I still believe that the many Americans believe in their Republic can get over an election — ssu
You're just making noises with your mouth. — Harry Hindu
It depends upon your explanation of what makes a noise or scribble a word, rather than just a noise or scribble.Now that's a good example of a lie. Or is it the truth? — Metaphysician Undercover
Or do you think that all Biden voters believe that Trump is the new Hitler? — ssu
We can all agree that the last thing you mentioned the Republicans are indeed doing.But it'd be a huge gamble, and massively destabilising to the country. So again they might not do anything other than sow doubts this time around. — Echarmion
I urge people not to lose faith on your fellow citizens. Even if they can be annoying at times.We are about to find out if this trust is well placed. I hope they are right, to be clear. — Olivier5
Yep. He had a mission which he clearly stated.No, Hitler didn't play several rounds of golf while staging a coup. Say what you like about the Fuhrer, he made an effort. — Kenosha Kid
Yes, he is a wacko though, so who knows.But it'd be a huge gamble, and massively destabilising to the country. So again they might not do anything other than sow doubts this time around.
the confidence of the whole people [...] divided between exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed. There is no unity to be found with kleptocrats and oligarchs. — StreetlightX
Sounds exactly like what the Dems would be doing if the roles were reversed. Just like the Supreme Court vacancy fiascos at the end if the Obama and Trump administrations where the Reps and Dems reversed roles, one claiming we should wait until after the election while the other said that the president gets to select a new judge.Deligitimize the result in key states, prevent them from certifying their results in time or, if republican controlled, send in competing electors, then vote Trump in via the house. — Echarmion
The difference is that here, the Republicans could possibly pull it out and keep the White House.There is no difference between Reps and Dems when they both adopt the others position when the roles are reversed. — Harry Hindu
Just like the Supreme Court vacancy fiascos at the end if the Obama and Trump administrations where the Reps and Dems reversed roles, one claiming we should wait until after the election while the other said that the president gets to select a new judge. — Harry Hindu
WASHINGTON – The members of Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Assistant Director Bob Kolasky, U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair Benjamin Hovland, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) President Maggie Toulouse Oliver, National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) President Lori Augino, and Escambia County (Florida) Supervisor of Elections David Stafford – and the members of the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) – Chair Brian Hancock (Unisyn Voting Solutions), Vice Chair Sam Derheimer (Hart InterCivic), Chris Wlaschin (Election Systems & Software), Ericka Haas (Electronic Registration Information Center), and Maria Bianchi (Democracy Works) - released the following statement:
“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
“Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.
“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”
Its amazing how people blind themselves to the simple fact of a two-party system of government, where one party reverses the "progress" made by the other when they are in power. In a two party system of govt., progress isn't one party gets what they want, because that will just be reversed by the other party. Progress in a two-party system is when both parties work together so that everyone gets what they want. The only problem is when both parties don't represent certain citizens, which just means that they don't get what they want. This is why we need alternative choices with new ideas to bring to the mix. Its just that the media is controlling what ideas you have access to. — Harry Hindu
This is a great example of how emotions cloud your judgment, and the power propaganda has on weak minds.Should any of this lead to riots, another difference is that Trump can rely on thousands of neo-Nazi sympathizers to unleash hell onto peaceful demonstrators. These violent cretins have had wet dreams for years about the Day of the Rope. Yes their dream is to hang all people of color, all white women who ever had biracial sex, as well as all politicians, journalists and intellectuals. — Olivier5
The Dems made the exact same argument when Trump had a vacancy to fill. The only difference was that the Reps had control of the Senate. So it seems clear to me that had the Dems had control of the Senate they would have flatly refused to consider any confirmation.The problem with the SC vacancies issue is hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans. Normal procedure was that when a justice dies the president appoints a new one modulo Senate confirmation. With the late vacancy under Obama the Republican-controlled Senate flatly refused to even consider any confirmation, on the grounds that it was "too close to the election". — Pfhorrest
Thats not the argument they made. The precedent is in the Constitution. It says, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.and Democrats calling for them to stick to the new procedure that the Republicans just established four years earlier — Pfhorrest
The only problem is that I'm not a nihilist nor do I adopt fideism, nor does anything I've said support such ideas, so your experiencing your delusions of grandeur again.I'm not going to defend the Democrats as any kind of paragons of virtue, both parties are FUBAR, but that doesn't mean they're both equally bad. "They're all equally bad, there is no difference" is just a lazy way of avoiding having to figure out which is better or worse, every bit as lazy as "my position is right because it just is because it's mine now shut up you're a bad wrong person".
(Hey look, it's my principles against "nihilism" and "fideism" showing up in an unexpected place, again). — Pfhorrest
I'm not really advocating for more than two parties, although that might be better than what we have now. I'm saying that we should abolish political parties altogether.Unfortunately two party politics are pretty much inevitable in a first past the post system of voting. Gotta switch to something like alternative vote, ranked choice, proportial representation, etc. if you want more than two parties. — Michael
This is a great example of how emotions cloud your judgment, and the power propaganda has on weak minds. — Harry Hindu
The Dems made the exact same argument when Trump had a vacancy to fill. The only difference was that the Reps had control of the Senate. — Harry Hindu
The only problem is that I'm not a nihilist nor do I adopt fideism — Harry Hindu
Your problem is that you think there are only two choices. Those that can only think in black and white terms are the lazy thinkers. — Harry Hindu
Post-Nov. 3rd election results as of 1:30pm EST on Friday, Nov. 13th:https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/404841 (April 2020)
Biden-Harris
• Wins Wisconsin
• Wins Pennsylvania
• Wins Michigan
(• Wins Florida)
(• Wins Arizona)
Electoral College votes
• Biden-Harris > 313 (min. 273) :up:
• Trump-Pence > 218 (max. 258)
US Senate
• Dems+4 seats (or more)
US House
• Dems+15 seats (or more)
— my 2020 predictions
T-minus 21 days. :victory: :mask: — 180 Proof
12:35pm - November 28, 2016 (Twitter)306. Landslide. Blowout. Historic. — Kellyanne Conway, Trump Senior Aide
1:19pm - November 13, 2020 (Twitter) :fire:306. Landslide. Blowout. Historic. — Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN
Yep.I suppose Timothy Mcveigh was a weak mind, then. — Olivier5
Like I said, the principle is established in the Constitution. The Congress has the power to determine the organization and constituents of the SC. You don't seem to understand that it is within the power of the Legislative branch to establish new precedents and abolish old ones with new laws and rules. They have done this many times. It is only because we citizens have allowed it to become a partisan issue that we now have fights over which side has more justices, or which way the court leans. The SC is suppose to be a non-partisan body, but thanks to the polarization of the Congress which has the power to basically design the SC any way they see fit, the SC has become an extension of this partisanship that exists. I think the Constitution should be amended to allow us citizens to vote for Supreme Court justices, and they and all members of Congress need to have term limits.The difference is that the Reps had already established a principle about “too close to the election” that had denied the Dems their rightful appointment, so the Reps then denying their own principle was a naked power grab.
You have to consider the two events together. If the Dems had been that hypocritical I would be just as critical of them, but I really don’t think they would have been, since Dems are all about the process and civility and compromise even when the Reps are making naked power grabs in response. (That’s a criticism of the Dems there, BTW; I think that’s a weakness, you don’t respond to cheaters by playing extra fair yourself). — Pfhorrest
No. You're not. You are arguing for more of the same TWO-party system. Two-party = Black and White. No parties = No black or white. You seem to think that one's religion or political party makes one more moral than others with a different religion or political party. My point is that politics and religion are inherently immoral as they are both a limitation on personal liberties and freedom of thought. They are essentially a form of group-think. There are good and bad in every group, and that is simply human nature.I’m explicitly arguing AGAINST black and white thinking here. You act like the only alternative to naked partisanship is “they’re all equally bad”. That’s thinking the only alternative to white is black. I’m arguing that that’s not the case, that there are shades of grey between partisanship and “they’re all equally bad”, that you can recognize the faults of both parties and still see that one has more faults than the other. To deny that is lazy black-and-white thinking — Pfhorrest
Like I said, the principle is established in the Constitution — Harry Hindu
No. You're not. You are arguing for more of the same TWO-party system. Two-party = Black and White. No parties = No black or white — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.