This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I can't take Bannon saying this to mean anything or indicate anything serious. He's just talking out of his ass from a position of no authority. Furthermore, Trump will be way too old to run next time. Furthermore, if they actually tried to run a strategy like this for any length of time, as opposed to just talking about it, that would push every centrist like me, who doesn't take anything Trump says about himself seriously nor takes anything Trump's detractors say about him seriously, into a realization that Trump is in fact a threat to American democracy. It would prove every leftist correct, that Trump is the worst thing ever, a wannabe dictator, the whole thing. Then Trump would lose in the biggest landslide ever.
Strongly disagree. I think there's probably very few people who aren't already convinced of this that would then become convinced by him trying a 3rd term. He already tried to hang on to power after an election whose results he disagreed with via very legally dubious means. I don't get the reasoning that sees the fake electors plot and concludes "Yeah, now that he attempted that and faced no consequences, won reelection, and has a Supreme Court ruling now saying he can't face any criminal liability for his actions as President, he probably won't try anything like it again".
I think there are a lot of people even just in this forum who would disagree with you about what centrists would and would not take seriously, and I'm speaking as one of those centrists.
I think Trump crossing the well established and easy to understand bright line in the sand that has existed in spirit since 228 years ago, and in law since 74 years ago would be far more of a damning behavior than the 2020 election craziness. It ultimately likely comes down to the plausible deniability of Trump's actions, whether it could be seen in any light as (yet again) something that was potentially taken out of context, just his enemies ganging up on him to make it seem like he's doing something worse then he is. Seeing language on Wikipedia claiming he "devised a scheme" doesn't do much to convince me of the neutrality of the sources reporting on it.
I consider myself pretty much a centrist. I don't like the left and I don't like the right. And I think Trump's actions during the 2020 election are inexcusable and, if not legally, then morally, disqualifying for holding the office of President. That was basically the line in the sand for me and my registered Republican family members who voted for him the first time around. They didn't vote for him again (as far as I know), and they might have if it weren't for 2020. So I do think I have at least some knowledge of what centrists think.
This seems overly uncharitable to me. Of course we can never truly know, but say he had done what the Wikipedia article says. What language would you expect or want them to use? "Devising a scheme" is just straightforwardly what one would call that.
"crafted a plan"
to be frank, there are many ways to more neutrally describe someone communicating with a group of people to come up with a plan to accomplish something
that you cannot even think of a way to describe such a thing without the negative connotation demonstrates what wikipedia is being accused of (which you're apparently blind to)
Let's assume the 2020 election was illegally stolen. What should Trump have done?
What he initially did: make his case in court, where he had the opportunity to show evidence of vote tampering or other forms of fraud significant enough to change the outcome of the election. It was his right to do that, and it's good that we allow it in our justice system. After he lost all these cases, he should have conceded and let it be. Instead he continued to pursue hanging onto the office via other means with much less legal justification behind them.
Okay, so if the courts refused to look at evidence, and even refuse to put a statutorily required hearing to see that evidence onto the court schedule (e.g., in the case of the Georgia election contest), then still he should do nothing else?
He should just allow the illegal election be stolen and allow the criminals who stole it to gain power and wreak further havoc on the country?
Using the process explicitly defined in the Constitution of the United States to contest electoral counts from states who unconstitutionally and illegally conducted their elections resulting in fraudulent outcomes does have plenty of legal justification behind them.
I don't believe the fake electors plan falls inside of that explicitly defined process. The memos and testimony we have now show:
Your preferred "solution," of do nothing but file some lawsuits in deep blue, machine controlled towns (even in red states) and then if that fails because courts refuse to look at evidence or even break laws requiring them to do so, so you accept defeat is not a stable one. It's suicidal and will guarantee the worst people obtain power. As time goes on, it just guarantees things will get worse as criminals continue to illegally win and their victims concede defeat because they're the beautiful losers.
There is nothing beautiful about this sort of losing; to me, it just appears to be cowardice dressed up as something else. Allowing criminals to take power and make the country in their image is bad, actually.
the explicitly defined Constitutional process, not "defined process," as you are now attempting to morph it into
the electoral count act cannot constrain the Constitution in any way whatsoever
alternative electors are a time-tested and well-used requirement due to the safe-harbor dates required for the statutorily outlined process; without alternative electors, it is functionally impossible for contested election lawsuits to have a remedy at the electoral college without ignoring laws, something you imply to not like
that's one opinion; would have been nice for Pence to tell everyone that instead of doing what he did which was deceive them and then stab them in the back when the time came
if you would like learn more about the plan, here is an interesting reply by John Eastman himself discussing the topic
you can claim it was contested, but you cannot claim it's not well supported on both legal and historical grounds
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link