4 ms·

That kind of throwing up your hands and exclaiming "they're all corrupt" is a necessary step in the escalation of political violence and the ascendency of autho

by TT3351 6y ago

That kind of throwing up your hands and exclaiming "they're all corrupt" is a necessary step in the escalation of political violence and the ascendency of authoritarian regimes.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
No. Not unless you absolutely need one authoritarian to fight another authoritarian, as we needed Stalin to fight Hitler. If you're not in that situation, though... darn right I oppose both Stalin and Hitler.
- TT3351 6y ago
  I don't think we needed Stalin to fight Hitler, in many ways the fact that they decided to (euphemistically) 'share a border' helped contribute to the start of WWII. The street combat that led to the NSDAP's seizure of power was closely tied to fear of foreign communist influences. I really don't know how you would argue humanity needed either of them... even one in opposition to the other (with the added caveat, I know, that the Eastern Front was where the substantial proportion of German casualties occurred -- how much is Stalin? Impossible to say, futile to guess in my view).
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    We didn't need Stalin to fight Hitler in 1936. Maybe not even in 1938. By 1941, we sure did. (If we had stood up to Hitler in 1936, the world would have been a lot better off.) Back to the larger argument. Declaring "they're both corrupt" is appropriate if, in fact, they are both corrupt. Are they both corrupt? As both mellosouls and throwaway9980 pointed out, the Democrats did their absolute best to cancel the results of the 2016 election. Can we say that both of those are bad? If not, why not? And if you say that the Republicans are worse because, first, it's now, and second, because they're using more extreme methods, I would agree with you on both grounds. But are you against trying to overturn elections? Or are you against Republicans? Which is it?
    - TT3351 6y ago
      I must admit I'm a little stymied by your claim that " the Democrats did their absolute best to cancel the results of the 2016 election." Their actions -- if they do indeed rise to the level of "cancel[ing] the results of the... election" pale in comparison to the shenanigans we're witnessing now. Can you please be more specific? I'm against any attempt at overturning elections, and I'm not aware of any such acts by any of the Democratic officials I voted for or follow closely. EDIT: hopefully you remember how quickly Clinton conceded, and how that still has not happened this year. There's evil to see anywhere you look hard enough, but it's a fairly simple task to weigh them.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Well, there was "he didn't legitimately win, because Hillary won the popular vote". That's just talk, though, not actual action, but it undermines the legitimacy of the election in peoples' minds. Then there was impeachment on, bluntly, very political grounds rather than legitimate reasons. It wasn't like the beginning of the movement to impeach Nixon during Watergate. This time was just looking for some chance, any chance, to accuse him of something, to try to remove him. That seems to me clearly to be "attempting to cancel the results of the 2016 election". Yes, I remember that Clinton conceded quickly. Trump should have done so as well, at the latest three days after the election. It's over, it's been over, and it's going to stay over. But Trump is absolutely making a fool of himself by continuing to fight, and in the process he is damaging the norms that keep this creaking democracy functioning. So far, he hasn't gotten anywhere because people (who nominally should be on his side) haven't gone along with his BS - from the governor of Georgia, to the Supreme Court justices he appointed. I worry, though, that next time it will be worse - that people will be willing to go along. And I worry about that for the left, not just for the right. In fact, I worry about it somewhat more for the left. The right has (some) people who believe in the rule of law, and things like "originalism". The left has (some) people who believe in the "living" constitution, and judicial activism. I worry that if, say, President Harris tries to follow this same playbook in 2024, some on the left in positions of power will be more willing to go along than some on the right have been in 2020. On the other hand, there are far too many people who are still following what I can only call a cult of personality around Trump. They worry me on the right. If they haven't come to their senses by 2024, and Trump runs again... So, yeah. Trump is at the moment worse. I oppose his attempt to remain in power, and I am delighted at how others have refused to play along. But I worry about both the right and the left in the future. Within the next 20 years, I think it's likely that someone will try this again. Biden has the chance, maybe, to strengthen our institutions and repair some of the damage. Or he has the chance to continue to try to make them more partisan, but in the opposite direction of the last four years. Will he be wise, or just political?
konjin 6y ago
That kind of throwing up your hands and exclaiming my corrupt side is better than your corrupt side is a necessary step in the escalation of political violence and the ascendency of authoritarian regimes.
- TT3351 6y ago
  I'll keep that in mind the next time the same party as always tries to invalidate the votes of Detroit and other major metropolitan centers...
  - konjin 6y ago
    I'm not sure why you only want to blame the Democrats: https://newrepublic.com/article/159946/blue-states-suppress-vote https://newrepublic.com/article/159946/blue-states-suppress-... Voter suppression is a two party problem and needs a two party solution.
    - TT3351 6y ago
      It's unfortunate that the article you linked leads with a headline citing vague "blue states" but then only talks about NY's (a single state) parochial, extremely outdated electoral system. If the author was trying to argue that both parties engage in voter suppression on the same scale, they did not provide nearly enough evidence to offset the rampant discrimination GOP state legislatures engage in every cycle. Yes, NY should update its voting codes. So should nearly every red state (and blue states should get ahead of the curve and implement RCV or other similar measures)

by TT3351 6y ago

That kind of throwing up your hands and exclaiming "they're all corrupt" is a necessary step in the escalation of political violence and the ascendency of authoritarian regimes.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

No. Not unless you absolutely need one authoritarian to fight another authoritarian, as we needed Stalin to fight Hitler. If you're not in that situation, though... darn right I oppose both Stalin and Hitler.

TT3351 6y ago
I don't think we needed Stalin to fight Hitler, in many ways the fact that they decided to (euphemistically) 'share a border' helped contribute to the start of WWII. The street combat that led to the NSDAP's seizure of power was closely tied to fear of foreign communist influences. I really don't know how you would argue humanity needed either of them... even one in opposition to the other (with the added caveat, I know, that the Eastern Front was where the substantial proportion of German casualties occurred -- how much is Stalin? Impossible to say, futile to guess in my view).
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  We didn't need Stalin to fight Hitler in 1936. Maybe not even in 1938. By 1941, we sure did. (If we had stood up to Hitler in 1936, the world would have been a lot better off.) Back to the larger argument. Declaring "they're both corrupt" is appropriate if, in fact, they are both corrupt. Are they both corrupt? As both mellosouls and throwaway9980 pointed out, the Democrats did their absolute best to cancel the results of the 2016 election. Can we say that both of those are bad? If not, why not? And if you say that the Republicans are worse because, first, it's now, and second, because they're using more extreme methods, I would agree with you on both grounds. But are you against trying to overturn elections? Or are you against Republicans? Which is it?
  - TT3351 6y ago
    I must admit I'm a little stymied by your claim that " the Democrats did their absolute best to cancel the results of the 2016 election." Their actions -- if they do indeed rise to the level of "cancel[ing] the results of the... election" pale in comparison to the shenanigans we're witnessing now. Can you please be more specific? I'm against any attempt at overturning elections, and I'm not aware of any such acts by any of the Democratic officials I voted for or follow closely. EDIT: hopefully you remember how quickly Clinton conceded, and how that still has not happened this year. There's evil to see anywhere you look hard enough, but it's a fairly simple task to weigh them.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Well, there was "he didn't legitimately win, because Hillary won the popular vote". That's just talk, though, not actual action, but it undermines the legitimacy of the election in peoples' minds. Then there was impeachment on, bluntly, very political grounds rather than legitimate reasons. It wasn't like the beginning of the movement to impeach Nixon during Watergate. This time was just looking for some chance, any chance, to accuse him of something, to try to remove him. That seems to me clearly to be "attempting to cancel the results of the 2016 election". Yes, I remember that Clinton conceded quickly. Trump should have done so as well, at the latest three days after the election. It's over, it's been over, and it's going to stay over. But Trump is absolutely making a fool of himself by continuing to fight, and in the process he is damaging the norms that keep this creaking democracy functioning. So far, he hasn't gotten anywhere because people (who nominally should be on his side) haven't gone along with his BS - from the governor of Georgia, to the Supreme Court justices he appointed. I worry, though, that next time it will be worse - that people will be willing to go along. And I worry about that for the left, not just for the right. In fact, I worry about it somewhat more for the left. The right has (some) people who believe in the rule of law, and things like "originalism". The left has (some) people who believe in the "living" constitution, and judicial activism. I worry that if, say, President Harris tries to follow this same playbook in 2024, some on the left in positions of power will be more willing to go along than some on the right have been in 2020. On the other hand, there are far too many people who are still following what I can only call a cult of personality around Trump. They worry me on the right. If they haven't come to their senses by 2024, and Trump runs again... So, yeah. Trump is at the moment worse. I oppose his attempt to remain in power, and I am delighted at how others have refused to play along. But I worry about both the right and the left in the future. Within the next 20 years, I think it's likely that someone will try this again. Biden has the chance, maybe, to strengthen our institutions and repair some of the damage. Or he has the chance to continue to try to make them more partisan, but in the opposite direction of the last four years. Will he be wise, or just political?

konjin 6y ago

That kind of throwing up your hands and exclaiming my corrupt side is better than your corrupt side is a necessary step in the escalation of political violence and the ascendency of authoritarian regimes.

TT3351 6y ago
I'll keep that in mind the next time the same party as always tries to invalidate the votes of Detroit and other major metropolitan centers...
- konjin 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you only want to blame the Democrats: https://newrepublic.com/article/159946/blue-states-suppress-vote https://newrepublic.com/article/159946/blue-states-suppress-... Voter suppression is a two party problem and needs a two party solution.
  - TT3351 6y ago
    It's unfortunate that the article you linked leads with a headline citing vague "blue states" but then only talks about NY's (a single state) parochial, extremely outdated electoral system. If the author was trying to argue that both parties engage in voter suppression on the same scale, they did not provide nearly enough evidence to offset the rampant discrimination GOP state legislatures engage in every cycle. Yes, NY should update its voting codes. So should nearly every red state (and blue states should get ahead of the curve and implement RCV or other similar measures)