9 hours ago, ptatc said:

I guess I didn't articulate it properly.  I meant i don't like only 2 parties.  There is too much us against them extremism. I would like 3 so that it isn't so binary.

But you see, right now we are discussing a binary choice.

Donald Trump legally lost this election. By 8 million votes and by the electoral college. 

126 Congressional Republicans and 17 state level Republican groups would like to say that result is unacceptable, and if people did not vote the way they wanted those votes should not count, votes only count if they vote for Trump. That is not democracy.

Should we declare that because the results did not support Trump, we should overturn democracy and keep him as leader anyway?

There is no creative middle ground, either the election mattered or it did not. If you have some creative plan for Trump to be a co president, or to have him stay on and conduct a plebiscite in 2 years to verify his rule, you have sided against democracy.

This will be forgotten in a year and life will resume as it always has been.  We've survived worst. This was and is a nice democracy stress test. 

Just now, Texsox said:

This will be forgotten in a year and life will resume as it always has been.  We've survived worst. This was and is a nice democracy stress test. 

No way. We still talk about the Election of 1800 and 1876. 2000 is definitely talked about as well. This is one for the history books. 

18 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

 I mean, disqualifying anyone who seeks to attack American democracy? The Electoral College is in the Constitution. I disagree with arguments against it and think they're missing the point, but should the many progressives who make those arguments be booted out of Congress? 

Elected officials are actively trying to overturn the results of a certified election, and that's somehow the same thing as progressives saying we should rethink the electoral college? I hope that's not your point and I'm just misinterpreting, because I know you know better than to argue that

Ex post and ex ante makes a pretty big difference

15 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Elected officials are actively trying to overturn the results of a certified election, and that's somehow the same thing as progressives saying we should rethink the electoral college? I hope that's not your point and I'm just misinterpreting, because I know you know better than to argue that

My point is what qualifies as an “attack on American democracy”. Bill Pascrell is demanding that hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their representation, so he ought to define his terms.

The 126 reps’ argument is stupid, but I refuse to see people disenfranchised because of what is essentially speech. Not a coup, not violence, not a crime, but speech.

I think it’s egregious that Rashida Tlaib retweeted some “from the river to the sea” bullshit the other day, but I would NEVER advocate that she be removed from Congress by any means other than the voters in her district (or if she commits an actual crime, of course).

Protecting speech means even idiotic speech. This is a hill I’ll die on.

Edited December 12, 20205 yr by Danny Dravot

You can’t say “every vote matters” and then try to erase votes in your own favored way and still expect people to take you seriously.

6 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

You can’t say “every vote matters” and then try to erase votes in your own favored way and still expect people to take you seriously.

No, you can't, and there is no way those 126 representatives can be denied taking the seat they were elected to serve. They may be idiots, but they are elected idiots. It was a nice thought, however.

Regardless, this is the political atmosphere orange-head and McConnell have created. Trash norms, trash traditions, and do whatever you want. 

Just now, NWINFan said:

No, you can't, and there is no way those 126 representatives can be denied taking the seat they were elected to serve. They may be idiots, but they are elected idiots. It was a nice thought, however.

Regardless, this is the political atmosphere orange-head and McConnell have created. Trash norms, trash traditions, and do whatever you want. 

I probably disagree with you on almost everything, but this is a solid, principled take. Thank you.

Should there be any consequences for elected officials taking seditious actions?

27 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Should there be any consequences for elected officials taking seditious actions?

I really don’t like having to stand up for stupid arguments, but no.

Edit: ok, sorry, this was overly curt. Argue against them on the floor of the House. Angrily retweet them on Twitter. Take out full page ads in their hometown newspapers explaining the idiocy of their actions. Raise funds for their opponent. Vote against them.

Do NOT make the very valid votes in their favor not count simply because you disapprove of their actions.

Edited December 12, 20205 yr by Danny Dravot

1 hour ago, Danny Dravot said:

You can’t say “every vote matters” and then try to erase votes in your own favored way and still expect people to take you seriously.

This is quite literally the GOP right now.

I wonder at what point seditious actions become something punishable hmm 

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

No way. We still talk about the Election of 1800 and 1876. 2000 is definitely talked about as well. This is one for the history books. 

Agreed.  I just don't believe it's going to change anything to the level that some people were predicting. 

2 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

I probably disagree with you on almost everything, but this is a solid, principled take. Thank you.

It is okay that you disagree with me, but I have the feeling we might agree on more things than you think.

20 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I wonder at what point seditious actions become something punishable hmm 

What do you think of faithless electors?

There were people in 2016 who were encouraging faithless electors to throw the election to someone else. And some of those ceremonial bureaucrats did go rogue, although obviously the end goal failed. Was that seditious?

For what it’s worth, even though such electors decided on their own to disregard their voters and ignore their duty, I’d say no. It’s idiotic and it should be scorned, but it’s not sedition. Neither are ridiculous court filings. The amount of people who want to punish speech is a bit creepy if I’m being honest.

1 hour ago, Danny Dravot said:

I really don’t like having to stand up for stupid arguments, but no.

Edit: ok, sorry, this was overly curt. Argue against them on the floor of the House. Angrily retweet them on Twitter. Take out full page ads in their hometown newspapers explaining the idiocy of their actions. Raise funds for their opponent. Vote against them.

Do NOT make the very valid votes in their favor not count simply because you disapprove of their actions.

I dunno I think the Radical Republicans were 100% right to deny slaver states representation and to use that to pass the post-war amendments.

 

Now obviously, we're not at a point of open rebellion. We're are lawfare-to-destroy-democracy-and-establish-single-party-rule. At what point does sedition cross the line to something beyond the pale? Shots fired?

21 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

I dunno I think the Radical Republicans were 100% right to deny slaver states representation and to use that to pass the post-war amendments.

 

Now obviously, we're not at a point of open rebellion. We're are lawfare-to-destroy-democracy-and-establish-single-party-rule. At what point does sedition cross the line to something beyond the pale? Shots fired?

I read a lot of history but ACW and its after effects isn’t where I focus. Still, I know enough to say that after a deadly civil war and facing down the issue of slavery and basic civil rights, extreme measures were necessary and justified. Trump sucks, but the situations are not equivalent (as an aside, if anyone thinks comparing COVID deaths with civil war deaths is going to convince me that they are equivalent, don’t bother).

For your closing question, in general, yes, I would agree that’s the line. Right now, we have court cases and press conferences. It’s stupid but it’s not a coup attempt and it’s not sedition. No, I’m not disenfranchising anyone over it.

27 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

What do you think of faithless electors?

There were people in 2016 who were encouraging faithless electors to throw the election to someone else. And some of those ceremonial bureaucrats did go rogue, although obviously the end goal failed. Was that seditious?

For what it’s worth, even though such electors decided on their own to disregard their voters and ignore their duty, I’d say no. It’s idiotic and it should be scorned, but it’s not sedition. Neither are ridiculous court filings. The amount of people who want to punish speech is a bit creepy if I’m being honest.

Ok, I think you've been reasonable enough hereto fore. But, I gotta ask you to produce receipts on the bolded, because I don't recall that from 4 years ago.

That said, the losing candidate "ovaried up" and conceded, almost immediately. 

Compare that to the nutless orange monkey who isn't man enough to concede, OR the cavalcade of baseless lawsuits, OR the 126 amici, OR the talk of secession by TX GOPers, or all of the shit being spoken about on right-leaning media.

 

See, we're "polarized as a nation," to be sure. But who's causing this? Who's acting childish these days? Who's acting and speaking against our democratic (small-d) values, all in the name of political advantage?

 

I'm sure there were calls for "faithless electors" four years ago, because I've understood you to be a person of honesty here. But, I don't think there was anything NEARLY as harmful being done then as there is today. 

 

YMMV.

2 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Ok, I think you've been reasonable enough hereto fore. But, I gotta ask you to produce receipts on the bolded, because I don't recall that from 4 years ago.

That said, the losing candidate "ovaried up" and conceded, almost immediately. 

Compare that to the nutless orange monkey who isn't man enough to concede, OR the cavalcade of baseless lawsuits, OR the 126 amici, OR the talk of secession by TX GOPers, or all of the shit being spoken about on right-leaning media.

 

See, we're "polarized as a nation," to be sure. But who's causing this? Who's acting childish these days? Who's acting and speaking against our democratic (small-d) values, all in the name of political advantage?

 

I'm sure there were calls for "faithless electors" four years ago, because I've understood you to be a person of honesty here. But, I don't think there was anything NEARLY as harmful being done then as there is today. 

 

YMMV.

One receipt. Yeah, they weren’t elected officials or seemingly people of influence, but several electors did go rogue (although more from Clinton than from Trump).

Either way, the point I’m trying to focus on is that we should really tamp down the sedition talk. A lot of people say and do stupid things. Both sides of the aisle scream treason and sedition a lot. It’s dumb.

I think Cindy Sheehan was wrong on the Iraq War. She wasn’t seditious, however. I think Beto is wrong when he blabs about taking people’s guns. Still not seditious. I think Rashida Tlaib is a raging anti-Semite who should be voted out of Congress. But she’s not a traitor and her only home is this country. I think Dan Crenshaw is wrong to sign his name on an idiotic lawsuit filed by a crook of an AG, but I’m not going to accuse a one-eyed war hero of betraying his country for an act of speech.

If someone sells secrets to the Russians (or Wikileaks), that’s clearly treason. If someone wants to kidnap a governor, that could be treason. If someone wants to shoot adversarial congressmen, that’s possible treason (among other crimes). If you commit treason, it’s one of the worst crimes you can commit and the punishment should match (IMHO, death). So I’m not going to play fast and loose with these words myself and the answer to bad speech is more speech.

Edited December 12, 20205 yr by Danny Dravot

It take money,  organization,  and ultimately votes to win an election. Trump doesn't seem to be able to carry candidates down the line. It will be interesting what his influence is with large Republican donors. If he can't contribute to GOP candidates post presidency his influence within the party will shrink rapidly. 

3 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

One receipt. Yeah, they weren’t elected officials or seemingly people of influence, but several electors did go rogue (although more from Clinton than from Trump).

Either way, the point I’m trying to focus on is that we should really tamp down the sedition talk. A lot of people say and do stupid things. Both sides of the aisle scream treason and sedition a lot. It’s dumb.

I think Cindy Sheehan was wrong on the Iraq War. She wasn’t seditious, however. I think Beto is wrong when he blabs about taking people’s guns. Still not seditious. I think Rashida Tlaib is a raging anti-Semite who should be voted out of Congress. But she’s not a traitor and her only home is this country.

If someone sells secrets to the Russians (or Wikileaks), that’s clearly treason. If someone wants to kidnap a governor, that could be treason. If someone wants to shoot adversarial congressmen, that’s possible treason (among other crimes). If you commit treason, it’s one of the worst crimes you can commit and the punishment should match (IMHO, death). So I’m not going to play fast and loose with these words myself and the answer to bad speech is more speech.

Every single one of those is a policy disagreement. I disagree with anyone having guns, I don't trust the judgment of anyone who does. The Iraq war was absolute idiocy and everyone who supported it should be ashamed of themselves, look at the multi decade mess it created. 

But you know what none of those are? An effort that would invalidate democracy. Had this case succeeded, it would literally, to the letter, have done that. This is not a policy disagreement any more - this is saying that if you disagree with me, you do not count and you should not be allowed to vote.

If no actions are taken in response to this, and things get worse, things go to a very bad place.

Quote

I think Dan Crenshaw is wrong to sign his name on an idiotic lawsuit filed by a crook of an AG, but I’m not going to accuse a one-eyed war hero of betraying his country for an act of speech.

You brought him up, so this attempted smear of a navy intelligence officer who was sexually harassed at a VA facility has led to literally every veterans organization calling for the resignation of the secretary of veterans affairs today, and Crenshaw happily joined in the smear. That should follow him as he wanders through his incredibly gerrymandered district.

https://www.salon.com/2020/12/11/trumps-va-secretary-worked-with-gop-rep-dan-crenshaw-to-smear-vet-who-alleged-sexual-assault-ig/

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Every single one of those is a policy disagreement. I disagree with anyone having guns, I don't trust the judgment of anyone who does. The Iraq war was absolute idiocy and everyone who supported it should be ashamed of themselves, look at the multi decade mess it created. 

But you know what none of those are? An effort that would invalidate democracy. Had this case succeeded, it would literally, to the letter, have done that. This is not a policy disagreement any more - this is saying that if you disagree with me, you do not count and you should not be allowed to vote.

If no actions are taken in response to this, and things get worse, things go to a very bad place.

You brought him up, so this attempted smear of a navy intelligence officer who was sexually harassed at a VA facility has led to literally every veterans organization calling for the resignation of the secretary of veterans affairs today, and Crenshaw happily joined in the smear. That should follow him as he wanders through his incredibly gerrymandered district.

Disagree with you on guns. Also disagree with Wayne LaPierre on guns, FWIW. Disagree with you on the Iraq War. I agree with Tony Blinken on Iraq (good idea, mostly bad strategic execution).

Referencing the bolded, that is also what Bill Pascrell’s idea is. You don’t like Crenshaw, I don’t like Tlaib, but the congressmen from our respective districts don’t get to team up and kick them out of the house. Pascrell doesn’t get to decide that the people of TX-2 don’t get representation this year or the next.

Referencing the italics, something I would be OK with would be to deny these reps any committee assignments. Like the GOP did with Steve King. The people of TX-2 get a representative, but nothing says it must be a powerful representative. Turn them into the ultimate backbenchers and let their constituents decide if they like their officials neutered.

Gerrymandering is a bipartisan sin, BTW. Given the nature of this board, I’ll assume you live somewhat close to IL-4. Republicans have a lot to be sorry for these days, but gerrymandering is not something they bear sole responsibility for. Either way, nobody will fix it because both sides benefit from it.

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Every single one of those is a policy disagreement. I disagree with anyone having guns, I don't trust the judgment of anyone who does. The Iraq war was absolute idiocy and everyone who supported it should be ashamed of themselves, look at the multi decade mess it created. 

But you know what none of those are? An effort that would invalidate democracy. Had this case succeeded, it would literally, to the letter, have done that. This is not a policy disagreement any more - this is saying that if you disagree with me, you do not count and you should not be allowed to vote.

If no actions are taken in response to this, and things get worse, things go to a very bad place.

You brought him up, so this attempted smear of a navy intelligence officer who was sexually harassed at a VA facility has led to literally every veterans organization calling for the resignation of the secretary of veterans affairs today, and Crenshaw happily joined in the smear. That should follow him as he wanders through his incredibly gerrymandered district.

https://www.salon.com/2020/12/11/trumps-va-secretary-worked-with-gop-rep-dan-crenshaw-to-smear-vet-who-alleged-sexual-assault-ig/

You are the reason we can’t have even basic gun control laws in this country and everyone is less safe as a result.  Way to fucking to go.

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

You are the reason we can’t have even basic gun control laws in this country and everyone is less safe as a result.  Way to fucking to go.

Im too mean to gun fetishists so we can’t have gun laws. Somehow I don’t think this is actually my fault.