2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Farm Boy]

108 kg, k?

Kiddo is 8 Ziggs! He's doing e-learning. Our district is managing to pull it off better than the surrounds, but then again I pay 6% property tax every year on my assessment. In a red. But that's off narrative. Wife is as healthy as can be expected. Parents are living. No personal complaints worth having. Crop prices suck. They haven't fired me from my health insurance job, yay!

How are you? Miss'd ya. More than you probably think.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Jeeez.

Just facts eh. That's cold. Not a "yeah, I'm fine"?

I expected some human interaction with a bear with a balloon

I'm still 650 trls. Just hoping you're at least having some fun once in a while

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All we are saying

Is give bees a chance.

 

[Farm Boy]

soryy. drunk now. edit'd/

 

[Estebonrober]

I just had a shower thought that no one has brought up. Has anyone mentioned any of the results for the state legislature? Since I’ve read the GOP has either maintained or gained seats in the state legislature across the US (I want to clarify for our non USans: that there’s a difference between the US legislature, which we call Congress, and a state legislature is a legislative body within an US state. Which, depending on the state, calls it by various names like “General Assembly”, etc).

Given we just came out of a census, and thus redistricting is gonna happen. It’s likely that the redistricting of congressional districts would weigh in favor of the GOP.

Yea there is a reckoning that has been on hold since Sanders lost the primary in the democratic party. Its still hovering over everything like a dark cloud of doom. My take is if you are not positioning and explaining a further left vision of the future then you are naturally dragged to the right. As demonstrated by the last 40 years of regressive politics quite successfully executed by the GOP and their super Baron class of financiers.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

soryy. drunk now. edit'd/

Testify Brother!

 

[Patine]

Ah right, I took "non-term" too literally.

But speaking on its counter-productivity for a second, because I actually had a thread lined up on this (if I ever get enough sleep). It's very productive. You claim to dislike (or despise, or whatever) the US political duopoly. This is fine. This is the part nearly everybody agrees with you on. You even talk about how people are blind to their own party's faults. Also fair!

It's when you then go around blaming people for being mean (there are many, many other examples. This is not a controversial claim), equating them as a "microcosm" of a greater state or context. This is problematic and reductive. You place all people here as supporters of one or the other party. People aren't that predictable. You repeatedly go to lengths to talk about the infinite political diversity of ideological spectrums, and then you go and accuse whichever OT poster it is at the time (often a bunch, at once, in the same post, with tags) of inciting partisan rhetoric. But you only ever seem to do so for the most ideologically-varied groupings of poster. You assume they're all part and parcel of the US political duopoly. They're often not

Do you not see the irony? You're putting people into boxes yourself.

It doesn't matter, semantically, that you think your boxes are accurate. They're still boxes!

Actually, you missed a key term I usually make sure to add, and if I don't, if's a negligent slip. "MANY" posters on this forum is something I try to get in as often as possible. I know it's easy to overlook, and I admit I do sometimes inadvertently miss typing it when I caught up in the moment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hi Patine.

I very much enjoy your posts, and thank you for the effort you put into them.

 

[Farm Boy]

All we are saying

Is give bees a chance.

Hehe! You've seen the episode of Russian Pooh Bear I take it? I doubt most of the posters here have, but that's part of the fun.

 

[Gorbles]

Actually, you missed a key term I usually make sure to add, and if I don't, if's a negligent slip. "MANY" posters on this forum is something I try to get in as often as possible. I know it's easy to overlook, and I admit I do sometimes inadvertently miss typing it when I caught up in the moment.

Yeah, I don't see how emphasising "many" makes a difference when you're still putting people into boxes. That's the core problem here - not the amount of people you put into the metaphorical box.

I mean, there is an argument to be made for the people you repeatedly focus on, but that's a separate argument. I'm focusing on the ideological (metaphorical) box one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lol! You've seen the episode of Russian Pooh Bear I take it? I doubt most of the posters here have, but that's part of the fun.

I have not, but I will pursue to rectifying this.

After I have listened to Johnny Cash Hurt, which lined itself up after the Beatles. I might have a little weep.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

alright, after 5 seconds I have concluded Russian Pooh Bear is god.

 

[Farm Boy]

He's not Disney! More life, less childhood dream. Still childhood dream, tho. I think.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, I don't see how emphasising "many" makes a difference when you're still putting people into boxes. That's the core problem here - not the amount of people you put into the metaphorical box.

I mean, there is an argument to be made for the people you repeatedly focus on, but that's a separate argument. I'm focusing on the ideological (metaphorical) box one.

This is a - heh - BOXED argument you could levy against any criticism of an ideological point of view or failing that implores it's adherents to rethink or examine it's faults or issues or shows flaws in viewpoint or action coming of such belief. It's not thinking in absolutes to acknowledge that like-thinkers do tend to congregate, and often hammer or drive down dissent in their numbers (a lot of the time).

 

[Gorbles]

This is a - heh - BOXED argument you could levy against any criticism of an ideological point of view or failing that implores it's adherents to rethink or examine it's faults or issues or shows flaws in viewpoint or action coming of such belief.

In semantic terms? Hah, sure. That's the beauty of semantics a lot of the time (unlike how it's often used online, but nevermind).

I'm specifically trying to show you the results of boxing people in, because you're the one on this forum, perhaps in terms of anyone I've ever "met" (however virtual, contrived, or what have you), who rails against this the most. And it's a fair drum to beat, but only if you don't fall into the same pitfalls yourself - and I believe you do. This is why you often get the reactions like the one from Estebonrober that kicked this tangent off.

It's one thing to criticise the US duopoly and lament that all voters are stuck in its gears. They are. It's another to then repeatedly characterise people on this forum especially as being a willing, culpable part of that system. You even correctly point out that Trump himself is (mostly) a symptom of underlying problems! But you don't extend that courtesy to folks here. That's the danger of being personally-involved (by posting). We're all here, posting as us (well, most of us. Some are more . . . aloof). I'm posting as me, you're posting as you. But you don't seem to understand that if you want the calming of tensions, the de-escalation, the return to moderacy (if the world ever had it. History may argue it didn't) . . . you don't throw fuel on the fire yourself.

And if you do, if it's necessary, at least recognise it was you that threw the fuel.

 

[Traitorfish]

I truly feel that if he had been able to refrain from spending 4 years saying this election would be rigged and telling everyone he wouldn't abide by the results no matter what, he could have caused some real disruption to the process and that disruption would have been his best shot at stealing it.

I think there's also an extent to which Trump has simply discredited himself as a source about his own administration.

It's been observed that Trump says stupid, inflammatory things so often that everyone has just learned not to take them seriously. They'll be a news item for a couple of days, then we'll all move on and nothing will happen. This has historically worked in his favour, because it means he can do and say things which would be scandals for other political figures more or less without consequence, so his administration hasn't had a strong incentive to encourage the public to take the things he says very seriously.

So when Trump finally says some stupid, inflammatory thing and actually means it, something which he wants to be a scandal and which he wants to have consequences, everyone just says "haha, classic Donald" and the turns back to whatever they were doing. Nobody believes that he'll really do anything until he does it, and you can't realistically contest an election unless you successfully create an atmosphere of belief that the election can be contested, so he's trapped himself in a Catch-22 of his own making.

 

[Patine]

In semantic terms? Hah, sure. That's the beauty of semantics a lot of the time (unlike how it's often used online, but nevermind).

I'm specifically trying to show you the results of boxing people in, because you're the one on this forum, perhaps in terms of anyone I've ever "met" (however virtual, contrived, or what have you), who rails against this the most. And it's a fair drum to beat, but only if you don't fall into the same pitfalls yourself - and I believe you do. This is why you often get the reactions like the one from Estebonrober that kicked this tangent off.

It's one thing to criticise the US duopoly and lament that all voters are stuck in its gears. They are. It's another to then repeatedly characterise people on this forum especially as being a willing, culpable part of that system. You even correctly point out that Trump himself is (mostly) a symptom of underlying problems! But you don't extend that courtesy to folks here. That's the danger of being personally-involved (by posting). We're all here, posting as us (well, most of us. Some are more . . . aloof). I'm posting as me, you're posting as you. But you don't seem to understand that if you want the calming of tensions, the de-escalation, the return to moderacy (if the world ever had it. History may argue it didn't) . . . you don't throw fuel on the fire yourself.

And if you do, if it's necessary, at least recognise it was you that threw the fuel.

The second half of my post (post-edit) has a good point about your "boxing," claim. And perhaps I just see voting for either Duopoly Party proudly and thinking that real change and good for the people, and a government that puts their voters even remotely as a priority in their activities compared to their corporate and moneyed special interest groups donors, their international agendas, about which they constantly lie and keep seditious secrets about the true motives, and their one-upmanship and gridlock "political team sports," is in the offing- again and again - as being somewhat hard to empathize with, I admit. Zimbabweans and Russians at least know full well they're being screwed, and cry out for electoral justice. The Duopoly Party leadership are highly irresponsible, self-absorbed, and obviously apathetic to their own people. Here in Canada, I almost always vote for the New Democratic Party - a Social Democratic party by ideology - who have held a number of Provincial Governments and made Official Opposition Federally, and are considered a contender - as opposed to voting Conservative or Liberal, who are almost Republican and Democratic "lite," these days, in Canada, but Americans are denied any real alternative to their two Cartels of Crooks by an electoral system that literally DOES institutionally suppress Third Party and Independent candidates. So, I admit, I do see the voters in the "Land of the Free," willingly and proudly keeping such a political system afloat hard to understand or empathize with, I fully confess.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I suppose US laws or Constitution have proper provisions for transition periods like this and prevent that acting presidents can change laws and such.

Nope.jpg

As with so many other problems that Trump and McConnell has caused for our government institutions, it turns out most of what we took for granted in a functioning government was basically a gentlemen's agreement to not be complete asses all the time.

My biggest ray of hope is in remembering that Trump was so completely disinterested in his own transition that he didn't even bother sending people to briefings. This makes me hopeful that he will simply overlook his potential ability to ruin things for Biden, or that he is otherwise preoccupied with trying to rally his allies in the courts to overturn the vote or whatever.

I think there's also an extent to which Trump has simply discredited himself as a source about his own administration.

It's been observed that Trump says stupid, inflammatory things so often that everyone has just learned not to take them seriously. They'll be a news item for a couple of days, then we'll all move on and nothing will happen. This has historically worked in his favour, because it means he can do and say things which would be scandals for other political figures more or less without consequence, so his administration hasn't had a strong incentive to encourage the public to take the things he says very seriously.

So when Trump finally says some stupid, inflammatory thing and actually means it, something which he wants to be a scandal and which he wants to have consequences, everyone just says "haha, classic Donald" and the turns back to whatever they were doing. Nobody believes that he'll really do anything until he does it, and you can't realistically contest an election unless you successfully create an atmosphere of belief that the election can be contested, so he's trapped himself in a Catch-22 of his own making.

Brilliant take

 

[Gorbles]

The second half of my post (post-edit) has a good point about your "boxing," claim. And perhaps I just see voting for either Duopoly Party proudly and thinking that real change and good for the people, and a government that puts their voters even remotely as a priority in their activities compared to their corporate and moneyed special interest groups donors, their international agendas, about which they constantly lie and keep seditious secrets about the true motives, and their one-upmanship and gridlock "political team sports," is in the offing- again and again - as being somewhat hard to empathize with, I admit. Zimbabweans and Russians at least know full well they're being screwed, and cry out for electoral justice. The are highly irresponsible, self-absorbed, and obviously apathetic to their own people. Here in Canada, I almost always vote for the New Democratic Party - a Social Democratic party by ideology - who have held a number of Provincial Governments and made Official Opposition Federally, and are considered - as opposed to voting Conservative or Liberal, who are almost Republican and Democratic "lite," these days, in Canada, but Americans are denied any real alternative to their two Cartels of Crooks by an electoral system that literally DOES institutionally suppress Third Party and Independent candidates. So, I admit, I do see the voters in the "Land of the Free," willingly and proudly keeping such a political system afloat hard to understand or empathize with, I fully confess.

What you're describing in the edited post is nothing more than common social politics. The entire point of a forum, however generically, is a group of like-minded people (in this case, loosely based along what video games they prefer).

Anyhow, I recommend taking a closer look at the people you repeatedly bash heads with. I don't think what you'll see is "proud". "resigned", perhaps. "exhausted", too.

For my part, I'm a Brit. We've got our own problems to sort out over here. But sure, I'd vote Democrat if I had to, if I lived over there. Doesn't mean I'd be happy about it. Doesn't mean I'm happy with state of the Democratic Party. The same goes for me and Labour, here in the UK. I'd like to think I'm pretty open in my conflicts a lot of the time. I've spent most of the past year lamenting the political suicide of alternative parties (in the UK). We're now depressingly shaping up to be a "two-party state" as well. That isn't good! I think you'd agree on that. The problem is, for the people that vote the way they do, they don't see an alternative. Some of them face very real, not exaggerated, threats. And yet they're trapped in this vast voting machine which isn't guaranteed to be good (ethically, or even politically - if that's possible). But the choice is better than the other team.

And yes, "the lesser of two evils" sucks. All evils suck. But that doesn't stop it from being the situation folks in the US are stuck with. Where you possibly disagree is that they're stuck with such, but that's another argument.