4 ms·

The "status quo" is "the person who was elected gets to be President". He gets to be President until he's impeached, loses an election, or is declared unable t

The "status quo" is "the person who was elected gets to be President". He gets to be President until he's impeached, loses an election, or is declared unable to discharge his duties using the procedure in the 25th Amendment. And... that's it. He doesn't get a guarantee that nobody will criticize him or his agenda. He doesn't get a guarantee that nobody will try to rally legislative support to prevent his agenda being enacted. He doesn't get a guarantee that nobody will use the courts to challenge his executive orders. He doesn't get a guarantee that the courts will allow any executive order he issues. He doesn't get a guarantee that state and local governments will assist federal initiatives. He doesn't get a guarantee that large donors will support him or his preferred candidates and causes. There are many, many ways to challenge a sitting President without removing him from office. You don't have to challenge him, but the fact that you choose not to is a political choice, not an apolitical one, since it constitutes acceptance of and complicity in whatever he manages to do as a result of not being challenged. Neutrality and "apolitical" stances are never neutral or apolitical. They always constitute acceptance of whatever will happen in the absence of your explicit action, since if you didn't want that stuff to happen you had an opportunity to challenge it and actively chose not to.

gaius 9y ago
it constitutes acceptance of and complicity in whatever I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now. Just as an experiment of course.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  I'm not sure you believe the premise of your own retort, which is that all people must at all times be either 100% absolutely good or 100% absolutely evil, and that expressing a preference for one candidate over another is equivalent to absolute support for 100% of that candidate's positions and actions. All I have to do to avoid your oh-so-clever and original knock-down checkmate demolition of a response is point out that it's possible to express a preference for A over B while finding neither to be ideal, and to endorse A while also wanting to influence A to change their position or behavior on certain things. And this is perfectly consistent, since my position is that silence and nonaction are complicity, and what I advocate here is speaking up and acting. I can even head off the inevitable further send-me-fleeing-from-the-room-while-an-eagle-sheds-a-tear-etc. complete killer retort of "well why aren't you busy denouncing Hillary Clinton with your every breath then" by pointing out that I can in fact prioritize issues and say "I acknowledge this thing was bad, and want to return to it, but there is another thing currently happening that I consider worse and am prioritizing at the moment". (like most people who try to fight on this, you're a bit formulaic; would you like to at least try raising something original?)
- pjc50 9y ago
  Why would they? Weinstein supported Hillary, not the other way round.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now. I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train. Oh, cool, do you have some actual evidence about the alleged HRC corruption and graft scandals that you can share?
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it. Money meant for down-ballot races was being funneled to the HRC campaign, and both HRC and Obama had left the DNC in heavy debt. From the stories, it sounds like the Party didn't like Obama much more back in 2008 than they liked Bernie in 2016, and as a result, they basically rejected Obama's attempts to reconcile and merge his electioneering efforts back into the Party. This basically fucked them over completely on down-ballot races. The Democratic Party sounds like a terrific lesson in the Iron Law of Institutions, and right now, much of the American Left (that is, actual left, social-democratic and leftward) is behaving the same way, too.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it. Her claims that the DNC rigged the primaries were quickly shot down as bullshit and she walked them back the very next day.
        eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        Maybe so, but nonetheless, it shows how the DNC has traditionally been a device for funneling money from ostensible members of the Democratic Party, to whichever presidential campaign is on at the time. If you ever wondered why the Democrats lost so many down-ballot seats, the basic answer is: because they sent all their money to Hillary, Obama, and then Hillary, including the money meant for the down-ballot races. Pay nothing, play not at all, lose by default.

gaius 9y ago

it constitutes acceptance of and complicity in whatever I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now. Just as an experiment of course.

ubernostrum 9y ago
I'm not sure you believe the premise of your own retort, which is that all people must at all times be either 100% absolutely good or 100% absolutely evil, and that expressing a preference for one candidate over another is equivalent to absolute support for 100% of that candidate's positions and actions. All I have to do to avoid your oh-so-clever and original knock-down checkmate demolition of a response is point out that it's possible to express a preference for A over B while finding neither to be ideal, and to endorse A while also wanting to influence A to change their position or behavior on certain things. And this is perfectly consistent, since my position is that silence and nonaction are complicity, and what I advocate here is speaking up and acting. I can even head off the inevitable further send-me-fleeing-from-the-room-while-an-eagle-sheds-a-tear-etc. complete killer retort of "well why aren't you busy denouncing Hillary Clinton with your every breath then" by pointing out that I can in fact prioritize issues and say "I acknowledge this thing was bad, and want to return to it, but there is another thing currently happening that I consider worse and am prioritizing at the moment". (like most people who try to fight on this, you're a bit formulaic; would you like to at least try raising something original?)
pjc50 9y ago
Why would they? Weinstein supported Hillary, not the other way round.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now. I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train. Oh, cool, do you have some actual evidence about the alleged HRC corruption and graft scandals that you can share?
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it. Money meant for down-ballot races was being funneled to the HRC campaign, and both HRC and Obama had left the DNC in heavy debt. From the stories, it sounds like the Party didn't like Obama much more back in 2008 than they liked Bernie in 2016, and as a result, they basically rejected Obama's attempts to reconcile and merge his electioneering efforts back into the Party. This basically fucked them over completely on down-ballot races. The Democratic Party sounds like a terrific lesson in the Iron Law of Institutions, and right now, much of the American Left (that is, actual left, social-democratic and leftward) is behaving the same way, too.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it. Her claims that the DNC rigged the primaries were quickly shot down as bullshit and she walked them back the very next day.
      - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        Maybe so, but nonetheless, it shows how the DNC has traditionally been a device for funneling money from ostensible members of the Democratic Party, to whichever presidential campaign is on at the time. If you ever wondered why the Democrats lost so many down-ballot seats, the basic answer is: because they sent all their money to Hillary, Obama, and then Hillary, including the money meant for the down-ballot races. Pay nothing, play not at all, lose by default.