2020 US General Election Thread X: For Those About to Vote

[Ngelmish]

Yes and no. I agree that it's a red flag, but I'd hold off on breaking the emergency glass unless and until Biden actually puts one of them in the cabinet. Particularly in terms of whether or not it's a significant post. Biden's been flirting with just about everyone, so it's hard to know what exactly to extrapolate. Particularly given that it's standard practice to float names that you're not going to choose as a bone.

I'm inclined to agree that pushing back on him actually doing it is a good use of activism, however. Democrats especially have to stop giving high profile Republicans national security positions, it does nothing but reinforce Republican propaganda on "strong on defense" garbage.

Even more than defense stuff, I'm worried he's going to decide that the people who are rediscovering their inner deficit hawks are right, and we'll end up with grinding austerity and an excruciating recovery orchestrated by a bunch of rightist hacks to sabotage the administration.

Well yes. The best hope there is that having a front row seat to the kneecapping of Obama is going to lead him to laugh out loud when GOP senators piously whine about the deficit in their first private meeting with him, because, you know, he doesn't want to repeat that experience. And there is some evidence that the scope of the pandenmic has revised his expectations upwards in terms of what he wants to, and thinks he can, accomplish. But I don't pretend any real insight into what we'll get when it comes to a coherent view of Democratic domestic policy with Biden. He's left himself a lot of room. I don't object to keeping pressure on him to hold further left, but I don't think that careless swipes at him about how bad Democrats were in the 90's is conducive to having a helpful effect. That's where I'm coming at this from. There's a difference between constructive, tough criticism and the "Democrats are bad!" rhetoric that emanates from a lot of the activist left, in that regard.

[San Lumen]

I gather the same would be for your state. In other words you wouldn't compromise at all and spend your entire term vetoing everything.

Why hasn't any governor with the legislature of the opposite party ever done that? Because its no way to govern.

So I should just sign gun control bills, tax increases, and whatever nonsense the legislature passes for no reason other than it's doing something?

Why just those things? Vetoing absolutely everything would not be sustainable way to govern for even a full term.

[The Black Forrest]

I gather the same would be for your state. In other words you wouldn't compromise at all and spend your entire term vetoing everything.

Why hasn't any governor with the legislature of the opposite party ever done that? Because its no way to govern.

So I should just sign gun control bills, tax increases, and whatever nonsense the legislature passes for no reason other than it's doing something?

So you should only sign things that aren’t doing anything?

[San Lumen]

In other words the people punished for daring to vote for someone you don't like or prevented from voting at all

Yes

Thank you once again for proving you dont believe in free and fair elections, a peaceful transfer or power or a functioning government.

[Arlenton]

My view of how this country should work I assume is radically different than yours.

Okay... are you at least on board with the indivisibility of the union and continuing liberal democratic governance? I got the sense you were the last time I read any of your posts, has that changed? If you aren't, then sure, radically different operating assumptions, whatever. But if you are, you should be more concerned about the viability of this strategy you've outlined.

As for the strategy, it prevented many progressive policies from being ushered in under Obama's presidency and it gave conservatives the biggest edge in the federal courts in my lifetime. The NINTH CIRUIT even ruled against a California magazine limit law. I don't see how this isn't a victory. Four to eight years of neoliberal Biden trying to nicely ask Republicans and red state Democrats to please pass his half-assed progressive agenda is hardly a defeat, in my opinion.

What has actually been accomplished that is a positive good in its own right for the country, rather than simply a negative good by having not come to pass or been averted? What you're outlining here is the fatal weakening of the Democratic Party as an institution and a successful campaign to compromise the independence of the judiciary; this is distinct from the strengthening of the Republican Party or its base of support, and it is definitely not a good thing for the country. If you want to keep standing athwart history and yelling stop or whatever in the long-term, you should be wary of doing things that will grow left/progressive majorities and force them to seek alternatives to mainstream Democratic Party politics to achieve their aims.

What has actually been accomplished that has been a positive good for the country?

I gave you one. The Ninth Circuit just ruled against that California law banning high capacity magazines. I also mentioned that progressive policies were blocked from passing while Obama was President. Once Trump came along, he appointed judges to the courts who will likely rule in favor of states' rights and gun rights, which I would say are my top priorities. The tax cuts were pretty nice too.

And I have yet to see progressives do much to retaliate. Sure, burn some more shops in far away cities or get hashtags trending on twitter. That'll sure show us. Meanwhile the Democratic nominee is literally considering giving JEFF FLAKE a cabinet position. I'm not worried.

[Telconi]

Yes

Thank you once again for proving you dont believe in free and fair elections, a peaceful transfer or power or a functioning government.

And you don't believe in human rights or the dignity of hour fellow citizens, am I really the bad guy here?

[Arlenton]

So I should just sign gun control bills, tax increases, and whatever nonsense the legislature passes for no reason other than it's doing something?

So you should only sign things that aren’t doing anything?

I'd sign bills I thing would be the right thing to do. But I know the Democratic controlled state legislature of Illinois will pass no such things. And they have the numbers to override any veto, I think.

[Jerzylvania]

So I should just sign gun control bills, tax increases, and whatever nonsense the legislature passes for no reason other than it's doing something?

Why just those things? Vetoing absolutely everything would not be sustainable way to govern for even a full term.

This is interesting. The top nine U.S. Presidents with the most vetoes. Do recall when interpreting how many years each of these POTUS's served.

[Aclion]

Governor of Illinois? I would probably be forced to veto everything coming out of the state legislature, then have it be overridden, then lose the next election in a landslide.

So basically, nothing.

I gather the same would be for your state. In other words you wouldn't compromise at all and spend your entire term vetoing everything.

Why hasn't any governor with the legislature of the opposite party ever done that? Because its no way to govern.

*laughs in Coolidge*

[The Black Forrest]

So you should only sign things that aren’t doing anything?

I'd sign bills I thing would be the right thing to do. But I know the Democratic controlled state legislature of Illinois will pass no such things. And they have the numbers to override any veto, I think.

Depends on what doing the right thing is.......

[Arlenton]

So I should just sign gun control bills, tax increases, and whatever nonsense the legislature passes for no reason other than it's doing something?

Why just those things? Vetoing absolutely everything would not be sustainable way to govern for even a full term.

If the legislature were to pass stuff that I agree with, I would sign it.

Also, don't play dumb. Obviously when I say veto everything, that means everything partisan. Obviously I'd sign bipartisan, technical, or symbolic stuff. When it comes to addressing hot button issues? I don't see how the Illinois legislature would pass anything signable.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Have the democrats ever put forward the idea of electoral reform for when they get into office? Not necessarily for this election, but in general.

[Senkaku]

Okay... are you at least on board with the indivisibility of the union and continuing liberal democratic governance? I got the sense you were the last time I read any of your posts, has that changed? If you aren't, then sure, radically different operating assumptions, whatever. But if you are, you should be more concerned about the viability of this strategy you've outlined.


What has actually been accomplished that is a positive good in its own right for the country, rather than simply a negative good by having not come to pass or been averted? What you're outlining here is the fatal weakening of the Democratic Party as an institution and a successful campaign to compromise the independence of the judiciary; this is distinct from the strengthening of the Republican Party or its base of support, and it is definitely not a good thing for the country. If you want to keep standing athwart history and yelling stop or whatever in the long-term, you should be wary of doing things that will grow left/progressive majorities and force them to seek alternatives to mainstream Democratic Party politics to achieve their aims.

What has actually been accomplished that has been a positive good for the country?

I gave you one. The Ninth Circuit just ruled against that California law banning high capacity magazines. I also mentioned that progressive policies were blocked from passing while Obama was President.

Those are negative goods. Something was blocked, something did not pass, something was prevented. The absence of the thing rather than its presence is what is desirable to you about what happened. I ask again: what positive goods have been accomplished or produced?

Once Trump came along, he appointed judges to the courts who will likely rule in favor of states' rights and gun rights, which I would say are my top priorities.

That's great. They can block lots of progressive legislation and prevent lots of bad stuff, producing... a negative good.

The tax cuts were pretty nice too.

If that's the only positive good that the GOP can produce, it'll eventually have trouble holding on even to its own base as inequality continues to grow.

And I have yet to see progressives do much to retaliate. Sure, burn some more shops in far away cities or get hashtags trending on twitter. That'll sure show us. Meanwhile the Democratic nominee is literally considering giving JEFF FLAKE a cabinet position. I'm not worried.

Do you have any sense that there will be consequences beyond, say, three years from now? Or of what is already at risk in terms of the country's and the planet's stability?

[Senkaku]

Have the democrats ever put forward the idea of electoral reform for when they get into office? Not necessarily for this election, but in general.

Warren had a corruption bill that included some electoral reform iirc, as well as focusing on limiting special interest influence on Capitol Hill, which she was gonna do before anything else with the theory being that it would pave the way for the rest of her program. Not sure if Biden threw the whole thing overboard, or if he's kept any chunks of it around as things that might be nice to eventually do at some point if he has the Senate and some spare time.

[Ngelmish]

Have the democrats ever put forward the idea of electoral reform for when they get into office? Not necessarily for this election, but in general.

Warren had a corruption bill that included some electoral reform iirc, as well as focusing on limiting special interest influence on Capitol Hill, which she was gonna do before anything else with the theory being that it would pave the way for the rest of her program. Not sure if Biden threw the whole thing overboard, or if he's kept any chunks of it around as things that might be nice to eventually do at some point if he has the Senate and some spare time.

Didn't the house pass a version of it? If I'm remembering correctly, they didn't water it down much, either.

[Telconi]

What has actually been accomplished that has been a positive good for the country?

I gave you one. The Ninth Circuit just ruled against that California law banning high capacity magazines. I also mentioned that progressive policies were blocked from passing while Obama was President.

Those are negative goods. Something was blocked, something did not pass, something was prevented. The absence of the thing rather than its presence is what is desirable to you about what happened. I ask again: what positive goods have been accomplished or produced?

Once Trump came along, he appointed judges to the courts who will likely rule in favor of states' rights and gun rights, which I would say are my top priorities.

That's great. They can block lots of progressive legislation and prevent lots of bad stuff, producing... a negative good.

The tax cuts were pretty nice too.

If that's the only positive good that the GOP can produce, it'll eventually have trouble holding on even to its own base as inequality continues to grow.

And I have yet to see progressives do much to retaliate. Sure, burn some more shops in far away cities or get hashtags trending on twitter. That'll sure show us. Meanwhile the Democratic nominee is literally considering giving JEFF FLAKE a cabinet position. I'm not worried.

Do you have any sense that there will be consequences beyond, say, three years from now? Or of what is already at risk in terms of the country's and the planet's stability?

I'm curious if you truly believe stability ought to be prioritized over other values, or if that's just a crummy argument tactic.

[Senkaku]

Warren had a corruption bill that included some electoral reform iirc, as well as focusing on limiting special interest influence on Capitol Hill, which she was gonna do before anything else with the theory being that it would pave the way for the rest of her program. Not sure if Biden threw the whole thing overboard, or if he's kept any chunks of it around as things that might be nice to eventually do at some point if he has the Senate and some spare time.

Didn't the house pass a version of it? If I'm remembering correctly, they didn't water it down much, either.

I don't bother keeping track of what the house does or doesn't pass these days frankly, it's not worth the angst when we know it's all going to the graveyard anyways

[The Black Forrest]

Have the democrats ever put forward the idea of electoral reform for when they get into office? Not necessarily for this election, but in general.

Hmmmmm......a serious one?......don’t think so.

Both tend to talk of reform after they loose.

There have been a couple bipartisan efforts in the past.....

[The Huskar Social Union]

I would love to see a US senate or house election done on STV or something similar, that would be juicy.

[San Lumen]

Why just those things? Vetoing absolutely everything would not be sustainable way to govern for even a full term.

If the legislature were to pass stuff that I agree with, I would sign it.

Also, don't play dumb. Obviously when I say veto everything, that means everything partisan. Obviously I'd sign bipartisan, technical, or symbolic stuff. When it comes to addressing hot button issues? I don't see how the Illinois legislature would pass anything signable.

what do you consider technical or symbolic stuff if you were governor of your state?

[Senkaku]

Those are negative goods. Something was blocked, something did not pass, something was prevented. The absence of the thing rather than its presence is what is desirable to you about what happened. I ask again: what positive goods have been accomplished or produced?

That's great. They can block lots of progressive legislation and prevent lots of bad stuff, producing... a negative good.

If that's the only positive good that the GOP can produce, it'll eventually have trouble holding on even to its own base as inequality continues to grow.

Do you have any sense that there will be consequences beyond, say, three years from now? Or of what is already at risk in terms of the country's and the planet's stability?

I'm curious if you truly believe stability ought to be prioritized over other values, or if that's just a crummy argument tactic.

I'm doing this thing called trying to find common ground, which you should try at some point. Arlenton is a conservative, so I obviously disagree on most moral and political principles, but I think (or I assumed/thought) that we shared a commitment to the country not completely imploding or the planet being ravaged or whatever. If we do share that commitment, then that's probably the best foundation I can use to convince him that his enthusiasm for the strategy of scorched earth political obstruction is misplaced.

Anyways, just thinking about shared beliefs and how I can convince another person in good faith of something even though they have a very different outlook. It's more interesting than the usual mindless ideological bludgeoning matches people tend to end up in with you.

[Telconi]

I'm curious if you truly believe stability ought to be prioritized over other values, or if that's just a crummy argument tactic.

I'm doing this thing called trying to find common ground, which you should try at some point. Arlenton is a conservative, so I obviously disagree on most moral and political principles, but I think (or I assumed/thought) that we shared a commitment to the country not completely imploding or the planet being ravaged or whatever. If we do share that commitment, then that's probably the best foundation I can use to convince him that his enthusiasm for the strategy of scorched earth political obstruction is misplaced.

Anyways, just thinking about shared beliefs and how I can convince another person in good faith of something even though they have a very different outlook. It's more interesting than the usual mindless ideological bludgeoning matches people tend to end up in with you.

Yes, I read your post, I simply questioned it's honesty.

[San Lumen]

Thank you once again for proving you dont believe in free and fair elections, a peaceful transfer or power or a functioning government.

And you don't believe in human rights or the dignity of hour fellow citizens, am I really the bad guy here?

I most certainly do.

[Arlenton]

What has actually been accomplished that has been a positive good for the country?

I gave you one. The Ninth Circuit just ruled against that California law banning high capacity magazines. I also mentioned that progressive policies were blocked from passing while Obama was President.

Those are negative goods. Something was blocked, something did not pass, something was prevented. The absence of the thing rather than its presence is what is desirable to you about what happened. I ask again: what positive goods have been accomplished or produced?

Once Trump came along, he appointed judges to the courts who will likely rule in favor of states' rights and gun rights, which I would say are my top priorities.

That's great. They can block lots of progressive legislation and prevent lots of bad stuff, producing... a negative good.

The tax cuts were pretty nice too.

If that's the only positive good that the GOP can produce, it'll eventually have trouble holding on even to its own base as inequality continues to grow.

And I have yet to see progressives do much to retaliate. Sure, burn some more shops in far away cities or get hashtags trending on twitter. That'll sure show us. Meanwhile the Democratic nominee is literally considering giving JEFF FLAKE a cabinet position. I'm not worried.

Do you have any sense that there will be consequences beyond, say, three years from now? Or of what is already at risk in terms of the country's and the planet's stability?

Negative good? I'm not familiar with the term. From what you are saying, that sounds good. I'm in favor of more of it.

And three years from now, in 2023, I'm going to guess the GOP has taken the House in the 2022 midterm and gridlock resumes in the middle of President Biden's first term. Likely Supreme Court decisions deferred even more power to the states when it comes to running elections and redistricting, allowing for states (particularly Texas, Florida, and Georgia) to go crazy gerrymandering, as well as slash early voting and mail in voting, as there was a pig push from the conservative base to do so after Trump's 2020 loss and subsequent campaign to end so called "Democratic voter fraud". Meanwhile progressives activists are pushing for a primary to Biden in 2024, but the DNC is preparing to put a stop to that real quick.

Like I said, not worried.

[Telconi]

And you don't believe in human rights or the dignity of hour fellow citizens, am I really the bad guy here?

I most certainly do.

Just like how I believe in democracy.