2024 US Presidential Election

[Lucem Ferre]

Also, there is something ironic about saying we should be more civil about not wishing harm on a pedo while quoting a song that wishes harm on a pedo.

[Marie Monday]

all this but-what-about-this or what-about-that is just completely irrelevant. Using fascist means to try to get rid of a fascist is simply a bad and dumb thing, it's as simple as that

[Trollheart]

Also, there is something ironic about saying we should be more civil about not wishing harm on a pedo while quoting a song that wishes harm on a pedo.

Uh, what song?

[Jwb]

When I said that the media has been consistently putting out the apocalyptic sort of messaging that Trump represents a threat to democracy and that given that setting, a shooting like this makes perfect sense, I was not necessarily presuming that the media is wrong in their analysis of Trump. The fact is that at the very least it's not exactly clear that this claim is overblown.

I believe as I said before that he attempted to use fake electors to steal the election in 2020, and that is basically a coup attempt. The extent to which he wanted violence in the capitol is actually somewhat beside the point, from my pov. The demonstrators were not there to violently seize power directly. They were meant to put pressure on the people inside the capitol to derail the process of electing Joe Biden.

So does that make him Hitler? Well no. But Americans have no historical frame of reference. Hitler is literally the only dictator everyone knows about. So he always gets used to assert that one's political opponents are authoritarian. It was used against both Obama and Bush before Trump. So that's also imo somewhat less relevant.

What we didn't see during the Obama and Bush years was consistent claims that democracy was on the ballot. Because the authoritarianism they represented was merely the expansion of the executive branch which was a bipartisan establishment trend that didn't in any way threaten the basic liberal status quo.  Trump represents someone who not only seems to revel in the aesthetics of a strong man with admiration for the various dictators of the world and seeming contempt for many of his supposed western liberal allies, he also rose to political power on the back of a right wing populist wave with overt nativist sympathies. So naturally the analogy seems to grow stronger, especially in the minds of people whose historical knowledge is centered around ww2. But even then it's fair to say it's a hyperbolic comparison .

But what's not clearly hyperbolic is the idea that we could find ourselves sliding into a more authoritarian state. Whether it happens directly under Trump or not, the American right is being reshaped in his image and whoever the next iteration is, "democracy is on the ballot" isn't going away. Until there's no more ballot.

The interesting thing to actually consider is what the fall out could have been if the shooter killed Trump. I don't think it's hyperbolic at all to think that could have sparked a wave of retaliatory episodes of political violence that bring you closer and closer to open civil conflict. The bullet grazed Trump's ear. We were literally inches away from potentially entering a drastically different world from the one we're in right now.

Edit: also feel like I should throw a disclaimer in there and say that I have no idea what the shooter's actual motives are. It's possible it has nothing to do with anything I just said. But regardless of his motives, that wouldn't have really affected the fallout if Trump had been killed, imo.

[Jwb]

I'll start taking the "condemning political violence" seriously when that same energy is shown for Palestine or Afghanistan instead of people that are responsible for atrocious amounts of political violence.

Because if not, it's just vapid virtue signaling.

Deep down we all know we condone political violence when it's for a cause we support.

I just refuse to hypocritically pretend to condemn it. That would be a lie. And if I were just trying to be edgy I'd be happy that a supporter died, or the Republican that did it died, but I'm not. A mentally ill person taken advantage of by political radicalism lost their life and an innocent supporter lost their life while the guy that raped a 13 year old survived. Damn shame.

so what is it that you anticipate would have happened next, had Trump been killed?

[SGR]

His actions are causing ripples way outside of his 4 year presidency. I feel just because you happen to be a white male. You are just ignoring all of the awful things that are happening to different groups based off of Trump's actions. The ripple effects of ROE v Wade being overturned and how it affects women's health. All the decisions that have happened in the past few weeks from the Supreme Court Justice. Trump always brags at his rallies about being able to force in three court justices and their effects are extreme and long lasting.

Being homeless is a ticketable offense if the city decides they want to start doing it. Which doesn't even make sense to me because if someone is homeless how are they going to even pay said tickets without a job/hoke. I do realize there are homeless people that DO have jobs but still I'm talking about the majority.

That's totally fair man. I'm not saying Trump's policies are even good. My main point when we started discussing was simply one that jwb has reiterated. Painting Trump as Hitler for 8 years would inevitably result in something like we just saw. It is, in a sense, a call for violence. Because if you believe Trump is as bad as Hitler, and if it appears he might not be beaten at the ballot box (peacefully), then what's the next step?

I don't think he's even close to as bad as Hitler, and I think the strongest case for comparing him to Hitler are 'what he might do with another four years'. Unfortunately, it's a difficult case to make to some swing/independent voters because they've already seen what he's done with four years, and before he had those four years, they heard many of the same fearful prophecies that did not come true (like: "He's gonna start World War 3").

In essence, I don't think Democrats are going to persuade swing voters, but rather turn them off, if they make excuses for, or try to justify an attempted assassination of Donald Trump (beyond the fact that most would view doing so as morally questionable, if not morally wrong). If Trump had spent his first four years throwing illegal immigrants into gas chambers, I think you'd have a rock solid case for assassination.

Something @Jwb just mentioned was the creeping expansion of executive authority since Obama and Bush. I'd say it's been expanding since at least the LBJ years when he escalated the Vietnam conflict without congressional approval. As far as I know, our Congress hasn't declared war since WW2. Feckless congresses don't see value in opposing these military ventures. NPR had an interesting article about it. Unfortunately, I don't think any candidate in our two-party system could gain traction and popularity running on a platform of reducing the powers of the executive branch. Just imagine, hypothetically, if we could take a democratic vote on whether or not we should continue supporting Israel with aid in their war efforts against Hamas? I bet you we'd vote against it. Same with Ukraine.

Also, I wasn't aware of the 'ticketing the homeless' thing. That sounds ridiculously silly. You got any links on that? I'd agree - how are they gonna pay their tickets? Would the government throw them in jail for not paying the ticket in time and being a bad panhandler?

[Trollheart]

Um, stupid Irish guy here. Surely congress had to approve the Iraq War, the War on Terror and so on? Or am I just being Stupid Irish Guy? Can a President declare war on his own?

[Jwb]

@SGR

To be clear, I've been precise in my wording. Threat to democracy was the phrase I used, not Hitler. Because I think that is what is sincerely being said by the mainstream media and what you should contend with. Does Trump represent a threat to democracy?

[SGR]

Um, stupid Irish guy here. Surely congress had to approve the Iraq War, the War on Terror and so on? Or am I just being Stupid Irish Guy? Can a President declare war on his own?

They gave approval in a sense (at least with the Iraq War/War on Terror), but approval that's been abused. In 2001, in response to 9/11, Congress passed a use of force authorization (AUMF) that basically gives carte blanche to engage in war without requiring Congress to declare it each time - and it's something that's been used (and abused) by presidents after Bush. Here's an article that goes into more detail:

Within days after al-Qaeda attacked the United States on 11 September 2001, the U.S. Congress enacted the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enabling President George W. Bush to use military force against the operation's planners and those who aided and harboured them. But, over time, that law became more than just the basis for waging war upon al-Qaeda and the Taliban. As the U.S. expanded operations against jihadists from the Philippines to Niger, successive presidents chose not to seek additional authority from Congress, relying instead on increasingly strained interpretations of the AUMF. These interpretations allowed the executive branch to determine the war's scope outside the full set of checks and balances that Congress is supposed to supply. This practice should stop. The Biden administration should work with Congress to update the AUMF by replacing it with a statute that promotes transparency and accountability, and that narrows the war down to those efforts necessary to meet a genuine threat.

[DJChameleon]

Also, I wasn't aware of the 'ticketing the homeless' thing. That sounds ridiculously silly. You got any links on that? I'd agree - how are they gonna pay their tickets? Would the government throw them in jail for not paying the ticket in time and being a bad panhandler?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that banning homeless people from sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The case originated after Grants Pass, a city of roughly 40,000 in southwest Oregon, began issuing fines of more than $200 to people sleeping on the streets.

Source


I love that idea about being able to vote on big issues like funding to different countries. I've been having conversations lately about what it would take for communism to take hold in modern America. The guy that I have been having these discussions with thinks that we just need to organize around it but I'm of the extreme mindset that it would take so much more for that type of change to happen. There would have to be violence and great loss of life. No way would corporations that control congress would just easily let our current system die and be placed in the hands of the workers.

[SGR]

@SGR

To be clear, I've been precise in my wording. Threat to democracy was the phrase I used, not Hitler. Because I think that is what is sincerely being said by the mainstream media and what you should contend with. Does Trump represent a threat to democracy?

@Jwb, my bad man, I'm getting my conversations mixed up here and you're right, 'threat to democracy' is the phrase you used.

To be frank, 'democracy' is a very broad word that means a lot of things to different people. I suppose we'd probably have to agree on a definition of 'democracy' before we could have a meaningful conversation where we're not speaking past each other.

Merriam-Webster defines 'democracy' as:

"government by the people
especially : rule of the majority"

I don't believe we have that in America, since a candidate can win without the popular vote thanks to the electoral college.

Oxford Dictionary (which I tend to like better) defines democracy as:

"A political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision‐making, or to elect representatives to government bodies."

Oxford's definition is a little more broad, and I think much closer to what we have in America and what most would consider our 'democracy' to be. So we can run with that definition, if you've no objections.

This is a multi-faceted question (mostly because of how loaded the word 'democracy' is) with many different angles to look at and assess - inevitably, I won't be able to cover all angles with this post, so please feel free to bring up the angles that I fail to.

If we consider the amount of barriers to voting to be a core facet of democracy, as many Democrats do - e.g. where the ballot drop boxes are placed, the public bus transportation routes to the polls, the possibility Trump/Republicans might introduce voter ID laws, etc. [essentially, what one could consider to be, depending on how it's done, voter suppression] - then I'd say that Trump could be described as a threat to democracy, but yet still, even these things wouldn't violate the definition provided by Oxford, so there's also a case that could be made against this. Democrats, in many cases, (Lisnaholic and I actually had an interesting discussion about this pages back - wherein we discussed how Democrats seem to enjoy success with on-cycle elections with maximum turnout [regular federal November elections], but they also enjoy success in off-cycle elections (the timing of which is determined by state authorities) for local positions like school boards, because it reduces turnout resulting in higher turnout representation of special interest groups like teachers unions - read more about that here), praise maximum voter turnout as an ideal. And still, many Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on certain total barriers to voting being in place - like being a convicted felon (an amusing aside: Trump can't vote in his home state of Florida, but he can run for President of the country) or being under 18. Some Democrats want to reduce these barriers further (like lowering the voting age to 16), while some Republicans want to reinforce these barriers further (like requiring voter ID). Ultimately, either way, I think you still have what Oxford describes as a democracy, you just have either slightly more barriers, or slightly less. You could have Nikki Haley instead of Trump right now, and I think you'd face the same threat of more barriers to voting.

Another aside:

We have two primary private organizations that hold mass influence over the politicians we vote for in our 'democracy'. The DNC and the RNC. And we've seen how both of them can exert their influence and power to push their thumbs on the scales, recent examples being Bernie Sanders for the DNC and Ron Paul for the RNC. Even Trump received, if people remember, immense pushback from establishment GOP politicians and RNC members when he ran in 2016. I think the only reason Trump survived that is because he was both independently wealthy and famous and the public back then all knew who he was. Even Hillary's team was pushing for Trump to succeed as the nominee because they believed he'd be the easiest candidate to beat out of the field.

And in this election cycle, we see how the RNC and the DNC iced out RFK Jr., providing him many barriers to even appear on ballots, nevermind appearing on the debate stage - and we all know neither Trump/Republicans or Biden/Democrats wanted RFK Jr. on that debate stage. Given all this, my point is: the idea that we have a completely healthy and functioning democracy even now seems spurious to me at best, given that most of the time, two private organizations put thumbs on the scales and court corporate donations to preferred candidates which ultimately results in them providing you two people to vote for - and inevitably, those two people seem evil and corrupt to the American public in a 50/50 split - but they implore you to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. That's our 'democracy'.

Back on topic. If we were to consider more extreme fears of Trump becoming a dictator, or cancelling future elections - this would absolutely qualify as being a serious threat to democracy, by the Oxford definition - but I don't think this will happen, despite the fears. I know people are concerned with the recent ruling on presidential immunity for 'official acts', but based on what I've seen other presidents do, I think this was mostly codifying something that was somewhat implicit as part of the package of being POTUS anyways. And also, to clarify, I don't begrudge Democrats for using these fears as a strategy to win the election. Nothing motivates voters quite like fear does, and you could certainly imagine some awful things presidents might try to get away with under this new ruling, but ultimately, if it were to be stress-tested, I think it would end up in the Supreme Court who'd make another ruling to clarify this most recent one, or it would simply be a ruling on a case brought up from a lower court on whether the actions in question were part of the president's 'official capacity'. Also, the same goes for Project 2025. Conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation release this big fat set of policy proposals, a large majority of which are completely fucking stupid, and if implemented, would guarantee Republicans will continue to lose elections for a generation. Republicans brought this criticism on themselves. Why would you, in the run-up to an election, release something like this, when you know that opposition will take it and use it as a weapon against you? Totally stupid, and a completely unforced error. And again, Democrats are correctly using this to stoke fear, which again, is a cogent and effective strategy to motivate voters to vote against them.

There's another aspect to this too, I believe. We officially have three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. They're supposed to be checks and balances on each other, and those checks, as we've pointed out, have somewhat eroded over the last 50 years or so. But we also have what I'd dub two more 'unofficial' branches of government. One being the 'Fourth Estate' (or rather, our news media), and the other being our intelligence agencies filled to the brim with unelected bureaucrats. We saw how both approached Trump in his first term, and in totality, it wasn't good for Trump - and it was a large part, I believe, of why he lost his 2020 bid for re-election. In regards to the intelligence agencies, don't take it from me, take it from Chuck Schumer, who I believe is afraid of them himself:

 

So, I guess, to answer your question - I personally don't think Trump really serves much of a threat to democracy, insofar as Oxford has defined it, despite valid concerns of how he (no more so than your standard Republican at least who) might institute or support laws that ultimately result in some mild level of increased voter suppression. Ultimately, if he is re-elected, I think the most likely outcome will be similar to his first term - he'll be hamstrung by the press (and let's be real, despite their biases and stated positions, execs at CNN and MSNBC would probably love Trump back in office, because those dollar signs will be ca-chinging for them with every wild Trump story they publish), the intelligence agencies, and the courts - and if the Democrats somehow lost both the senate and the house (I think this is unlikely), they'd regain a majority after two years of Trump - and then he'd be even more hamstrung. After four years, Trump will be out, probably achieving little, and possibly exhibiting more severe signs of cognitive decline that we see in Biden now, and we'll continue to vote in whatever variety of democracy we have (if you can call it a democracy), voting for the lesser of two evils (hopefully, both evils are younger in 2028) graciously presented to us by the RNC and DNC, and we'll continue bitching and moaning about it and nothing will fundamentally change. Because our government requires an illusion of legitimacy to function, if Trump were to attempt to dispel that illusion or actually threaten it...well...watch the Zapruder film.

[SGR]

Source


I love that idea about being able to vote on big issues like funding to different countries. I've been having conversations lately about what it would take for communism to take hold in modern America. The guy that I have been having these discussions with thinks that we just need to organize around it but I'm of the extreme mindset that it would take so much more for that type of change to happen. There would have to be violence and great loss of life. No way would corporations that control congress would just easily let our current system die and be placed in the hands of the workers.

Jesus, that's wild. I don't think these penalties will be met with much success. Thanks for sharing. The link was stuck behind a paywall, but based on the headline, I was able to get the gist of it from other articles.

Like you, I too am enamored with the idea of us voting on funding to different countries, though I don't know how realistic it is when we account for geopolitical alliances. Our allies may not want agreements of alliance that hinge on a 'maybe we'll fund you and support you depending on our voters' kind of deal, but it is an idea that is attractive. Because damn dude, there's a shit ton of wars and war-aid that I'd take the day off from work to vote against.

When it comes to communism, that's going to be a hard sell in America. Many communist revolutions did require violence, but if you add enough time to the equation, and consider a geopolitical climate (just hypothetically) where communism was rampant and those countries were thriving economically, you could imagine a scenario where America would adopt communism democratically. Again, it seems incredibly unlikely today, but with enough time, I suppose it could be possible (though I doubt it would be a strict 'by the Marxian books' type of communism, as it very rarely is - you'd need certain concessions on the ideology to get certain power players to come aboard in support).

[DJChameleon]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/us/homeless-camps-supreme-court-ruling.html

@SGR

I didn't realize it was a paywall article.

This article from the times talks about cities deciding whether they want to clear homeless encampment now because of the ruling.

[Psy-Fi]

Yup. I think the shooter just won Trump the election. This picture is going to be in history books. The only thing it's missing is an eagle soaring in the sky.

Here's your missing eagle...

[SGR]

Here's your missing eagle...

No, no...it's supposed to be in the sky!