[Spheric Harlot]

For full context, here’s what Popper wrote:

„Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.“

Those who must not be tolerated are those who cannot be countered by rational argument nor kept in check by public opinion.

That is precisely the slippery slope social media campaigns and propaganda hook into. And there is a point where the deluge can no longer be countered by rational argument.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This implies there is no value in playing fair, there is no downside to playing unfair,

The upsides to playing fair and downsides to playing unfair only exist if information is free, transparent, and true.

If, as part of playing unfair, one side invests billions to study human psychology and take advantage of the brain's weaknesses to control narratives, suppress damaging information, and invent lies that a significant portion of the population believes, the advantages of playing fair are significantly eroded.

The only limits on playing unfair are what the public lets you do, noting that you're using your propaganda machine to steer their response. Then you gerrymander voting districts and stack the courts so that now you only have to get 30% of people to agree with you and you maintain power. Now you can do even more unfair things because you've handicapped the mechanism for the public to respond negatively to your unfairness. I don't see how the people playing fair are putting any kind of limits or setting the standards for the unfair group.

The entire Trump campaign and administration was one huge "oh shit I guess we can do that, too."

and thus the best response to those who play unfair is to abandon one’s principles.

I feel like it was a bit of a jump to get there from what I said. I don't think the best response is to abandon one's principles, though I have seen many many people advocate for this. Honestly, I'm a bit defeatist about it all. It feels like we're too far down the rabbit hole and that money is going to win in the end.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I feel like it was a bit of a jump to get there from what I said.

Is it?

I appreciate you stick to your principles, but that last paragraph makes it sound like there’s no small degree of pointlessness to doing so.

[reader50]

Citizen groups have been passing ballot initiatives that undo gerrymandering in assorted states. It's slowly being banned at the state level. Not sure if I've read anything about banning voter suppression, it seems more like vote registration drives have been coaching people through the obstacle courses to successfully register.

The Biden administration + Dem Senate have been prioritizing judicial appointments, with a steady stream of non-corrupt appointments. Likely to continue at least through 2024.

I wouldn't give up on the correction mechanisms - they're slowly getting unblocked.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it?

I appreciate you stick to your principles, but that last paragraph makes it sound like there’s no small degree of pointlessness to doing so.

There are ways to effect change while still playing fair, though those means and methods are being limited and eliminated by Republican legislation. Maybe being in Iowa, a place where they're handed legislation written by the Heritage Foundation and they pass it without pause makes me a bit more cynical about it all.

Iowa is currently working on a bill to limit the state AG's ability to audit the state.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...s/70134933007/

Backstory - there is a lone Democrat in Iowa government right now, the only sane person in an asylum run by the inmates. He somehow got reelected last time around, so they're trying to limit what he can do. He has been a thorn in our governor's side, calling out her bullshit.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-state-auditor

All of that being said, chaos benefits the authoritarians/fascists, so if both sides decide to play unfair, it would only benefit the bad people. That's why I don't think it's pointless to stick to fair principles - not that I'm committed to being fair, but that going unfair (spreading fake news, only holding your opponents accountable for bad actions but excusing your side, trying to restrict voting locations and times in rural areas to reduce Republican votes, etc.) would in the end still disproportionately benefit Republicans through the further erosion of truth and the reliability and transparency of information.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Those who must not be tolerated are those who cannot be countered by rational argument nor kept in check by public opinion.

That is precisely the slippery slope social media campaigns and propaganda hook into. And there is a point where the deluge can no longer be countered by rational argument.

Not sticking to norms is also much more subtle than pitchforks. Maybe it shows my age, but I come at this from a parenting angle: what feels right to me is re-establishing boundaries, making clear why you are doing something and stay true to your word. Maybe that isn't enough, but like Laminar wrote, I don't think destroying the country/political system you want to live in in order to save it makes sense. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.

[subego]

Just a note I haven’t bailed. Lots of shit in my way right now.

[Thorzdad]

As of today, Florida juries only need an 8-4 vote to impose the death penalty.

[reader50]

It's not as bad as it sounds. They still need 12-0 to convict of murder. It's only at the sentencing phase, where the 8-4 can apply. Almost all states require 12-0 for both stages.

[Thorzdad]

How dare you ask me to stop shooting my gun!

[andi*pandi]

right wing take on twitter: none of them were americans, who cares if a mexican shoots a bunch of hondurans. Biden's border crisis. Yay guns!

[OreoCookie]

This is the most American story ever (in a bad way): neighbor asks guy to stop shooting his AR15 in his garden so his kid could sleep. Guy proceeds to kill the neighbor’s family. Police look for the guy on horse. You can’t make this up, it’s so absurd.

[subego]

Sorry again for the delay!

Originally Posted by Laminar 

There are ways to effect change while still playing fair, though those means and methods are being limited and eliminated by Republican legislation.

Is the legislature the only arena in which the game is played?

You linked to the Des Moines Register. Are they not involved in the game? Are they GOP shills?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the legislature the only arena in which the game is played?

Laws control the flow of money. The game is played everywhere, but the legislature is what directs funds. Especially lately, the legislature has been a very effective place to stoke up the culture wars, with recent bills "affirming" the 2nd amendment, passing explicit anti-trans legislation, and private school vouchers so all of the Christian school kids I see every day riding to school in Escalades and QX60s get $7600/year to cover tuition.

You linked to the Des Moines Register. Are they not involved in the game? Are they GOP shills?

In that essentially all mass-media is owned by the billionaire class, then yes they are shills for the establishment/GOP. The Des Moines Register has historically leaned left. The only Republican presidential candidates they've endorsed in the last 50 years are Romney and Nixon.

[Thorzdad]

I witnessed my first DeSantis For President commercial this morning and, holy shit, this is going to be ugly. It’s a direct move against Trump, ending with a guy putting a DeSantis bumpersticker over his old Trump bumpersticker.

I hadn’t heard that DeSantis had officially declared, but I guess it’s on now. FWIW, the ad ran on the cable network HGTV. My wife likes to watch the home renovation shows and it came on during one. Ugh. I hate thinking we’re in the demographic (at least age-wise) they’re after.

[reader50]

DeSantis is polling well behind Trump among Republican voters. So he has to target Trump hard.

Sit back and enjoy the fun. Let the hair fly.

[Thorzdad]

Yeah, I expected him to go after Trump, it just through me for a loop to see because I hadn’t heard DeSantis had declared he’s running.

It’s a slick ad. It doesn’t say anything negative about Trump. It just features white people (a lot of seemingly-suburban couples) listening to clips from DeSantis’ speeches, and the bumpersticker thing at the end. Kinda subtle, I guess.

[reader50]

DeSantis hasn't declared. Your ad was probably a PAC testing the waters.

[OreoCookie]

In my mind De Santis lost his shot when he started defending Trump and went overboard by publicly thinking about “not allowing to extradite him” from Florida. Just look at e. g. when the last two, three leaders in the UK jumped the shark: their colleagues and allies stopped defending them and simply stayed silent instead. De Santis should have just kept his mouth shut. But he didn't, which made him look subservient.

I think the actual race (= top two for the GOP nomination) will be between Trump and someone who is not in the discussion at the moment.

[Laminar]

DeSantis has been fighting the culture war hard in Florida, enough that he's a household name, and a conservative "hero" for those that get triggered by conversations about being kind.

He's had a spot on Hulu here for a while now, it's really bad, like from a technical perspective. "Steel isn't forged overnight"...yeah no shit steel is forged in much less time than that.

https://twitter.com/rumpfshaker/stat...57509383974912

"And after all of that blasting and casting..."

Wait are we talking about forged steel or cast steel now? Those are very different processes. The analogy doesn't hold up at all.

And they had to go two generations back to find anyone down to earth enough to claim "blue collar roots."

[Thorzdad]

George Santos turned himself in and is now in Federal custody. The charges against him are seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.

[Spheric Harlot]

Wow.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

George Santos turned himself in and is now in Federal custody. The charges against him are seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.

What surprises me is that McCarthy still hasn't called for Santos' resignation, at this stage it should be clear that Santos is going down and it isn't because “the libs or the liberal activist deep state” is after another “poor conservative”.

[Spheric Harlot]

Will he at least have to pay everything back and forfeit his pension?

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What surprises me is that McCarthy still hasn't called for Santos' resignation, at this stage it should be clear that Santos is going down and it isn't because “the libs or the liberal activist deep state” is after another “poor conservative”.

Republicans have such a thin margin of majority in the House that McCarthy needs every vote available, and tossing Santos to the curb would likely anger some republicans.

And angering house republicans could also put his tenure as speaker in jeopardy, which is probably the real reason he hasn’t acted on Santos. It’s also why he’s likely to let the US default.

[christ]

I fail to see how democracy can survive when elected officers don't agree to abide by the result of an election.

[andi*pandi]

Silly you thinking votes count - it's who yells loudest afterward! Especially if you spend the whole election poisoning the well and outright saying you will never concede.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by christ 

I fail to see how democracy can survive when elected officers don't agree to abide by the result of an election.

You’re assuming today’s republicans care about democracy surviving.

[Spheric Harlot]

No, he‘s pointing out that democracy will not survive the way elected officials are currently behaving.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No, he‘s pointing out that democracy will not survive the way elected officials are currently behaving.

Precisely.

I am surprised at how unconcerned the world appears to be as we watch what appears to be the death throes of democracy in the country that is ostensibly the standard bearer for that political system. I am equally surprised that Americans don't seem that worried, and appear to just shrug their shoulders at the behaviour of the elected officials. Has anyone considered that the 2024 election may be the last for a generation?

[reader50]

The non-democratic stuff is almost entirely a Republican theme. Officials behave normally outside that party. There are rare exceptions, like the NY state Dems trying to gerrymander. But tuning out reality and trying to break elections is very much a one-party affair.

Those antics have cost Republicans two generations of young people and counting. Have cost them large chunks of the female vote, and most minorities. It's arguably cost Rs a lot in the last three national elections. So long as they keep it up, more young people come of age to vote against them. And more older voters die off.

The most likely 2024 matchup is Biden vs Trump or DeSantis. In either case, I don't see how Biden can lose. Not even with his low popularity. Voters already rejected Trump, and DeSantis isn't popular outside Florida. DeSantis has also been scaring away business groups with his war on Disney. So both demographic trends and business donations trend against Republicans today.

Everyone does need to turn out and vote. But I don't see democracy losing in the US. Just threatened.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Everyone does need to turn out and vote. But I don't see democracy losing in the US. Just threatened.

I am more concerned than you are. A lot of people imagine democracies decaying as something binary, one day you have it, the next day you don't. It is a lot more subtle. There are quite a few countries (e. g. Hungary, Turkey, Poland) where you still have a lot of democratic features like elections, but the opposition has to overcome such high hurdles, it is no longer a fair fight between political ideas.

• A significant share of the electorate seems to not believe in the outcome of elections.
• A significant share of politicians circumvent the spirit of the law and disparage the political system.
• The political system has become quite sclerotic, unable to change and adapt.
• Regular things like budgets need to be passed with extraordinary measures.
• Money has a huge outsized influence in politics. Election campaigns have become embarrassingly expensive.
• Politicians are rarely held responsible for their actions.

[Spheric Harlot]

reader50 does seem remarkably unconcerned, given that the last election actually ended in the loser inciting a violent overthrow of the government that came within fifty feet of assassinating the vice president.

It’s not like ANY measures have been taken to bolster democratic process and weed out those who are actively working to destroy it.

I would be terrified and LOUD if it were my country, not complacent.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

reader50 does seem remarkably unconcerned, given that the last election actually ended in the loser inciting a violent overthrow of the government that came within fifty feet of assassinating the vice president.

I expect the Secret Service would have used lethal force to defend the VP. The rioters would have lost that match-up. Reminder: both sides almost completely avoided firearms.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It’s not like ANY measures have been taken to bolster democratic process and weed out those who are actively working to destroy it.

I think we're around 1,000 rioters prosecuted. Convictions are happening. Prosecution steps ongoing against Trump. Extra security and fencing around the Capitol area during sensitive dates. Lots of FBI attention following right-wing activities. Ongoing efforts to register more young people to vote, and to combat abortion restrictions. While we haven't seen a knockout punch (and I don't expect one), the above pushbacks are substantial.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I would be terrified and LOUD if it were my country, not complacent.

Fear or complacency - neither are useful responses. May I remind you of what I was responding to:

Originally Posted by christ 

... as we watch what appears to be the death throes of democracy in the {USA}. ... Has anyone considered that the 2024 election may be the last for a generation?

The situation is concerning, and requires ongoing attention - which is happening. But "death throes of democracy" or "2024 the last election" - no. The sky isn't falling. At least, not yet.

I wasn't arguing for complacency. More like, don't panic. Our democratic institutions are pushing back. And demographic trends are on our side.

[Spheric Harlot]

WTF, man.

But for sheer incompetence of the moron insurrectionists and good luck, the 2020 election would have been the last one for a generation.

Weren’t you watching or have you forgotten already?

And right now, I’m not seeing anything “pushing back”. They’re going right for it again, and this time, they won’t fail.

[subego]

Coups don’t happen unless the military is on board.

[christ]

Originally Posted by reader50 

The situation is concerning, and requires ongoing attention - which is happening. But "death throes of democracy" or "2024 the last election" - no. The sky isn't falling. At least, not yet.

If the "attention" is happening, it is not happening in any visible way. We have watched the US Supreme Court be subverted for (at least) a generation, and the Democrats appear exactly as unconcerned by the Republican presidential election antics as they did in 2016. "It's alright, they are too extreme to win" didn't work then, and may well not work now. Relying on the incumbent winning is a little risky, as he (regardless of the actual result) was run very close in 2020 - if the result had been a landslide the protests would have been a deal less plausible - and he is a good deal less popular now than he was then.

... and I seriously expect a Republican president to suspend elections if one gets elected (only until they can be "guaranteed to be fair", of course). About the only surprise of the last Republican presidency is that he didn't do that, but he genuinely expected to win, so missed the opportunity.

[subego]

Doesn’t suspending elections require a declaration of martial law?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I expect the Secret Service would have used lethal force to defend the VP. The rioters would have lost that match-up. Reminder: both sides almost completely avoided firearms.

Given that the Secret Service personnel was hugely outnumbered, I don't know whether they could have protected the VP. Yes, they would have killed quite a few people first, but I think after people start dying left and right, I think that would have made the mob even more aggressive.

Originally Posted by reader50 

I think we're around 1,000 rioters prosecuted. Convictions are happening. Prosecution steps ongoing against Trump. Extra security and fencing around the Capitol area during sensitive dates. Lots of FBI attention following right-wing activities. Ongoing efforts to register more young people to vote, and to combat abortion restrictions. While we haven't seen a knockout punch (and I don't expect one), the above pushbacks are substantial.

Around elections very little, perhaps nothing has changed for the better. Unless I missed it, Congress hasn't even passed the minimal law the Jan 6 commission proposed that would clarify that the VP's role is purely ceremonial. And Trump is still leading the polls in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Fear or complacency - neither are useful responses. May I remind you of what I was responding to:

Fear is a useful response, e. g. there are plenty of ex special forces guys who emphasize this point. I think the word you meant was “panic”, not fear. Fear only tells you that something serious might go wrong, but does not necessarily block your decision making processes. The important thing is not being paralyzed by fear. Still, I think the US political system's and the people's reaction to the threat is grossly insufficient to the threat.

Originally Posted by reader50 

The situation is concerning, and requires ongoing attention - which is happening. But "death throes of democracy" or "2024 the last election" - no. The sky isn't falling. At least, not yet.

That's the wrong event to look out for. When did democracy die in Hungary? When did it die in Turkey? Did it really die in Turkey, after all, they just had a close presidential election this weekend? I think you won't really feel it, reader. There won't necessarily be a Rubicon that will be crossed. The US has been categorized as a flawed democracy for close to a decade. While it has a long way until it reaches the score of Turkey (“hybrid regime”, 4.35 points vs. 7.85) and Hungary (6.64), I reckon this is the real danger.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Doesn’t suspending elections require a declaration of martial law?

Let's say we have a state do what they tried in 2020, Biden wins an otherwise red state and the state assembly overrides the vote of the people. The state officially sends Republican electors to the Electoral College, which tips the scale in Trump's favor. What do you do? I don't think the US Constitution has a simple solution in store. It gives explicitly states the right to handle federal elections. *But* I don't think that means that the state assembly can simply override the vote of the local population. Or can it?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Let's say we have a state do what they tried in 2020, Biden wins an otherwise red state and the state assembly overrides the vote of the people. The state officially sends Republican electors to the Electoral College, which tips the scale in Trump's favor. What do you do? I don't think the US Constitution has a simple solution in store. It gives explicitly states the right to handle federal elections. *But* I don't think that means that the state assembly can simply override the vote of the local population. Or can it?

That question pertains to the Independent State Legislature theory. Pushed by some red states, it tries to interpret the US Constitution to apply Presidential election choice to the state legislature. Regardless of what a state constitution or state supreme court says, or how the people vote. It's a particular favorite of swing states who have gerrymandered legislatures dominated by Republicans.

If SCOTUS ever buys into the ISL theory, that would be incredibly dangerous. Though I think it would cause riots in any state that tried switching their electors after the vote. People don't like having their rights and choices taken away. Especially rights they've had all their lives.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

That question pertains to the Independent State Legislature theory. Pushed by some red states, it tries to interpret the US Constitution to apply Presidential election choice to the state legislature.

Yes, and I see a non-zero probability that this legal theory will be tested if Biden wins a second time against Trump. Do you agree? If not, why? (As far as I can tell, we came quite close to that scenario, most “alternate electors” have taken a deal to avoid serious legal consequences …)

Originally Posted by reader50 

If SCOTUS ever buys into the ISL theory, that would be incredibly dangerous. Though I think it would cause riots in any state that tried switching their electors after the vote. People don't like having their rights and choices taken away. Especially rights they've had all their lives.

Maybe, but what would you do if your vote was taken away practically?

[reader50]

It would not happen in CA. In a purple state with gerrymandered red legislature, I'd expect mass demonstrations calling for the legislators to resign who voted to steal their state's votes. And it could well evolve into a J-6 type of state capital invasion when they don't resign.

Corrupt lawmakers call the demonstrators "rioters" for disagreeing with them, and demand force be used to disperse the protestors. As such a state often has a Dem governor (gerrymandering doesn't work against state-wide offices), police make minimal effort to clear the demonstrators. Gradual escalation ensues, as neither side backs down.

If the state has a Rep governor, the situation escalates a lot faster.

We aren't there yet, and it won't happen at all if 2024 isn't close. There would be no point, if altering one (or two) state totals would not change the winner.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Doesn’t suspending elections require a declaration of martial law?

No, it just requires making enough changes to turn them into a meaningless formality.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by reader50 

If SCOTUS ever buys into the ISL theory, that would be incredibly dangerous. Though I think it would cause riots in any state that tried switching their electors after the vote. People don't like having their rights and choices taken away. Especially rights they've had all their lives.

Well, we've all seen how protests are handled in the United States by the powers-that-be, and how effective they are, haven't we.

Conveniently, police have been thoroughly militarised and armoured over the past few decades and should be able to deal with anything up to a rising civil war.

Good luck.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by reader50 

We aren't there yet, and it won't happen at all if 2024 isn't close. There would be no point, if altering one (or two) state totals would not change the winner.

You don't see a likelihood of 2024 being like 2020, or 2016, or 2004, or 2000?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Let's say we have a state do what they tried in 2020, Biden wins an otherwise red state and the state assembly overrides the vote of the people. The state officially sends Republican electors to the Electoral College, which tips the scale in Trump's favor. What do you do? I don't think the US Constitution has a simple solution in store. It gives explicitly states the right to handle federal elections. *But* I don't think that means that the state assembly can simply override the vote of the local population. Or can it?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No, it just requires making enough changes to turn them into a meaningless formality.

So, not suspended elections?

[Spheric Harlot]

Oreo and I are not christ. I doubt even the current GOP would give up the pretense of "democratic" elections, even if they've already managed to rig many them almost beyond the point of no return (gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, voter registration shenanigans, etc.).

[subego]

If someone quotes my post, I assume the reply refers to what’s quoted.

[christ]

Originally Posted by subego 

Doesn’t suspending elections require a declaration of martial law?

Nothing appears to be "required" when the President and SCOTUS agree. What is the procedure to tell the President that what he has done is illegal?

Lets' assume that the President suspends elections due to "clear and obvious interference": Someone, somewhere, has the balls to call him on it (it is not clear to me who this "someone" would be) - if it gets to court then elections remain suspended until the matter is escalated, presumably all the way to the SCOTUS, which will firmly obviously side with their prime benefactor. (Extenuating circumstances obviously allow Executive powers to be used in any way that the President decides)

I think that people who are relying on the "He can't do that" defence really need to start worrying.