2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Patine]

It's not bipartisan, it's universal. No one was any kind of beacon of truth and light, especially at first. But there's a big difference between saying "blame is bipartisan" and "in the end, Trump's failures have been massively more negatively impactful than that of any other public figure".

I would say the Green Party USA is the notable U.S. political party that really lacks any blame or culpability at all, really. The Libertarian and Constitution Parties supported the "lack of enforceability of mandatory COVID-19 restrictions because of absolute views of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights," the Peace and Justice Party and the Party of Socialism and Liberation were BIG supporters of BLM rallies, where the disease was spread just as much as at big Trump rallies, and the utter apathy on the matter of the Reform/Delta hybrid ticket of De la Fuante is appalling. But the Republicans (not just Trump, alone - Medieval Monarchists, take note) have an immense deal of responsibility, too, but so do Democrats, especially with certain State and Local Governments dominated by them, and a number of clumsy maneuvers in Congress.

 

[Colonel]

I would say the Green Party USA is the notable U.S. political party that really lacks any blame or culpability at all, really. The Libertarian and Constitution Parties supported the "lack of enforceability of mandatory COVID-19 restrictions because of absolute views of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights," the Peace and Justice Party was a HUGE supporter of BLM rallies, where the disease was spread just as much as big Trump rallies, and the utter apathy on the matter of the Reform/Delta hybrid ticket of De la Fuante is appalling. But the Republicans (not just Trump, alone - Medieval Monarchists, take note) have a great deal of responsibility, too, but so do Democrats, especially with certain State and Local Governments dominated by them, and a number of clumsy maneuvers in Congress.

So heres where I will adamantly disagree. Trump and the Republican party at the national level hold all the blame for this disaster of a response to COVID. Democrats controlled one chamber of Congress, one which passed numerous relief bills which never made it to the floor of the Senate. President Trump held mass rallies which have been proven to increase the spread of the disease, ala his staff and protective details. Additionally, the House can't impose a national response plan, the house can't mobilize the US military, nor the Guard from the many states, legally speaking Democrats have held no authority to respond beyond the relief bills that as I have stated were dead on arrival to the Senate. President Trump holds all the levers of executive authority and has throughout this pandemic, the federal government's failure to respond rests solely on his shoulders.

As for Democrats any at the state level I can say might have mismanaged things for their state however without an over arching federal plan I can hardly say they did wrong intentionally. Additionally, without said federal response it is nearly impossible to contain any sort of virus. There is a reason that the federal government has plans in place to respond to deadly contagions, President Trump decided to throw those plans out the window.

 

[aelf]

Interesting theory. Legislatively, might have been impossible. Governments restricting what people can buy can be done with a stroke of the pen, sure, but it's not legally easy.

I know you think 'lying caused more damage'. But I don't think you've unpacked the history. Originally people were buying PPE for self-protection, which wasn't going to be very useful (for many well-articulated reasons). When the story changes to stopping asymptomatic spread (where homemade masks are useful), the zeitgeist changed.

But, ehn, you'll think what you want. Like I keep saying, I was following the masks discussion at a different level.

Speaking from a place that had this issue as well, the initial (false) assertion that masks were not needed did significantly erode public confidence in prevailing official advice, lengthening the period it took to get people to buy into the idea of mask effectiveness later on.

 

[Zardnaar]

So heres where I will adamantly disagree. Trump and the Republican party at the national level hold all the blame for this disaster of a response to COVID. Democrats controlled one chamber of Congress, one which passed numerous relief bills which never made it to the floor of the Senate. President Trump held mass rallies which have been proven to increase the spread of the disease, ala his staff and protective details. Additionally, the House can't impose a national response plan, the house can't mobilize the US military, nor the Guard from the many states, legally speaking Democrats have held no authority to respond beyond the relief bills that as I have stated were dead on arrival to the Senate. President Trump holds all the levers of executive authority and has throughout this pandemic, the federal government's failure to respond rests solely on his shoulders.

As for Democrats any at the state level I can say might have mismanaged things for their state however without an over arching federal plan I can hardly say they did wrong intentionally. Additionally, without said federal response it is nearly impossible to contain any sort of virus. There is a reason that the federal government has plans in place to respond to deadly contagions, President Trump decided to throw those plans out the window.

This is all true.

 

[Samson]

Trump supporter gave $2.5 million to the legal fight, now wants it back

A Donald Trump supporter who donated $2.5m to help expose and prosecute claims of fraud in the presidential election wants his money back after what he says are “disappointing results”.
Fredric Eshelman, a businessman from North Carolina, said he gave the money to True the Vote, a pro-Trump “election ethics” group in Texas that promised to file lawsuits in seven swing states as part of its push to “investigate, litigate, and expose suspected illegal balloting and fraud in the 2020 general election”.
But according to a lawsuit Eshelman filed this week in Houston, first reported by Bloomberg, True the Vote dropped its legal actions and discontinued its Validate the Vote 2020 campaign, then refused to return his calls when he demanded an explanation.
The founder of Eshelman Ventures llc, a venture capital company, said he asked “regularly and repeatedly” for updates, the lawsuit asserts, but that his “requests were consistently met with vague responses, platitudes, and empty promises”.​

It is one of those cases where I kind of want them both to lose.

Trump 'voter fraud hotline' inundated by prank calls

A “voter-fraud” hotline set up by Donald Trump’s campaign team has been on the receiving end of a slew of prank calls after being targeted by TikTok and Twitter users.
Citing unnamed sources, the ABC reports that the hotline, which is being run by campaign staff from the headquarters of the re-election campaign headquarters in Virginia, has turned into a “nightmare”, with staffers answering “prank calls from people laughing or mocking them over Biden’s win before hanging up”.
Some have also received “disturbing unsolicited adult images” and calls from “lefty teenagers”, according to Axios reporter Jonathan Swan.​

It is 1-888-630-1776 if you have some critical voting issues to raise. Please do not call if you are a lefty teenager, but I am sure there are none of them here.

 

[amadeus]

$2,500,000?!

That’s even dumber than the $500,000 someone gave before. Five times dumber by my calculations.

I wonder if I should call the hotline. There was no physical voting place near me, so my only choice would have been to mail in a ballot.

 

[Patine]

So heres where I will adamantly disagree. Trump and the Republican party at the national level hold all the blame for this disaster of a response to COVID. Democrats controlled one chamber of Congress, one which passed numerous relief bills which never made it to the floor of the Senate. President Trump held mass rallies which have been proven to increase the spread of the disease, ala his staff and protective details. Additionally, the House can't impose a national response plan, the house can't mobilize the US military, nor the Guard from the many states, legally speaking Democrats have held no authority to respond beyond the relief bills that as I have stated were dead on arrival to the Senate. President Trump holds all the levers of executive authority and has throughout this pandemic, the federal government's failure to respond rests solely on his shoulders.

As for Democrats any at the state level I can say might have mismanaged things for their state however without an over arching federal plan I can hardly say they did wrong intentionally. Additionally, without said federal response it is nearly impossible to contain any sort of virus. There is a reason that the federal government has plans in place to respond to deadly contagions, President Trump decided to throw those plans out the window.

When did the United States, legally speaking, become an elective executive dictatorship with a powerless legislative branch and all 50 State Governments run by Republicans? You make it sound dangerously close to Russia...

 

[amadeus]

When did the United States, legally speaking, become an elective executive dictatorship with a powerless legislative branch and all 50 State Governments run by Republicans? You make it sound dangerously close to Russia...

1789-present.

 

[Patine]

1789-present.

The Founding Fathers intended the U.S. President as a simple vehicle of convenience to circumvent certain unpleasant necessities of Nationhood, but ideally a weak office - a steward of administration and a warden of order - not even guiding legislative agendas and only using the then-ill-defined executive orders and the Presidential veto as sparingly as the good china, with true power of governance being in the hands of Congress and the States, empowered and legitimized by, "You the People." The year that system started being corrupted, suborned, and hijacked by power-hungry schemers came significantly later.

 

[amadeus]

It was meant as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek pedant, @Patine, as I don't think I can say any one event in American history solidified the federal government as an "elective executive dictatorship," though nor would I go so far as to call it that. The growth of the federal government into the instrument that it is today has been gradual and piecemeal, not sudden and all-encroaching. I guess as far as I see it neither party has a monopoly on eroding the role of the individual state even when the GOP often posits itself as the standard-bearer for the states; take the proposed amendment to the Constitution forbidding gay marriage in the '90s (ridiculous!) as such evidence.

I'm boring myself now with politics. Let's do something interesting instead!

 

[Berzerker]

One of them never changed his tune. The others did. Let me expand on your "chain of events", bold are my contributions

I trust that answers your question, you're welcome

I asked for the moral distinction between Trump and the Dems spreading Fauci's lie and you give them a pass because you think the lie was justified. I dont remember the Dems giving Trump any passes and the lie was not justified.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I asked for the moral distinction between Trump and the Dems spreading Fauci's lie and you give them a pass because you think the lie was justified. I dont remember the Dems giving Trump any passes and the lie was not justified.

Trump has told thousands upon thousands of lies in his 4 years and he keeps telling them now. The liar in chief deserves no passes. His first lie as president was when he agreed to his oath of office.

 

[Takhisis]

I brought this upon myself. I've talked so much about a Donald J. Trump Presidential Library and Ketchup Steakhouse complex that now people are floating the possibility of Melania publishing an autobiography. Melania Trump, published author! O tempora, o mores!

 

[amadeus]

The second Yugo to be unceremoniously retired from the American marketplace.

 

[Kyriakos]

$2,500,000?!

That’s even dumber than the $500,000 someone gave before. Five times dumber by my calculations.

I wonder if I should call the hotline. There was no physical voting place near me, so my only choice would have been to mail in a ballot.

And at least in the case of Lindsay Graham, he donated it due to political aspirations.
This businessman just felt like losing 2,5 million.

There are worse, though. Recall Bloomberg, who could have actually helped people by donating those hundreds of millions to them instead of propping up the Dnc's choice.

 

[amadeus]

Bloomberg at least got some joy out of it. I wonder if his campaign could be written off as entertainment expenses.

 

[Colonel]

The Founding Fathers intended the U.S. President as a simple vehicle of convenience to circumvent certain unpleasant necessities of Nationhood, but ideally a weak office - a steward of administration and a warden of order - not even guiding legislative agendas and only using the then-ill-defined executive orders and the Presidential veto as sparingly as the good china, with true power of governance being in the hands of Congress and the States, empowered and legitimized by, "You the People." The year that system started being corrupted, suborned, and hijacked by power-hungry schemers came significantly later.

I'm beginning to realize you have no comprehension when it comes to American democracy. The President is an elected office which is empowered by the Constitution and the various subsequent laws that have been passed. The US is not as you called it an "elective dictatorship". My point in the previous post was that epidemic response was vested in the Federal Executive, thus blaming democrats for President Trump's failures is insanity.

You seem to have this overwhelming hatred of American Democracy. Though we have our many faults we are the best and truest form of representative government. The issues you keep stating about having a duopoly system, which you believe is somehow corrupt on a mass scale simply isn't true. The system is working as designed, the founders envisioned partisanship, they envisioned parties, they envisioned a system which by design should have stopped President Trump from being elected in the first place. There is an extreme danger with populist movement, (see Hitler, Russia's conversion to Communist, etc), Slow incremental change is how one needs to govern, extremes that go too far either way result in mass protests, violence, etc. Your insistence on a multi-party system would increase the likelihood of another President Trump.

 

[Kyriakos]

If Israel can have a multi-party system, surely the US can too

 

[Lexicus]

Though we have our many faults we are the best and truest form of representative government.

I mostly agree with your defense against Patine here but I have to say this is just ridiculous. A number of other countries have clearly superior systems of representative government, and the US system is a premodern mess. The one-two punch of a man like Trump reaching the Presidency in 2016, and then an apparent inability to deliver a mandate for strong change in the moment of greatest crisis since the Second World War in 2020 shows this all too clearly.

The system is working as designed

And that's exactly how we know the design is garbage.

they envisioned a system which by design should have stopped President Trump from being elected in the first place.

You mean the system which by design gave Trump, the white supremacist candidate, a massive structural advantage? The system which was designed to give the slaveholding South a stranglehold on Presidential elections by applying the 3/5ths compromise to them? That system?

Slow incremental change is how one needs to govern,

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

It's one thing to say that change will be incremental because the forces of evil constantly try to stop change; it's quite another to fetishize incremental change for its own sake. Incrementalism in the face of crisis that demands immediate action is suicidal.

 

[Hrothbern]

The Founding Fathers intended the U.S. President as a simple vehicle of convenience to circumvent certain unpleasant necessities of Nationhood, but ideally a weak office - a steward of administration and a warden of order - not even guiding legislative agendas and only using the then-ill-defined executive orders and the Presidential veto as sparingly as the good china, with true power of governance being in the hands of Congress and the States, empowered and legitimized by, "You the People." The year that system started being corrupted, suborned, and hijacked by power-hungry schemers came significantly later.

Is that so ?
What I understand the founding fathers took a good look at the structure of the Dutch Republic, the only existing Republic at that time of some size and succes, and also protestant.
The Dutch Republic being a confederation with well established institutes and having no President, but a secretary-general as a kind of PM. There was a high nobility Stadholder for close to ornamental functions, as head of diplomacy-foreign affairs and commander in chief of the army when at war. But no hard power in the domestic politics. No legislative power and no treasury power.
A Confederation with a by the founding fathers vaguely understood opaque role for the "Head of State" the Stadholder. They did not really understand that the Secretary General was the bargaining deal maker between the factions and provinces of the United Provinces
The Founding Father preferred a much more clear Leader, much more like the traditional French and British Kings.