• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Presidential Election: Biden v. Trump

wvudeac said:
Threatening violence unless you win is normal, right?
Click to expand...

Just as long as the violence is threatened or committed by the right team.

if it’s the wrong team, then democracy is obviously doomed forever.
 
MBH, I’m not your enemy. I don’t know why you treat me like one. I ask in good faith. The only answer I remember you giving is to organize. I think that’s really naive because it depends on good faith among Republicans that is not there anymore.

Yesterday I saw this old Howard Zinn piece about the Supreme Court in the aftermath of John Roberts’ appointment.

https://progressive.org/op-eds/howard-zinn-despair-supreme-court/

It’s a nice read but very 2005. His main point is summed up midway through:

“It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice.”

I get his point, but even he admits later on that it still comes down to Congress and likely the Supreme Court at the end. All the progress he attributes to organizing involves Congress passing minimum wage, social security, and unemployment insurance. Or the Supreme Court rulings in Brown and Roe.

He says with respect to Roe, “If the American people, who by a great majority favor that right, insist on it, act on it, no Supreme Court decision can take it away.”

But of course those rulings came down from Republican appointees who were swayed by public sentiment.

The Republican mission for the last 40-50 years is to create a Judicial branch that is so hardened by conservativism that they won't be swayed by citizens who "organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice."

And that's where we are right now. None of that works if the Supreme Court takes away or invalidates voting rights or upholds police violence in response to peaceful protest. Those who "organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice” will get thrown into prison and stripped of their rights, tried for treason, gunned down by “militias.”

If you don’t vote, you are enabling all of this to happen.
 
That seems like a really reductive reading of that woman's thread (through addressing whatever MBH posted in the past - seems relevant).

If you're actually engaging in good faith, that is.
 
TenaciousKory said:
That seems like a really reductive reading of that woman's thread (through addressing whatever MBH posted in the past - seems relevant).

If you're actually engaging in good faith, that is.
Click to expand...

What's really reductive about my post? I'll break down my issues with her thread, but first when people keep making pithy "are you asking in good faith?" responses to thoughtful posts, it's a sign they're trolling and not acting in good faith. I'm going to give you a good faith response, Kory, but troll me again and I'll just stop.

First, she her premise is "they don’t have a plan." Who is "they" and what is it a plan for? Is she talking about Democrats having a plan for Trump rigging the election or Biden's platform? I'm guessing it's the former but that's derailed by the Biden talk a few tweets down. So if it's the former, I'm not sure what she expects in terms of a plan. There was that article about war gaming what happens if Trump doesn't step down. Democrats have been actively discussing this for years. I don't know who she is, but if there is some plan, why would she or we know it now?

Second, her audience seems to be us. "They" keep telling "you" to vote because "they" don't have a plan. OK, so what should I be doing aside from voting and encouraging other people to vote? She doesn't answer that.

Third, she gets into "they consistently undercut ambitious dreams & proposals for alternate futures because they simply lack the imagination." Fair point. But it seems like she accepts the premise that Trump is a unique danger that runs the risk of becoming a permanent problem. So if that's the case, "ambitious dreams" seem like a frivilous reason not to vote. In the same vein, she seems to be talking to the same people who said Trump was a unique danger to this country four years ago while also supporting people who ignored the Trump threat and didn't vote in 2016. So right there, it's a logical mess.

Then she says, "...they cry for us to vote because despite his incrementally successful efforts “it can’t and won’t happen here.”" I really don't understand that one. To that point, she seemed to be criticizing people who claim if we don't vote, it can and will happen here.

Her last two tweets seem to say the problem is "dogmatic faith in electoralism" and both sides BS not Trump and the rise of fascism. She ends by saying, "If voting is all you have or could ever conceive of having, you’ve long lost whatever war you think we’re fighting." But she doesn't say what we need to do besides vote.

Kory and MBH, please explain what I'm missing.
 
Ball State Deac said:
That is nice and all, but people Like Olivia allowed Trump to happen in 2016, and by showing up and working everyday with Pence, she furthered this insanity.
Click to expand...

yeah I really have no respect for former staffers and even high-ranking appointees coming out against Trump. you went to work for this administration, you knew what you were getting into. there were no surprises other than it's actually much worse than people thought.
 
Ball State Deac said:
That is nice and all, but people Like Olivia allowed Trump to happen in 2016, and by showing up and working everyday with Pence, she furthered this insanity.
Click to expand...

True, but at least she's not selling a book (at least not in the ad).
 
I don’t respect them but I like that they’re coming out. It builds a permission structure for Trump supporters to admit he’s not up to the job.

These Never Trump organizations are doing a good job of showing enthusiastic support for Biden. I do worry that if Biden wins these Never Trump organizations are going claim they ushered him to victory and get undue influence in his organization as a result. That’s one reason why I’d like to see more enthusiastic support from progressives.
 
And that Zoe lady can go fuck herself or singlehandedly overturn the Constitution so things will be the way she wants them to be and no one else.
 
BarcaDeac said:
yeah I really have no respect for former staffers and even high-ranking appointees coming out against Trump. you went to work for this administration, you knew what you were getting into. there were no surprises other than it's actually much worse than people thought.
Click to expand...

deactherunner said:
True, but at least she's not selling a book (at least not in the ad).
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
I don’t respect them but I like that they’re coming out. It builds a permission structure for Trump supporters to admit he’s not up to the job.

These Never Trump organizations are doing a good job of showing enthusiastic support for Biden. I do worry that if Biden wins these Never Trump organizations are going claim they ushered him to victory and get undue influence in his organization as a result. That’s one reason why I’d like to see more enthusiastic support from progressives.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of you. Good point in particular re permission structure. I few Trump getting to ram one more nominee on the Court as another opportunity to support Biden. They have a 6-3 majority and can overturn Roe, ACA, and have a "strong" 2nd Am (whatever that even means).
 
Ball State Deac said:
I agree with all of you. Good point in particular re permission structure. I few Trump getting to ram one more nominee on the Court as another opportunity to support Biden. They have a 6-3 majority and can overturn Roe, ACA, and have a "strong" 2nd Am (whatever that even means).
Click to expand...

Yeah. The game theory for Pubs is difficult. Trump wants to have 6-3 for the election because he knows he needs to rig it. Some conservatives, maybe 5% at the most would see 6-3 as a reason they can vote for Biden or don’t have to vote at all. They got their justice and can support Biden. That’s one reason Biden isn’t coming out for court packing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top