Couldn't go to a better person!

[theterminator93]

I think George Washington had it right. See this comment from over 225 years ago, during his farewell address, about the dangers of party politics.

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the country as a whole. These warnings are given in the context of the recent rise of two opposing parties within the government—the Democratic-Republican Party led by Jefferson, and Hamilton's Federalist Party. Washington had striven to remain neutral during a conflict between Britain and France brought about by the French Revolution, while the Democratic-Republicans had made efforts to align with France, and the Federalists had made efforts to ally with Great Britain.

Washington recognizes that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups such as political parties, but he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and to take revenge on political opponents.[4] He feels that disagreements between political parties weakened the government.

Moreover, he makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, political parties eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security… in the absolute power of an individual",[1] leading to despotism. He acknowledges the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but he argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms among the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

*Emphasis added

Partisan politics has generally eliminated the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that are supposed to keep the government in check. If one party gets a "controlling majority" in the SCOTUS and in Congress, they generally follow suit of the party they are associated with. And that party will fall in line with the individual who is at the top of the pecking order in the governmental hierarchy - e.g. the president. Distill that down and you get one person controlling the party "in power" in each branch.

[dr_st]

Great. Since Trump already claims the election is rigged BEFORE the election is through, what you are saying is that it will be decided by the Surpreme Court and that it is 100 % justified.

It doesn't matter what he says now. He'll have to bring some evidence that falsifications have happened, and that they affected the results.

I think you should read my post again. What I prefer are judges that have the support from both parties (hence requiring a supermajority) and are NOT chosen based on their ideological loyalty.

This is what we would all support, in theory. I'm not convinced it is practically possible in the US at this point, because the supreme court justices are frequently expected to make calls on issues with deep ideological tensions.

[cadillacmike68]

The US electoral college is a relic from a time when voting rights were tied to land-ownership, gender and when the fastest means of transport was a horse. It isn't meant to "protect small states" - it was mainly put in place, because a.) it was more convenient back then when communication was slow and people could simply gather a few weeks after the election in DC to cast the deciding vote (because that is how long it took them to get there) and b.) because it allowed the quasi-aristocratic elite a safe-guard to overwrite an election they didn't like (see the 1822 election, which ended in congress picking the candidate who did not win most electoral college votes).

Fundamentally, it is undemocratic, because it was meant to be. Of course, getting rid of it is almost impossible, just like the British can not get rid of their crappy first-past-the-post voting system, as the parties in charge that profit from it won't get rid of it.

Go ahead and name a state with 3 mil and a state with 12 mil population . They WILL NOT have the same # of reps.

California: 39.5 million people, 55 electoral college votes

North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi: 24.9 million people, 55 electoral college votes

Contrary to how it may seem to some, that would be the most undemocratic thing that could be done.

For sure - it would be much more democratic if the Surpreme Court decides the election, which is what Trump wants. Or if the states pick the president via congress.

You obviously didn't read my statement. I said ONE state with 12 million and ONE state with 3 million.

Further, your example is, flawed. Those TEN states only have 35 Representative votes while CA has 53. This was the ENTIRE reasoning behind the house / senate and electoral college system in the first place.

The electoral "college" where electors travel to DC to cast the votes (and the new president not taking office until March (bet you didn't know that) might have been because of then slow travel speeds, but the idea of the senate and house representation being the number of electoral "votes", i.e. one electoral Vote for each house or senate rep is NOT outdated. And I don't see 75% of the states being in favor of changing it. Today, each state's Sec of state could just transmit the number of electoral votes to DC.

And the conventions are a massive waste of money, that us taxpayers are still partially paying for. They can go away as well. There is more debauchery going on around these events than what goes on on the Las Vegas strip.

[cadillacmike68]

On the other hand, yours truly is a retired US Army Colonel, and a combat vet who served under multiple presidents.

Okay, here's a purely hypothetical scenario... Let's assume that you are still an active duty Army Colonel. Come late November/early December it's announced that Trump has lost the election both by popular vote and the Electoral College. Something along the lines of 7-8 million votes (about three times than the 2.1% Hilary Clinton had won in 2016) but Biden has about the same number of College votes that Trump had in 2016; 304. Not a landslide by any means but a statistically significant amount that nobody could say was extremely "close". True to form, since he himself has stated so, Trump declares that the election was rigged and that there were millions of illegal votes (without providing any supporting evidence; in other words, it's just his word). He refuses to accept the result and calls upon the military to support him as Commander-in-Chief (which technically he still is until January 20th, 2021).

A simple yes or no answer is requested and no explanation of why is needed: Do you take up arms and defend him?

edit: By the way, thank you for your service to the country. I mean that honestly and without any hint of sarcasm. My older brother went into the Navy back in 1973 (I think) and retired as a CPO.

Simple Answer: NO.

And nobody who I know or would have any respect for would say otherwise as well.

[rkawakami]

Simple Answer: NO.

And nobody who I know or would have any respect for would say otherwise as well.

Thanks for your answer. Either way this election goes, I really hope that it does not descend into anarchy. We can't afford to have it "get worse before it gets better".

[cadillacmike68]

Simple Answer: NO.

And nobody who I know or would have any respect for would say otherwise as well.

Thanks for your answer. Either way this election goes, I really hope that it does not descend into anarchy. We can't afford to have it "get worse before it gets better".

The election isn't the only thing that we don't need to get worse. The chicom coronavirus mess needs to be stomped out with a vaccine as soon as possible.

[ajkula66]

The chicom coronavirus mess needs to be stomped out with a vaccine as soon as possible.

Don't count on too many people taking the vaccine if and when it comes out for a slew of reasons...

[rkawakami]

The election isn't the only thing that we don't need to get worse. The chicom coronavirus mess needs to be stomped out with a vaccine as soon as possible.

Sigh. Just when I thought you could converse without resorting to conservative slang at best, or bigotry at worst, you go and throw out "chicom" again. Those are the sort of trigger words and phrases that continue to deeply divide the Right and the Left. I know you probably won't read this but I put this out for general consumption:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... en/607786/

[cadillacmike68]

The election isn't the only thing that we don't need to get worse. The chicom coronavirus mess needs to be stomped out with a vaccine as soon as possible.

Sigh. Just when I thought you could converse without resorting to conservative slang at best, or bigotry at worst, you go and throw out "chicom" again. Those are the sort of trigger words and phrases that continue to deeply divide the Right and the Left. I know you probably won't read this but I put this out for general consumption:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... en/607786/

1: Did it come from china?

2: Is china still a communist country?

I have nothing against the Chinese people. It's their Government that I have a problem with. And it was a government owned lab that this came from. It's a FAR larger threat to both US and global security than most people realize. Just look at what they are doing in the South China Sea..

[pianowizard]

Hmmmmmm... I didn't hear loser or sucker in that clip.

In that clip, Trump said this about McCain and POWs in general:

"And I supported him for president! I raised a million dollars for him. That's a lot of money! I supported him. He lost. He let us down. But he lost. So I never liked him much after that, because I don't like losers...He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured."

Had a Democrat uttered these exact same words, you would be furious.

And it was a government owned lab that this came from.

That's just a rumor, but this government certainly allowed its people to spread the virus to the rest of the world. I just finished reading Bob Woodward's "Rage", and would like to share this passage from the prologue:

'Several Chinese elites well connected with the Communist Party and government signaled that they thought China had a sinister goal: "China's not going to be the only one to suffer from this." If China was the only country to have mass infections on the scale of the 1918 pandemic, they would be at a massive economic disadvantage. It was a suspicion, but one held by the people who knew the regime best. A frightening possibility.'

Regardless of the truth of this suspicion, the CCP must be held accountable, though I also agree with rkawakami that divisive/offensive language does not help. For instance, even Trump has had a few good ideas now and then, but he undermined them with his own nasty rhetoric.

[cadillacmike68]

Hmmmmmm... I didn't hear loser or sucker in that clip.

In that clip, Trump said this about McCain and POWs in general:

"And I supported him for president! I raised a million dollars for him. That's a lot of money! I supported him. He lost. He let us down. But he lost. So I never liked him much after that, because I don't like losers...He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured."

Had a Democrat uttered these exact same words, you would be furious.

And it was a government owned lab that this came from.

That's just a rumor, but this government certainly allowed its people to spread the virus to the rest of the world. I just finished reading Bob Woodward's "Rage", and would like to share this passage from the prologue:

'Several Chinese elites well connected with the Communist Party and government signaled that they thought China had a sinister goal: "China's not going to be the only one to suffer from this." If China was the only country to have mass infections on the scale of the 1918 pandemic, they would be at a massive economic disadvantage. It was a suspicion, but one held by the people who knew the regime best. A frightening possibility.'

Regardless of the truth of this suspicion, the CCP must be held accountable, though I also agree with rkawakami that divisive/offensive language does not help. For instance, even Trump has had a few good ideas now and then, but he undermined them with his own nasty rhetoric.

The clintons had a serious disdain for the military. And I do not care for them at all. I hope he goes down with the epstein travesty. I know some former staff members who can attest; FAR WORSE that anything Trump said and he STILL did NOT call the military "suckers and losers" That is a lie. I remember what said to mccain, it wasn't nice, but it's not the lie that is being bandied about.

The truth about the chicom wuhan coronavirus will eventually come out.

[MikalE]

The election isn't the only thing that we don't need to get worse. The chicom coronavirus mess needs to be stomped out with a vaccine as soon as possible.

Sigh. Just when I thought you could converse without resorting to conservative slang at best, or bigotry at worst, you go and throw out "chicom" again. Those are the sort of trigger words and phrases that continue to deeply divide the Right and the Left. I know you probably won't read this but I put this out for general consumption:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... en/607786/

Chicom is nothing more than a contraction of Chinese Communist. There are no racial, ethnic, or other types of bigotry associated with this word and refers to the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people.

[dr_st]

Chicom is nothing more than a contraction of Chinese Communist. There are no racial, ethnic, or other types of bigotry associated with this word and refers to the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people.

Well, "Chinks" is also just a derivative of Chinese, isn't it? And yet it is commonly accepted as an offensive term not to be used. Even yours truly asked people on these very forums not to use it.

The justification that something is referring "to the government and not the people" is tricky, and not very strong in my view. Many people may feel that their government, in some ways, represents them and their country. Even if it's not an elected government like in China.

[cadillacmike68]

I don't want to turn this into a pi$$ing contest, but I'd never use the term "chinks" in today's world, nor "spics" and I am of Latin / Spanish descent, or other ethnic or racial based slurs.

That said, chicom is not a racial or ethnic slur.

BTW, communism and its ancillary entities, etc. is still outlawed in the US, although I'm not sure for how long anymore...

[mpcook]

BTW, communism and its ancillary entities, etc. is still outlawed in the US, although I'm not sure for how long anymore...

You do know that we have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the USA and that includes the Communist Party of America and the Socialist Party USA. They have been around for a long while and not outlawed in any way. At least, not yet.

[cadillacmike68]

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that - yet.

[mpcook]

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that - yet.

Yes they have...there have been a number of court cases involving American communists..."In 1957, the Court in Yates v. United States restricted the holding in Dennis v. United States, ruling that the Smith Act did not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. While Yates did not overrule Dennis, it rendered the broad conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act unenforceable. Finally, in 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech. Brandenburg was a de facto overruling of Dennis, defining the bar for constitutionally unprotected speech to be incitement to "imminent lawless action"."

[cadillacmike68]

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that - yet.

Yes they have...there have been a number of court cases involving American communists..."In 1957, the Court in Yates v. United States restricted the holding in Dennis v. United States, ruling that the Smith Act did not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. While Yates did not overrule Dennis, it rendered the broad conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act unenforceable. Finally, in 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech. Brandenburg was a de facto overruling of Dennis, defining the bar for constitutionally unprotected speech to be incitement to "imminent lawless action"."

While I was specifically referring to the CCA of 1954, there have been other cases and rulings.

So are there any WalMart shareholders here, anyone with a diverse mutual funds holdings?

Did you see all the "free" TVs that were "liberated" from the Philly WalMart. They were even red and green boxed - probably intended for Christmas purchases.

That was certainly imminent lawless action if I ever saw it. There was even some duma$$ running over one still in its box.

I'll bet there wasn't even 10 seconds of that on cnn or msnbc...

[mpcook]

Yes they have...there have been a number of court cases involving American communists..."In 1957, the Court in Yates v. United States restricted the holding in Dennis v. United States, ruling that the Smith Act did not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. While Yates did not overrule Dennis, it rendered the broad conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act unenforceable. Finally, in 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech. Brandenburg was a de facto overruling of Dennis, defining the bar for constitutionally unprotected speech to be incitement to "imminent lawless action"."

While I was specifically referring to the CCA of 1954, there have been other cases and rulings.

So are there any WalMart shareholders here, anyone with a diverse mutual funds holdings?

Did you see all the "free" TVs that were "liberated" from the Philly WalMart. They were even red and green boxed - probably intended for Christmas purchases.

That was certainly imminent lawless action if I ever saw it. There was even some duma$$ running over one still in its box.

I'll bet there wasn't even 10 seconds of that on cnn or msnbc...

Yes, in our great country, being a communist or a socialist is legal, breaking and entering into a Walmart is not. As it should be.

[RealBlackStuff]

Trump Rallies Leave Trail of COVID Spikes in Their Wake
Why am I not surprised?
And by now it should also be obvious that Trump himself never got Covid-19 to begin with!
More fake news!

[ajkula66]

breaking and entering into a Walmart is not. As it should be.

As long as there are no consequences for the perps - and we really haven't seen much punitive action along these lines over the past few months of the mob terror - it may as well be legal.

[mpcook]

breaking and entering into a Walmart is not. As it should be.

As long as there are no consequences for the perps - and we really haven't seen much punitive action along these lines over the past few months of the mob terror - it may as well be legal.

Incorrect. You can found many many hundreds of arrest accounts around the country over the past 6 months. E.g., AP tally finds 9,300 arrests have been made across the US in connection with recent protests against police brutality.

[ajkula66]

As long as there are no consequences for the perps - and we really haven't seen much punitive action along these lines over the past few months of the mob terror - it may as well be legal.

Incorrect. You can found many many hundreds of arrest accounts around the country over the past 6 months. E.g., AP tally finds 9,300 arrests have been made across the US in connection with recent protests against police brutality.

And how many of them actually landed in prison ? Being arrested means absolutely nothing per se. In good old NYC most of them were out within 24 hours, ready to have more fun at someone else's expense...

Not to mention that given the amount of destroyed property nationwide 9,300 arrests is a sorry figure to begin with.

[MikalE]

Chicom is nothing more than a contraction of Chinese Communist. There are no racial, ethnic, or other types of bigotry associated with this word and refers to the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people.

Well, "Chinks" is also just a derivative of Chinese, isn't it? And yet it is commonly accepted as an offensive term not to be used. Even yours truly asked people on these very forums not to use it.

The justification that something is referring "to the government and not the people" is tricky, and not very strong in my view. Many people may feel that their government, in some ways, represents them and their country. Even if it's not an elected government like in China.

It's a bigoted derogatory slur. It's not a contraction of two words.

[mpcook]

Incorrect. You can found many many hundreds of arrest accounts around the country over the past 6 months. E.g., AP tally finds 9,300 arrests have been made across the US in connection with recent protests against police brutality.

And how many of them actually landed in prison ? Being arrested means absolutely nothing per se. In good old NYC most of them were out within 24 hours, ready to have more fun at someone else's expense...

Not to mention that given the amount of destroyed property nationwide 9,300 arrests is a sorry figure to begin with.

You should cite your numbers, how many were not convicted who should have been, how many were not arrested who should have been?

[dr_st]

It's a bigoted derogatory slur. It's not a contraction of two words.

"derogatory" is defined by usage. If one repeatedly uses a term in a way that expresses low opinion on something - the term becomes derogatory, and it makes no difference how it was originally coined.

[ajkula66]

You should cite your numbers, how many were not convicted who should have been, how many were not arrested who should have been?

Instead of going into a pi$$ing contest with citing a zillion different figures, here's what the Chief of NYPD had to say a couple of months ago, when the fit started hitting the shan over there:

While the city police made over 650 arrests on Monday night alone, Monahan said that “just about all of them” will be released without bail.

Emphasis mine.

More fun info in the same article...

https://news.yahoo.com/arrested-looters ... 03044.html

So colour me deeply unimpressed with legal consequences for the latest batch of rioters and looters.

[mpcook]

You should cite your numbers, how many were not convicted who should have been, how many were not arrested who should have been?

Instead of going into a pi$$ing contest with citing a zillion different figures, here's what the Chief of NYPD had to say a couple of months ago, when the fit started hitting the shan over there:

While the city police made over 650 arrests on Monday night alone, Monahan said that “just about all of them” will be released without bail.

Emphasis mine.

More fun info in the same article...

https://news.yahoo.com/arrested-looters ... 03044.html

So colour me deeply unimpressed with legal consequences for the latest batch of rioters and looters.

Yes, exactly. So charges were not dismissed for "just about all of them". So maybe some figures could be revealing. I happen to think that our local law enforcement and judiciary tend to work pretty well overall.

[ajkula66]

Yes, exactly. So charges were not dismissed for "just about all of them".

Huh? They were let back out on the streets to riot and loot again.

I happen to think that our local law enforcement and judiciary tend to work pretty well overall.

Maybe where you are. Definitely not in current NYC.

[cadillacmike68]

To paraphrase;

The looting will go on until the stores are empty

Just disgusting.