Biden should go or stay???

[TysonLPrice]

https://www.google.com/search?sca_es...i9zFRBCIM,st:0

lol

An explanation of why it's not democratic would help clear things up.

I think just inherently when a family controls a political apparatus it is not no longer a "peoples party", i.e. not democratic. Do you disagree with that?

[dday9]

it is not no longer a "peoples party", i.e. not democratic.

Was either party ever, that is outside of "in name only"?

[wes4dbt]

I think just inherently when a family controls a political apparatus it is not no longer a "peoples party", i.e. not democratic. Do you disagree with that?

I think it's an inherently bad situation and the RNC has basically given control to Trump. As I said, I think the RNC was foolish to let this happen.

My point was there are no rules against nepotism, there hasn't been any breach of our democracy. YET. lol

[TysonLPrice]

I think it's an inherently bad situation and the RNC has basically given control to Trump. As I said, I think the RNC was foolish to let this happen.

My point was there are no rules against nepotism, there hasn't been any breach of our democracy. YET. lol

Maybe not to the letter, but they are trampling all over the concept.

[wes4dbt]

Maybe not to the letter, but they are trampling all over the concept.

You could look at it this way,

In a democracy your free to choose, sometimes people choose very badly. lol

[dday9]

A lynch mob best describes a democracy: only one person dissents, so majority rule wins.

[TysonLPrice]

You could look at it this way,

In a democracy your free to choose, sometimes people choose very badly. lol

Just a few posts ago members were posting how undemocratic selecting Harris was. Doesn't "In a democracy your free to choose" apply there? When I said "so what", meaning the same thing, people just wanted to shut it down.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I could say something hyperbolic about how I go away and things blow up....but I was actually expecting this.

Just got back, though, and still quite in the dark (mostly because I haven't turned the lights on).

[FunkyDexter]

Just a few posts ago members were posting how undemocratic selecting Harris was.

I think it kinda is undemocratic but those who make this argument miss (or ignore) the point that the USA isn't purely democratic, it's a representative democracy and the selection of Harris was entirely in line with that principle.

A pure democracy is Anarchism (n.b. not Anarchy, Anarchism refers to the political movement) and that's tended not to work well on anything larger than a few dozen hippies in a commune. In any larger group, history tells us that it descends into totalitarianism pretty rapidly. Representative democracy is an attempt to make democracy practical at scale and generally works pretty well.

A lynch mob best describes a democracy: only one person dissents, so majority rule wins.

Yeah, but that 's still better than the one guy winning. Democracy is mob rule by its very nature which is why we hope that the mob will stop short of cruelty to the minority. Expecting the minority to get what it wants is unreasonable (because it would mean denying the majority) but we can, at least, expect the minority to be treated with respect. When that fails to happen you can expect blow back.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Selection of nominees by US parties is also a constantly shifting, semi rules based, process. I'm not aware of any laws governing that process, only conventions...of one sort or another.

[dday9]

@FD - I don't want you to think I am in favor of democracy, I'm really not. As a teenager I was into anarchy mostly to be contrarian, then as a young adult I considered myself a constitutional republican, then as I got older (and really as a result of neoconservatives) I switched to libertarianism. Not quite to the extent of an anarcho-capitalist but more like a paleolibertarian in line with Murray Rothbard's philosophy from the late 80s/early 90s. I think the best book out there against democracy is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy - The God That Failed; I have some disagreements with it, but it is a good read nonetheless.

My earlier posts were mainly to push back against against Tyson. My impression is that he is not particularly tied to ideals, rather he is highly partisan to whatever the democrats are pushing for the day. Which is fine. To each their own. But I find that its like a two-sided mirror with partisan Rs and Ds. You can watch any number of corporate media outlets and basically know where the highly partisan republicans will fall just as easily as where the highly partisan democrats will.

Since Trump was elected, the main talking point from the partisan democrats is that Trump is unique anti democratic and will overthrow the democracy. Now that we're a few months out from the election, Biden steps down after obvious pressure from the corporate media and donor class (I think fundraising dropped 70% just before he dropped out) and since then it has been a huge push for Kamala. Kamala already tried via the democratic process, she got less than 1% and wound up dropping out before the first caucus. So the juxtaposition between this constant narrative that it is Trump and the republicans attempting to "overthrow democracy" and the situation where the DNC essentially rigged the primary process to push through someone who can't even make it and replaces him with someone other than who the electorate decided is just absolutely cartoonish.

Personally, I don't care how Kamala gets the nomination. I just wanted to point out that the harder you buy into the partisan narratives the harder the fall is. Tyson's rhetoric over the past couple of months/years on how dangerous a Trump presidency is just laughable. It should be painfully obvious that both sides are terrible and "voting for the lesser of two evils" is a terrible mentality. That's why I respect hardcore leftists and authoritarians, not because I agree with their philosophy, but because they refuse to buy into that mindset. While younger generations tend to agree with this sentiment, boomers are the ones who vote and boomers are the ones who grew up in a world where they got the "facts" from one of three news stations. The result is that the country goes through these mini civil wars every 4 years (and every 2 years to a lesser extent) where half the electorate hates the other half. It hurts to watch.

Edit - I was going to say "mini civil wars with no casualties" but even that hasn't really been the case over the past couple election cycles. People on both sides hate each other so much that they are willing to engage in violence which is the antithesis of western philosophy.

[wes4dbt]

Been nice to see the way Harris has brought life back into the presidential race. Definitely an energy there that was missing from Biden. I hope the Dem's are wise enough to pick a VP that can help win one of the major swing states.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Energy wins US elections. Neither side has enough partisans to win on their own. They need independents to vote for them and/or a lack of enthusiasm on the other side.

So, what is Democracy? As Churchill put it, it's the worst form of government aside from all the others. Everybody wants less rules, right up until the time their ox gets gored, then they don't want THAT to be allowed, just everything else.

I got a ride from a guy a couple weeks ago who was a big supporter of something like the "State of Jefferson". I'm not sure if he actually believed in that state or something similar. He was primarily a supporter of the movement for several counties in eastern Oregon to become part of Idaho. Good luck to him. I intend to move away from here before that train has a chance to wreck.

The idea is that Idaho would have less regulation and is more in line with their conservative views. I'd be curious to see how they liked the sudden tax increase (Oregon has no sales tax, Idaho not only does, but is one of the few states to tax groceries and medicine) and sudden loss of services. They'd be taking some of the poorest counties of a relatively rich state and tacking them onto one of the poorest states in the nation. They'd get less, but on the other hand, they'd pay more, so it all evens out.

When it comes to discussing systems of government, of all the nations on the planet, both now and in recent history, which one would you prefer to live in? I would stick with recent history, because if you go back not very far, you end up with societies that were unworkable if you wanted any kind of modern convenience. Many types of government look good on paper, but don't exist in reality. Most people think the concept of communism is fair, but in practice it has always fallen into dictatorship immediately, even in very small communities. I like some of the principles of libertarianism, I just expect that it would be even less stable than communism. Any failed system of government seems to end up as authoritarian dictatorships (does anybody have any example of one that did not, as I can't think of any). Nobody much likes living in an authoritarian dictatorship unless they have their hand on the whip.

[dday9]

Probably the best that we had would be the articles of confederation drafted at the beginning of the revolutionary war. Wikipedia does a great job of selling it:

This unicameral body, officially referred to as the United States in Congress Assembled, had little authority, and could not accomplish anything independent of the states. It had no chief executive, and no court system. Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate foreign or interstate commerce, or effectively negotiate with foreign powers.

The one that held the longest would be the period after the war of northern aggression with the caveat of the anti-trade policies such as high tariffs that favored certain states over others. So from the mid-1860s until about the Wilson administration. Since the early 20th century there has been an increasingly slippery slope towards something other than a democratic republic. Things like the introduction of the federal reserve, the use of conscription that ultimately lead (sounds like wed) to the military industrial complex we see today that leads (sounds like weed) to unwinnable wars with vague expectations, the introduction and subsequent ramp up of wealth redistribution systems, the increase of a regulatory state that even our own government has a difficult time producing a list of all regulatory agencies, most recently raw authoritarian measures that stripped freedoms away in the name of public health.

We certainly live more comfortably today that at any point in the past but I would contend that technology progressed in spite of our current system rather than because of it.

[wes4dbt]

I got a ride from a guy a couple weeks ago who was a big supporter of something like the "State of Jefferson". I'm not sure if he actually believed in that state or something similar. He was primarily a supporter of the movement for several counties in eastern Oregon to become part of Idaho.

It would also include parts of Northern CA. Though probably also some of the poorer parts. I've heard this talk for quite a while. There is probably even a bigger push to divide CA into North and South because the North doesn't like giving their water to So CA.

Don't see it ever being much more than talk.

[TysonLPrice]

Selection of nominees by US parties is also a constantly shifting, semi rules based, process. I'm not aware of any laws governing that process, only conventions...of one sort or another.

Notice you can find a lot of Republicans insisting that Harris’s becoming the nominee without winning a single primary or caucus is undemocratic, but you can’t find many Democrats making that objection. As former Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis once said, “Just win, baby.”

[FunkyDexter]

@FD - I don't want you to think I am in favor of democracy

Now there's a hell of a quote. I know what you meant though.

As a teenager I was into anarchy mostly to be contrarian

I flirted in my early twenties (mainly because I hung around with ALOT of hippies) but it didn't take a lot of critical thinking before I realised this just wouldn't work except in small groups. Even in small groups decisions tend to be made on force of personality rather than rationality and, uncomfortably, that's the beginnings of totalitarianism, right there.

After that I moved toward liberalism rather than libertarianism but I've always felt these two have the same roots - personal freedoms tempered by respect for the personal freedoms of others. The fundamental difference, I think, is that liberalism asserts that you need an authority to police that respect while libertarianism would rather trust in the individual.

Honestly, though, my criticisms weren't aimed your way. I was just picking up butts in the thread because I hadn't been paying it much attention and I recognised the "Harris selection = undemocratic" argument as one I'd heard coming out of the Republican media and thought it was a bit silly. Not really surprising though as, in the lead up to an election, either side is going to portray any move by the other in the darkest possible light.

Since Trump was elected, the main talking point from the partisan democrats is that Trump is unique anti democratic and will overthrow the democracy

Here I suspect we may differ because I think he is that. Or, if he's not, a lot of the folks that are pulling his strings are. I get that, in a representative democracy, parties will try to win and, given that it's almost impossible to define a rigid set of rules to govern a sufficiently chaotic system, both parties are going to push at the boundaries somewhat. But I also think that the actions of the Trump and his coterie in 2020 were an out and out attempt to overturn the outcome of that election and I've see nothing to indicate they won't do it again. Couple that with a packed and clearly partisan supreme court that has ruled for Presidential Immunity and Project 2025 calling for supremacy of the Executive branch over both the Judicial and Legislative; I'm afraid I think your democracy is genuinely under threat.

So, what is Democracy?

Sapator is going to be along any minute now to tell us that it's "the rule of the people". That's why I think that anarchism is democracy in its purest form. Every step we take away from that is an undemocratic compromise so, hopefully, we take the fewest steps possible to arrive at a workable system and that's where the interesting debate is to be had. Which step is necessary and which is too much of a compromise?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't think that you can really say that conscription was behind the military industrial complex. For one thing, the US has been almost perpetually involved in low level wars. There was a book written called "The Savage Wars of Peace" that documented both a bunch of that and the lessons learned from those constant battles. Much of that was us making Central America good for US industry, others had other reasons. The War of 1812 should be included in that, as one of the primary objectives was annexing Canada, which didn't go so well, and has been often papered over. Still, for any large war, we'd go with conscription, mobilize, then demobilize drastically at the end. The military would be built up, then have to mothball most of the equipment within months at the end of the conflict. This happened for every war until WW II. It partially happened following WW II, as well, but not to the same extent. I don't think this was due to conscription, which had been around at various times for nearly 100 years at that point, but due to the distortion caused by nuclear weapons.

Soon after WW II, ICBMs were at least plausible, fast aircraft were a reality, and a nuclear USSR in direct opposition to US and US allies was a reality. In all wars up until that time, if somebody declared war on you, you had a bit of time. You could get a bunch of people, teach them how to march, teach them how to shoot guns, and so long as you had a cadre of professionals to do the teaching, you'd have an army in time to meet whatever foe. When your foe can level your cities before you can teach a single pilot how to fly a plane, you no longer have the luxury of time. Churchill said that the US was fortunate to be bordered on two sides by weak neighbors and the other sides by fish. That allowed us to demobilize after any war....until the world shrank to the point where we couldn't.

I would suggest that it was the changing nature of the threat that led to the military industrial complex. Sure, it could feed on itself once it got going, such that we have a larger military than we strictly need, but I don't believe we had the luxury of the level of demobilization that occurred after all prior wars.

[OptionBase1]

As a lifelong resident of Minnesota, which is normally under the national political radar, it is interesting that Tim Walz was selected as Harris' running mate.

Under his watch some of the largest fraud schemes in the history of Minnesota have taken place (massive coordinated day-care fraud, massive coordinated meal reimbursement fraud during the pandemic, and a likely fake autism diagnosis scheme that is only in the early stages of being uncovered), and I can't sugar-coat it, these schemes were perpetuated almost exclusively by Somali immigrants, which hasn't exactly helped their perceived status in the state.

There is, at the very least, anecdotal evidence that the Walz administration initially turned a blind eye to these fraud schemes when concerns were raised, which allowed them to continue much longer than they should have, and cost the state tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in extra fraud that could have been prevented if those initial concerns were acted upon.

So, I guess he should fit right in in DC.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Of the three likely candidates, I felt he was the weakest. I understand the strategic reasoning, but there was strategic reasoning behind the other two, as well, and I thought it was stronger. I would have preferred the governor of PA.

[wes4dbt]

Don't know anything about Tim Walz or what he brings to the table in terms of winning the election. I thought it should have been someone to help win Pa or Ga. I see those states as critical to winning the election.

[OptionBase1]

I think he's probably generally palatable across the board. He's a "Minnesota Nice", down to earth, regular Joe kind of a guy.

And I just want to add a few things to my earlier post. During the recent trial of several defendants in the "Feeding Our Future" massive meal overbilling scheme, one of the jurors had individuals come to her home, drop off a bag with something like $120,000 in cash with one of her relatives, and told that if she voted to acquit there would be more to come. Needless to say the FBI got involved with that case and more Somali immigrants were arrested in connection with that.

Now, to balance that out. I would say that, where I live, within a circle with a radius of 6 blocks, there are conservatively 2000+ Somali immigrants, possibly twice that amount. They are genuinely nice people, and their culture is that they always look out for each other. If a Somali is driving and sees another Somali walking, they'll pull over and pick them up and take them wherever they need to go.

They have a reputation of being bad drivers, but the city I live in has had a reputation for having bad drivers long before the mass migration of Somali immigrants in the past 15 years or so, so they fit right in.

When I'm out walking, I greet everyone I pass on the sidewalk. I often get dirty looks from fellow white people. I get a happy greeting back from all Somalis.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think he's probably generally palatable across the board. He's a "Minnesota Nice", down to earth, regular Joe kind of a guy.

This was the reasoning I heard behind him. The thinking is that he can appeal to midwestern voters. I felt the PA governor would be a better choice, because he's very popular and PA is essential.

[wes4dbt]

This was the reasoning I heard behind him. The thinking is that he can appeal to midwestern voters. I felt the PA governor would be a better choice, because he's very popular and PA is essential.

Yeah, 19 electoral votes is a lot. Minnesota is fairly solid Dem already. The last polls I saw had Trump ahead in Pa. Hopefully the Dems know something I don't. That wouldn't take much though. lol

[jmcilhinney]

When I'm out walking, I greet everyone I pass on the sidewalk. I often get dirty looks from fellow white people. I get a happy greeting back from all Somalis.

Sounds like your white neighbours know something about you that those Somalis haven't learned yet.

[wes4dbt]

Sounds like your white neighbours know something about you that those Somalis haven't learned yet.

I've had my suspicions. lol

[wes4dbt]

Yay, another presidential debate.

I'm not sure what the Dem's think they have to gain. I'd like to see them focus on motivating people to vote. I think Harris could win if the voter turnout is high. Oh well, at least it give the media and other something to talk about.

[techgnome]

I think it'll show that Harris can take on and handle Trump one-on-one and not come off as a bumbling geriatric idiot. Not that she comes across that way to begin with... It's also a way to show "hey we messed up, we've course-corrected and it's better now"


-tg

[wes4dbt]

I think it'll show that Harris can take on and handle Trump one-on-one and not come off as a bumbling geriatric idiot. Not that she comes across that way to begin with... It's also a way to show "hey we messed up, we've course-corrected and it's better now"


-tg

Perhaps, it seems unnecessary to me. Not worth giving Trump a nation wide audience to do this https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1...ews-conference

But then again, I don't watch the presidential debates, so I think they are all unnecessary. lol

[techgnome]

Perhaps, it seems unnecessary to me. Not worth giving Trump a nation wide audience to do this https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1...ews-conference

But then again, I don't watch the presidential debates, so I think they are all unnecessary. lol

Neither do I ... but we're not the target audience ... "on the fence" voters are... although, I can't imagine there's too many undecided at this point.

-tg

[jmcilhinney]

I can't imagine there's too many undecided at this point.

Polls I've seen mentioned seem to suggest otherwise. I think some are still waiting to see whether Harris can deliver some real substance.

[TysonLPrice]

Neither do I ... but we're not the target audience ... "on the fence" voters are... although, I can't imagine there's too many undecided at this point.

-tg

From the pundits I see on TV it will come down to a hand full of states and a small spread of electoral votes. Popular vote doesn't seem to matter that much anymore.

[wes4dbt]

The importance of the popular vote hasn't changed. It's never mattered. lol

I was checking out these polling results, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2593961.html

What surprised me was that 21% of Independents were undecided. I thought the number would be more like 5%.

The battle ground states are very close. Definitely no clear favorite yet.

[dilettante]

https://youtube.com/shorts/mbptkbiTc...NTHQZdpCWh38d8

[wes4dbt]

Glad to see you back Dil. And unchanged. lol

[dilettante]

Glad to see you back Dil. And unchanged. lol

I just thought it was hilarious. Not meaningful, just goofy.

[jmcilhinney]

I just thought it was hilarious. Not meaningful, just goofy.

Maybe you could tell us what it is and why you think it's worth watching, rather than just posting a link with no context whatsoever. As suggested, unchanged.

[wes4dbt]

Maybe you could tell us what it is and why you think it's worth watching, rather than just posting a link with no context whatsoever. As suggested, unchanged.

I didn't watch the whole thing but it is pretty funny. A fake video of Musk and Trump dancing.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Maybe you could tell us what it is and why you think it's worth watching, rather than just posting a link with no context whatsoever. As suggested, unchanged.

Rick roll.

(probably not, but I did post one fairly recently just because it would be unexpected)

[dday9]

It got me.