Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Fugus]

I just don't understand why the Americans don't just march on the Whitehouse and pull a Mussolini on Trump and his staff. Genuinely, every single one of their actions since the election results have been announced are at least signaling an intent to do longstanding harm to the country, and at worst signal an intent to attempt treason.

Because his term isn't officially ended until January 20th. After that moment, then things go down but as it stands, he is still legally entitled to be there.

[Kaleredar]

I just don't understand why the Americans don't just march on the Whitehouse and pull a Mussolini on Trump and his staff. Genuinely, every single one of their actions since the election results have been announced are at least signaling an intent to do longstanding harm to the country, and at worst signal an intent to attempt treason.

Trump is still the President until January 20th. That he's acting like a petulant man-child and an embarrassment to the country is merely par the course for every day of the last four rotten years of his presidency.

Frankly I prefer the dispassionate mechanism of law to remove someone like Trump from office, and I see no reason to believe that he wont be duly removed when his time comes. That for all his ranting and raving, for all his attempted authoritarian strong-arming and fronting like a big man, that the wheels of the American legal system will grind on without giving him a second thought and leave him squarely behind, hopefully consigning him to a sad note in the history books and, if New York State has its way, a jail cell.

[Flower Milk]

Black Lives Matter is in a better place than it was five years ago, I'd argue in large part due to many celebrities, media outlets, and so forth supporting the movement quite publicly in recent months. However that's not to say that people still don't completely misinterpret the meaning of the slogan.

But the reason "Black Lives Matter" is a better slogan than "Defund the Police" is a simple manner of what each slogan, taken by itself, is positing. Simply look at the inverse of each sentiment; the notion that each sentiment is implicitly trying to contend with.

The inverse of "Black lives matter" is not "all lives matter..." someone claiming the inverse would be saying "Black lives don't matter," which obviously most people do not agree with. Which is why that slogan was created in the first place... because they felt that black lives were not valued. It is instilling the proper human value in the lives of black people that they feel is being ignored.

The most logical inverse of "Defund the Police" is... well, "fund the police." You will find very few people who disagree with the simple notion that the police should be funded. The slogan makes no statement as to the degree of funding, where the funding is going, what the funding the police aren't getting is going to do, etc, etc. That grey area is why the slogan fails.

That people can misconstrue something as simple and fairly straightforward as "Black Lives Matter" shouldn't be a rallying cry to stick to a much worse slogan like "defund the police" and assume that people will get it, it should actually teach you how damn spot-on you actually need to be in your messaging.

What you're missing is that it's not like people who took to the streets to protests first went to a PR firm to get them to come up with good "branding" for the slogans they chanted. Nobody gives a shit if it's a good slogan or good branding or not if it needs explaining. If you're not willing to do the work explaining to your friends, family, colleagues why black lives should matter, how innocent, unarmed black people are murdered in the streets by police, then you're not willing to stand up for black lives. You don't just sit idly by watching innocent black people get murdered debating about what better slogan we could use to fight for them, it's pointless. And in 5 years we will be talking about some new "bad slogan" after Defund the Police has been thoroughly explained and accepted into the mainstream the same way Black Lives Matter has. Just give it up and get on the progress train already, join us.

This has been the largest civil rights protest movement in American history, do you really wanna tell your future kids that you spent it telling people about what a bad slogan "defund the police" is?

[beanman12345]

Well, I don't see how they can fight "Rebuild" cause it literally implies giving more money to the police (even if that's not the progressive goal).

I guess they could go "There is no systemic problem so why waste money rebuilding!?!?!?!" route, but......that's pretty weak.

I like Rebuild too actually. Anyone who researches will know the goal which is the same goal as defund, and the ignorant who don't care about anything but a slogan, and/or don't bother to research, are left thinking the goal is something positive(which it is) instead of negative. And those buttholes who would normally be against it, either are tricked into supporting it cause of the catchy slogan, or gonna be against it anyways cause fox says "dem's want this so it's bad" and ain't no winning those people over anyways.

[Zaydin]

I like Rebuild too actually. Anyone who researches will know the goal which is the same goal as defund, and the ignorant who don't care about anything but a slogan, and/or don't bother to research, are left thinking the goal is something positive(which it is) instead of negative. And those buttholes who would normally be against it, either are tricked into supporting it cause of the catchy slogan, or gonna be against it anyways cause fox says "dem's want this so it's bad" and ain't no winning those people over anyways.

I feel like "Reform" works better than "Rebuild" or "Defund", but that's just my two cents. More straightforward.

[eschatological]

I feel like "Reform" works better than "Rebuild" or "Defund", but that's just my two cents. More straightforward.

The problem with reform is that what we (as progressives) have been doing for decades is attempting to "reform" the police.

It's effectively a meaningless statement. And I think that that's been true in American politics for awhile now. The bite has been taken out of it, and it is easily disregarded by politicians who attempt meager policy changes without addressing root problems (like body cameras have turned out to be), and then claim they are reformers.

Rebuilding has a cultural touchstone for the decaying industry and infrastructure most of our citizens actually want to flourish again (even if that might seem unlikely).

[beanman12345]

I feel like "Reform" works better than "Rebuild" or "Defund", but that's just my two cents. More straightforward.

Reform is really good too. Also leaves ignorant people with the goal is something positive to improve it. I'll take either reform or rebuild if they work better then defund is currently working.

[zealo]

I just don't understand why the Americans don't just march on the Whitehouse and pull a Mussolini on Trump and his staff. Genuinely, every single one of their actions since the election results have been announced are at least signaling an intent to do longstanding harm to the country, and at worst signal an intent to attempt treason.

Stringing Trump and his staff up over a lamp post in a park wouldn't be an appropriate move here, his term hasn't actually ended yet, and when it does, there's other way more suitable avenues to deal with the situation if he refuses to budge.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Stringing Trump and his staff up over a lamp post in a park wouldn't be an appropriate move here, his term hasn't actually ended yet, and when it does, there's other way more suitable avenues to deal with the situation if he refuses to budge.

I would agree if his actions weren't so reminiscent of dictatorial states. He has, since the election, begun replacing pentagon officials with loyalists, there's concerns that he will be looking to replacing top CIA officials in a similar manner, and Mike Pompeo has begun assuring the press that they will begin transitioning into a second Trump presidency, effectively denying the results of the election. Obviously, I can't say for certain what will happen, but it's incredibly eerie and it seems to be getting to the point where I think it's more than reasonable to draw the conclusion that Trump and his team, at the very least, are getting ready to either cause long lasting damage to the country. It seems to be getting to a point where violence against previously elected officials is becoming an understandable course of action.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump is still the President until January 20th. That he's acting like a petulant man-child and an embarrassment to the country is merely par the course for every day of the last four rotten years of his presidency.

Frankly I prefer the dispassionate mechanism of law to remove someone like Trump from office, and I see no reason to believe that he wont be duly removed when his time comes. That for all his ranting and raving, for all his attempted authoritarian strong-arming and fronting like a big man, that the wheels of the American legal system will grind on without giving him a second thought and leave him squarely behind, hopefully consigning him to a sad note in the history books and, if New York State has its way, a jail cell.

If it weren't for his actions since the election, I would agree. However, his actions since then have been incredibly concerning. Positioning loyalists in military positions is, at best, either an attempt to intimidate his political opponents or an attempt to stymie the political efficacy of Biden once he has come into office, as replacing Trump's appointments will require, I believe, a vote in the Senate, which the Republicans control. Regardless, the rhetoric is not fantastic, especially with Trump and his degenerate family continuing to rile their base.

[Iphie]

I would agree if his actions weren't so reminiscent of dictatorial states. He has, since the election, begun replacing pentagon officials with loyalists, there's concerns that he will be looking to replacing top CIA officials in a similar manner, and Mike Pompeo has begun assuring the press that they will begin transitioning into a second Trump presidency, effectively denying the results of the election. Obviously, I can't say for certain what will happen, but it's incredibly eerie and it seems to be getting to the point where I think it's more than reasonable to draw the conclusion that Trump and his team, at the very least, are getting ready to either cause long lasting damage to the country. It seems to be getting to a point where violence against previously elected officials is becoming an understandable course of action.

- - - Updated - - -



If it weren't for his actions since the election, I would agree. However, his actions since then have been incredibly concerning. Positioning loyalists in military positions is, at best, either an attempt to intimidate his political opponents or an attempt to stymie the political efficacy of Biden once he has come into office, as replacing Trump's appointments will require, I believe, a vote in the Senate, which the Republicans control. Regardless, the rhetoric is not fantastic, especially with Trump and his degenerate family continuing to rile their base.

Yes...and right now he and his team are still acting within the law, that he may be plotting is irrelevant until the moment he acts upon it as he can, at any point, choose to not go through with a coup and then there's no reason to hang him. It's a very messed up situation where you can't do anything until the first move is made. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the dems now forcibly remove Trump? His base will see it as vindication of Trump's position and retaliate.

Letting Trump start this feels maybe not nice, but will be necessary.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Because his term isn't officially ended until January 20th. After that moment, then things go down but as it stands, he is still legally entitled to be there.

I would argue that an individual's right to stay in political office is only tenured by the willingness of the people to have them there.

If Trump is doing what some people believe he is, either looking to cause longstanding harm to the government or even, in the worst case, setting up what will be a failed coup attempt, the public and the military are fully within their rights to take action. Especially in the latter case, violent action, if no other means are available, is an option. Whether he is legally entitled to be there is immaterial.

[Pannonian]

Yes...and right now he and his team are still acting within the law, that he may be plotting is irrelevant until the moment he acts upon it as he can, at any point, choose to not go through with a coup and then there's no reason to hang him. It's a very messed up situation where you can't do anything until the first move is made. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the dems now forcibly remove Trump? His base will see it as vindication of Trump's position and retaliate.

Letting Trump start this feels maybe not nice, but will be necessary.

Sure about that?

If i make plans to rob a bank, get a team, get the plans and then decide to not do it, that's still illegal. If the police sees 4 masked people in front of a bank they don't have to wait for them to enter the bank and start shooting. They don't have to wait for the first move. The conspiracy itself is illegal, not only if it is also acted upon.

[Iphie]

Sure about that?

If i make plans to rob a bank, get a team, get the plans and then decide to not do it, that's still illegal. If the police sees 4 masked people in front of a bank they don't have to wait for them to enter the bank and start shooting. They don't have to wait for the first move. The conspiracy itself is illegal, not only if it is also acted upon.

Correct, but in that case there is no danger for a civil war, or at least the destabilization of a country. That's what I'm getting at.

You are right that planning can be illegal, but it can be very finicky, granted I look a it from the outside with a slightly different legal system where certain things may be illegal and others not.

Incidentally, similar scenario: 4 men with masks and pistols in front of a house, they have planned to commit a murder but decide against it, illegal or not? Where I am that is not illegal. (beyond the illegal gun possession probably)

This situation is difficult as, as I have pointed out before, there is a real chance of a not insignificant portion of the country actually supporting a move like that by Trump, and would come to his defense. Do you really want to give them a reason to rally to his side?

[Mormolyce]

No less than 5 years ago right wingers (and even some moderate Democrats) said that Black Lives Matter was confusing to them because "why can't all lives matter". Look at it now, I guess it was just a bad slogan because it had to be explained, right?

I think that one's not as bad, but it also allowed conservatives to endlessly lawyer the phrase.

- - - Updated - - -

I just don't understand why the Americans don't just march on the Whitehouse and pull a Mussolini on Trump and his staff. Genuinely, every single one of their actions since the election results have been announced are at least signaling an intent to do longstanding harm to the country, and at worst signal an intent to attempt treason.

How about an ultimatum? Trump has refused to transition power after a democratic election, ergo he is a textbook tyrant. If Second Amendment supporters don't get their guns and oust him, we can put to rest the notion that it is a defense against tyranny and repeal it.

[Magical Mudcrab]

How about an ultimatum? Trump has refused to transition power after a democratic election, ergo he is a textbook tyrant. If Second Amendment supporters don't get their guns and oust him, we can put to rest the notion that it is a defense against tyranny and repeal it.

I've been considering it a bit more, and I think the future will be more clear after the electoral college certifies the vote, which all states should have done by December. If Trump continues his course at that time, then it will become evident that he is a de facto tyrant, or would-be tyrant as I think he is likely to fail in any bid he makes. However, it is incredibly interesting how right-wing Americans, who from what I'm aware are typically more likely to defend the second amendment without or with very little condition, seem to be the ones accepting of tyrannical rule, or at least are ignorant of it. It does strangely follow that if people who defend the second amendment refuse to stand up in the face of tyranny, then it seems as though the second amendment is essentially nothing but vestigial legislation which no longer has any real meaning and should be removed.

[Kiri]

Correct, but in that case there is no danger for a civil war, or at least the destabilization of a country. That's what I'm getting at.

You are right that planning can be illegal, but it can be very finicky, granted I look a it from the outside with a slightly different legal system where certain things may be illegal and others not.

Incidentally, similar scenario: 4 men with masks and pistols in front of a house, they have planned to commit a murder but decide against it, illegal or not? Where I am that is not illegal. (beyond the illegal gun possession probably)

This situation is difficult as, as I have pointed out before, there is a real chance of a not insignificant portion of the country actually supporting a move like that by Trump, and would come to his defense. Do you really want to give them a reason to rally to his side?

If a civil war is what you are concerned about, the optics are irrelevant. Whether or not the Dems act before or after the first move is immaterial. The right wing networks will paint them as usurpers and sedistionists or whatever anyway. You think there is any Trump supporter out there that will go "I was going to riot against those election stealing Dems, but Trump made the first move to defend his presidency, so now I am not mad at Dems for moving against him"? His followers are already indoctrinated into thinking that Trump won the election and that Biden is illegitimate. Trump would not be in a conspiracy to stay in power to them, but fighting for the integrity of their democracy. The longer he is allowed to act with impunity like he has won the worse this will get, not better.

Mind you, I am still not on the Civil War train at all. I just don't think it would become any more likely if he is being punished if he is clearly going against the law.

[beanman12345]

Yes...and right now he and his team are still acting within the law, that he may be plotting is irrelevant until the moment he acts upon it as he can, at any point, choose to not go through with a coup and then there's no reason to hang him. It's a very messed up situation where you can't do anything until the first move is made. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the dems now forcibly remove Trump? His base will see it as vindication of Trump's position and retaliate.

Letting Trump start this feels maybe not nice, but will be necessary.

I agree in your point, but he ain't gonna do shit. The set up might look like a coup, but Esper was gonna be replaced regardless of if trump won or lost, he knew this, which is why he set up the resignation letters in the first place, so reality is it's not because of a planned coup.

All this placating trump by Senators is so they can gin up support for GA special elections, they hate trump as much as we do, but they like their cushy jobs so they placate him till he's no longer of use. And after Jan 5th his usefullness is done. Are they doing immense damage by doing this? yes, but when did they ever care about that?

Pompeo? just setting himself up for a senate run in kansas in 22.

People are way over thinking this. Trump, a colossal failure at everything he's done, but he's gonna be successful at overthrowing the government? There is no need for dem's to act, let trump fall flat on his face if he tries. Then we have more to laugh at on his way out before he's just another has been who's got a podcast and spouting conspiracies, AKA Alex Jones 2.0

[Iphie]

If a civil war is what you are concerned about, the optics are irrelevant. Whether or not the Dems act before or after the first move is immaterial. The right wing networks will paint them as usurpers and sedistionists or whatever anyway. You think there is any Trump supporter out there that will go "I was going to riot against those election stealing Dems, but Trump made the first move to defend his presidency, so now I am not mad at Dems for moving against him"? His followers are already indoctrinated into thinking that Trump won the election and that Biden is illegitimate. Trump would not be in a conspiracy to stay in power to them, but fighting for the integrity of their democracy. The longer he is allowed to act with impunity like he has won the worse this will get, not better.

Mind you, I am still not on the Civil War train at all. I just don't think it would become any more likely if he is being punished if he is clearly going against the law.

I'm not actually on the full blown civil war train, yet. That said I do foresee some restlessness and violence in the foreseeable future.

Maybe you're right, I'm just having a different view and I'm looking at it with an eye to future history (former history student). If the dems do everything by the book then history can never point the finger at them being in the wrong. Now IF for some god forsaken reason it turns out that Trump is right and Biden is NOT president-elect then a move now by the dems would be illegal, then what?

I believe Biden is the legal President-elect, but he is wise to not escalate it too much right now. Give Trump the rope to hang himself, eh?

[Machismo]

Fuck that noise.

It's vague. All slogans are vague. That's the point of a slogan.

It's no less vague than MLK's "I have a dream". No less vague than "We shall overcome". Or "There's a change gonna come". Or "All Power To the People".

In fact, it's more specific. It specifies a target (the police), and a specific form of action (defunding).

This "it's a bad slogan" is just cover for willful ignorance and racist propagandizing with the intent of supporting and protecting police brutality. You have to pretend to not understand what "defund" means, or any of the context of the movement the slogan represents, and what they are asking for. To replace their position with whatever horse shit you have decided to lie and pretend is, instead, the intent.

What you mean is "the slogan is easy to lie about and misrepresent". And that's true of basically all slogans. By their nature, which is to be a brief inspirational (not descriptive or definitive) sentence fragment.

The real issue here is people playing into the disinformation campaign and accepting their horseshit manipulation as reasonable, and putting the blame for that on their targets. Fuck that. It's no different than the racist fearmongering about black power movements in the '60s, where this precisely the same tactic was used by white supremacist groups to misrepresent those in the civil rights movement. Same tactic, 60 years later, and we apparently haven't learned a fucking thing.

It's a fine slogan. If you don't understand what it means, it's because you choose to avoid making any effort to learn, because you are prejudiced against any support for black civil rights.

Note that the latter isn't directed at you. I'm sure you do understand it. You're just choosing to carry water for the racist disinformation agents professing that they don't, for some goddamned reason.

It's a bad slogan, because it needs to be explained in great detail, just to be defended.

The slogan is easy to misinterpret.

The slogan is easy to lie about.

That's what makes it a bad slogan.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I see. You think you're clever. Not clever enough to clearly express yourself, apparently, but that's not your fault, right? Your interpretation as written was nonsense. I explained my meaning, you could have the courtesy to do so in return, preferably without the condescension and sneering tone.

By all means, give me your definition. Realize though, it's been fashionable lately to use that word in absolutely absurd manners (I've seen "assigning homework is racist" expressed), almost a "get out of jail free" or "I win shut up card", so I hope you won't disappoint me by doing similar.

Then since we're assuming each other's political standings, you won't protest when I judge you for supporting a lying (show me a politician who doesn't) pedophile in bed with China. Oh and bonus points, since racism bothers you (it should, but it should also be demonstrable beyond "racist because I say so"), go look on Youtube for Biden famously saying how we didn't need more N-words. I'm sure he's since shed crocodile tears and all is fine. Never mind he keeps voting for policies that hurt minorities, he's not saying mean things any more!

Nope, I am a libertarian, wrong again.

As for pedophiles, are you referring to Trump... who has a penchant for peeping on underage girls at pageants.

As for racism, Trump currently has a white supremacist as a senior advisor.

[Pannonian]

I'm not actually on the full blown civil war train, yet. That said I do foresee some restlessness and violence in the foreseeable future.

Maybe you're right, I'm just having a different view and I'm looking at it with an eye to future history (former history student). If the dems do everything by the book then history can never point the finger at them being in the wrong. Now IF for some god forsaken reason it turns out that Trump is right and Biden is NOT president-elect then a move now by the dems would be illegal, then what?

I believe Biden is the legal President-elect, but he is wise to not escalate it too much right now. Give Trump the rope to hang himself, eh?

Funny thing, i've been part of legal proceedings where 5 youths were caught in front of a grocery shop with bats and knifes. They intended to rob it but were caught before. 5 to 6 years for each...

Anyways i'm not sure i can share your sentiment towards avoiding all blame, especially when you argue from a historic perspective. Sadly, might makes right. Maybe not in the short run, but in the long, oh so much. Everyone knows how charlemagne is the father of europe, but i doubt many know about that little saxon genocide thing. Maybe only one example, but looking through history, especially the older it gets, the less nuanced it becomes - it may also have to do with record keeping, no doubt, but i'm already talking about stuff we know, not something that was never recorded.

Maybe i'm more pessimistic, but looking at the men we see as great persons, i doubt that keeping your hands clean will win you any prices - real or moral.