Utopia Talk / Politics / NYT Opinion

chuck Member	Fri Sep 25 12:57:33 Not usually a big Frank Bruni fan but this is a fairly reasonable article acknowledging that even if Dems get all their wishes in November it's not a panacea. Appreciate it as a change of pace from the "dunking on the other team" that is more typical of opinion writing these days. Also +1 for at least stopping to consider he may be engaging in groupthink. ----- Will Trump’s Presidency Ever End? Frank Bruni September 25 Toward the beginning of a wise and beautifully stated essay about American partisanship and the response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the lawyer and political commentator David French wrote, “I have never in my adult life seen such a deep shudder and sense of dread pass through the American political class.” I don’t think the shudder was confined to the political class. And the day after Ginsburg died, I felt a shudder just as deep. That was when Trump supporters descended on a polling location in Fairfax, Va., and sought to disrupt early voting there by forming a line that voters had to circumvent and chanting, “Four more years!” This was no rogue group. This was no random occurrence. This was an omen — and a harrowing one at that. Republicans are planning to have tens of thousands of volunteers fan out to voting places in key states, ostensibly to guard against fraud but effectively to create a climate of menace. Trump has not just blessed but encouraged this. On Fox News last month, he bragged to Sean Hannity about all the “sheriffs” and “law enforcement” who would monitor the polls on his behalf. At a rally in North Carolina, he told supporters: “Be poll watchers when you go there. Watch all the thieving and stealing and robbing they do.” Color me alarmist, but that sounds like an invitation to do more than just watch. Trump put an exclamation point on it by exhorting those supporters to vote twice, once by mail and once in person, which is of course blatantly against the law. Is a fair fight still imaginable in America? Do rules and standards of decency still apply? For a metastasizing segment of the population, no. That’s the toxic wellspring of the dread that French mentioned. That’s the moral of the madness in Virginia. Right on cue, we commenced a fight over Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat that could become a protracted death match, with Mitch McConnell’s haste and unabashed hypocrisy potentially answered by court packing, among other acts of vengeance, if Democrats win the presidency and the Senate. That’s a big if, because we’re also hurtling toward an Election Day that may decide exactly nothing — and I don’t mean that night. I mean for months. I mean forever. Talk about a shudder: On Wednesday Trump was asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the event that he lost to Joe Biden. Shockingly but then not really, he wouldn’t. He prattled anew about mail-in ballots and voter fraud and, perhaps alluding to all of the election-related lawsuits that his minions have filed, said: “There won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.” We’re in terrible danger. Make no mistake. This country, already uncivil, is on the precipice of being ungovernable, because its institutions are being so profoundly degraded, because its partisanship is so all-consuming, and because Trump, who rode those trends to power, is now turbocharging them to drive America into the ground. The Republican Party won’t apply the brakes. The week since Ginsburg’s death has been the proof of that. Many of us dared to dream that a small but crucial clutch of Republican senators, putting patriotism above party, would realize that to endorse McConnell’s abandonment of his own supposed principle about election-year Supreme Court appointments would be a straw too many, a stressor too much and a guarantee of endless, boundless recrimination and retribution. At some point, someone had to be honorable and say, “Enough.” Hah. Only two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, broke with McConnell, and in Collins’s case, there were re-election considerations and hedged wording. All the others fell into line. I don’t blame it on a lack of courage. I attribute it to something worse. Most politicians — and maybe most Americans — now look across the political divide and see a band of crooks who will pick your pocket if you’re meek and dumb enough not to pick theirs first. The person who leaves his or her wallet out in the open, as a gesture of good will, can’t complain when he or she winds up broke. “It’s the Wild West,” said a Republican strategist who is no fan of Trump’s but was using that metaphor to defend McConnell to me. I had reached out to the strategist to vent my disgust. “It’s all about situational power dynamics,” he continued. “If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.” He argued that Chuck Schumer and McConnell “play the same game. McConnell just plays it a little better.” So the lesson for Democrats should be to take all they can when they can? That’s what some prominent Democrats now propose: As soon as their party is in charge, add enough seats to the Supreme Court to give Democrats the greater imprint on it. Make the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states, so that Democrats have much better odds of controlling the Senate. Do away with the filibuster entirely. That could be just the start of the list. I wouldn’t begrudge the Democrats any of it. The way I’m feeling right now, I’d cheer them on. But Republicans reach back to Harry Reid’s actions when he was the Democratic majority leader of the Senate to justify their wickedness now. Democrats will cite that wickedness to justify the shattering of precedents in the future. Ugliness begets ugliness until — what? The whole thing collapses of its own ugly weight? And who the hell are we anymore? The world’s richest and most powerful country has been brought pitifully and agonizingly low. On Tuesday we passed the mark of 200,000 deaths related to the coronavirus, cementing our status as the global leader, by far, on that front. How’s that for exceptionalism? On Wednesday The Atlantic rushed its November cover story onto the web with an explanatory, almost apocalyptic note by its editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, that some journalism is too important to wait. The article is about the very real chance — essentially confirmed hours later by Trump’s “continuation” comment — that he might contest the election in a manner that keeps him in power regardless of what Americans really want. “The coronavirus pandemic, a reckless incumbent, a deluge of mail-in ballots, a vandalized Postal Service, a resurgent effort to suppress votes, and a trainload of lawsuits are bearing down on the nation’s creaky electoral machinery,” the article’s author, Barton Gellman, a Pulitzer winner, wrote. “The mechanisms of decision are at meaningful risk of breaking down. Close students of election law and procedure are warning that conditions are ripe for a constitutional crisis that would leave the nation without an authoritative result. We have no fail-safe against that calamity.” Just a few days before those words screeched across the internet, The New Yorker published a similar, equally chilling opus by one of its star writers, Jeffrey Toobin, who explained how this election might well degenerate into violence, as Democratic poll watchers clash with Republican poll watchers, and into chaos, as accusations of foul play delay the certification of state vote counts. Several hours after Gellman’s article appeared, Slate published one by Richard Hasen, a professor at the University of California-Irvine School of Law, with the headline: “I’ve Never Been More Worried About American Democracy Than I Am Right Now.” Sometimes an overlap of alarms like that reflects groupthink. Sometimes it signals hysteria. This isn’t either of those times. “The republic is in greater self-generated danger than at any time since the 1870s,” Richard Primus, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, told me, saying that Trump values nothing more than his own power and will do anything that he can get away with. I spoke with Primus, fittingly enough, as he drove home to Michigan from Washington, where he was paying tribute to Ginsburg, for whom he was a clerk two decades ago. “If you had told Barack Obama or George W. Bush that you can be re-elected at the cost that American democracy will be permanently disfigured — and in the future America will be a failed republic — I don’t think either would have taken the deal.” But Trump? “I don’t think the survival of the republic particularly means anything to Donald Trump.” What gave Primus that idea? Was it when federal officers used tear gas on protesters to clear a path for a presidential photo op? Was it when Trump floated the idea of postponing the election, just one of his many efforts to undermine Americans’ confidence in their own system of government? Or was it when he had his name lit up in fireworks above the White House as the climax of his party’s convention? Was it on Monday, when his attorney general, Bill Barr, threatened to withhold federal funds from cities that the president considers “anarchist”? That gem fit snugly with Trump’s talk of blue America as a blight on red America, his claim that the pandemic would be peachy if he could just lop off that rotten fruit. The deadly confrontations recently in Kenosha, Wis., and Portland, Ore., following months of mass protests against racial injustice, speak to how profoundly estranged from their government a significant percentage of Americans feel. These Americans have lost or are losing faith that the system can treat them fairly. “Tribal,” “identity politics,” “fake news” and “hoax” are now mainstays of our vocabulary, indicative of a world where facts and truth are suddenly relative. Yours may contradict mine, eroding any common ground and preventing any consensus. Yes, there were conspiracy theories and there was viciously ugly feuding before — there were duels! — but there were no Facebook or Twitter to accelerate the sorting of people into ideological cliques and to pour accelerant on the fires of their suspicion and resentment. Those fires are burning hot, with dire implications for what happens after Nov. 3. Sizable camps of people in both parties don’t see any way that the other could win honestly and won’t regard the ensuing government as legitimate. Trump has essentially commanded his followers to take that view. And he’s foreshadowing legal shenanigans by his team that would leave many Democratic voters feeling robbed. Try this on for size: Litigation to determine the next president winds up with the Supreme Court, where three Trump-appointed justices are part of a majority decision in his favor. It’s possible. “Things that seemed off-the-wall are now on-the-wall,” Hasen told me. Last February he released a book, “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy,” the title of which now reads, if anything, as understated. What’s the far side of a meltdown? America the puddle? While we await the answer, we get a nasty showdown over that third Trump justice. Trump will nominate someone likely to horrify Democrats and start another culture war: anything to distract voters from his damnable failure to address the pandemic. Rush Limbaugh — you know, the statesman whom Trump honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this year — has urged McConnell not even to bother with a confirmation hearing for the nominee in the Judiciary Committee and to go straight to a floor vote. Due diligence and vetting are so 2018. Some Democrats have suggested boycotting the hearing in protest and in recognition of the (usually) predetermined outcomes of these grandstanding sessions. Some floated the impeachment of Barr (who deserves it) to gum up the timetable. You know who has most noticeably and commendably tried to turn down the temperature? Biden. That’s of course its own political calculation, but it’s consistent with his comportment during his entire presidential campaign, one that has steered clear of extremism, exalted comity and recognized that a country can’t wash itself clean with more muck. He’s our best bid for salvation, which goes something like this: An indisputable majority of Americans recognize our peril and give him a margin of victory large enough that Trump’s challenge of it is too ludicrous for even many of his Republican enablers to justify. Biden takes office, correctly understanding that his mandate isn’t to punish Republicans. It’s to give America its dignity back. There is another school of thought: Maybe we need some sort of creative destruction to get to a place of healing and progress. Maybe we need to hit rock bottom before we bounce back up. But what if there’s bottom but no bounce? I wonder. And shudder.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Sep 25 14:12:44 NYT Opinion.... rofl. Its like when you take a beer piss thats 100% water... so irrelevant its not even worth flushing.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 25 17:36:20 "So the lesson for Democrats should be to take all they can when they can?" They have been doing that for decades now. He does kind of make that point a bit later but he writes this as if the Democrats took some time off from their shit slinging. It has been a solid and steady stream the entire time.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 00:05:08 [chuck]: "Also +1 for at least stopping to consider he may be engaging in groupthink." He didn't though. He absolved himself of the possibility: "Sometimes an overlap of alarms like that reflects groupthink. Sometimes it signals hysteria. This isn’t either of those times." And he makes the same lie/errors that have been going around: - He (still, somehow) thinks that Trump wanted people to vote twice - He misinterpreted Trump's election transfer/continuation language - He takes racial justice and the validity of the mob as a given, even wrongly thinking that they represent a significant portion of the population (They do not; polls disagree with their defund messages) And he is clearly partisan: - Takes RBG's greatness as a given - He seems to indicate that Republicans should have honored her dying wish or delayed to 2021 - Loves Biden (somehow) - Loves the strike-back ethos The only thing that made him look slightly *less* like a partisan hack is that he seems dimly aware that the DNC is making some grave mistakes with rule changes (changing the rules to favor themselves). He at least recognizes that the DNC has shit on itself, but he's still in his bubble and very clearly hasn't been reading the counterpoints to the DNC narratives.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 26 00:47:28 "He (still, somehow) thinks that Trump wanted people to vote twice" well, he probably does... but, in any case, what matters is what people hear, there's no doubt in my mind people would try to vote twice if he kept that stupid nonsensical message up (or maybe still will), no reason not to, he's not noting it's illegal, he claims it just will void your mail-in vote (a made-up claim as usual) plus he is vague a lot & refuses to ever clear things up ex) maybe he never called the coronavirus a hoax in that February area, but his hoax language about it created many cultists calling the virus a hoax also, no real misinterpretation on peaceful transfer... you can still say 'yes, of course' (as would anyone else) & add 'if i lose' & 'if no massive fraud' & whatever else (though he'll claim massive fraud whether found or not) we are definitely heading into disaster it's probably best for media to keep saying Trump will cause a war as that may be the only way for him not to do it just to prove media wrong (& if he wins, then it's worse than civil war :p)
habebe Member	Sat Sep 26 01:05:53 He wants more evidence of fraudelent voting chaos at worse At best it was a protest of sorts pointing out how easy fraud would be. Or he just loves saying shit that the nees cant help to replay soundbytes of.
The Children Member	Sat Sep 26 01:23:03 karen got really angry apparently becoz noone in da world is followin ur country. LOL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWbEa7qPbpw&feature=youtu.be
habebe Member	Sat Sep 26 01:52:44 Except yours and Sebs homeland, pur vassal state.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 01:55:21 [tw]: "well, he probably does..." If he does, then it's to void the votes of his followers, since intentionally voting twice to get two votes would be fraud, and he would lose those votes (fraudulent votes would be disqualified). In that case, the real narrative would be that he does not want to win the election. But the OP article makes its claim in very solid terms: "Trump put an exclamation point on it by exhorting those supporters to vote twice, once by mail and once in person, which is of course blatantly against the law." That's the false narrative — that Trump wants the illegal activity of multiple votes from each voter to pad his votes. This was the North Carolina video that was misrepresented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MTyiWFu4Rc And this was Trump's Tweet clarifying after the misinformation campaign: "MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE COUNTS & IS COUNTED, SIGN & MAIL IN your Ballot as EARLY as possible. On Election Day, or Early Voting ... go to your Polling Place to see whether or not your Mail In Vote has been Tabulated (Counted). If it has you will not be able to Vote & the Mail In System worked properly. If it has not been Counted, VOTE (which is a citizen’s right to do)" http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1301528521026744322 So what he actually said: *if* your mail-in vote has not been counted, then vote in person. Polling locations should have a record of whether or not the vote was tabulated, so if they do not have a record, then cast a ballot. The Associated Press confirms that this would work: "States have checks in place to prevent voters from voting twice" [August 26, 2020] "CLAIM: If a voter mails a ballot on Sunday and then shows up to a polling station to vote in person on Tuesday, election workers will not know whether the voter has already voted. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. States have various ways to protect against voters casting two ballots. Vote-by-mail ballots will be rejected in the verification process if it’s found a ballot was also cast in person. THE FACTS: When a voter shows up to vote in person, the poll book will typically indicate if the voter has been issued a vote-by-mail ballot — and may even show the poll worker if that ballot has already been processed." President Trump made that speech in North Carolina. North Carolina State Board of Elections Director Karen Brinson Bell confirmed that these protections were in place: [September 3rd, 2020] http://www.ncsbe.gov/news/press-releases/2020/09/03/message-karen-brinson-bell-nc-voters She did, however, discourage people from confirming tabulation in-person, since North Carolina, in particular, has a tracking website, an app, and a phone number for checking ballot status. Even an article that wanted to make Trump look bad dutifully reported this: "Trump’s Bad Advice for Mail-In Voters" [FactCheck.org; September 4th, 2020] http://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/trumps-bad-advice-for-mail-in-voters/ "“State law directs handling of the person who comes in,” [Richard L. Hasen, professor, University of California–Irvine School of Law] said. “If they say they’ve already voted by mail they won’t be allowed a regular ballot. And their provisional ballot won’t be counted if their mail in ballot shows up. As to whether it is a crime, I think it depends on intent. A voter who says I’m not sure if my ballot was received is in a different position from one who knowingly mails and seeks to cast (even a provisional) ballot.”" Most legitimate critiques focus on Trump's statements *slowing* the ballot process, since Trump does not say to use a state's particular ballot tracking portals (which may be more efficient) — he says to check in-person, which would cause longer lines. Less legitimate critiques assume that any attempt to cast a second ballot (intent or not) would be illegal (false). Outright false critiques, such as the OP article's, assume that Trump wanted people to vote twice specifically so that he'd get more votes. In other words, of the major critiques, the OP article used the one that is most ignorant and least supported by the realities of the process. .. [tw]: "plus he is vague a lot & refuses to ever clear things up [/] ex) maybe he never called the coronavirus a hoax in that February area, but his hoax language about it created many cultists calling the virus a hoax" That's definitely an issue, and his "never back down" attitude costs him there. He doesn't seem to like issuing clarifying statements, and he could definitely be using his position to clear up some of the conspiracy theories. .. [tw]: "also, no real misinterpretation on peaceful transfer... you can still say 'yes, of course' (as would anyone else) & add 'if i lose' & 'if no massive fraud' & whatever else (though he'll claim massive fraud whether found or not)" That's the problem though: if he accepts the premise of the question (via "yes, of course"), then they get their misinformation headlines ("[Trump admits defeat / Trump will transfer power to Biden]"). He avoided their trap, and they had another one for him that they ran with, and then it was cleared up the following day in even more explicit terms. Sadly, it looks like this OP article was released following the initial misinformation (around noon, September 25th) whereas the White House Press Secretary clarified about an hour later. It's still misinterpretation by the OP article, though, since he did not see the logical error of the question and thus incorrectly assumed the meaning of the answer.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 26 02:41:43 Trump's vote twice comments were stupid & irresponsible & ignorant no matter how you slice it no reason whatsoever to mail-in vote if going to polling place anyway plus Trump should've known, or minimally learned about, the online options... he said his 'vote twice' comments at at least 2 events + the tweet & NEVER a tweet or comment about online checking plus should've noted voting twice is a felony & doesn't just 'void your mail-in vote' (which he claimed in at least one of the instances) plus should've known about provisional ballots & noted requesting those (but i guess we can hope the poll workers are on the ball) problem is Trump knows nothing (& seeks no knowledge) on any topic
habebe Member	Sat Sep 26 02:50:51 Actually if Cherubs statement is correct ( it seems it is) then there is nothing wrong with verifying your vote was counted. That's actually a very democratic notion.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 03:22:02 [tw]: "no reason whatsoever to mail-in vote if going to polling place anyway" One reason could be that your state has been rated with low preparedness in mail-in ballots, you sent yours in out of convenience, but you want to be sure that it counted. It might make sense to skip the mail-in ballot step altogether and solely vote in-person, but in-person voting has its own uncertainties (will there be personal time on election day, will the line be too long, etc.). Old people who don't understand technology might prefer that in-person checking over online checks, which also speaks to why Trump said it and why he didn't mention checking online (he's old himself). I'm sure that when his young staffers tell him about the Internet, he just tells them that he's on Twitter and then changes subjects. [tw]: "plus should've noted voting twice is a felony & doesn't just 'void your mail-in vote' (which he claimed in at least one of the instances)" habebe got there, but like I mentioned, voting twice is not automatically a felony. Election staffers have to establish intent. One of the ways they do that is by asking if the in-person voter has already cast a mail-in ballot. If the voter says that they have and that they simply want to make sure their vote is counted, then there's no ill intent and no felony. If the polling location has the means, then they can check if the mail-in ballot hit and, if so, no additional ballot need be used. The voter would also be given a provisional ballot instead of an official ballot, which further protects against felony charges. If the mail-in ballot ends up on the system later, then the provisional ballot would be voided, as per the above sources. If, on the other hand, someone sent a mail-in ballot, went to the polling station, requested an official (not provisional) ballot, denied having voted already, and cast that second ballot — that would be a problem and felony charges may result. There would still be an investigation, however. [tw]: "problem is Trump knows nothing (& seeks no knowledge) on any topic" Yeah, and at the very least, we have definitely gotten to that point where it's necessary for leaders to be a little bit tech savvy. And this also shows why so many presidents have been to law school: they know how to be very deliberate with their language so that it cannot be misinterpreted. Trump has a Bachelor's in Economics, and that's it. Even George W. Bush at least *attempted* to get into law school, and he ended up with an MBA instead.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 26 03:22:21 habebe Gumming up the counting process, then getting courts to rule that counting must end before all votes are tallied is however not democratic at all. Don't get me wrong. I can live with any outcome. I am just surprised the mess Trump is making has not already seen the US credit rating fall.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 03:24:39 *"[If the mail-in ballot did not hit or there's no way to check at the polling station, then the] voter would also be given a provisional ballot instead of an official ballot"
Dukhat Member	Sat Sep 26 04:46:40 Dems will have a problem asserting their permanent majority mainly because their messaging can't break through the social media landscape. They need a different message for minority voters, white-working class voters, suburban voters, etc. Republicans just screams about abortion, taxes, and guns and automatically get 40% of the vote. And they can't get to 50% that way but they can make sure Dems don't by constantly trolling on social media. Young people aren't going to turn out at the rate they will this year in 2022 or 2024. And Voter registration is still heavily skewed independent unlike after FDR where the vast majority registered as Democrat. It's a disjunctive time in American politics.
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 26 04:59:09 This hack is so far to the left that he considers The Atlantic, The New Yorker and Slate to be accurate bellwethers of the state of the country. Here are the current top stories on all three of those sites: "For Some Trump Apologists, the Cognitive Dissonance Is Just Too Much" - Atlantic "Trump, the Supreme Court, and the G.O.P.’s Anti-Democratic Project" - NYer "The Jerk Who Gave Me a C+ in English Could Cost Democrats the Senate" - Slate Were we actually supposed to take OP seriously? This guy is completely delusional.
Dukhat Member	Sat Sep 26 08:43:57 Rugian as always is wrong because he lacks attention to detail. Go back to your dumb spreadsheets and toxic masculinity dumbass.
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 26 09:08:22 My "spreadsheets?" How is that even an insult lmao. And you're wrong as usual. Dems cant secure a permanent majority because their agenda is obscenely toxic to everyone over the age of 35 who doesnt spend their lives on Twitter. The only reason the "guns, taxes, abortion" argument works in the first place is because Democrats opened themselves up to exposure on that front. The Dekocrats had an opportunity to use the 2016 election as an opportunity to clean shop and reposition themselves as a moderate party capable of providing competent governance. Instead they went all in on the lunacy train.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 26 11:52:48 some of this stuff is assuming the Trump cultists will note to poll workers that they sent in a mail-in ballot & that poll workers will know what to do (that they need to give provisional ballot)... & many will be brand new as many of the typical old people doing it will be avoiding covid one of the times Trump said it was "if the system is as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote" (w/ no mention of telling poll worker they voted by mail) & implicit is if the system isn't as good (which is what he keeps saying) then they will get to vote (twice) so counting on the Trump cultist to do what he said only some of the times & the poll worker to also do the right things i don't really want to discuss this more :p to me, it was totally stupid nonsense in the pile of bullshit he's been spewing that will cause nothing but harm... & with definite vital information left out unacceptably, & NEVER corrected... (& the fact people might get off on the crime doesn't mean he shouldn't have noted it... ever.... he was repeating this stuff for over a week) Trump should never be allowed to provide any info or advice to the public ever
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 26 12:12:43 Jergul, I also can luve with any outcome. I also agree there is a lot of undemocratic shit going on and that the US no longer has free and fair elections, and its fall wasn't from money like many thought it was but from lawyers and pundits.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: