5 ms·

Perhaps a more pertinent question comes from the perspective of realpolitik. Which is more damaging to US political institutions, having an illegitimate presid

Perhaps a more pertinent question comes from the perspective of realpolitik. Which is more damaging to US political institutions, having an illegitimate president or admitting that the election was stolen? I'd wager an admission of election changing fraud would make it almost impossible to recover any trust in political institutions. What would be the next steps from admitting that the election was fraudulent? Given the above, I'm not sure it matters. Of course that scenario is still possible, if evidence is produced. The institutional incentives align towards keeping the results as is. Proceeding from there, what can be done to restore trust? *Disclaimer, please do not misread this as an assertion of evidence existing, not existing or the validity of it.

mbg721 6y ago
We don't have realpolitik, we have an establishment building a giant razor-wire fence around itself and screaming that any objection is racism and treason.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Clearly the steps being taken are not restoring trust in political institutions.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    As I think you've gathered, I'm coming from the "the trust is already gone" side.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      I wasn't inclined to reflexively trust gov, even before this debacle. That's neither here nor there. I try to keep my bias out of it. Otherwise, someone from the opposing spectrum will take it as an invite for a useless argument. What steps can practically be taken to restore trust for the average person, who might not be as cynical as myself?
      - mbg721 6y ago
        It's not going to happen anytime soon in the US, but the thing that will win people over is a genuine common philosophy of some kind. We've spent the last 50 years doing a weird washed-out half- Christianity, and now half of us want the old Christianity-based system back, and the other half wants a tech-humanism that is anathema to the first half. If either side is genuine about their beliefs, a first step is probably enforcing single-issue bills in Congress.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It’s not going to happen anytime soon in the US, but the thing that will win people over is a genuine common philosophy of some kind. We’ve spent the last 50 years doing a weird washed-out half- Christianity, and now half of us want the old Christianity back “Christianity” isn’t a unifying philosophy; even more recently than 50 years ago, the most dedicated evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant Christians were campaigning against the single largest Christian denomination in the country (Catholicism) as vigorously as against non-Christians, and many of our key religious freedom rulings were a result of Christian or Christian-adjacent groups (Jehovah’s Witnesses figure particularly prominently here) resisting impositions by more dominant Christian groups. Kennedy got much the same kind of attacks for being an (actual) Catholic as were directed at Obama for being (supposedly) a Muslim. And if the short history in America were not enough, look at the troubled history of Christian-Christian relations in Europe and the Near East.
        mbg721 6y ago
        That's fair, I'm just struggling to define what the prior American mythos actually was, and I think Jesus factors in there somewhere, in name. As a Catholic myself, I know well that actual religious belief isn't the main driver. Maybe I'm wrong and there never was an American mythos, but there's a palpable sense of change that isn't just outright racism.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > That’s fair, I’m just struggling to define what the prior American mythos actually was The problem I think is that you are starting from the assumption that America had a uniting mythos that only recently fell apart, rather than America having had deep, vicious internal divides throughout its entire history that were sometimes temporary subordinated to even stronger shared opposition to external forces.
legerdemain 6y ago
The plan was enacted over the weekend... Only you never saw it. Biden, his cabinet, and tons of both Dem and Republican senators and other officials were arrested. Proof of their vast crimes was shown. They were court martialed and found guilty. However, it was decided this was too much for the American people to accept. Overturning the election and showing the crimes of these politicians could lead to Civil War. So an agreement was reached: Biden and other deep state elements wI'll be allowed to move freely and serve their terms. President Trump would "concede" and leave office. But this is all for appearances. Behind the scenes, Donald J. Trump is still President. This plan, known as SHADOWPREZ, was seen as a last resort. But it worked. Anything that happens in the next 4 years is actually President Trumps doing.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  Was this just creative writing or are you saying that that line of thought is out there and some nutcases actually believe it?
  - legerdemain 6y ago
    I've seen it (i.e., first-hand) in private groups on Facebook.
  - claudiulodro 6y ago
    It's a copypasta[1] that's been making the rounds on the internet. It's a tongue-in-cheek way of poking fun at Q supporters, not some real delusions the OP is having. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copypasta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copypasta
- flukus 6y ago
  Now Trump is the deep state.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  That scenario has potential to be developed in to an interesting novel or movie.
- 6y ago
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> what can be done to restore trust? given the foregoing, are you sure you want people to trust the government?
- aww_dang 6y ago
  It would be nice if people could trust the outcome of the election. More specifically, it would be nice if establishment media and political figures didn't respond to this distrust with castigation. Distrusting government would still make sense for me personally. It would be idyllic if people looked towards decentralization, localism and private solutions. Trust in their local institutions or community, while drastically reducing the purview of the federal government. That's just my personal preference. I'm not sure it is applicable in the widespread, pragmatic sense. Some kind of political figure reaching across the aisle, recognizing the concerns of those who feel disenfranchised looks like the pragmatic solution that isn't happening. Instead I see actions and accusations that are predictably creating more division.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > It would be nice if people could trust the outcome of the election. Well I don’t know, in 2017 a professor asked us if democracy was in crisis and I thought “its never been healthier”. For the first time I can remember, people were actually trying to hold the President accountable for something. Now it is true that most of that was driven by the fact that they didn’t like who the President happened to be at the time, so maybe we can get that to work in our favor again. > More specifically, it would be nice if establishment media and political figures didn't respond to this distrust with castigation. Well on the one hand I agree with that, but on the other hand this is the result of some complicated interactions (no matter how you view the facts on the ground). If their distrust is actually motivated and harmful then I’m sure its not an act for those establishment types to castigate it. On the other hand such activity is sure to increase distrust. So we’re stuck again. > Distrusting government would still make sense for me personally. It would be idyllic if people looked towards decentralization, localism and private solutions. Trust in their local institutions or community, while drastically reducing the purview of the federal government. That's just my personal preference. I'm not sure it is applicable in the widespread, pragmatic sense. I agree generally > Some kind of political figure reaching across the aisle, recognizing the concerns of those who feel disenfranchised looks like the pragmatic solution that isn't happening. Instead I see actions and accusations that are predictably creating more division. I agree

mbg721 6y ago

We don't have realpolitik, we have an establishment building a giant razor-wire fence around itself and screaming that any objection is racism and treason.

aww_dang 6y ago
Clearly the steps being taken are not restoring trust in political institutions.
- mbg721 6y ago
  As I think you've gathered, I'm coming from the "the trust is already gone" side.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I wasn't inclined to reflexively trust gov, even before this debacle. That's neither here nor there. I try to keep my bias out of it. Otherwise, someone from the opposing spectrum will take it as an invite for a useless argument. What steps can practically be taken to restore trust for the average person, who might not be as cynical as myself?
    - mbg721 6y ago
      It's not going to happen anytime soon in the US, but the thing that will win people over is a genuine common philosophy of some kind. We've spent the last 50 years doing a weird washed-out half- Christianity, and now half of us want the old Christianity-based system back, and the other half wants a tech-humanism that is anathema to the first half. If either side is genuine about their beliefs, a first step is probably enforcing single-issue bills in Congress.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It’s not going to happen anytime soon in the US, but the thing that will win people over is a genuine common philosophy of some kind. We’ve spent the last 50 years doing a weird washed-out half- Christianity, and now half of us want the old Christianity back “Christianity” isn’t a unifying philosophy; even more recently than 50 years ago, the most dedicated evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant Christians were campaigning against the single largest Christian denomination in the country (Catholicism) as vigorously as against non-Christians, and many of our key religious freedom rulings were a result of Christian or Christian-adjacent groups (Jehovah’s Witnesses figure particularly prominently here) resisting impositions by more dominant Christian groups. Kennedy got much the same kind of attacks for being an (actual) Catholic as were directed at Obama for being (supposedly) a Muslim. And if the short history in America were not enough, look at the troubled history of Christian-Christian relations in Europe and the Near East.
        mbg721 6y ago
        That's fair, I'm just struggling to define what the prior American mythos actually was, and I think Jesus factors in there somewhere, in name. As a Catholic myself, I know well that actual religious belief isn't the main driver. Maybe I'm wrong and there never was an American mythos, but there's a palpable sense of change that isn't just outright racism.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > That’s fair, I’m just struggling to define what the prior American mythos actually was The problem I think is that you are starting from the assumption that America had a uniting mythos that only recently fell apart, rather than America having had deep, vicious internal divides throughout its entire history that were sometimes temporary subordinated to even stronger shared opposition to external forces.

legerdemain 6y ago

The plan was enacted over the weekend... Only you never saw it. Biden, his cabinet, and tons of both Dem and Republican senators and other officials were arrested. Proof of their vast crimes was shown. They were court martialed and found guilty. However, it was decided this was too much for the American people to accept. Overturning the election and showing the crimes of these politicians could lead to Civil War. So an agreement was reached: Biden and other deep state elements wI'll be allowed to move freely and serve their terms. President Trump would "concede" and leave office. But this is all for appearances. Behind the scenes, Donald J. Trump is still President. This plan, known as SHADOWPREZ, was seen as a last resort. But it worked. Anything that happens in the next 4 years is actually President Trumps doing.

tunesmith 6y ago
Was this just creative writing or are you saying that that line of thought is out there and some nutcases actually believe it?
- legerdemain 6y ago
  I've seen it (i.e., first-hand) in private groups on Facebook.
- claudiulodro 6y ago
  It's a copypasta[1] that's been making the rounds on the internet. It's a tongue-in-cheek way of poking fun at Q supporters, not some real delusions the OP is having. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copypasta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copypasta
flukus 6y ago
Now Trump is the deep state.
throwawayboise 6y ago
That scenario has potential to be developed in to an interesting novel or movie.
6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> what can be done to restore trust? given the foregoing, are you sure you want people to trust the government?

aww_dang 6y ago
It would be nice if people could trust the outcome of the election. More specifically, it would be nice if establishment media and political figures didn't respond to this distrust with castigation. Distrusting government would still make sense for me personally. It would be idyllic if people looked towards decentralization, localism and private solutions. Trust in their local institutions or community, while drastically reducing the purview of the federal government. That's just my personal preference. I'm not sure it is applicable in the widespread, pragmatic sense. Some kind of political figure reaching across the aisle, recognizing the concerns of those who feel disenfranchised looks like the pragmatic solution that isn't happening. Instead I see actions and accusations that are predictably creating more division.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > It would be nice if people could trust the outcome of the election. Well I don’t know, in 2017 a professor asked us if democracy was in crisis and I thought “its never been healthier”. For the first time I can remember, people were actually trying to hold the President accountable for something. Now it is true that most of that was driven by the fact that they didn’t like who the President happened to be at the time, so maybe we can get that to work in our favor again. > More specifically, it would be nice if establishment media and political figures didn't respond to this distrust with castigation. Well on the one hand I agree with that, but on the other hand this is the result of some complicated interactions (no matter how you view the facts on the ground). If their distrust is actually motivated and harmful then I’m sure its not an act for those establishment types to castigate it. On the other hand such activity is sure to increase distrust. So we’re stuck again. > Distrusting government would still make sense for me personally. It would be idyllic if people looked towards decentralization, localism and private solutions. Trust in their local institutions or community, while drastically reducing the purview of the federal government. That's just my personal preference. I'm not sure it is applicable in the widespread, pragmatic sense. I agree generally > Some kind of political figure reaching across the aisle, recognizing the concerns of those who feel disenfranchised looks like the pragmatic solution that isn't happening. Instead I see actions and accusations that are predictably creating more division. I agree