Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Cyberyeti]

From What I Learned When Trump Tried to Correct the Record by Julian E. Zelizer at The ATlantic:

 

President Trump will work from early in the morning until late in the evening. He will make many calls and have many meetings. Bad things will happen.

 

Trump never worked till late in the evening, you think he'll start now ?

[y66]

Trump never worked till late in the evening, you think he'll start now ?

Depends if there's something on tv or if he gets reinstated on Twitter.

[johnu]

Trump never worked till late in the evening, you think he'll start now ?

 

What are you talking about??? Watching the Fox Propaganda Channel and reading and posting on social media is hard work. I demand a retraction!!!

[Cyberyeti]

What are you talking about??? Watching the Fox Propaganda Channel and reading and posting on social media is hard work. I demand a retraction!!!

 

Well there have been a number of politicians that have claimed to be "on the job" while in bed, don't think Trump is one of them, he was notorious for heading to bed in the early evening

[y66]

Very happy to see someone who represents humans getting appointed to the Supreme Court today.

[johnu]

Well there have been a number of politicians that have claimed to be "on the job" while in bed, don't think Trump is one of them, he was notorious for heading to bed in the early evening

Seriously watching TV, even if in bed, is hard work. Manchurian President Trump would watch the prime time (e.g. 8-11PM) Fox Propaganda Channel programs which included his favorite presidential advisors like Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, and others. How else did you think he came up with most of his policies, positions, and talking points???

[pilowsky]

How else did you think he came up with most of his policies, positions, and talking points???

 

Are you able to reproduce a single coherent paragraph that Trump said (even a single sentence would be a start) that was not read from a teleprompter (presumably written by a stooge - I think there were more than 3)?

 

In all the interviews I saw where he had to speak without assistance (my favourite is the dark shadows interview with Laura Ingraham) it all sounded like word salad.

'People that you've never heard of," he said. "People that are in the dark shadows. People that –"

 

Ingraham interjected: "What does that mean? That sounds like conspiracy theory. Dark shadows, what is that?"

 

"No," said Trump. "People that you haven't heard of. They're people that are on the streets. They're people that are controlling the streets."

 

2 Shapes on a plane

The president wasn't finished.

 

"We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend," he said, "and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that. They're on a plane."

 

Ingraham asked: "Where was this?"

 

"I'll tell you some time," Trump said, "but it's under investigation right now, but they came from a certain city, and this person was coming to the Republican national convention, and there were like seven people on the plane like this person, and then a lot of people were on the plane to do big damage. They were coming for –"

etc etc.

 

Fine policy-making indeed.

[johnu]

Are you able to reproduce a single coherent paragraph that Trump said (even a single sentence would be a start) that was not read from a teleprompter (presumably written by a stooge - I think there were more than 3)?

 

Who do you think was writing his speeches? It was a rapidly spinning door between the White House and Fox Propaganda Channel. People who appeared on Fox were given top priority for positions in the White House, and people who worked in the White House would work there for a few months or a year and then get a high paying gig at Fox. People would "audition" on Fox to get White House appointments.

[kenberg]

Very happy to see someone who represents humans getting appointed to the Supreme Court today.

 

I'm more reserved. I am pleased that the president and congress could successfully nominate and confirm someone. It was a pretty close call, a Dem president needs Dem Senate and a Dem House to get anyone confirmed. Well, yes, there were 3 R votes after the confirmation was assured of passing. Still, a close call.

I wish her well, I'm glad it's over, that is about the extent of my enthusiasm.

This country is in trouble.

 

 

 

[y66]

On our show Tuesday night, M.T.G. — ‘Klan Mom’ as we call her — earlier in the day called three of her fellow Republicans ‘pro-pedophile’ for supporting Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court — which is lovely. A lovely thing to say. So I made a joke. I said, ‘Where is Will Smith when you need him?’

 

This woman, remember, she is the one who endorsed fringe conspiracy theories and repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians. Now she’s dialing 911 because she got made fun of. She’s a snowflake and a sociopath at the same time — a ‘snowciopath.’

 

And nobody does anything. I feel like maybe other Republicans like having her around to make the rest of them seem normal.

[kenberg]

Will Smith? Something about some tv thing called Emmy or some such?

As I understand the story so far:

Some so-called comedian thought it would be really hilarious to ridicule a woman's looks caused by her disease.

Her husband took issue with this, charged the stage and slapped him.

The folks running the show first thought it was a prepared routine.

When they finally figured it was not a planned part of the show, then instead of telling both guys to get the hell off the stage and take their fight out to the parking lot they did a several day study. And decided something or other.

 

Now Jimmy something-or-other wants to get in on the act?

 

There once was a time when comedians told jokes. Sometimes the jokes were actually funny. No more.

[y66]

Can even Klan mom make Josh Hawley seem normal?

 

[pilowsky]

Will Smith? Something about some tv thing called Emmy or some such?

As I understand the story so far:

Some so-called comedian thought it would be really hilarious to ridicule a woman's looks caused by her disease.

Her husband took issue with this, charged the stage and slapped him.

The folks running the show first thought it was a prepared routine.

When they finally figured it was not a planned part of the show, then instead of telling both guys to get the hell off the stage and take their fight out to the parking lot they did a several day study. And decided something or other.

 

Now Jimmy something-or-other wants to get in on the act?

 

There once was a time when comedians told jokes. Sometimes the jokes were actually funny. No more.

I'm with you here - television is a neurotoxin.

I don't know what a safe dose is but I bet it's smaller than an award ceremony where they pat each other on the back/face/arse.

 

 

[Chas_P]

This country is in trouble.

An astute observation of the blatantly obvious.

[mycroft]

Re: the Oscars - in defence of Will Smith, this wasn't the first time. And it wasn't the first time he had said "go after me all you want. My wife is off-limits." The joker decided that either his fame, or his notoriety, or the stage he was on, protected him from any serious retaliation from the (not very funny) joke at her expense.

 

He was wrong. It cost Will Smith a *lot* in reputation and potentially in money to prove him wrong, but one expects it was worth it. I bet it's the last of those jokes that will be told in Mr. and Mrs. Smith's presence... But I bet if it wasn't someone with Will Smith's level of reputation and ability to just blow off working for the rest of his life if it came to that, he would have been right, protected, and unslapped.

 

There's someone here who has a high opinion of Heinlein, in particular the "an armed society is a polite society" bit. For those who agree with him and with Heinlein, *this is what it means*. It doesn't mean that everyone will be polite because there's guns - back in the day, there had to be laws against duelling because it reduced the government's power to keep a trained officer corps. It means that those that have enough power in society can *hurt you*, even *kill you*, if you're not "polite" enough. The flip side of that is, of course, that if you don't have that power, the people that do get to do whatever they want, and you "have to be polite". Your armed status doesn't matter. Barring "Billy the Kid" levels of skill and gall, just being armed doesn't give you that power (and even in Mr. the Kid's(*) case, it lasted how long?), you need society to back you.

 

Funny how that seems to apply even here, even now, even with "you need a gun to protect your rights". Why (I hear someone ask) did St. Ronnie impose one of the strictest gun control regimes in California? Why are the anti-police violence protesters denied arms (even shields and helmets) if they want to be deemed "peaceful" and not "rioters"? It sure ain't because the police are gonna be polite if they show up armed...

 

(*) Argh, missed the obFootnote: "Be excellent to each other."

[pilowsky]

To find out where you stand (politically) on the Australian spectrum try vote compass.

It appears that the Australian conservatives have moved more to the right since last time.

For orientation (approximately):

Morrison=Trump

Albanese=Biden

Bandt=Stein

[thepossum]

To find out where you stand (politically) on the Australian spectrum try vote compass.

It appears that the Australian conservatives have moved more to the right since last time.

For orientation (approximately):

Morrison=Trump

Albanese=Biden

Bandt=Stein

 

It's wonderful analytics. Asks your views on all these issues then asks who you vote for and gives you a prediction :) - impressively accurate

 

I do have concerns trying to align anything in Australia with USA though

[PassedOut]

Looks like Russia is really angry with President Biden: Russia Airs Its Ultimate ‘Revenge Plan’ for America

 

The time is coming “to again help our partner Trump to become president,” state TV host Evgeny Popov recently declared. On Thursday’s edition of the state television show The Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, Putin’s pet pundits offered an update on plans for 2024.

 

“We’re trying to feel our way, figuring out the first steps. What can we do in 2023, 2024?,” Russian “Americanist” Malek Dudakov, a political scientist specializing in the U.S., said. He suggested that Russia’s interference in the upcoming elections is still in its early stages, and that more will be accomplished after the war is over and frosty relations between the U.S. and Russia start to warm up. “When things thaw out and the presidential race for 2024 is firmly on the agenda, there’ll be moments we can use,” he added. “The most banal approach I can think of is to invite Trump—before he announces he’s running for President—to some future summit in liberated Mariupol.”

 

Dmitry Drobnitsky, an omnipresent “Americanist” on Soloviev’s show, suggested that Tulsi Gabbard should be invited along with Trump. Dudakov agreed: “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” Gabbard has recently become a fixture of state television for her pro-Russian talking points, and has even been described as a “Russian agent” by the Kremlin’s propaganda machine.

 

If state television is any indication, the real agenda of the Kremlin’s operatives was never limited to boosting any particular candidates, but rather aimed to harm America as a whole. Dudakov stressed: “With Europe, economic wars should take priority. With America, we should be working to amplify the divisions and—in light of our limited abilities—to deepen the polarization of American society.”

Clearly many republican politicians and the right-wing media are working hard to help Russia succeed.

[Winstonm]

Looks like Russia is really angry with President Biden: Russia Airs Its Ultimate ‘Revenge Plan’ for America

 

 

Clearly many republican politicians and the right-wing media are working hard to help Russia succeed.

I don’t grasp why someone like Bannon wants to destroy the American government-with what would he replace it?

[johnu]

Looks like Russia is really angry with President Biden: Russia Airs Its Ultimate ‘Revenge Plan’ for America

 

 

Clearly many republican politicians and the right-wing media are working hard to help Russia succeed.

This is old news. Russia already helped its Manchurian President get elected in 2016, and tried again in 2020. Fortunately for the US, the Manchurian President was not able to completely destroy America in 4 years although he tried his best. Lucky for America that Trump is a lousy businessman and a lousy president or he would have done more damage.

[Winstonm]

I get so sick and tired of our lame news media and its stenographer as reporters. Let's try to get this straight - I'm looking at you, NYT - seditionist Ali Alexander is NOT cooperating with the investigation; he is complying to a subpoena. If you don't know the difference, go back to journalism school.

[barmar]

I get so sick and tired of our lame news media and its stenographer as reporters. Let's try to get this straight - I'm looking at you, NYT - seditionist Ali Alexander is NOT cooperating with the investigation; he is complying to a subpoena. If you don't know the difference, go back to journalism school.

Considering all the Trumpists who've defied congressional subpoenas, complying is cooperation.

[Winstonm]

Considering all the Trumpists who've defied congressional subpoenas, complying is cooperation.

 

An Oath Keeper has no grounds not to comply, so no, that is not cooperation.

[pilowsky]

[y66]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-14/mandatory-voting-and-the-case-for-democracy?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220414&utm_campaign=author_18529680

 

I haven’t yet read the new book from E.J. Dionne Jr. and Miles Rapoport arguing for universal — “mandatory” — voting in the U.S., but based on how Mark Z. Barabak at the Los Angeles Times describes the proposal, I’m a bit more swayed than I usually have been.

 

Let’s get the obvious objections out of the way. I thoroughly agree with the authors, and the scholars they consulted, that mandatory voting is constitutional. Especially since they call for several options for those who would prefer to opt out: A “none of the above” line on the ballot for those who don’t like any candidate; some sort of accommodation for those who feel compelled to abstain based on religious practices; and, for those who still wouldn’t comply, minimal fines. Feel free to argue that compulsory voting under those conditions is an unjustified infringement on one’s liberties, but there’s simply no strong case that it’s unconstitutional.

 

And, no, universal voting isn’t just a partisan plot to benefit Democrats. Or Republicans. Or anyone else. Political scientists have repeatedly found minimal differences between voters and non-voters. Moreover, one of the few really positive developments over the last 20 years or so is that after a brief period in which virtually all the groups most likely to vote tended towards Republican and all those least likely to vote tended toward Democrat, things have returned to normal. Fifteen years ago, it was common for people to speculate that Democrats had real, continuing disadvantages in midterm elections because low overall turnout inevitably helped Republicans. Not anymore. If Democrats are clobbered this November, it’ll be for a normal democratic reason: It’s a midterm with an unpopular Democrat in the White House.

 

The best argument for universal voting has always been that it encourages participation in democracy, thereby generating additional buy-in among the broadest possible group of citizens to the whole idea of a democratic polity. But Dionne and Rapoport add more. The one that strikes me as pretty strong is the idea that universal voting would immediately mark the end of the voting wars, with one party fighting for ways to make (voluntary) voting easier and the other pushing to make it harder. If voting is optional, then both parties have an incentive to set rules that they believe help them; mandatory voting would end all that.

 

I’m less impressed by the case that eliminating turnout as a key election variable would reduce the poisonous effects of negative partisanship, in which voters tend to hate the other party even more than they like their own. Negative partisanship could still be wielded in nomination contests, and therefore by politicians who anticipate future nomination contests; a member of the House, that is, could still try to build a name for her future Senate run by bashing the other party. And that’s before the incentives created by the conservative marketplace (and the smaller, less important liberal marketplace).

 

I’m not even sure that the electorate should necessarily represent all citizens, at least if voting is made sufficiently easy and any remaining restrictions apply equally to all voters. As long as every citizen finds it as easy to vote as every other citizen, I’m not sure that — at least theoretically — there’s anything wrong with those who bother to participate voluntarily shouldn’t have more say than those who voluntarily opt out. Indeed, those who do more than just vote already have more influence than those who vote but do nothing else, and we’re pretty much OK with that, with the exception for some people of financial contributions. That is, no one believes that hours working as a volunteer should be capped — or that all citizens should be forced to write three letters for elected officials or spend 20 hours per election phone-banking for their party. It’s not immediately clear to me why voting should be different.

 

On balance, I’m not entirely sold. Besides, my own favorite reform proposal that is unlikely to be adopted and wouldn’t have much if any effect on electoral outcomes is lowering the voting age by four or five or six years, and I’m not sure if it makes sense to adopt a second such idea. But I tend to believe that thinking through these proposals is a healthy exercise anyway that reminds us of — or educates us for the first time about — what we really value about democracy. And that is good for the republic. So kudos to Dionne and Rapoport for pushing the idea, even if I’m not quite ready to support it.