Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 341: Flip-Flip-Flipadelphia!

(+) Yeah! (+)

fuming posted...

I truly do not understand the fear of divisiveness, and importance that people place on "unity", a president who wants to push those things just wants you all to stop paying attention so they don't have to worry about being expected to do anything, or any backlash to the things they do or don't do. If people are ever 'unified' in this country it is always in one of two directions- completely tuning out, or unifying in jingoism like after 9/11. Neither one is any good for the country.

We just had a President who literally told 4 Congresswomen of Color to go back to the countries they came from. (3 of them were born in the US.) I think we need to step away from that.

---

Political/cultural rival is different from political/cultural enemy. In a democracy, you're supposed to respect the authority of elected officials whether you voted for them or not. You're not supposed to denounce members of different parties as illegitimate and baselessly accuse them of only having won due to voter fraud. That sort of rhetoric supports a violent revolution against your enemies, not a peaceful transfer of power to your fellow countrymen that you don't always agree with.
---

Corrik7 posted...

This election may be the end of my relationship.

Not because I voted for Biden. That was accepted.

But because every last day since my fiancee says a new conspiracy theory of how Biden has cheated and Trump will win in court. Then I say you know that has been debunked already right? And she freaks the fuck out. Lol. Every single last day. Jesus.

thought i posted this earlier but this is one of the reasons why i post about them. good to know about them as they happen.

---

MalcolmMasher posted...

You're not supposed to denounce members of different parties as illegitimate and baselessly accuse them of only having won due to voter fraud.

I agree, but both sides did this. In 2016 the Democrats said that Trump only won because of Russian interference in the elections, making him appear in their minds illegitimate as an authority. I think a unifying message would be to massively overhaul our elections, make it easier to register and vote, make the voting process more transparent, ask state officials to adhere to a national standard so we do not have so many confusing differences in various states every year, allow international neutral oversight into our elections like we force other countries to utilize, etc.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JaxAlemany/status/1325162832237719553


---

Wanglicious posted...

thought i posted this earlier but this is one of the reasons why i post about them. good to know about them as they happen.

You post about conspiracy theories because of people's relationships being strained by them? The hell?

---

Petty of me, but this tweet right here?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325195021339987969?s=19

I want them to wait 5 minutes after Biden takes over before deleting Trump's Twitter, and in those 5 minutes make this a disputed tweet.

---

fuming posted...

I agree, but both sides did this. In 2016 the Democrats said that Trump only won because of Russian interference in the elections, making him appear in their minds illegitimate as an authority. I think a unifying message would be to massively overhaul our elections, make it easier to register and vote, make the voting process more transparent, ask state officials to adhere to a national standard so we do not have so many confusing differences in various states every year, allow international neutral oversight into our elections like we force other countries to utilize, etc.

Saying that the Russians ran an influence campaign and that the Trump campaign, at minimum, welcomed that assistance (which are just facts) is not at all the same thing as saying that the Russians actually rigged the vote, which no one prominent is alleging. The latter is what would be comparable to Trump's "massive voter fraud" shit.

---

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1325285860393295873

Et tu, Jared?

---

With regards to unity, its important to note that the Dems are kinda FORCED to play nice in a way that Republicans are not, because of the Senate. The Senate is currently designed to keep the GOP in power regardless of the situation. Burning all bridges just gives more incentive to turn out and vote to keep the Senate red, which...we need miracles to even keep the Senate close to even.

---

Look like per ABC the Dems have officially retained control of the House (217 seats have been called for them, and one of the remaining uncalled races is between two Dems in CA).

---

You mean the House.

Got me all excited for nothing.

---

Oh fuck, whoops. Fixed!

---

Doesn't mean it won't happen! Here's going it goes well in 2 months.

---

Oh course, North Carolina is still not an impossibility. Biden actually needs slightly less of a percentage of wins that his standard mail in rates, though we don't know how that will influence the senate race in ratio.

I don't have high hopes, but the completely lack of reporting from NC (which I understand the reason for) still has me a little anxious.

---

Here's hoping!

https://twitter.com/ZackBornstein/status/1325277172513214466

---

Espeon posted...

With regards to unity, its important to note that the Dems are kinda FORCED to play nice in a way that Republicans are not, because of the Senate. The Senate is currently designed to keep the GOP in power regardless of the situation. Burning all bridges just gives more incentive to turn out and vote to keep the Senate red, which...we need miracles to even keep the Senate close to even.

It isn't just that. When the GOP is not 'unifying', it is dangerous, because their targets are minorities, poor people, and the left. When the Dems are unifying though it is bad, because it just means they aren't really going to change anything.

Discord has reminded me: The Lincoln Project no longer holds enemy of my enemy status.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Here's hoping!

https://twitter.com/ZackBornstein/status/1325277172513214466

The best part of this is he goes full sarcasm but then suddenly towards then end...droops....

---

red13n posted...

Discord has reminded me: The Lincoln Project no longer holds enemy of my enemy status.

They certainly have NO intention of doing anything about January Georgia.

Doesn't appear they had much if any effect this week either.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

They certainly have NO intention of doing anything about January Georgia.

I think they have intention of getting into Georgia. And they want to go after Rubio in 2022 too. (We'll see if that holds up).

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Doesn't appear they had much if any effect this week either.

This, on the other hand, is totally true. I'm not sure how effective they really were, except at getting under Trump's skin.

---

Actually I guess they would definitely go after Loeffler, true.

Don't know about Perdue, though, and that's the tougher race.

---

Republican Voters Against Trump was probably more effective in actually converting Republicans.

---

screw off football i want my snl election opener

---

I enjoy it every time a new group of people learn why the football game has to finish televised.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Game

---

and now for your dum local news

hey news, i think we all know what happened today

---

fuming posted...

is there any country on earth where there aren't factions of the country that view other factions within the country as their political/cultural enemy? again - the only way you ever see countries 'unite' is against an external enemy, it is the Ozymandias strategy. If only we had a giant squid to fight, we could stop hating our neighbors.

Different factions united via intersectional coalitions. That's how all successful politics is done, and the US has a ton of great examples of it. It's been very rare recently though. That's what the message of unity is supposed to signal.

---

In fairness to lincoln project regarding Georgia Senate they did post this video a day ago:

https://youtu.be/cMJylhJMUT8

---

I agree, but both sides did this.

First: Both sides did this in 2016, but only one is doing it in 2020. (Well, I suppose no one technically refused to recognize 2016 Clinton's authority, since she didn't have any. But Trump accused her of getting illegal votes anyway.)

Second: I agree that "I think you were elected due to illicit foreign assistance and therefore I do not respect your authority" is, assuming extant but less than overwhelming evidence of such behavior, not appropriate behavior for a citizen of a democracy. The proper response under those circumstances is to grant the benefit of the doubt for the time being, and also demand an investigation. And certainly not all Democrats lived up to that standard.

However, I certainly feel that we should not equate accusations which have evidence to support them (even if that evidence is insufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt) with accusations which are groundless. The anti-Trump "collusion with Russia" accusations do have evidence to support them - remember, the Mueller Report determined that Russia had deliberately interfered with the 2016 election and contacted the Trump campaign team on 100+ occasions. The anti-Clinton "illegal votes" accusations do not. (If you've forgotten, Trump claimed that he would have won the popular vote in 2016, except that millions of people voted for Clinton illegally. He formed a commission to look into it; they have since disbanded, apparently without finding any one of those millions of people.) You might reasonably argue that there hasn't been enough time to thoroughly investigate his anti-Biden "illegal votes" claim, but when he's already cried wolf once...

Third: as LotM has pointed out in post #459, the 2016 anti-Trump allegation is that American voters wouldn't have elected Trump if it weren't for illicit Russian interference, while the 2020 anti-Biden allegation is that American voters didn't elect Biden.

In short, while your claim that "both sides did this" is not wrong, both sides are not equally bad on this issue.
---

Donald Trump himself attempting to fade into obscurity for the day is the best thing to happen today. He had one twitter rampage for a few minutes and his lawyers had a press conference next to a porn shop.

It has been a good day.

---

MalcolmMasher posted...

Third: as LotM has pointed out in post #459, the 2016 anti-Trump allegation is that American voters wouldn't have elected Trump if it weren't for illicit Russian interference, while the 2020 anti-Biden allegation is that American voters didn't elect Biden.

The corollaries to both of these allegations is the investigation will lead to a better process for our country. The Russian investigation improved our national security, and Trump's vote count lawsuits will improve our voting processes. People cry about how these things cost a whopping 0.01% of the national budget, but these things are unambiguously the job of the federal government.

---

Man...I just realized, with how batshit insane the Trump cult is, I'm really worried we might get assassination attempts on Biden in the near future. When you have people like "THE BIDEN CRIME FAMILY IS TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION, THE MEDIA IS COVERING IT UP" guy, this is sadly a very likely scenario.

There has been no violence yet though, right? That is...somehow surprising for modern America.

---

The secret service and the FBI are really good.

Biden should be fine. Obama was fine, Trump was fine.

---

I hope you're right!

also Corrik I'm not in a relationship, but I somewhat feel your pain. pretty sure the hot southern chick I've been sleeping with recently won't talk to me now all because I posted one of the better Biden memes on my snapchat

well shit. we never talked politics but I really didn't think that just because she has a southern accent she'd be a Trump supporter who would break off contact if I made fun of her dear leader

also things like this remind me just how much the right is actually way bigger snowflakes than the left.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

The corollaries to both of these allegations is the investigation will lead to a better process for our country. The Russian investigation improved our national security, and Trump's vote count lawsuits will improve our voting processes. People cry about how these things cost a whopping 0.01% of the national budget, but these things are unambiguously the job of the federal government.

Right, this was my point about how to actually do unity, just audit the voting process and try to make it better in the future. Then nobody can blame you. Dems and Republicans should both want it.

foolm0r0n posted...

The corollaries to both of these allegations is the investigation will lead to a better process for our country. The Russian investigation improved our national security, and Trump's vote count lawsuits will improve our voting processes. People cry about how these things cost a whopping 0.01% of the national budget, but these things are unambiguously the job of the federal government.

I mean, Trump's lawsuits would improve the process, if the judges weren't deciding most of them would not and have no basis, and consequently throwing them out. So it's not really equivalent? No one is saying we shouldn't verify the election by legitimate means.

---

My understanding is that there has always been bipartisan access for election observers and the trump campaign was simply suing for additional expanded access which is what was being denied in some ( but not all) cases. Yes?

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

My understanding is that there has always been bipartisan access for election observers and the trump campaign was simply suing for additional expanded access which is what was being denied in some ( but not all) cases. Yes?

I believe that the lawsuit they "won" (I think an agreement was actually reached between the parties) was to let the observers be 6 feet away instead of 10 feet away, which is really more of a win for covid than democracy.

---

https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1325344809410826241

a much better way of putting what I was attempting to get at in regards to unity, divisiveness

Saying "Fuck you we aren't going to work with you" isn't going to get anything done or fix anything either. Not sure what the complaint is. The whole speech was meant to ease tensions, not deliver some ringing endorsement of the left.

Other things from those twitter, comments, they seem to agree that 48% of the country is white supremacists. While they arent really far from wrong, if you take that as a factual statement, you aren't fixing anything by going "fuck you guys you are all white supremacists either". You better be working to change their viewpoints on that rather than just agitating them further.

Basically, strap yourself in for more unity speeches(This isn't policy, this is rhetoric, to be clear, and there is a difference). The alternative is just working to literally break the country(No, this isn't a good thing, this leads to more extremism).

---

Saw this pop up in my youtube recs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZWRhLW7Y8w

Maybe we should just elect this guy. Would be pretty smart to have a president who can see the future.

---

To expand on that a little bit. I'm tired of the narrative certain voices on the left are taking of "we won take it and shove it".

The fact is 48% of the country liked what Donald Trump was selling. No, they weren't going to vote for Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg or Andrew Yang or whatever wing of the Democrat party you think was going to somehow convert those voters. Those voters came out in record numbers for Donald Trump and you weren't going to win them. They liked his racist shit or whatever. Joe Biden won by turning out the larger majority of the nation. Thats a problem. Turning out voters the way Joe Biden did is not easy(Bernie could arguably match that, but its hard to argue anyone could do better by even a marginal amount, its going to be a 112+ year record of turnout).

Point is, no matter who runs, Donald Trump is getting that 48% of the vote. That is a problem. You have to work to turn people away from what he is selling. Immediately turning and going Trump on those people and saying "Fuck you" or whatever is just going to drive those numbers up for whoever comes next. It brought the voters in for Biden, it'll work just as hard to galvanize the other side in 4 years.

You don't bend your policy over for them of course, but Biden didn't do that here. He didn't show up and go "Fuck the climate we hear you no regulations" or "fuck BLM more police funding" in extremes. Its not like hes catering to them. But at the very least, you have to come out and make these people feel like you think they matter. And no, you can't do it with pure policy. These people are never going to follow the policy. People will -never- have time to understand even the simplest policy. People go to work, they sleep, they eat, they have very little free time between that and you are still going to have fox news between you and them. It will be a batte to where you have to leave it so simple that even the most vile spin can't eat you.

And yes, not winning the Senate, working with Republicans is actually a requirement(We probably arent winning both Georgia seats). Getting everything on everyones wish list is probably impossible. But you need the appearance of being capable of getting shit done with the other side or at least making a better case that the other side is a bunch of obstructionist fucks and that people should elect better people.

Anyway, strap in and get used to the unity speech rhetoric. It isn't going away anytime soon.

---

well said
---

Trump isnt getting 48%. He might even end up below Romneys percentage again.

Its remarkable how consistent the Republican share of the vote has been. Only Bush in 2004 is slightly higher and the rest all fit in a 2.7% range.

---

I'm just going to let this discussion die after this post, because I don't even have a clue where those two responses are coming from or what I said they are responding to. I gave a reasonable way that unity could be attempted and Republicans could feel heard, without being endorsed in policy, by advocating for audits for the elections and actions that could be taken to improve the elections going forward to avoid a scenario where foul play could even seem like it was at fault. That is a way to legitimately try to unify with the right without concessions, it is actual change and action being taken to make things better. Biden is using the rhetoric of unification, but his idea of it is to divide - he wants centrist liberals to work with never trump republicans at the expense of the voices of the far left and trump supporters. He isn't trying to heal America, he is trying to lull his comfortable supporters into a sense of calm because he is at the helm, while he runs yet another right wing presidency that changes nothing and all of the hurt and rot that leads to men like Trump will still be there. That isn't going to de-radicalize or unify anyone but his own constituency - the center. Obama didn't de-radicalize the far right or the far left, he stoked the flames, the right got more unhinged and the left started to actually exist after it was essentially stamped out. Divisiveness is inevitable, and not always bad. If, like the example given in the tweet about Australia, both parties agree on not tackling Climate Change, and you want Climate Change tackled, you would benefit from a more divisive country on that issue, not a unified one. If you want a party that WANTS medicare for all, a party that WANTS to cut down the MIC, a party that WANTS to fix our criminal justice system and PIC, etc. the US doesn't have that, they have a government trying to unify a majority that accepts little to no progress on those fronts, despite the public being in favor of change. Those need to be more divisive areas, and unity rhetoric does not help to accomplish any of those goals. You say that people cannot possibly understand any policies - okay, then why is everyone always assuming that the GOP or centrist dems are being reasonably endorsed by people voting for them? If you are going to assume huge swaths of people are too stupid to understand what they are voting for, then you cannot also say that the Democrats must go right wing to achieve unity. The reason people vote for the GOP could also entirely be because the Democrats DON'T stand out enough from the GOP. It could be because they don't trust the government to do anything but be culture war because it has failed to ever help them, and they are socially right wing. It could be they are like Extha, and just find the libs annoying and think voting is pointless except to annoy them. So no - 48% of the country did not like what Trump was selling. People have massively different reasons for voting for someone. Only 60 something percent even voted. And again - divisiveness comes in many forms. From the right, yes, it is almost always bad and just racism, sexism, homophobia, hating the poor, denying reality etc. But the center left without any divisiveness is just the Clinton administration without a sex scandal - meaning Republican rule with a D next to the name. If you want to go to a BLM protest and yell "THIS IS TOO DIVISIVE!! WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER IF YOU WANT CHANGE!!" at the protesters, who have been desperately pleading for change for decades with no action but just continually being ignored by the same moderates who claim to be turned off by the protests while the police are beating them, who Biden rhetorically supports and does not want to change in any way, then that is what Joe Biden is peddling, and it is patently ridiculous. A consensus of comfortable moderates saying nothing will change needs WAY more division, not unity, if your perspective is anything but (which is what the far left wants or what trump supporters or what third party voters or what nonvoters want), and therefore the idea that Biden is promoting unity is false, he is promoting his own coalitions victory.

That is a big unreadable paragraph of whining, tbh And it begins with a false premise that somehow Biden endorsed Republican policy in his speech. Policy discussion in the speech was incredibly light and entirely unspecific. It was a very plain unity speech. Your take is just factually off-base.

---

I'm pretty sure you are unable to read any of my posts. Out of all users, you seem to uniquely be the only one who regularly, and in fact almost 100% of the time does not have any idea what a single one of my posts is saying. At least other people who disagree with me tend to MOSTLY understand the things I say.

I disagreed with the immediate premise of your paragraph and found it to be factually incorrect.

If your premise is immediately wrong, the rest of it doesn't matter. Perhaps you should work on making your words more readable and then I might take the time to read them instead of hurting my eyes reading a wall of text.

---

Trump is officially a loser!

---