Get rid of democracy and I'll be dictator forever. — Mr Bee

This was always in the man's heart, deep down it was just a nice thought, but his power has extended so much in these last few years, he can do whatever he wants, why not, it could be in reach. This is a well developed political theory, divide and conquer. The weakness and arrogance of the Left is to blame.

Agreed. ( :yikes: ) — 180 Proof

This tactic of yours in agreeing with me has become very effective at limiting my rants. :wink:

Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
— Reporter

We're gonna have to see what happens." — Pfhorrest

Conservatives are at their heart believers in law and order. I understand the left's position that the right's concept of law and order amounts to suppression of certain groups, but the point remains that a conservative is committed to protecting the status quo and the existing institutions. For that reason, the fear that there will be a conservative rebellion in any literal sense is unfounded. Those criticisms are better levied against the left and is evidenced by the fact that is the left that speaks of radical rule change (elimination of the electoral college, increasing the size of the Supreme Court, and defunding the police) and who literally takes to the streets with riots, looting, and violence.

The right is not collecting their guns and building their fences in preparation of an offensive attack, but they are holing up in anticipation of defending themselves from the zombie apocalypse they fear will make it out to the suburbs and countryside where they reside.

This is simply ahistorical and conceptionally unjustified. Read Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind.

Hungover? — darthbarracuda

Uh no the President of the United States is outright attempting to subvert the election results while not committing to concede or peacefully transfer power if defeated.

This is simply ahistorical and conceptionally unjustified. Read Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind. — Maw

It's simply correct, despite what Robins wants to say.

Conservatives are at their heart believers in law and order. I understand the left's position that the right's concept of law and order amounts to suppression of certain groups, but the point remains that a conservative is committed to protecting the status quo and the existing institutions. For that reason, the fear that there will be a conservative rebellion in any literal sense is unfounded. Those criticisms are better levied against the left and is evidenced by the fact that is the left that speaks of radical rule change (elimination of the electoral college, increasing the size of the Supreme Court, and defunding the police) and who literally takes to the streets with riots, looting, and violence. — Hanover

I wouldn't take issue with any of what you've said... except for the fact that the person who all conservatives are rallying behind is a man who embodies the exact opposite of the things they claim to believe in.

The right is not collecting their guns and building their fences in preparation of an offensive attack but they are holing up in anticipation of defending themselves from the zombie apocalypse they fear will make it out to the suburbs and countryside where they reside. — Hanover

But they're also against lockdowns, masks, and social distancing, helping to spread a virus from a very real pandemic that could well kill millions of Americans, which BTW also killed 200K people already in the US because their president intentionally downplayed the threat.

So what’s the ideology of a conservative SC? Does it tend to serve the interests of the working class or some other class?

Representatives of the GOP are walking around asking people if they voted early. Why are they doing that?

This was always in the man's heart, deep down it was just a nice thought, but his power has extended so much in these last few years, he can do whatever he wants, why not, it could be in reach. This is a well developed political theory, divide and conquer. The weakness and arrogance of the Left is to blame. — JerseyFlight

FIFY. Thousands of years of history in a few sentences.

Representatives of the GOP are walking around asking people if they voted early. Why are they doing that? — frank

There's likely going to be some effort to make the early votes not count?

There's likely going to be some effort to make the early votes not count? — fdrake

So maybe assessing what would be accomplished by throwing out all the early votes?

Could be. The place where I vote is a Greek Orthodox church. It wont be too crowded. Maybe I'll wait till Nov 3rd.

radical rule change [...] increasing the size of the Supreme Court — Hanover

The size of the Supreme Court is actually not fixed and has varied widely over time. It's a fairly recent tradition for it to have exactly 9 members all the time, and any President+Senate can change that whenever they feel like it, legally speaking.

I've been advocating recently that instead of trying to keep the court a specific size and worrying about when a Justice will die and so who will get a chance to appoint a new one, we should instead just allow the appointment of a new Justice by every new combination of President+Congress; in other words, every two years. I originally suggested every four years, as that would nearly match the rate in living memory (we'd have pretty much exactly the same court we have now if we had been doing that since GHW Bush), but checking what would have happened if that had always been the tradition, we would have run out of Justices entirely some time in the mid-20th century, so I bumped it up to every two years instead. If we had always been doing that, then we would currently have a court of 14 justices, 7 appointed by Democrats, 7 appointed by Republicans.

I trust we all realise that politics is long past convincing people of a vision and instead politicians pander to whatever voters want to hear so they get power to do what they want?

I trust we all realise that politics is long past convincing people of a vision and instead politicians pander to whatever voters want to hear so they get power to do what they want? — Benkei

They've always done that, especially the clueless ones. The duopoly situation in the US makes things different.

Now what politicians want to do is to enflame the other side to attack them and portray to their supporters (and lure new people to their side) how much the other side absolutely hates the actual voters themselves. The best thing what happened to Trump (besides James Comey, which of course is now totally forgotten) was Hillary Clinton saying that Trump supporters were "basket of deplorables".

Politician promising to do something is so lame, old school. Far better to portray other politicians hating you Benkei, what you think and how you live. It works like a charm, because it will activate you once some politician running for office "is really" against you.