I think this… but not just urban vs. rural. Democracy vs. Totalitarianism.
Recently a prominent Republican pollster quoted Stalin, and seems very keen on ignoring the votes from the people in favor of “who is counting the votes”. He is favorably quoting a famous ruthless dictator, and avowed enemy of the United States. The quote is the most anti-democratic, pro-totalitarian dictatorship thing imaginable.
This is the Republican Party now. The party of “Stalin had the right idea”.
Judge Judy endorsed Michael Bloomberg which leads me to believe that she is most decidedly not a Trump supporter. Jeanine “married to the mob” Pirro would definitely do it - and she used to be a real jurist until information from her DA office kept mysteriously getting leaked to mobsters.
Well, it wasn’t mysterious considering her husband was a mob lawyer, but she claimed they weren’t that close.
Too soon, bud.
Anyway, I’m not sure of her current status. I don’t think she is a currently seated judge though, is she?
Yeah. I felt it, too 
Reminder: it’s Trump we’re talking about. “Plays one on Fox News” is the whole ball game, right there.
Just to be clear, you’re saying there is no chance that the Republicans will flip the election and there never was a chance. What’s more, you’re also saying that they’re not trying to flip it, they’re instead trying to damage democracy for their own purposes. Is that about right?
I won’t answer for k9bfriender but I would think the answers to those questions should be obvious:
Based on this election result, no, never a chance.
If it had been much closer, or if there had been something shady in a swing state – even if it were too small to affect the result – a genuine flip would be a possibility.
Well Trump is obviously trying to flip it and I’d draw the same circle around anyone that tried to make it harder to vote (though we typically wouldn’t use the word flip for that). And some of his allies in the media may think a flip is possible.
But yes, most Republicans are aware it’s not gonna happen. I wouldn’t say damaging democracy is the goal though, as your phrasing here implies. It’s more that it’s something they are knowingly doing because self interest is the only thing they care about. If the path to the “win” tile runs through “fuck America”, then fuck America.
Also, many Republicans recognize that Biden will indeed be president, and they realize that they want the country to be as damaged as possible during his term, so that they can re-take the power.
That is the main goal; Re-take complete power. And if that means people dying, or a partial collapse of the economy, so be it.
I’m largely in agreement with this and maybe you’ve said it better than I have. I’ve said from the beginning that the Republicans don’t really think they’re going to flip the election and the ones with power to actually attempt it haven’t done so. Outside of Trump and a few true believers this has largely been a charade to keep the Trumpist voters engaged for those all-important GA elections. Probably a few of the politicians also see some advantage for themselves.
and
We would say “democracy versus totalitarianism” (or authoritarianism or perhaps fascist autocracy).
But of course they would say “mob rule, versus the wise rule of an anointed-by-God All-Father, to whom we owe our reverence.”
And they’d feel perfectly righteous about installing the words of Stalin and Pol Pot and Vladimir Putin, in golden letters, on the walls of the Capitol.
On the ‘who swears in the President’ question, I see that Washington was sworn in by the Chancellor of New York–head of a court, but not a “judge” or “justice,” strictly speaking. The NY Court of Chancery existed alongside a New York Supreme Court (and acted as a court of appeals for cases from that court).
That said: I still think (as mentioned in the Pit) that if Dollhands Donald does try to stage an alternate Inauguration, he will swear himself in. As someone else noted in the Pit thread, that’s how Napoleon was crowned Emperor—he did it himself.
I didn’t realize he’d served any time at all so far, and it would be pretty lenient judge that only sentences him to 4 years (although I suppose age, health, and diminished mental capacity would come into play).
At this point, I think that the chances that the Republicans will flip the election are very small, and are not a major concern for me. I do not think that there was never a chance, if things had lined up a bit differently, if a few other players had been on board, if Trump himself hadn’t alienated many of the allies that he would need to pull this off, then it could have happened.
I do think that many of those in power are still trying to flip it, even if they know that their chances are now small. They were also trying to flip it when they believed that their chances were better, before SCOTUS rulings shot down most of their avenues.
Their efforts are damaging democracy, even if they do not manage to affect the outcome of this particular election. This damage will make it more feasible to affect the outcomes of subsequent elections. This damage will also cause a large number of people to become disillusioned with democracy, leading them to make the country harder to govern. It will lead them to welcome the embrace of an autocracy, so long as they believe that it benefits them at the expense of others.
That any elected officials or others with power went along with it is extremely concerning and damaging to the practice of self governance. The AG of Texas is not equivalent to a blogger or even an editorialist on the left, nor are the other AGs of states that signed onto his suit. Members of congress who joined in with this nonsense damage the very institutions that they represent, that they are sworn to uphold. The president himself, in refusing to accept the results of a legal election delegitimizes the very notion of a government by the people.
Republicans are trying to damage democracy for their own purposes, and that alone should be enough to be extremely concerned about the future health of our country.
It’s a scorched earth policy, if they can’t have it, no one will, and they would rather rule over ashes than admit the legitimacy of another’s governance.
BREAKING: Senator Josh Hawley has announced that he will object to the certification of electors at the joint session of Congress on January 6 (although he has not specified which states’ electors he will object to). Several Representatives have already said they would do so. Since an objection only needs at least one Rep and one Senator to be considered, that means the objections will be debated during the session.
While it won’t change anything, this will turn the session into an absolute circus. And it will put every Republican Senator and Representative on record either supporting a groundless objection to electors or betraying Trump.
Serve?
More like “service.”
ETA spoiler added for cow genitalia. Another phrase I didn’t expect to type today.
-raventhief
Perhaps part of the ‘societal adhesion’ problem is that neither side really wants to formulate an argument for the Constitution because both sides secretly (for differing reasons) think the Constitution is past its sell-by date.
I don’t know about that. One side openly wants to use the provisions laid out in the constitution to update it to better reflect the realities of our modern world.
The other side hasn’t bothered to read any of it other than the second half of a particular amendment, and ignores the rest.
It won’t change the outcome on the 6th, but every little step in the direction of a coup changes something - don’t kid yourself into believing otherwise. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I say that to those who want to hold out hope that we’ll all be back to our regularly scheduled programming on January 7th.
It’s now clear that there will almost certainly some kind of manufactured controversy at the time of the formal reading of the electoral college results, which is going to add more “noise.” But it’s really what happens beyond this year that is most worrisome. This noise is occurring against the backdrop of a health crisis not seen in 100 years, and against the backdrop of extreme polarization and a growing economic crisis. The conditions are creating a powder keg that’s waiting for a match to light it.
One side believes that a Constitution can have modern interpretation, which is practically speaking the only way to ensure it survives and functions in modern times. The other side deliberately applies 18th Century standards of morality and thought to ensure that old standards of behavior and thought prevail.
Just so I’m clear, you’re saying that the people who needed to be on board to flip the election refused to do so. I know it’s purely speculation but who are some examples of who would need to be on board for there to be a realistic chance of flipping the election?
The downside of “supporting a groundless objection to electors” is what? Sure, if things like honor, truth, and supporting democracy matter to you, you’d have a hard time looking at yourself in the mirror. But what’s the real world downside? If you’re a Republican, you’ve already sold out during impeachment, why stop now? Unless you’re planning to break off and join a new, rational Republican party like the Lincoln Project, there’s not a lot of downside I see.
The downside of not playing Trump’s game is the loss of the possibility of getting his campaign coffers to support you and a loss of the support of the idiots in your voting base. Sure there’s an emotional downside to supporting the further chipping away of democracy, but, really, a few hundred thousand in campaign money and appeasing your voting base outweighs that.
Why would this one thing be the one that finally has Republicans develop/use their spines to stand up to a narcissistic bully?
It’s likely that from now on, every single Republican who loses an election will cry “fraud” and take any steps possible to set aside the results. That will be expected of each GOP candidate by both voters and donors.
Republicans involved in certifying elections after the fact, or in preparing for upcoming elections, will be expected to agree that elections are pointless because they are riddled with “fraud.”
It will become GOP tradition. Currently many on the right openly deride the concept of democracy (and in this they receive support and encouragement from Internet-active nations like Russia). This sort of language will become universal among Republicans. Some will call for the end of all elections; others will content themselves with calling for more stringent restrictions on who can vote—for a formalization of the disenfranchisement efforts that have been GOP mainstays for years.
Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and other leading lights of the anti-democracy movement will each hope to ride a wave of dictatorship-enthusiasm to ultimate power.
I suppose it will be entertaining to watch them contend for the Presidency-for-Life—at least to the extent we are able to watch. Our chances to observe are bound to become more restricted as free speech is effectively banned from the Internet by liability concerns, and as “news sources” become ever-closer to being State-run.
That’s how it is in Russia. With so many Americans thinking Russia should be our model, we may not have long to wait.
