You’re missing an asterisk there.
2 Likes
Not definitively; cf the thread on Catalonia.
1 Like
I think what he’s getting at is shooting ourselves in the foot with premature purity tests and infighting. I’m already seeing some people I know are not political trollies headed down the “Bernie or stay home” path, and it’s not a criticism of Sanders himself to point out that catastrophe lies in that direction. The most important thing is that there is a spoiled toddler in the room with a loaded .45, and he needs to be disarmed safely before we can turn the cocktail party back to nuanced adult conversation. I’ve got strong opinions and I want a candidate who agrees with them, but I’m also not going all scorched earth on any candidate I might have to turn around and stump for later to try to save the republic.
3 Likes
there is no asterisk
LET’S REVIEW :
THE POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER
THE POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER
THE POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER
5 Likes
We all know this. No need to repeat it over and over again in bold text.
Still, he won on a technicality. He didn’t win because the people loved him, he won because of an archaic and outdated institution that he himself spent years railing against. Clearly it bothers Trump as he keeps parroting a line about voter fraud and illegitimate elections.
So yeah, he won. With a fucking asterisk.
4 Likes
Point by point:
Aided in election by Russia? (Illegal; campaign finance laws; obstruction)
Solicited help from Ukraine for 2020 election (Illegal; campaign finance laws)
Pressured Ukraine to help for 2020 election (Illegal; Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)
Incitement to violence during political rally’s (Illegal: the one where he told his followers to punch the heckler, and they did. It was specific and imminent)
Using position to siphon money from Government (Illegal; embezzlement & emoluments)
100% so far, though @Avery_Thorn skipped over violations of the Logan Act and Hatch Act in using a nongovernment person to negotiate with a foreign power (Giuliani with Ukraine).
7 Likes
Kurt Eichenwald is worried about the wrong thing
The wrong thing to worry about is, “What if Trump loses, but he won’t admit it?”
The right thing to worry about is, WHAT IF TRUMP WINS AGAIN
The Democrats need to focus on winning the Electoral College and stop talking about asterisks
Trump is not the one refusing to admit he lost
7 Likes
6 Likes
Where the alarmist sees those, I see pointed questions about important policy issues to candidates to decide who we’re going to send to defeat Cheetolini in the general. Eichenwald favors Biden - which is fine for him and his choice - while painting Biden’s critics as dangerous to the country, which is incorrect and reckless. Eichenwald is free to express both opinions, but he should be prepared to be called out for smearing Biden’s critics and primary policy debate itself.
Characterizing policy debate as some kind of superfluous nicety (AKA a cocktail party) that can’t be afforded is short-sighted. Backing candidate(s) other than Biden in the primary is in no way mutually exclusive with backing the Democratic nominee, whoever they are, in the general.
In that case my sincere advice is to talk to those people you know about why it’s so important to back the Democratic nominee in the general election, not why they should eschew “nuanced adult conversation” about the policy positions of the candidates in the primary. Moreover, I would argue that telling people they should stop that conversation, and especially characterizing it as purity tests and infighting, will in fact only serve to further alienate them because they either are extremists who’d pursue a scorched earth strategy, or they’re more likely the vast majority of anti-Trump voters who don’t appreciate having their “nuanced adult conversation” characterized as a scorched earth strategy.
It’s become tragically popular in American politics for the most vocal responses to the most extreme version of some position to be addressed to anyone who doesn’t in fact support one’s own position, and vice versa, with the result that those who indulge in that end up arguing with straw men instead of debating with each other. Meanwhile, a lot of people who want to field the most progressive candidate to defeat Hair Hitler are having substantial “nuanced adult conversations” without doing the harm to the country of which alarmists such as Eichenwald are accusing them.
We know Trump is the final bad guy boss to defeat. Debating who we’ll send does not undermine the process, it strengthens it.
6 Likes
That seems a mite too hospitable. How about letting him live on Rockall?
4 Likes
Hey if I see you at GitMo, I’ll let you have the top bunk in the cell. 
7 Likes
I think they failed to imagine how a tyrannical despot would come to power. They didn’t exactly have a lot of history to examine to understand how democracies fail. That said, I don’t think the current crisis in America has anything to do with a lack of tools in the constitution, the emoluments clause is right there!
Not that I think that’s what the founders would do if they were around to see this mess. I think Burr and Hamilton mapped out the solution the founders would envision for Trump.
2 Likes
I understand what your point, but, really?
Know of a time in history when one of the 538 Electors boycott? Voted “present?”
Hey, don’t forget The Atlantic…
https://twitter.com/theatlantic/status/1191773946456227841?s=21
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1192130273317736454?s=21
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1192133984764997637?s=21
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1192134220447133697?s=21
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1192135183950123009?s=21
8 Likes
Of course they are, they are technocrats. Rule by the will of the people and the by what experts determine to be the best course are not compatible ideas.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
