Blow to US Democracy -Split from: U.S. presidential election modelling

[koti]

52 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Facebook and Instagram have suspended his account for the rest of his term. 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-facebook/facebook-instagram-to-block-trumps-account-for-rest-of-his-presidential-term-idUKKBN29C29M

 

I just finished reading Zuckerbergs statement, he did the right thing far too late, Trump has an army of followers right now and he staged a masterpiece to place himself as a martyr to come back stronger then ever in 4 years.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

!

Moderator Note

I have split the increasingly off-topic discussion into a new thread. I apologize for taking matters into my own hands but there are few mods available and most have taken part in this thread. 

 

It could've been a proper followup of this:

 

Which kind of was the prophecy that we would have a thread like this.

[CharonY]

That thread is fairly long but it could make sense to fuse them. I will say that this is the most expected unexpected outcome. Who knew that lying to folks for so long will make them believe that stuff.

Also, I think riot is a misnomer. They are not protesting against a perceived injustice, they were basically attempting a coup, even if it is an incompetent one (weapons and pipe bombs were secured during that event and the specific goal was to overturn the election). It is also not a big surprise that despite the mounting threats, police were underprepared (some unsubstantiated reports indicate that police either removed barricades or at least did not stop the mob from passing said barricades.

Numerous news outlets have been contrasting that with the actions during BLM protests. I am not saying that police should have been escalating the situation, but rather that the same restrained should be extended to other folks.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Emergency measures this could be reasonably done, probably through some judicial body and the court system longer term, but it's a slippery slope if platforms are left to decide this on their own. Unless they want to be responsible for all of their content. 

As far as yesterday's events being a blow to democracy; one could hope it could be a cathartic event that could enhance it.

Any hopes of Trump running in 2024 should surely have taken a hit, have they not?

I hope that there will be a bipartisan analysis of what can be learned and what remedies are needed to prevent the accession of the next dictator-type. If nothing is done they may well exploit those known weak points and actually succeed.

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I hope that there will be a bipartisan analysis of what can be learned and what remedies are needed to prevent the accession of the next dictator-type. If nothing is done they may well exploit those known weak points and actually succeed.

You're hoping the US Congress will choose to break the Elder Wand? Many won't even discuss term limits.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m sure they wouldn’t have constructed that noose on the capitol lawn today if only the democrats acted nicer toward them

I'm sure if the best of the BLM movement, the emphatic but peaceful protesting, had been acknowledged to have acceptable limits, and the violence consistently condemned, there may have been at least a few less wingnuts unloosing themselves on your Capitol yesterday...not that that makes those wingnut's any less responsible for their actions...but it might say something toward civil discourse.

 

Also note that I'm not equating the two, the BLM riots (in fairness rioting, as most weren't there to riot) and yesterdays attack on the Capitol. But while the second is potentially far more dangerous, both are to be condemned.

How many Democrats and Republicans consistently condemned both?

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm sure if the best of the BLM movement, the emphatic but peaceful protesting, had been acknowledged to have acceptable limits, and the violence consistently condemned, there may have been at least a few less wingnuts unloosing themselves on your Capitol yesterday

It was acknowledged. I reject your premise. 

54 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How many Democrats and Republicans consistently condemned both?

I have no idea, and no plans to try finding out. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was acknowledged.  

 

You are correct. Just not consistently by everyone.

 

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

 I reject your premise.

I have no idea, and no plans to try finding out. 

Carry on with plan A. I might be overrating civil discourse.

Edited January 8, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

In a Democracy , everyone has the right to cast a vote for the Government of his/her choosing.
And everyone has the right to peacefully protest what they see as unjust.

No-one has the right to violent protest, although far too many ( some on this very forum ) will excuse, or turn a blind eye, to the violence and rationalize it as 'the protesters are powerless and have no other option'; but only when they agree with the cause of the protest.

We have now seen how rationalizing violence, no matter how noble the cause, can be corrupted by a self-serving, unscrupulous President, in an attempt to deprive people of their Democratic right to a vote.

The good thing is that D Trump has ruined the current incarnation of the Republican party; almost half of Republicans are shocked and dismayed by Wednesday's insurrection, or attempt at a coup. Quite a few of his Cabinet have already resigned. I would think a lot of D Trump backers will have trouble getting re-elected, and the GOP will have to do some searching, before they can find the next 'R Reagan' that will make them contenders for the Presidency again.
And it would be an even better thing if the person responsible for this coup attempt ( America is now officially a 3rd world country ) is removed from office ( either 25th or another impeachment ), and does some serious jail time.

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I might be overrating civil discourse.

We can be civil in our discussion together all while at the same time I choose not to chase down an answer to an irrelevant question. They’re not mutually exclusive. 

[koti]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

In a Democracy , everyone has the right to cast a vote for the Government of his/her choosing.
And everyone has the right to peacefully protest what they see as unjust.

No-one has the right to violent protest, although far too many ( some on this very forum ) will excuse, or turn a blind eye, to the violence and rationalize it as 'the protesters are powerless and have no other option'; but only when they agree with the cause of the protest.

We have now seen how rationalizing violence, no matter how noble the cause, can be corrupted by a self-serving, unscrupulous President, in an attempt to deprive people of their Democratic right to a vote.

The good thing is that D Trump has ruined the current incarnation of the Republican party; almost half of Republicans are shocked and dismayed by Wednesday's insurrection, or attempt at a coup. Quite a few of his Cabinet have already resigned. I would think a lot of D Trump backers will have trouble getting re-elected, and the GOP will have to do some searching, before they can find the next 'R Reagan' that will make them contenders for the Presidency again.
And it would be an even better thing if the person responsible for this coup attempt ( America is now officially a 3rd world country ) is removed from office ( either 25th or another impeachment ), and does some serious jail time.

I would like to add that the twisted reality that Americans are starting to experience right now, we’ve been having for the past 6 years. Our „Capitol” was the „Smoleńsk” plane crash back in 2010 caused by incompetence of one of the twins who now years later is effectively in charge of the country (turned it to becoming a martyr and used it expertly to gain power) One thing which is very apparent to me when seeing the analogies between populists elevating to power in US and PL (Hungary, Bielarus too) which might not be very apparent to the US citizens right now but should be is that Trump is not a Republican just like our government here is not right wing although people tend to categorize both like that. Trump imo is republicans bad science experiment gone wrong but he cannot be considered a Republican himself. The sooner people start to understand this and accept it, the sooner it will be possible to get rid of that psycho. George W. Bush wrote a very strong statement today condemning Trump. I just hope Obama/Clinton plus Bush and a couple other prominent republicans would unite all together to condemn Trump.

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

No-one has the right to violent protest, although far too many ( some on this very forum ) will excuse, or turn a blind eye, to the violence and rationalize it as 'the protesters are powerless and have no other option'; but only when they agree with the cause of the protest.

The quote function is your friend. I dare you to find even one that supports this view. 

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would think a lot of D Trump backers will have trouble getting re-elected, and the GOP will have to do some searching

I do hope you’re right, but I’m doubtful. Even if the US magically realizes healthier politics as a result of all this, Trump has put forth a template for other authoritarians around the world to follow. 

3 minutes ago, koti said:

George W. Bush wrote a very strong statement today condemning Trump. I just hope Obama/Clinton plus Bush and a couple other prominent republicans would unite all together to condemn Trump.

Would’ve been nice if they hadn’t waited to do so until he was already done with his term. This is hardly off-brand with the last 4 years. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by iNow

[koti]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

The quote function is your friend. I dare you to find even one that supports this view. 

Lets hope you will be capable of finding those on this forum youself one day, preferably very soon. Theres a very good chance we’re all screwed as a species if you and others won’t be able to.

[iNow]

We must be reading different threads. I recall ALL of us saying that there’s no place for violence but that we support the cause. 

Again... feel free to actually quote someone. Until then, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

The forces which gave us Trump are getting stronger, not weaker.

And yes, there’s a massive difference between asking for our police to stop murdering black people and some small handful of people going too far by breaking a door at the local Target store... and baiting millions of people for months to believe that their votes were stolen from them and getting them to think their freedoms are being pissed upon... lathering them up until they start consistently threatening civil war, talking openly about murdering their neighbors, and just yesterday actively stormed our government capitol (both in DC and local capitol buildings across the states) in an insurrection attempt complete with weapons and bombs. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by iNow

[koti]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Would’ve been nice if they hadn’t waited to do so until he was already done with his term. This is hardly off-brand with the last 4 years. 

It took Bush, Pence and others 4 years. Now ask yourself how long will it take you yourself to admit that what MigL is saying cannot be dismissed. 

[iNow]

Is accurately describing it as a false equivalence the same thing as dismissing it?

And still not seeing any quotes...so at this point it remains possible it’s little more than a fiction or caricature in your head. 

[koti]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is accurately describing it as a false equivalence the same thing as dismissing it?

And still not seeing any quotes...so at this point it remains possible it’s little more than a fiction or caricature in your head. 

Good talk iNow. We gotta do that more often. 

[iNow]

Thanks for confirming you’re unable or unwilling to support your claim. 

[MigL]

In the thread I started, 'Canadian Protests', in Feb 2020, where no actual violence occurred because police chose not to enforce the law, and allowed unlawful behaviour for months, your reply was

"Like in Hong Kong, at some point we need to realize the protestors have a poor and that its worth fighting for."

Phi for All replied

"I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, the courts don't overturn bad laws on their own, they need people to break them and then argue in court why it was the right thing to do."

Dimreepr said

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; it depends, in general, on which side of the poverty line he resides."

Do I need to find you more ?
I imagine D Trump thought that the reason for inciting this protest ...

"Because that’s the only way enough people will begin paying the required attention to actually change things. 
 

If the status quo is too comfortable for you, you’ll act as an obstacle to the change"

I assume the protesters, at D Trump's urging, attempted to make Democracy too uncomfortable for Americans.

Oh, and I'm not suggesting any equivalence between the above mentioned Canadian protests, and what happened Wednesday in the Capital.
But both were unlawful, and only differed by degree.

 

 

[iNow]

Thank you for taking the time to address my request and provide context for your comments. +1

Hopefully the additional context I added to mine was also helpful 

I would also say nobody was saying violence was a way to change laws and challenge them in court, so we may be talking a bit passed each other on that front. 

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

In the thread I started, 'Canadian Protests', in Feb 2020, where no actual violence occurred because police chose not to enforce the law, and allowed unlawful behaviour for months, your reply was

What you are describing here is very different what you claimed before. You specifically mentioned that folks here would condone to some degree violent protests. Yet here you conflate it with "unlawful behaviour". I think most people here do not condone violence but support the democratic right to demonstrate and protest. In fact, based on your description it appears that due to police behaviour actual violence did not occur, which seems like a great outcome to me.

Again we have got different levels of actions that are conflated. First, are civil protests. These are enshrined to various degrees in the right of speech and assembly (typically peaceful is added to that). If one has an issue with that (regardless whether they are BLM or MAGA folks), you have an issue with democracy.

The second are the risks associated with those assemblies. There is always the risk that folks that take part may have violence in mind. These include opportunistic looters, hooligans but also, as it turns out in the BLM protests, right-wing agitators. These are not condoned by anyone, including BLM folks, who have been very vocal about it. However, it should be noted that if the protest in itself was peaceful and had a peaceful goal, it is to some degree the cost of freedom of assembly.

The third, and which are talking here, are those that are not protesting or demonstrating for something, but which have a specific violent agenda in mind. If folks set out to enter the capitol to do a sit-in, to protest something, it would be a different matter. But here, the idea was to overturn a process and it was in essence non-peaceful. It was not a small fringe within the group that demanded the overthrow of the government.

If you do not see a difference between those three groups and just consider them all unlawful an hence equal, I do not think that there is a common basis for further discussion of this matter (I mean you kind of acknowledge it, but I still have trouble to get the point).

 

If your point, however, was that some folks can use demonstrations of the groups with other views as a threat to themselves and then react to such a perceived threat, then yes, you are correct. 

Many folks that would, for example, call police on a black person in a neighbourhood would are no doubt afraid of a whole bunch of them protesting against being shot. But at the same time, I will re-iterate that this is the price of democracy. It is easy to say that there are platforms and rules that folks should follow in order to be heard. The issue is that the rules have been made by folks in part to specifically make it harder for certain folks to be heard. In all democratic societies protests, strikes and demonstrations have been an outlet for these grievances. 

[MigL]

Always glad to oblige INow .
That was the first thread I found, and may not be the best for the point I'm trying to make, but I was rushing before you and Koti get into a knife fight  .

They are not that different, CharonY; both protests take away others rights.
The Canadian one takes away freedoms to move about and/or conduct business, and the American one takes away the right to have everyone's vote count in a fair election. And although all unlawful behavior is not violent, all violence is unlawful behavior.
So what are you suggesting, that if there was no violence involved, Wednesday's insurrection, where a group that felt themselves to be wronged tried to take away the rights of the rest of the populace, would then be justified ?

If not, then please explain to me where the line is, between protesting, and taking away other's rights, versus protesting, but taking away other's rights is merely an inconvenience.

PS
If I didn't have to get up early for work, tomorrow morning, I might go through the G Floyd/BLM thread to find more appropriate examples.
Maybe tomorrow night.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Always glad to oblige INow .
That was the first thread I found, and may not be the best for the point I'm trying to make, but I was rushing before you and Koti get into a knife fight  .

They are not that different, CharonY; both protests take away others rights.
The Canadian one takes away freedoms to move about and/or conduct business, and the American one takes away the right to have everyone's vote count in a fair election. And although all unlawful behavior is not violent, all violence is unlawful behavior.
So what are you suggesting, that if there was no violence involved, Wednesday's insurrection, where a group that felt themselves to be wronged tried to take away the rights of the rest of the populace, would then be justified ?

If not, then please explain to me where the line is, between protesting, and taking away other's rights, versus protesting, but taking away other's rights is merely an inconvenience.

First, the fact that other folks may be inconvenienced is not a good reason to take rights away. For example, the same argument can be made for sports events- the increased foot traffic, risk of hooliganism and other forms of vandalim,  not to mention noise are clear inconveniences. Similar arguments can be made for any number of largish events including things like the "Schuetzenumzug" (you know if you are German, and probably would not understand if you are not). 

In the US protests are covered by the first amendment. There are limits in terms of creating "clear and present danger". The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms offers similar rights.

That means is that it is not fundamentally unlawful to engage in protests. So on the one hand you have the fundamental right to protest but there is no fundamental right not to get inconvenienced. So essentially the question now is what are the limits of the rights for assembly and protest. These have been tested in various court cases in both, USA and Canada. Now I am not an legal expert but I have read that it was attempted to shut down protests by using laws that forbid blocking of roads. However, courts have often rejected these claims as they see it as a possible means to restrict the Charter/First amendment, which would take precedence. But it certainly is not absolute. So you could look at each of the protest and figure out what ordinance they may or may not have violated, whether they needed and got the required permits etc. but ultimately the absolutist claim that they are all unlawful just does not hold.

 

Edit: On the moral level, the intent of the protests should also be taken into account. It is one thing to organize a protest to demonstrate for higher wages, but it is another to organize one for example with the intent to intimidate specific folks (which are not in power). Organizing a demo to demonize homeless folks could be legal, for example, but still be shitty. Also,  there  could be a legal distinction between e.g. traffic issues as a corollary effect vs it's main intent (something like men's rea?), but I really don't know.

[koti]

4 hours ago, MigL said:but I was rushing before you and Koti get into a knife fight  .

Naw, I’ve withdrawn from knife fights with iNow right around the time when Philly was burning accompanied with looting and curfew. 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Phi for All replied

"I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, the courts don't overturn bad laws on their own, they need people to break them and then argue in court why it was the right thing to do."

You're seriously using my quote as an example of duplicitousness in my stance?! Are you saying these courageous patriots were just challenging the unjust laws that protect our national institutions, by arming themselves and breaking into the Capitol building? That's a pretty slimy way to argue, if you don't mind my pointing it out, MigL.