (no, the little girl was not committing a violent crime by protesting).
When we don't know if our president will honor the election, I think we have good reason to worry about having an elected government in 2021. When when exercising our First Amendment rights prompts law enforcement to literally physically attack us, I think we have reason to worry about an erosion of our First Amendment rights.
If you had told me in 2016 that the Trump administration would separate migrant children from their parents and cram them into freezing cages where some of them would be raped by state officials and others would die of neglect, I would have told you you were being paranoid and that even a Trump administration wouldn't do something like that.
I've underestimated Trump's capacity for authoritarianism too many times. I'm not going to just assume that things are going to be okay anymore.
It is just so obvious, in terms of actual policy, that the previous two administrations had far less respect for guaranteed constitutional rights.
What like policy on voting rights, birth citizenship, equal treatment for all in case of natural disasters, separation of powers, border closures, Senate approval of officials? Which policies are you thinking of where it's obvious that the current government has great respect for the constitution?
We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society.
I mean, recently? Just this month, protestors have been shot and Trump has refused to agree to honor the results of an election that hands Biden the presidency. I just read an article about a 16-year-old girl who got tear gassed and hit with a police baton for peacefully protesting (no, the little girl was not committing a violent crime by protesting).
As if any government the world over would let rioters murder and destroy their cities with impunity, indefinitely, as I provided repeated examples of. The enforcement of laws and the eventual crackdown on rioters happens everywhere.
Is France totalitarian for using tear gas and mass arrests? How easily we bandy these loaded words about when convenient, and how quickly we forget the inconvenient. To use the most recent examples of equivalent riots that I can think of in this country, the L.A riots, thousands of federal officers were called in to quell them. Was it totalitarian then? Well then most of the world has always and always will be totalitarian and it is a meaningless term.
Turning the perfectly normal and historically common into dangerous unprecedented abuses of power is one of the many ways the media-, and activist institutions apparently- gaslight people. They ignore history and context to arrive at the conclusion they like.
When we don't know if our president will honor the election, I think we have good reason to worry about having an elected government in 2021. When when exercising our First Amendment rights prompts law enforcement to literally physically attack us, I think we have reason to worry about an erosion of our First Amendment rights.
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society.
I mean, recently? Just this month, protestors have been shot and Trump has refused to agree to honor the results of an election that hands Biden the presidency. I just read an article about a 16-year-old girl who got tear gassed and hit with a police baton for peacefully protesting (no, the little girl was not committing a violent crime by protesting).
As if any government the world over would let rioters murder and destroy their cities with impunity, indefinitely, as I provided repeated examples of. The enforcement of laws and the eventual crackdown on rioters happens the world over.
Is France totalitarian for using tear gas and mass arrests? How easily we bandy these loaded words about when convenient, and how quickly we forget the inconvenient. To use the most recent examples of equivalent riots that I can think of in this country, the L.A riots, thousands of federal officers were called in to quell them. Was it totalitarian then? Well then most of the world has always and always will be totalitarian and it is a meaningless term.
Turning the perfectly normal and historically common into dangerous unprecedented abuses of power is one of the many ways the media-, and activist institutions apparently- gaslight people. They ignore history and context to arrive at the conclusion they like.
When we don't know if our president will honor the election, I think we have good reason to worry about having an elected government in 2021. When when exercising our First Amendment rights prompts law enforcement to literally physically attack us, I think we have reason to worry about an erosion of our First Amendment rights.
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
You mean except for the times he said he wouldn't?? In BOTH election cycles. The ultimate "straight-talker" who we are just supposed to assume is joking whenever it's convenient for a certain argument.
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
It's not normal for a Western leader to question the legitimacy of elections months before they're held. It's not normal for a Western leader to openly tell his supporters to attempt to cast fraudulent votes. Personally I think it's pretty clear why concerns about Trump are being raised that have not been raised about past Presidents ...
Yeah, these are people I trust to give me accurate scientific information free of their personal biases and social pressure. Later on it encourages psychologists to be "activists", which is exactly what you want in practicing the scientific method. Activism, putting your beliefs before the pursuit of truth.
Here's a recent article by the APA that explains the basis for the concerns. Those are objectively founded - there are clear differences between blacks and whites in terms of health outcomes. I accept that the reasons for those are complex. However, in the situation where:
a) the US has had openly racist policies for the majority of its existence.
b) there are currently big disparities in outcomes for races
I don't see it as a breach of the scientific method to postulate the continuing existence of institutional racism.
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
It's not normal for a Western leader to question the legitimacy of elections months before they're held. It's not normal for a Western leader to openly tell his supporters to attempt to cast fraudulent votes. Personally I think it's pretty clear why concerns about Trump are being raised that have not been raised about past Presidents ...
That's why this shit-show needs to end so that Washington can start hiding things again. It doesn't do me any good to know about the graft and corruption, so I might as well be ignorant of it. Ah, the good ol' days when the conspiracy theories were behind the scenes instead of in the forefront...
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
It's not normal for a Western leader to question the legitimacy of elections months before they're held. It's not normal for a Western leader to openly tell his supporters to attempt to cast fraudulent votes. Personally I think it's pretty clear why concerns about Trump are being raised that have not been raised about past Presidents ...
Right, you are supposed to challenge the election results after the election, after an elaborate lie about Russian Traitors has been set up to use as justification. Perhaps, also, an impeachment attempt on this very basis? Or maybe you challenge the results because of a hotly contested Florida.
Get real. Not only did his previous challenger hint that she herself might challenge the election results, entire years were spent challenging his legitimacy as a president by implying he got elected by illegal and nefarious means. Not only that, but you only have to go back a few election cycles to see a challenge about the election results so bad that it ended up in the courts.
Everything can look like the end of democracy, if you seemingly have no memory American politics or it's political history outside of what Trump says and the media response. "I may or may not challenge the results and refuse to answer" sounds extremely tame to me in the current climate, I dunno.
We let you vote now after 200 years and
we don't lynch you in the town square for looking at a white woman what the hell are you complaining about pull yourself up by the bootstraps- 56 years
If you take the time the institution existed before the official founding of the country, black people have been "free" (by any standard definition of the word) for less than 1/4th the time they were either pieces of property or systematically oppressed by both the government and citizens. I'm only 18 years removed from being born into a world with colored water fountains. The idea that this is ancient history is madness.
@WarChiefZeke "As if any government the world over would let rioters murder and destroy their cities with impunity, indefinitely, as I provided repeated examples of. The enforcement of laws and the eventual crackdown on rioters happens everywhere."
My favorite part of this is that in the comment you are replying to, semiticgod specified a peaceful protester (and only 16) who was NOT rioting or committing any kind of crime, you replied with a comment about rioters. Which has NOTHING to do with peaceful protest. Protesting is 100% legal and an exercise of 1st Amendment rights.
I personally don't think that Trump would ignore the November election results if they are not in his favour. I do think that all these seeds he is planting are from the republican party combined that they will treat the Biden in the same way Trump was treated, if that is the case then democracy will die because the parties are not working for the people but only for their own power.
One problem that could be clarified with your objections is the word "totalitarian". I do think some people on the left can get carried away and make some over-the-top remarks about what's currently going on. Fascist is another example.
However, I think describing Trump and his government as anti-democratic and authoritarian is perfectly accurate.
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
It's not normal for a Western leader to question the legitimacy of elections months before they're held. It's not normal for a Western leader to openly tell his supporters to attempt to cast fraudulent votes. Personally I think it's pretty clear why concerns about Trump are being raised that have not been raised about past Presidents ...
Right, you are supposed to challenge the election results after the election, after an elaborate lie about Russian Traitors has been set up to use as justification. Perhaps, also, an impeachment attempt on this very basis? Or maybe you challenge the results because of a hotly contested Florida.
Get real. Not only did his previous challenger hint that she herself might challenge the election results, entire years were spent challenging his legitimacy as a president by implying he got elected by illegal and nefarious means. Not only that, but you only have to go back a few election cycles to see a challenge about the election results so bad that it ended up in the courts.
The expected time to challenge election results is after an election, not before one - and the challenge should be based on evidence of inappropriate behavior in the election. We've had plenty of discussions about Russia before and you know I think there are plenty of reasons for concern in the Mueller report, but I don't think it provides evidence to challenge the results of the 2016 election (and nor did Hillary - which is why she didn't in fact do so).
Trump is not just casting doubts on the result of the election, but on the basis for the election itself. Apart from his multiple references to expected fraud (as usual all with no evidence) and his desire to reduce turnout, he's also floated the ideas of delaying the election and of allowing him to serve a 3rd term. None of that is comparable to the situation in Florida where the courts got involved after the event as a result of a problem with the mechanics of the election in one small part of the US.
On the news in Germany there was speculation about Trump not accepting a lost election, and the reporters even asked German politicians what they thought about him maybe using the army or trying to change laws.
But (German) politicians answered that they were confident that democracy is strong, that institutions like Congress and Supreme Court remain fully functioning, and that it's not likely that Trump will be able to successfully resist if he loses the election.
Still, it speaks volumes that there was an open discussion on one of our most reliable and serious news channels about whether it's possible that Trump might consider making a move like, let's say, one would expect in Belarus, or the way Putin has done.
Of course that shouldn't even be possible in a functioning democracy, but it reveals that people consider him capable of that and only kept in check by external circumstances.
The idea of riots involving armed militia in the streets is bad enough and unfortunately not too difficult to imagine. I don't understand how it can even be allowed for non-military people to strut around openly carrying assault rifles (if that's what they are. Sure looked like it) and ammunition, but I guess that subject alone could fill its own thread.
I love democracy. I'm worried to see its foundations crumble in some countries next to my own in Europe, and seeing similar attitudes sprouting around the globe.
Fever dreams of the deluded. We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society. If you repeat something long enough I guess you don't need to justify it, it just becomes true by default. Echo chambers are so strong these days most don't even realize they are there, and this goes double from those who manufacture opinion in the media.
It is just so obvious, in terms of actual policy, that the previous two administrations had far less respect for guaranteed constitutional rights.
I don't know on which side of the Atlantic you live, but nationalist parties (and I mean nationalist, not conservative) have gained more and more followers in various European countries, and some members of the EU, like Poland and Hungary, are step by step bypassing standards like the independence of the courts from the government and the liberty of the press.
And if the president of a democratic nation openly encourages his followers to question (or rather: openly protest against) any result that doesn't end with him winning the election (weeks before it's actually happening), then I call that anti democratic.
On the news in Germany there was speculation about Trump not accepting a lost election, and the reporters even asked German politicians what they thought about him maybe using the army or trying to change laws.
But (German) politicians answered that they were confident that democracy is strong, that institutions like Congress and Supreme Court remain fully functioning, and that it's not likely that Trump will be able to successfully resist if he loses the election.
Still, it speaks volumes that there was an open discussion on one of our most reliable and serious news channels about whether it's possible that Trump might consider making a move like, let's say, one would expect in Belarus, or the way Putin has done.
Of course that shouldn't even be possible in a functioning democracy, but it reveals that people consider him capable of that and only kept in check by external circumstances.
The idea of riots involving armed militia in the streets is bad enough and unfortunately not too difficult to imagine. I don't understand how it can even be allowed for non-military people to strut around openly carrying assault rifles (if that's what they are. Sure looked like it) and ammunition, but I guess that subject alone could fill its own thread.
I love democracy. I'm worried to see its foundations crumble in some countries next to my own in Europe, and seeing similar attitudes sprouting around the globe.
Fever dreams of the deluded. We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society. If you repeat something long enough I guess you don't need to justify it, it just becomes true by default. Echo chambers are so strong these days most don't even realize they are there, and this goes double from those who manufacture opinion in the media.
It is just so obvious, in terms of actual policy, that the previous two administrations had far less respect for guaranteed constitutional rights.
I don't know on which side of the Atlantic you live, but nationalist parties (and I mean nationalist, not conservative) have gained more and more followers in various European countries, and some members of the EU, like Poland and Hungary, are step by step bypassing standards like the independence of the courts from the government and the liberty of the press.
And if the president of a democratic nation openly encourages his followers to question (or rather: openly protest against) any result that doesn't end with him winning the election (weeks before it's actually happening), then I call that anti democratic.
I was actually about to try to make exactly this point. The idea that there is no evidence to support that these authoritarian governments damage democracy ignores that it's presently happening in a variety of countries in Europe. Hungary and Poland are good examples - it's also an issue in Italy and of course in Russia as well (whether you want to consider them Europe is at your discretion, but they otherwise fit the bill of an authoritarian trampling of democratic values).
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
It's not normal for a Western leader to question the legitimacy of elections months before they're held. It's not normal for a Western leader to openly tell his supporters to attempt to cast fraudulent votes. Personally I think it's pretty clear why concerns about Trump are being raised that have not been raised about past Presidents ...
Right, you are supposed to challenge the election results after the election, after an elaborate lie about Russian Traitors has been set up to use as justification. Perhaps, also, an impeachment attempt on this very basis? Or maybe you challenge the results because of a hotly contested Florida.
Get real. Not only did his previous challenger hint that she herself might challenge the election results, entire years were spent challenging his legitimacy as a president by implying he got elected by illegal and nefarious means. Not only that, but you only have to go back a few election cycles to see a challenge about the election results so bad that it ended up in the courts.
The expected time to challenge election results is after an election, not before one - and the challenge should be based on evidence of inappropriate behavior in the election. We've had plenty of discussions about Russia before and you know I think there are plenty of reasons for concern in the Mueller report, but I don't think it provides evidence to challenge the results of the 2016 election (and nor did Hillary - which is why she didn't in fact do so).
Trump is not just casting doubts on the result of the election, but on the basis for the election itself. Apart from his multiple references to expected fraud (as usual all with no evidence) and his desire to reduce turnout, he's also floated the ideas of delaying the election and of allowing him to serve a 3rd term. None of that is comparable to the situation in Florida where the courts got involved after the event as a result of a problem with the mechanics of the election in one small part of the US.
This is a good point, and important why there is a false equivalence between comparing Clinton's stance on how the election went to how Trump has twice now tried to preemptively disrupt basic democratic norms by either alleging fraud (before there is any, and absent evidence) or actively pushing his voters to commit said fraud.
As if any government the world over would let rioters murder and destroy their cities with impunity, indefinitely, as I provided repeated examples of. The enforcement of laws and the eventual crackdown on rioters happens everywhere.
The 16-year-old girl I'm talking about was a peaceful protestor. She was never charged with any crime when she was hit with a baton and tear gassed.
A police officer assaulting a child is not enforcing the law. It's literally government violence, by definition.
Not to mention that chemical warfare is a WAR CRIME. But nah, its perfectly acceptable for the police to use chemical weapons on unarmed, law abiding, citizens.
Not to mention that chemical warfare is a WAR CRIME. But nah, its perfectly acceptable for the police to use chemical weapons on unarmed, law abiding, citizens.
Police departments declared war on poor communities long before any buildings were set on fire. Get a load of this shit. And tell me we don't already live in a police state:
Read the whole article. And tell me how this department is in any way distinguishable from a mafia shake-down racket. Except worse, because they are (and I'll never stop repeating this) the state and have unchecked authority. This is not a noble profession. Not in this community. No way, no how. No line between the criminals and law enforcement. They are literally manufacturing crime on purpose.
@_Nightfall_ I don't want to downplay your experiences. They happened, and they certainly matter. I just want you to be aware that not all of us religious people think you are "evil" or "ill".
FWIW, I don't personally think you "talk too much". You're a person sharing your experiences, and that's valuable.
Thank you. Maybe no one will believe this, lots of heated discussion here with lots of views, but I have found the tolerance here amazing. I, for one, am very grateful.
I know that what you are saying is true. It is harder for me to feel it than say it though, I can be a tad pigheaded. It is very, very hard for me to believe in people.
Gotta cut it short, I am furious and am not sure how nice I can be today. My county has seen huge jumps in COVID classes the last couple of weeks and today it almost tripled the next highest day. Everywhere you go there are people not wearing masks. At work today this older lady came in with her mask hanging off one ear and has a coughing fit in the lobby.
Are you the aliens or am I? Don’t hurt other people, is that so hard? Do not hurt anyone else. Am I so weird to feel that way? The other people are our responsibility, the world is our responsibility, the future is our responsibility... meh, too aggravated right now. I don’t even believe in people anymore and I want to preserve them more than they do.
@_Nightfall_ I don't want to downplay your experiences. They happened, and they certainly matter. I just want you to be aware that not all of us religious people think you are "evil" or "ill".
FWIW, I don't personally think you "talk too much". You're a person sharing your experiences, and that's valuable.
Thank you. Maybe no one will believe this, lots of heated discussion here with lots of views, but I have found the tolerance here amazing. I, for one, am very grateful.
I know that what you are saying is true. It is harder for me to feel it than say it though, I can be a tad pigheaded. It is very, very hard for me to believe in people.
Gotta cut it short, I am furious and am not sure how nice I can be today. My county has seen huge jumps in COVID classes the last couple of weeks and today it almost tripled the next highest day. Everywhere you go there are people not wearing masks. At work today this older lady came in with her mask hanging off one ear and has a coughing fit in the lobby.
Are you the aliens or am I? Don’t hurt other people, is that so hard? Do not hurt anyone else. Am I so weird to feel that way? The other people are our responsibility, the world is our responsibility, the future is our responsibility... meh, too aggravated right now. I don’t even believe in people anymore and I want to preserve them more than they do.
Sorry
Thank you for being so kind.
Not anything people haven't speculated about and said for some time, but now we are seeing studies confirming it:
There isn't all that much to say about Trump's recently revealed comments about dead soldiers and amputees, but I'll say it anyway. At first, even I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a minute, and then said to myself "of course it's true, it aligns with everything else he has ever said".
ANY other politician past or present would be ruined by something like this. I doubt it will move Trump's support a single percentage point. And most of that support were the exact same people who called people who opppsed the Iraq War (but not the soldiers) traitors 15 years ago. Their "support" of the military has been revealed, at long last, to have been a complete self-serving charade.
Pro-war, anti-war, whatever you want to be. But to call dead WWI Marines "losers" and say he doesn't want amputees at a photo-op is what would be known as an obvious death sentence for anyone in American politics, except this one individual. Because that's how far clear of any sense of normalcy we are.
One thing that recent polling has shown is that active duty military members are going for Biden by 5 points, which would have been unthinkable for a Dem in the wake of the Bush-era. If there is any movement to come of this, it would be further erosion in that sector. But hey, maybe Trump will try to prevent active duty troops from voting by mail as well. Why not at this point??
I'm thankful my grandmother has passed away, because (as the mother of a killed in action Vietnam Vet) if she had heard this she would have likely keeled over from pure anger and rage. It's best she didn't have to see this shit-show beyond the first six months.
I'm not even anywhere near a "raw-raw the troops are so awesome" type of person (oftentimes, like police, I feel like they get a little bit of "super-citizen" treatment), but this shit is so far beyond the pale. I know we've played the "if Obama did it" game a 100 times, but can you even IMAGINE what the reaction would have been if this was him??
Edit: it's possible I could be wrong about this moving the needle. People, even ones I wouldn't expect, seem viscerally pissed off about this.
Trump is saying he will "swear on anything" it isn't true. I heard that alot. In 4th grade. By kids caught red-handed. White House seems to be in panic mode.
My aunt has been relatively silent in the face of endless pro-Trump posts from relatives on Facebook, but she is now ready to go to war with her right-wing siblings and ask them point blank if they think their dead brother is a "loser". I told her it probably wasn't worth the aggravation, and she said "I don't care anymore".
If things were remotely normal, this would be equivalent (or worse. Probably a lot worse) to Romney's 47%.
Biden should also be uniquely positioned as the father of someone who served in the military to really take advantage of it. Despite all of that, I agree. I dont think this will move the needle much. Maybe at the margins, but Trump's approval rating and polling wills stay within a point or two of where it currently is.
The whole thing where he claims he never called McCain a liar despite a tweet and a video that directly contradict him is just... something else.
Trump's contempt for the military is nothing new - see this article. I think the reason he hasn't lost more support from the military to date is the belief that his policies are good for the military. In that sense it's a similar situation to religious conservatives - while Trump the man is far removed from their ideals, most have held their noses and supported him in the belief he represents their best chance of political support.
There's been a long-time tradition in politics that what counts are your public actions and not your private ones. That's stronger in some countries than others, but it appears as a theme everywhere. However, there is another theme as well - that what matters in politics is character (and that your private actions are relevant to assessing that, as well as your public ones).
Trump's ability to skate over character attacks is amazing, but everything has its limits. While his more extremist followers may be able to forgive an awful lot (for instance on the grounds that any troubling statements or actions are just part of his secret war on Satan-worshipping paedophiles), there will be at least some who are concerned that the price being paid to support him is too high. Even if they continue to support his policies, people with conservative views naturally want their prized institutions to be regarded well by the country at large. Having Trump as your standard-bearer, whether in relation to the military, religion, financial institutions (or anything else), is unlikely to be a good way to retain that regard ...
After appearing in an interview claiming what he did was in self defence, the person who killed the Patriot Prayer antagonizer was killed by police while they were attempting to apprehend him in Washington.
This is a drastically different approach that was taken with Rittenhouse.
Regardless of this guys actions, his rights (and life) were taken away from him as US federal marshals acted as judge, jury and executioner in his apprehension. This was also after Trump rage tweeted about it.
It is these types of double standards that needs to be addressed, yet police don’t seem to grasp it.
Comments
But (German) politicians answered that they were confident that democracy is strong, that institutions like Congress and Supreme Court remain fully functioning, and that it's not likely that Trump will be able to successfully resist if he loses the election.
Still, it speaks volumes that there was an open discussion on one of our most reliable and serious news channels about whether it's possible that Trump might consider making a move like, let's say, one would expect in Belarus, or the way Putin has done.
Of course that shouldn't even be possible in a functioning democracy, but it reveals that people consider him capable of that and only kept in check by external circumstances.
The idea of riots involving armed militia in the streets is bad enough and unfortunately not too difficult to imagine. I don't understand how it can even be allowed for non-military people to strut around openly carrying assault rifles (if that's what they are. Sure looked like it) and ammunition, but I guess that subject alone could fill its own thread.
I love democracy. I'm worried to see its foundations crumble in some countries next to my own in Europe, and seeing similar attitudes sprouting around the globe.
That's true, but people feel the need to do lots of illogical things. To give in to that need is not necessarily the best solution.
I mean, look at the police. People carry guns to feel safe. Police shoots too quickly, especially at black people, using the excuse that the other person might carry a gun. So, wouldn't everyone be less likely to be shot by the police (or at least not give them the easy excuse for it) and therefore be safer if they were NOT carrying guns?
Scared people do a lot of things, but few of them are reasonable.
In a different society where police function as actual law abiding protectors of the people, sure. But not our police. You can already be searched, cuffed, or even disabled and they will still murder you.
Fever dreams of the deluded. We've been warned for years about this budding totalitarianism with not a single solid example that remotely justifies the fear of some shift into an anti democratic society. If you repeat something long enough I guess you don't need to justify it, it just becomes true by default. Echo chambers are so strong these days most don't even realize they are there, and this goes double from those who manufacture opinion in the media.
It is just so obvious, in terms of actual policy, that the previous two administrations had far less respect for guaranteed constitutional rights.
Almost comical how soft sciences have been utterly corroded by american educational institutions and their ideological brain rot. It is now so bad in the West that most don't care about even the corruption of science. Is the replication crisis this field is notorious for any surprise at this point? They aren't even pretending to be scientists.
When we don't know if our president will honor the election, I think we have good reason to worry about having an elected government in 2021. When when exercising our First Amendment rights prompts law enforcement to literally physically attack us, I think we have reason to worry about an erosion of our First Amendment rights.
If you had told me in 2016 that the Trump administration would separate migrant children from their parents and cram them into freezing cages where some of them would be raped by state officials and others would die of neglect, I would have told you you were being paranoid and that even a Trump administration wouldn't do something like that.
I've underestimated Trump's capacity for authoritarianism too many times. I'm not going to just assume that things are going to be okay anymore.
What like policy on voting rights, birth citizenship, equal treatment for all in case of natural disasters, separation of powers, border closures, Senate approval of officials? Which policies are you thinking of where it's obvious that the current government has great respect for the constitution?
As if any government the world over would let rioters murder and destroy their cities with impunity, indefinitely, as I provided repeated examples of. The enforcement of laws and the eventual crackdown on rioters happens everywhere.
Is France totalitarian for using tear gas and mass arrests? How easily we bandy these loaded words about when convenient, and how quickly we forget the inconvenient. To use the most recent examples of equivalent riots that I can think of in this country, the L.A riots, thousands of federal officers were called in to quell them. Was it totalitarian then? Well then most of the world has always and always will be totalitarian and it is a meaningless term.
Turning the perfectly normal and historically common into dangerous unprecedented abuses of power is one of the many ways the media-, and activist institutions apparently- gaslight people. They ignore history and context to arrive at the conclusion they like.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/world/europe/france-paris-riots-yellow-vest.html
Your imaginative scenario in which Trump doesn't honor the results of an election doesn't provide any reason to believe that it is true. It is just that, imagination. There is no good reason, beyond the ordinary functions of government happening ordinarily. It's not any more or less of an open question then it would be for anyone else.
You mean except for the times he said he wouldn't?? In BOTH election cycles. The ultimate "straight-talker" who we are just supposed to assume is joking whenever it's convenient for a certain argument.
It's not normal for a Western leader to question the legitimacy of elections months before they're held. It's not normal for a Western leader to openly tell his supporters to attempt to cast fraudulent votes. Personally I think it's pretty clear why concerns about Trump are being raised that have not been raised about past Presidents ...
Here's a recent article by the APA that explains the basis for the concerns. Those are objectively founded - there are clear differences between blacks and whites in terms of health outcomes. I accept that the reasons for those are complex. However, in the situation where:
a) the US has had openly racist policies for the majority of its existence.
b) there are currently big disparities in outcomes for races
I don't see it as a breach of the scientific method to postulate the continuing existence of institutional racism.
That's why this shit-show needs to end so that Washington can start hiding things again. It doesn't do me any good to know about the graft and corruption, so I might as well be ignorant of it. Ah, the good ol' days when the conspiracy theories were behind the scenes instead of in the forefront...
Right, you are supposed to challenge the election results after the election, after an elaborate lie about Russian Traitors has been set up to use as justification. Perhaps, also, an impeachment attempt on this very basis? Or maybe you challenge the results because of a hotly contested Florida.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html
Get real. Not only did his previous challenger hint that she herself might challenge the election results, entire years were spent challenging his legitimacy as a president by implying he got elected by illegal and nefarious means. Not only that, but you only have to go back a few election cycles to see a challenge about the election results so bad that it ended up in the courts.
Everything can look like the end of democracy, if you seemingly have no memory American politics or it's political history outside of what Trump says and the media response. "I may or may not challenge the results and refuse to answer" sounds extremely tame to me in the current climate, I dunno.
Slavery- 87 years
Jim Crow- 101 years
We let you vote now after 200 years and
we don't lynch you in the town square for looking at a white woman what the hell are you complaining about pull yourself up by the bootstraps- 56 years
If you take the time the institution existed before the official founding of the country, black people have been "free" (by any standard definition of the word) for less than 1/4th the time they were either pieces of property or systematically oppressed by both the government and citizens. I'm only 18 years removed from being born into a world with colored water fountains. The idea that this is ancient history is madness.
My favorite part of this is that in the comment you are replying to, semiticgod specified a peaceful protester (and only 16) who was NOT rioting or committing any kind of crime, you replied with a comment about rioters. Which has NOTHING to do with peaceful protest. Protesting is 100% legal and an exercise of 1st Amendment rights.
However, I think describing Trump and his government as anti-democratic and authoritarian is perfectly accurate.
The expected time to challenge election results is after an election, not before one - and the challenge should be based on evidence of inappropriate behavior in the election. We've had plenty of discussions about Russia before and you know I think there are plenty of reasons for concern in the Mueller report, but I don't think it provides evidence to challenge the results of the 2016 election (and nor did Hillary - which is why she didn't in fact do so).
Trump is not just casting doubts on the result of the election, but on the basis for the election itself. Apart from his multiple references to expected fraud (as usual all with no evidence) and his desire to reduce turnout, he's also floated the ideas of delaying the election and of allowing him to serve a 3rd term. None of that is comparable to the situation in Florida where the courts got involved after the event as a result of a problem with the mechanics of the election in one small part of the US.
I don't know on which side of the Atlantic you live, but nationalist parties (and I mean nationalist, not conservative) have gained more and more followers in various European countries, and some members of the EU, like Poland and Hungary, are step by step bypassing standards like the independence of the courts from the government and the liberty of the press.
And if the president of a democratic nation openly encourages his followers to question (or rather: openly protest against) any result that doesn't end with him winning the election (weeks before it's actually happening), then I call that anti democratic.
I was actually about to try to make exactly this point. The idea that there is no evidence to support that these authoritarian governments damage democracy ignores that it's presently happening in a variety of countries in Europe. Hungary and Poland are good examples - it's also an issue in Italy and of course in Russia as well (whether you want to consider them Europe is at your discretion, but they otherwise fit the bill of an authoritarian trampling of democratic values).
This is a good point, and important why there is a false equivalence between comparing Clinton's stance on how the election went to how Trump has twice now tried to preemptively disrupt basic democratic norms by either alleging fraud (before there is any, and absent evidence) or actively pushing his voters to commit said fraud.
A police officer assaulting a child is not enforcing the law. It's literally government violence, by definition.
Police departments declared war on poor communities long before any buildings were set on fire. Get a load of this shit. And tell me we don't already live in a police state:
Read the whole article. And tell me how this department is in any way distinguishable from a mafia shake-down racket. Except worse, because they are (and I'll never stop repeating this) the state and have unchecked authority. This is not a noble profession. Not in this community. No way, no how. No line between the criminals and law enforcement. They are literally manufacturing crime on purpose.
Thank you.
I know that what you are saying is true. It is harder for me to feel it than say it though, I can be a tad pigheaded. It is very, very hard for me to believe in people.
Gotta cut it short, I am furious and am not sure how nice I can be today. My county has seen huge jumps in COVID classes the last couple of weeks and today it almost tripled the next highest day. Everywhere you go there are people not wearing masks. At work today this older lady came in with her mask hanging off one ear and has a coughing fit in the lobby.
Are you the aliens or am I? Don’t hurt other people, is that so hard? Do not hurt anyone else. Am I so weird to feel that way? The other people are our responsibility, the world is our responsibility, the future is our responsibility... meh, too aggravated right now. I don’t even believe in people anymore and I want to preserve them more than they do.
Sorry
Thank you for being so kind.
Not anything people haven't speculated about and said for some time, but now we are seeing studies confirming it:
https://www.complex.com/life/2020/09/new-study-links-sociopathic-traits-people-anti-mask-dont-practice-social-distancing
ANY other politician past or present would be ruined by something like this. I doubt it will move Trump's support a single percentage point. And most of that support were the exact same people who called people who opppsed the Iraq War (but not the soldiers) traitors 15 years ago. Their "support" of the military has been revealed, at long last, to have been a complete self-serving charade.
Pro-war, anti-war, whatever you want to be. But to call dead WWI Marines "losers" and say he doesn't want amputees at a photo-op is what would be known as an obvious death sentence for anyone in American politics, except this one individual. Because that's how far clear of any sense of normalcy we are.
One thing that recent polling has shown is that active duty military members are going for Biden by 5 points, which would have been unthinkable for a Dem in the wake of the Bush-era. If there is any movement to come of this, it would be further erosion in that sector. But hey, maybe Trump will try to prevent active duty troops from voting by mail as well. Why not at this point??
I'm thankful my grandmother has passed away, because (as the mother of a killed in action Vietnam Vet) if she had heard this she would have likely keeled over from pure anger and rage. It's best she didn't have to see this shit-show beyond the first six months.
I'm not even anywhere near a "raw-raw the troops are so awesome" type of person (oftentimes, like police, I feel like they get a little bit of "super-citizen" treatment), but this shit is so far beyond the pale. I know we've played the "if Obama did it" game a 100 times, but can you even IMAGINE what the reaction would have been if this was him??
Edit: it's possible I could be wrong about this moving the needle. People, even ones I wouldn't expect, seem viscerally pissed off about this.
Trump is saying he will "swear on anything" it isn't true. I heard that alot. In 4th grade. By kids caught red-handed. White House seems to be in panic mode.
My aunt has been relatively silent in the face of endless pro-Trump posts from relatives on Facebook, but she is now ready to go to war with her right-wing siblings and ask them point blank if they think their dead brother is a "loser". I told her it probably wasn't worth the aggravation, and she said "I don't care anymore".
More amazing details:
Biden should also be uniquely positioned as the father of someone who served in the military to really take advantage of it. Despite all of that, I agree. I dont think this will move the needle much. Maybe at the margins, but Trump's approval rating and polling wills stay within a point or two of where it currently is.
The whole thing where he claims he never called McCain a liar despite a tweet and a video that directly contradict him is just... something else.
There's been a long-time tradition in politics that what counts are your public actions and not your private ones. That's stronger in some countries than others, but it appears as a theme everywhere. However, there is another theme as well - that what matters in politics is character (and that your private actions are relevant to assessing that, as well as your public ones).
Trump's ability to skate over character attacks is amazing, but everything has its limits. While his more extremist followers may be able to forgive an awful lot (for instance on the grounds that any troubling statements or actions are just part of his secret war on Satan-worshipping paedophiles), there will be at least some who are concerned that the price being paid to support him is too high. Even if they continue to support his policies, people with conservative views naturally want their prized institutions to be regarded well by the country at large. Having Trump as your standard-bearer, whether in relation to the military, religion, financial institutions (or anything else), is unlikely to be a good way to retain that regard ...
This is a drastically different approach that was taken with Rittenhouse.
Regardless of this guys actions, his rights (and life) were taken away from him as US federal marshals acted as judge, jury and executioner in his apprehension. This was also after Trump rage tweeted about it.
It is these types of double standards that needs to be addressed, yet police don’t seem to grasp it.