American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The real travesty is a reporter calling a Corsair(prop plane) a fighter jet. Fake news!

Corsairs are sick though. The down scoop on the wings? hell ya.

[Monahammer]

Also the sound they make is the best

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Corsairs are sick though. The down scoop on the wings? hell ya.

Right? It deserves far more respect than calling anything that flies a jet. This reporter has failed us all.

[SutterBrother]

Big loser of the debates? Reality.

Paywall (sorry)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/03/o...vp-debate.html

Gessen: When you place lies and facts on an even footing, it basically creates a political sphere in which there’s no fact-based reality. That’s a pre-totalitarian condition. You can’t have politics if you don’t have a shared reality and if you don’t place an absolute value on the truth. I think that normalization degrades our political life and degrades our understanding of politics.

What was a kind of failure of the presidential debate — which is that they tried to counter Trump’s lies in some way, but couldn’t handle all of them — in the vice-presidential debate, this was by design. They made an agreement ahead of time that they were not going to do real-time fact checking by the moderators. And not only did they allow JD Vance to lie, for example, about Trump saving the Affordable Care Act, but the moderator asks Tim Walz a yes or no question that, according to Trump, Walz has said that abortions in the ninth month are absolutely fine.

Clip of vice-presidential debate

Norah O’Donnell: Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, in the ninth month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support?

Gessen: So the moderator asks Walz about something that, A) she knows isn’t true, B) it’s not a thing, and puts it on him to deny that he ever said such a thing or that the thing even exists. And of course he fumbles. He fumbles because it is almost impossible to answer a question like that without somehow also implicating yourself in the lie.

We, as journalists, do our absolute worst when we engage in a kind of false evenhandedness. What I think their thinking was — and I can only conjecture — but their thinking was probably: We have one candidate who is in the habit of lying, as is his running mate. Let’s find a way that we can show that we’re equally critical of both candidates.

When one of the candidates is saying "you said you wouldn't fact check me!" we've really lost the plot.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I get that Trump was previously president, and with more checks and balances than there is now, the world didn't end... but like... like... can we set the bar... slightly higher than... we're all not dead?

Like, what about similar standard of living?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

But... that's where the bar is being set by Mathgod and, er, others. They're the ones suggesting total catastrophic meltdown of the country and receiving pushback on that. No one is suggesting that life in the USA Trump winning would be completely fine and normal, or the same as it would be after Harris winning.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But... that's where the bar is being set by Mathgod and, er, others. They're the ones suggesting total catastrophic meltdown of the country and receiving pushback on that. No one is suggesting that life in the USA Trump winning would be completely fine and normal, or the same as it would be after Harris winning.

Life would go on as normal if you were a straight man.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Okay let me be perfectly clear here, I can see The Fonz deleted his post calling me a moron.

I was not disrespecting Jimmy Carter, I was talking about the disrespect his family showed for him for a photo op and news cameras rolling.

Think of yourself in his situation, would you want to be paraded around like that?

Anyone going to say I am sure he was ok with that, has not spoken in years how would they know.

When I first saw that video make the rounds the first thing that popped into my head was Norm Macdonald asking "What's next for Jimmy Carter?".

[Harry Lime]

During his first term, Trump set the stage for some serious radicalism, should he be elected again (or really any next GOP). Aside from the Supreme court, he reshuffled the rest of the court system, as well as many small bureaucratic changes that weakened checks and balances. Also, the heavy support of candidates friendly to him at the state level. The GOP (a trend across global political spheres) only block votes. The is no governance discussion anymore.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Life would go on as normal if you were a straight white, rich
man.

ftfy

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

During his first term, Trump set the stage for some serious radicalism, should he be elected again (or really any next GOP). Aside from the Supreme court, he reshuffled the rest of the court system, as well as many small bureaucratic changes that weakened checks and balances. Also, the heavy support of candidates friendly to him at the state level. The GOP (a trend across global political spheres) only block votes. The is no governance discussion anymore.

To me the judicial aspect is the most worrisome part of a second Trump term. His picks have already taken down Roe and created ugly precedent with several rulings, notably the immunity for the President and overturning the Chevron doctrine. Thomas is 76, Alito 74, so likely the next POTUS will replace them, and Sotomayor and Roberts are right behind at 70 and 69 respectively. Harris as President replacing 2-4 of them would be vastly preferable to allowing Trump to further politicize and corrupt the court with right-wing justices. Either Harris wins and changes the makeup of SCOTUS back to a more comfortable 5-4 liberal (or 6-3 if Roberts does retire, which I think would be a surprise but it's not out of the realm of possibility), or Trump is able to enshrine an ultra-conservative 6-3 (or even 7-2, depending on Sotomayor) for the next decade or three.

SCOTUS is why I was vehemently in favor of Hillary in 2016 and why I'm vehemently in favor of Harris now. The rest is all fixable, but SCOTUS appointments are way too important to leave to Trump and the people who guide his decision-making.

[devo22]

exactly. People like Mitch McConnell have already ####ed this country for decades during Trumps first term, can't let them replace Alito and Thomas with even more radical conversatives who would sit on the bench for the next 30 years. Harris being able to make 2 or 3 SCOTUS picks would be critical long-term.

[ResAlien]

I don’t think the odds of 2-3 justices dying while Harris is in office are very good and those feckless untouchables (yes all of them) won’t give up power unless it’s wrested from them. Unless they croak no one’s replacing a gatdamn thing.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I don’t think the odds of 2-3 justices dying while Harris is in office are very good and those feckless untouchables (yes all of them) won’t give up power unless it’s wrested from them. Unless they croak no one’s replacing a gatdamn thing.

maybe nobody will die, but I wouldn't be surprised if Alito and/or Thomas were to retire when Trump is in office. They did it with Kennedy during his first term, I'm sure they'd do it again.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by devo22

maybe nobody will die, but I wouldn't be surprised if Alito and/or Thomas were to retire when Trump is in office. They did it with Kennedy during his first term, I'm sure they'd do it again.

Right but they’re not retiring with Harris in office so best case scenario (assuming the grim reaper doesn’t do what they does best) with a Harris win is a push for keeping the current status quo of “everything sucks”. That’s not depressing at all.

[devo22]

if Trump wins, one or two of them retire (or bite the dust) and are replaced by 45 year old lunatics
if Harris wins, the two old farts stay on the bench or bite the dust (and are replaced by sane people)

depressing as it is, it's pretty obvious what's better for America. That whole thing would be such an easy fix with term limits, but Murica ...

[Paulie Walnuts]

Wouldn't they just let the nomination expire like they did under Obama?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s actually more like someone saying they don’t have to make any effort because it’s too expensive “and what I do is nothing compared to the emissions of China!” if we’re going to use that analogy. You’re not just “not living in the woods,” you’re complaining about being told to actually put effort in.

It’s pretty simple. If it’s as dire as you say, you would do something about it. If I thought something was going to end humanity in a month and I could have some small part in stopping it I would move heaven and earth to ensure I was doing my part to stop it. How do I know? Because I do that for a lot less than the destruction of humanity. If you actually believe that and aren’t doing anything? That’s wild. Humanity is at stake and you’re saying you can’t because it’ll negatively impact a couple people?

I don’t know, I guess if you actually believe that a lot of people secretly agree with you but they’re just saying otherwise for some convoluted, nonsensical reason which conveniently absolves you of what would otherwise be legit criticism, then this all makes sense.

At the end of the day, I’ll actually do something by voting while you will have actually done nothing. So who is pretending?

So for me to be "doing something", I will have to, at huge expense and upheaval of me and the people around me, leave them high and dry and go to the eastern US, spending money I don't have on flights and hotels for a month, knocking on doors, and with each door knock praying that I don't get asked where I'm from.

But for you to be "doing something", all you have to do is fill out your ballot in the comfort of your home, and drop it off at your nearest dropbox location.

Seems rather convenient, doesn't it?

And because I chose to speak out about the dangers of Trump, I'm suddenly saddled with the responsibility of going to the US and helping get Harris & Walz over the finish line. But those who haven't spoken out have no such responsibility, simply because they chose to stay quiet and keep their heads in the sand.

Seems rather convenient, doesn't it?

As for analogies, nope, you have it backward. You're conflating individual responsibility with collective responsibility. Believe it or not, it's not the responsibility of ONE RANDOM ASS CANADIAN CITIZEN to see to it that Trump is defeated in this election. It's the responsibility of America and Americans to see to it that Trump is defeated in this election.

As for why I'm not going to PA, I have perfectly good reasons, and that's all you need to know. If that's not a good enough explanation for you, too bad. Please respect the privacy of people who never chose to be dragged into this public discussion.

But let me ask you something. I say that Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine. Is it wild that I'm not going to Ukraine and taking up arms against Russian forces? I also say that climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Is it wild that I'm not dedicating my whole life to trying to solve climate change?

Or do we realize that speaking out about problems has value in its own right, and doing so does not automatically saddle us with responsibilities that those who stay quiet get a free pass on?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think Trump is a symptom not a cause. Trump doesn’t care about policy he wants power. That issue is independent of the greater erosions of democracy and establishment of an oligarchy. Wealth disparity and wealths ability to control political processes is the underlying theme that will not change with the election of Harris or Trump. Trump is the useful idiot in getting the economic agenda of project 2025 passed.

AHarris term will not change the underlying trend of increasing wealth inequality and increasing polarization and increasing populism. The problem is independent of Trump.

Reagan - trickle-down policies, anti-union policies

Bush - tax cuts for the rich

Trump - more tax cuts for the rich

Meanwhile, Obama and Biden inherited economic collapses from their predecessors, and spent their presidencies cleaning up the mess, all while facing constant obstruction from the GOP in congress.

Maybe, just maybe, the Republicans have been the problem this whole time, despite what you may have been told.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Mathgod, if you just stick to the actual GOP policies on paper, things like restricting women's rights, suppressing minorities, climate change denial, horrible fiscal policy, then that is fine. It's when you dial up the insanity to these fourth Reich, nuclear annihilation and Canada's imminent invasion when Trump wins posts that you lose credibility. You don't need to escalate things to MAGA levels of insanity to show the GOP and Trump are horrible, and doing so undermines the legitimate concerns there are. Keep it simple, and within the realm of reality, and no one is gonna call you out.