• Hey all it's dig, I'm delighted to announce that Magnificent Entertainer will be taking over as our Head Administrator, and Neo Blaze will be our new Deputy Head Administrator!

    Please read this post for more details on the changes to our forum leadership. Thanks.

  • EmceePinks, is currently shiny hunting here. Please go watch!

American Presidential Election Thread, 2020 Edition

Marquess of Ostia
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
40,640
Reaction score
783
Well... that was certainly an eventful couple of weeks in American history. After spending four days straight streaming CNN before, during and after work, taking a break for a week from anything political was good for the sanity. But now, we're staring at control of the senate coming down to Georgia. Which means it's time for some political hot takes.

1. Even if Trump's lawsuits weren't burning up one by one, the Trump attempted coup was doomed from the start. But Hector, I hear you saying, what about the 12th amendment? A good question, but the answer ultimately lies in how the House of Representatives operates. The most important thing to note is that the House can choose when to count the votes from the Electoral College. (Those of you who follow US politics closely will note that this would be poetic justice given how the Republicans in the senate blocked judicial nominees and bills coming up for a vote for years). Now this is important because as the Democrats control the house, they can simply... choose not to count them. This is perfectly valid under constitutional law, and more importantly the Supreme Court and the executive branch cannot do anything to stop them. In this case, on January 20th, the speaker of the house would become president. Which in this case could be Nancy Pelosi, or if the Democrats knew this was coming ahead of time, they could make Joe Biden their speaker (because the speaker of the house does not have to be a member of the house, they could name me speaker if they wanted) to elevate him on the 20th automatically. So in a universe where somehow the Trump campaign got multiple states to go against the will of their voters, the Democratically controlled house could easily counter this. The other (and perhaps even funnier) method of countering this lies in how the members of the house are sworn in. If the Democrats wanted to, they could simply only swear in their own members (believe it or not, this is actually allowed), as the Speaker (again, this will be a Democrat) is sworn in first, then swears in the other members. At this point, they could hold the tie-breaking vote in the house and with only Democrats voting, obviously Biden would win.

If you want a REALLY deep dive into how this all works (it's incredibly informative and I learned a lot, but it's a LONG watch):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6sVow9l8H4


TL;DR - the people trying to sell you that the Trump campaign will possibly pull off this coup are either misinformed (to be fair, Constitutional law is a goddamn trainwreck of confusion) or are trying to drum up controversy and ratings. The reason this can't work is the parliamentary procedure of the house allows the Democrats who control the house to counter any ratfuckery with shenanigans of their own. The only way Trump is president on January 21st is if there's tanks in the streets (which isn't going to happen).


2. I'm sorry to tell you progressives but never Trumpers made the difference between Biden and a second Trump term. And I'm not just saying this as someone who was a republican until 2016. While it is of course impossible to ascertain the motives of individuals who split their ballots, the math does point to people voting for Republicans across their ballots for other positions and voting against Trump. For example, in Georgia. The current vote count for President stands as :

Joe Biden 49.5%
2,472,255

Donald Trump 49.2%
2,458,248

Jo Jorgensen (LIB) 1.2%
62,072


An incredibly tight margin. However, when you look at the senate race between David Perdue and Jon Ossoff, a different picture emerges:

David Perdue (REP) 49.7%
2,459,034

Jon Ossoff (DEM) 48%
2,372,327

Shane Hazel (LIB) 2.3%
114,909

When looking at the numbers, the difference between the two elections is apparent. Joe Biden got 99,928 more votes for president than Ossoff got for Senate. David Perdue received just over 1,000 more votes than Donald Trump and the Libertarian received over 50k more votes in the Senate race than in the Presidential race. Again, it is very difficult to assume what any one voter did and why they did it, but the pattern seems to be some republicans and a ton of libertarians (who usually vote R in presidential races due to the two-party system) voted for Biden but split their ticket for the senate race. The other senate race in Georgia is a bit more complicated due to the jungle runoff system, but while Reverend Warnock (D) got the most votes, the democratic candidates got 48.4% of the votes (only slightly better than Ossoff, but less than the republicans who got 49.3% (again, very similar to the simpler Perdue v Ossoff race).

You can do very similar analyses on PA (House Republicans got more votes than House Democrats in PA and Republicans won multiple statewide races, while Trump lost the state to Biden) and the other battleground states.

TL;DR - as much as people dragged the Lincoln Project and never trumpers on twitter (and much of that was very, very funny), suburban moderates were ultimately the reason that Joe Biden will be your next president. This isn't to minimize the impact that native communities had in tipping Arizona or the efforts of Stacy Abrams and her team in GA, but those efforts wouldn't have gotten it done without suburban moderates and never trumper republicans.

3. The next two months is going to be a full on assault for any of you who are both fortunate and unfortunate enough to live in Georgia. While you will get to determine which party controls the senate, there will in all likelihood be hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising from now until Jan 5 for the two senate runoff elections. So get used to seeing Kelly Loefler, Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff and David Perdue on your TV screens and facebook feeds.

4. For the first time in my life, I voted for a winner! Only took four elections and three different parties to do so. If you're wondering:

2008 - John McCain
2012 - Mitt Romney (I've mentioned it before, but I volunteered on his campaign)
2016 - Gary Johnson (I was a never trumper before they had a name. Silly in retrospect, but legal weed and I would have voted for Clinton if I lived in a state where my vote mattered)
2020 - Joe Biden

Who knows who I'll be voting for in 2024. What I can tell you it won't be anyone with the last name Trump. Not even Ivanka.

5. Don't read too much into who gets floated in the news and through social media as part of Biden's potential cabinet. Ignoring the fact that 'sources' who float names may just be trying to get into said person's good graces (this is common as hell... if you write a think piece on why say Charlie Baker (Republican governor of MA) should be considered for a cabinet position, down the road if you need a quote from him... you're more likely to get it. Just the nature of the beast). And more importantly, ultimately the president is the person who makes the final call on all big issues and policies. The secretaries are there to advise, counsel and run the day-to-day of their departments, but at the end of the day they serve at the pleasure of the President.

6. Only two more years until the midterms. God help us all.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
3,288
Reaction score
3,475
The only way Trump is president on January 21st is if there's tanks in the streets (which isn't going to happen).

And the military has said they swore the oath to the Constitution and not to a person (that includes a self serving president-for-life want to be.)
 
Chill Fantasy Vibes
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
1,238
2016 - Gary Johnson (I was a never trumper before they had a name. Silly in retrospect, but legal weed and I would have voted for Clinton if I lived in a state where my vote mattered)
Woah! Hanzo!?

Also yeah, if I could've voted in 2016, which I couldn't cause I wasn't eighteen yet I would've most likely voted Gary Johnson since he was the only person I liked among the 2016 election though I don't agree with legal weed. Though regardless if I felt was he okay, I didn't like anyone who was running in the 2016 election.
 
Shaking my head
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
745
Reaction score
349
I'm sorry to tell you progressives but never Trumpers made the difference between Biden and a second Trump term.
We'll see. The fact that the majority of the Dem congressmen who lost their seats were moderates while unashamed progressives kept their seats tells me it's a more complicated picture (and Trump increased his GOP vote in 2020 compared with 2016 by boosting turnout from 90 to 93 percent), so I'm not in a rush to thank the opportunists at the Lincoln Project. (In fact, an argument can be made that they did more damage than good by wasting tens of millions of dollars that would have done more on downballot races.) Either way, Georgia will be an interesting study on who was right once we see how the runoff goes without Trump's name on the ticket.

View: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1326233680319303681


4. For the first time in my life, I voted for a winner! Only took four elections and three different parties to do so. If you're wondering:

2008 - John McCain
2012 - Mitt Romney (I've mentioned it before, but I volunteered on his campaign)
2016 - Gary Johnson (I was a never trumper before they had a name. Silly in retrospect, but legal weed and I would have voted for Clinton if I lived in a state where my vote mattered)
2020 - Joe Biden
You voted for Johnson because of his policy on marijuana? But IIRC both Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008 were very opposed to legalizing it. McCain called it a "gateway drug" and wanted to declare a "war" on it while Romney outright stated that he wants to ban any recreational use of it. They may have "evolved" their views later on, but I'm certain it wasn't during their presidential runs.
 
Last edited:
Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
373
Since Trump came to power, I've not made many friends for my extreme reluctance to describe him using words like 'fascist', 'dictator' or 'Nazi'. I've never considered it accurate or useful for the kind of serious analysis about how to beat him, and I've worried that it gets the powder damp when the power of those words should be reserved for someone worse, not merely a garden-variety, crude nativist, a crass xenophobe.

But this? These past two weeks? It's absolutely banana republic president-for-life stuff. In a system with weaker checks in place he may well have succeeded in his attempts to cling to power; the only reason he's not an actual dictator is that in a short while he'll be gone, forevermore a wannabe-Mugabe.
 
Shaking my head
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
745
Reaction score
349
Since Trump came to power, I've not made many friends for my extreme reluctance to describe him using words like 'fascist', 'dictator' or 'Nazi'. I've never considered it accurate or useful for the kind of serious analysis about how to beat him, and I've worried that it gets the powder damp when the power of those words should be reserved for someone worse, not merely a garden-variety, crude nativist, a crass xenophobe.

But this? These past two weeks? It's absolutely banana republic president-for-life stuff. In a system with weaker checks in place he may well have succeeded in his attempts to cling to power; the only reason he's not an actual dictator is that in a short while he'll be gone, forevermore a wannabe-Mugabe.
He doesn't have total power to be called a dictator (he can only be a wannabe-dictator at most), and nazism is too narrow and specific to apply to him, but I never found any issue with calling him a fascist. Especially after Umberto Eco predicted the current era of far-right populists with his essay on "Ur-Fascism". To quote from it:
Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
The entire article is well worth a read, but it boils down to these points. When looking at them, I can clearly see Trump and his sycophants covering more than half of them:
  • The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
  • The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  • The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
  • Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
  • Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
  • Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  • The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
  • The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
  • Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
  • Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
  • Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
  • Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
  • Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
  • Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
 
Thesaurus rex
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
6,750
Reaction score
2,462
Since Trump came to power, I've not made many friends for my extreme reluctance to describe him using words like 'fascist', 'dictator' or 'Nazi'. I've never considered it accurate or useful for the kind of serious analysis about how to beat him, and I've worried that it gets the powder damp when the power of those words should be reserved for someone worse, not merely a garden-variety, crude nativist, a crass xenophobe.

But this? These past two weeks? It's absolutely banana republic president-for-life stuff. In a system with weaker checks in place he may well have succeeded in his attempts to cling to power; the only reason he's not an actual dictator is that in a short while he'll be gone, forevermore a wannabe-Mugabe.
Indeed, yes - although for me the tipping point came with his willingness to deploy the police against his political opponents. I've always maintained I don't have a horse in this race - and as a Brit, I don't - but it is a relief on behalf of my American friends that this isn't set to be a regular occurrence.
 
Marquess of Ostia
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
40,640
Reaction score
783
We'll see. The fact that the majority of the Dem congressmen who lost their seats were moderates while unashamed progressives kept their seats tells me it's a more complicated picture (and Trump increased his GOP vote in 2020 compared with 2016 by boosting turnout from 90 to 93 percent), so I'm not in a rush to thank the opportunists at the Lincoln Project. (In fact, an argument can be made that they did more damage than good by wasting tens of millions of dollars that would have done more on downballot races.) Either way, Georgia will be an interesting study on who was right once we see how the runoff goes without Trump's name on the ticket.


You voted for Johnson because of his policy on marijuana? But IIRC both Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008 were very opposed to legalizing it. McCain called it a "gateway drug" and wanted to declare a "war" on it while Romney outright stated that he wants to ban any recreational use of it. They may have "evolved" their views later on, but I'm certain it wasn't during their presidential runs.
So one thing to keep in mind is that many of those progressives sit in safe blue seats where they weren't going to lose. AOC for example won her seat by 40 points because of where her district is in NYC (I've lived in NYC since 2013 and let me just say that I'm frankly surprised the Republican even got 30% of the vote from said district). Whereas many of the moderates who lost seats lost them in swing districts due to the fact that House Republicans outperformed their polling (and their performance in the 2018 midterms).One thing that will make the question of why Democrats under performed difficult to answer is that in this pandemic election we did not get good exit polls. But your take (well Doug Jones') is on the money in terms of long term party growth. 2020's coalition is not one that the Democrats can rely on in the future, so their longterm play is to build a strong ground game, support local people in local races (for example if they had a Latin version of Stacy Abrams in Miami-Dade this year, they probably would have won Florida), and really work on their digital outreach and advertising. I'd have to find the quote, but one thing that AOC nailed in the days after the election was the fact that so many of the moderates who lost their races had next to no digital ad presence or marketing. One has to hope that Democrats finally learn how to win.

As for the notion of the Lincoln Project having wasted money that would have gone to downballot races... I would point out that I'm sure the majority of their donations (again, always hard to say) came from lost GOP souls who wanted Trump out but a Republican senate (Democratic activists and donors probably just donated to Biden or their chosen candidates directly). And the thing with the share of Republicans is that the number of registered Republicans has dropped in the last four years as many moderates have switched their registrations (while exact numbers here aren't easy to find, what I can find is that the share of registered republicans as a share of the electorate has dropped around two percentage points since 2016). So those people probably didn't want Democrats to win downballot races.

As for the Johnson thing, that was a little tongue in cheek (I did say that I was firing some HOT TAKES!). It wasn't just the legal weed thing, it was a couple other things (a less interventionist foreign policy for instance) as well. Of course the big thing was that at the time I still considered myself right of center but Trump was just so... The guy cheats at golf and to a golfer like myself, that's simply unacceptable. 2016 was the election that started my movement from right center to left center. I'm still extremely pro-legalization though (and it seems like that is only a matter of time).

And I'm in complete agreement re: Georgia. Those two runoff races are going to be very, very interesting. And they would be even if control of the senate wasn't on the line.
 
Shaking my head
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
745
Reaction score
349
As for the notion of the Lincoln Project having wasted money that would have gone to downballot races... I would point out that I'm sure the majority of their donations (again, always hard to say) came from lost GOP souls who wanted Trump out but a Republican senate
How do those people deal with the fact that a Republican senate is essentially a Trump senate with senators like Graham openly assisting him? I mean look at this, the GOP has been completely co-opted by Trump and is now boosting his coup attempt:
View: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1329771592440836104

It wasn't just the legal weed thing, it was a couple other things (a less interventionist foreign policy for instance) as well.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me either, since McCain promoted his so-called "rogue state rollback" where he'd arm, train and equip rebels in order to overthrown any county he wished to. McCain also brought with him neo-conservative warmongers from the Bush administration like Robert Kagan and William Kristol. McCain said he'd be fine if US troops remained in Iraq for even a hundred years and would then later cheer on Obama's intervention in Libya.

Romney, likewise, was also heavy on interventions, and went on air criticizing Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. He also criticized Obama for not sending ground troops to Libya. Romney was also in favor of sending weapons to "moderate" Syrian rebels. Remember his "No Apology" book, where he championed "hard power" interventions?

For all his faults, Obama from the start seemed to me as the less interventionist one compared to them both. It was Obama who reached the historic nuclear deal with Iran, while all Republicans criticized him and Trump ripped it apart to GOP cheers.
2016 was the election that started my movement from right center to left center.
I mean, this just might be because I'm not an American, but from where I am the Democratic party was the right-center party. Even during the Bush era, the GOP was the solidly right-wing party that always had war hawks and evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that there weren't those kind of people among Dems too, but I've always found it absurd how some tried to paint Dems as a leftist party. Bernie Sanders is considered left center in Europe.

I still don't see any evidence that the Lincoln project had any effect on Republican voters. Even you admit that you started your own shift back in 2016. Lincoln project was nowhere back then. It all seemed to me that their ads only played for those Republicans who hated Trump from the start. I'd love to be proved wrong, but so far I only see the Republican base joining Trump in his conspiratorial belief that the election was stolen from him. And that's horrible news for the future of democracy and the rule of law in the USA.
EnNcvuzXUAAmPEd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Marquess of Ostia
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
40,640
Reaction score
783
How do those people deal with the fact that a Republican senate is essentially a Trump senate with senators like Graham openly assisting him? I mean look at this, the GOP has been completely co-opted by Trump and is now boosting his coup attempt:
View: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1329771592440836104


Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me either, since McCain promoted his so-called "rogue state rollback" where he'd arm, train and equip rebels in order to overthrown any county he wished to. McCain also brought with him neo-conservative warmongers from the Bush administration like Robert Kagan and William Kristol. McCain said he'd be fine if US troops remained in Iraq for even a hundred years and would then later cheer on Obama's intervention in Libya.

Romney, likewise, was also heavy on interventions, and went on air criticizing Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. He also criticized Obama for not sending ground troops to Libya. Romney was also in favor of sending weapons to "moderate" Syrian rebels. Remember his "No Apology" book, where he championed "hard power" interventions?

For all his faults, Obama from the start seemed to me as the less interventionist one compared to them both. It was Obama who reached the historic nuclear deal with Iran, while all Republicans criticized him and Trump ripped it apart to GOP cheers.

I mean, this just might be because I'm not an American, but from where I am the Democratic party was the right-center party. Even during the Bush era, the GOP was the solidly right-wing party that always had war hawks and evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that there weren't those kind of people among Dems too, but I've always found it absurd how some tried to paint Dems as a leftist party. Bernie Sanders is considered left center in Europe.

I still don't see any evidence that the Lincoln project had any effect on Republican voters. Even you admit that you started your own shift back in 2016. Lincoln project was nowhere back then. It all seemed to me that their ads only played for those Republicans who hated Trump from the start. I'd love to be proved wrong, but so far I only see the Republican base joining Trump in his conspiratorial belief that the election was stolen from him. And that's horrible news for the future of democracy and the rule of law in the USA.
I honestly couldn't tell you how those people deal with what the GOP has come. Just one of the many reasons I walked and am never going back.

As for the McCain vs Romney vs Johnson argument, I was pretty unclear previously about the simple fact that my views on issues changed over the years in college (My views on issues of foreign policy and legalization and a bunch of other things had moved from US center right to US center left but I still considered myself a moderate republican until 2016 because my stances were in line with New England republicanism, which is your fiscal conservative, socially liberal wing of the party which has basically died out in the Trump era).

As for using center left versus center right, yeah I'm defining it on the US scale because well...this is a US election thread. A discussion about the American Overton window and how on earth it can shift back towards center is for another place and another time, especially since I don't think anybody has an answer to that impossible question.

In terms of the project / republican base, the problem with that sort of poll is that the people who self selected out of that poll by either voting for Biden or abstaining wouldn't be counted on that question. No disagreement on how terrifying that poll is though. The fact that a majority of Republicans think the election was stolen is frankly an existential crisis for the American experiment.

The funny thing about commentary from outside of the US on these issues is that in many ways it is both very on point (in that you're mostly removed from US news media biases unless you want to subject yourself to the torture that is CNN and the like, something I don't recommend) in terms of being able to state things that Americans in various positions simply can't due to the cultural zeitgeist and whatnot. But at the same time, it is difficult to sometimes explain conditions on the ground (especially outside of the urban centers that produce the vast majority of our cultural exports) to non Americans.

The biggest thing that I noticed you took umbrage with was the neo-conservatism that I believed in during my earlier days compared to now. I hate to be that guy (even though I was that guy for a decent portion of my life), but growing up in America in the post 9/11 era (I was 11 years old at the time) warped so much of my generation in terms of how we saw the rest of the world. One of the things that I think many people forget (both inside and outside of the United States) is that at the time, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had near universal approval in establishment politics (I'd have to look up what the final vote tallies were, but I think only two or three house and senate members voted against the wars). And the media and everyone else rallied around the flag. It was very similar to the Cold War in retrospect where America was almost in a wartime environment culturally and nobody in the establishment really questioned it.

So for my formative years, the neo-conservative foreign policy was the dominant one (in terms of voting for Presidents, you didn't really have a choice. Obama wasn't any less of a war hawk than McCain or Romney, and the amount of drone strikes the Obama admin was responsible for is staggering). So to answer your question of how I went from McCain / Romney to Johnson, when their viewpoints on foreign wars are so different, it's because my views on foreign wars changed dramatically. I'll tell you that it's a hell of a thing to break a decade of conditioning, which is something that I think many of our non-American friends fail to see when analyzing American elections and political trends. The simple fact is that a huge portion of my generation (people in their mid 20s to mid 30s) were conditioned to think a certain way, and only in the last few years are those trends reversing themselves.
 
Joe Biden stan account
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
1,004
I mean, this just might be because I'm not an American, but from where I am the Democratic party was the right-center party. Even during the Bush era, the GOP was the solidly right-wing party that always had war hawks and evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that there weren't those kind of people among Dems too, but I've always found it absurd how some tried to paint Dems as a leftist party. Bernie Sanders is considered left center in Europe.
This entire time I never realized you were European.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,695
Reaction score
10,188
Since Trump came to power, I've not made many friends for my extreme reluctance to describe him using words like 'fascist', 'dictator' or 'Nazi'. I've never considered it accurate or useful for the kind of serious analysis about how to beat him, and I've worried that it gets the powder damp when the power of those words should be reserved for someone worse, not merely a garden-variety, crude nativist, a crass xenophobe.

But this? These past two weeks? It's absolutely banana republic president-for-life stuff. In a system with weaker checks in place he may well have succeeded in his attempts to cling to power; the only reason he's not an actual dictator is that in a short while he'll be gone, forevermore a wannabe-Mugabe.
It's interesting to me that you say that, because I personally consider the stuff to be just one tier down from his worst actions. Awful and should be punished, skews reality for his base, but doesn't actually change anything because he can't actually follow through on it. (Like his claims that "I really won the popular vote in 2016 if you discount the votes from illegal immigrants" or "We should deport those congresswomen")

In terms of fear that he'd try for a president-for-life, I was more concerned when he'd say stuff like "And then we'll go for a third term because I'm entitled to it after they tried to impeach me," or "If you want to make the fake news really angry chant eight more years". But even then, what makes me willing to call him a fascist isn't so much his power grabs as it is:
I know historical definitions of fascism vary, but I feel like "A man who expects extreme loyalty, encourages violence against political foes, attacks minorities and tries to remove them from the country" fits pretty cleanly with that label.

Although, I feel like there needs to be a word to make it easier to distinguish between a person whose political beliefs are fascist and someone actually carrying it out, like the different between murderous and murderer, because even as awful as Trump is, there are fascists a lot worse who accomplish much more of what they want, and they should have a stronger word to emphasize their actions. There is a valuable distinction between how bad things are now and how others can have things considerably worse, and we can't let people decide that, "Well, fascists can't be that hard to deal with. I mean, we voted out Trump, right?"
 
Last edited:
Shaking my head
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
745
Reaction score
349
This entire time I never realized you were European.
Really? I'm public about my country of residence on my profile page, lol. Living in the so-called "Russian sphere of influence" means that most people I know IRL were over the past 4 years watching in horror as the US president sucked up to Putin and actively sabotaged the EU and NATO.

I've been paying attention to US politics since Obama got first elected after defeating McCain and that proto-Trump, Sarah Palin. There's absolutely a clear line from Palin to Trump. They both were courting the same hyper-partisan, anti-compromise and conspirational crowd. I still remember how 10 years ago some people on this forum were parroting the latest fearmongering from Glenn Beck. The current rot in political discourse in the US has been long in the making. Trump was peddling birtherism back then, and calling the last three elections "fraudulent" (less we forget, he accused Hillary of getting 3 million "illegitimate" votes).
 
Last edited:
Joe Biden stan account
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
1,004
Really? I'm public about my country of residence on my profile page, lol. Living in the so-called "Russian sphere of influence" means that most people I know IRL were over the past 4 years watching in horror as the US president sucked up to Putin and actively sabotaged the EU and NATO.

I've been paying attention to US politics since Obama got first elected after defeating McCain and that proto-Trump, Sarah Palin. There's absolutely a clear line from Palin to Trump. They both were courting the same hyper-partisan, anti-compromise and conspirational crowd. I still remember how 10 years ago some people on this forum were parroting the latest fearmongering from Glenn Beck. The current rot in political discourse in the US has been long in the making. Trump was peddling birtherism back then, and calling the last three elections "fraudulent" (less we forget, he accused Hillary of getting 3 million "illegitimate" votes).
You know so many of the ins and outs of my country's politics and all I know about your country is a handful of NHL players. This makes me feel so inadequate.
 
Previously known as 'Isamu Akai'
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
1,744
Not saying that Reddit is a credible source, but this amused me: I saw on a political subreddit that Trump supporters in Georgia are threatening to boycott the runoff election. Please do.
 
Hear me roar!
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
6,468
Reaction score
6,321
Not saying that Reddit is a credible source, but this amused me: I saw on a political subreddit that Trump supporters in Georgia are threatening to boycott the runoff election. Please do.
Good. Let them boycott it. Gives us a better chance at reclaiming the senate and taking away Mitch McConnell's power.
 
Top