Donald is about to go through some things...

[Sardines]

Couldn’t this be considered election interference? Felon Don doing his thing


View: https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1798025776157377003?s=46

Taking one right out of the Iran/Contra playbook.

 

[JimLes]

Laugh all you want but with the changes to election procedures, no politician on the political right will win a nationwide election.

As they shouldn't. In the last 35 years, only one republican presidential candidate actually won more votes than the democratic one. You don't think the will of the majority of people should matter?

 

[Sardines]

As they shouldn't. In the last 35 years, only one republican presidential candidate actually won more votes than the democratic one. You don't think the will of the majority of people should matter?

The reason AI-O-Meter thinks this horrible change will result in no Republican get elected is because it means more people will have their vote counted.

What I would say is that political parties need to meet the voters where they are if they want to be relevant. For instance, the Guns and Dope party probably appeals strongly to some voters, but they will never win a national election (aka the Presidential election). Is that unfair? No! They don't have a broad enough appeal to be relevant. The system shouldn't be arranged to provide equal results to every party, it should be arranged so that the maximum amount of voters is represented in the results.

The Republican party has sought over and over again in recent years to rule, not to represent. Abortion rights is a prime example. Even within their own party total bans or almost total bans on abortion is not the favored position of the majority of their voters, yet, they have tried hard to get the most aggressive bans possible despite the will of the people. This has included trying to pass laws to remove the potential for the people in their state to change the state constitution in order to protect abortion access. They wanted the voters to vote to lose their power over their own government. The Republicans sought to rule the people in total disregard for what those people wanted.

Both major parties have evolved over time. So much so that things that were the defining characteristics of each party 100 years ago are now the defining characteristics of the other party. So it is possible that in 25 years the Democratic party will be most popular amongst rural voters and the Republican party will be most popular in urban areas and amongst multi-ethnic people. None of the current base of a party is set in stone. So these rules that AI-O-Meter thinks solidifies the Democratic party forever only holds true if the Republican party never makes any attempt to appeal to a wider segment of the U.S. population. That's on the Republican party.

TL ; DR
If national politics was an online game the chat would tell the Republican party

"git gud"

 

[Al-O-Meter]

As they shouldn't. In the last 35 years, only one republican presidential candidate actually won more votes than the democratic one. You don't think the will of the majority of people should matter?

No. We've known for centuries that democracy is a dumb idea always doomed to violent failure. That is why it was limited in the United States government to only the Legislative Branch. It is good for the people to have a voice but really, really, truly awful for the people to have the ultimate say.

For almost 250 years, the system has been maintained because nearly everyone believed there could be a chance things go their way, maybe not this election, maybe not next election, but it was a possibility. So long as there was hope, even the losing side would maintain the system to keep that hope alive. People are about to realize there is no hope, no chance, ever again of things going their way and I am deeply concerned they won't have any interest in maintaining the system. They'll want something different.

 

[Sardines]

No. We've known for centuries that democracy is a dumb idea always doomed to violent failure. That is why it was limited in the United States government to only the Legislative Branch. It is good for the people to have a voice but really, really, truly awful for the people to have the ultimate say.

For almost 250 years, the system has been maintained because nearly everyone believed there could be a chance things go their way, maybe not this election, maybe not next election, but it was a possibility. So long as there was hope, even the losing side would maintain the system to keep that hope alive. People are about to realize there is no hope, no chance, ever again of things going their way and I am deeply concerned they won't have any interest in maintaining the system. They'll want something different.

Maybe those people can take some tips on how to cope with that from the people who have previously been living that reality for 250 years.

You make it sound like we need those people and the only way to keep them is to give them undue privilege to control this system for their advantage and to the disadvantage of the majority.

I'm not scared of MAGA types rising up. I don't think we need them, I think they are lucky as **** to be in the position they are, even if it isn't as terrific for them as it was a few decades ago.

 

[LogGrad98]

The reason AI-O-Meter thinks this horrible change will result in no Republican get elected is because it means more people will have their vote counted.

What I would say is that political parties need to meet the voters where they are if they want to be relevant. For instance, the Guns and Dope party probably appeals strongly to some voters, but they will never win a national election (aka the Presidential election). Is that unfair? No! They don't have a broad enough appeal to be relevant. The system shouldn't be arranged to provide equal results to every party, it should be arranged so that the maximum amount of voters is represented in the results.

The Republican party has sought over and over again in recent years to rule, not to represent. Abortion rights is a prime example. Even within their own party total bans or almost total bans on abortion is not the favored position of the majority of their voters, yet, they have tried hard to get the most aggressive bans possible despite the will of the people. This has included trying to pass laws to remove the potential for the people in their state to change the state constitution in order to protect abortion access. They wanted the voters to vote to lose their power over their own government. The Republicans sought to rule the people in total disregard for what those people wanted.

Both major parties have evolved over time. So much so that things that were the defining characteristics of each party 100 years ago are now the defining characteristics of the other party. So it is possible that in 25 years the Democratic party will be most popular amongst rural voters and the Republican party will be most popular in urban areas and amongst multi-ethnic people. None of the current base of a party is set in stone. So these rules that AI-O-Meter thinks solidifies the Democratic party forever only holds true if the Republican party never makes any attempt to appeal to a wider segment of the U.S. population. That's on the Republican party.

TL ; DR
If national politics was an online game the chat would tell the Republican party

"git gud"

I'm not reading the **** from the trolls, so I'm not sure where all this is coming from, but with it we need to ****ing kill gerrymandering. Kill it ****ing dead. Set up a full unconnected and unbiased outside panel to redistrict across the country to make the vote actually fair down to the local level. **** all these games these assholes play. It's gotta stop.

 

[LogGrad98]

Maybe those people can take some tips on how to cope with that from the people who have previously been living that reality for 250 years.

You make it sound like we need those people and the only way to keep them is to give them undue privilege to control this system for their advantage and to the disadvantage of the majority.

I'm not scared of MAGA types rising up. I don't think we need them, I think they are lucky as **** to be in the position they are, even if it isn't as terrific for them as it was a few decades ago.

You know this kind of echoes my thoughts on this all from a behavioral modification standpoint. In behavioral modification psychology there is a concept called an extinction burst. It's where, as a behavior is being eliminated through modification of the reinforcers of that behavior, the subject suddenly engages in the unwanted behavior at an extreme level, trying to get any reinforcement they can to continue the behavior because it's what's familiar and comfortable for them. Then, if you hold steady through the Extinction burst, or the series of them, then the behavior tends to go away. That's what all this feels like from the MAGA folks to me. Their way of life is changing and they don't like it. Time to act out to try to keep the status quo. We really just have to weather the storm and hope it doesn't do too much damage as it dies.

 

[Sardines]

You know this kind of echoes my thoughts on this all from a behavioral modification standpoint. In behavioral modification psychology there is a concept called an extinction burst. It's where, as a behavior is being eliminated through modification of the reinforcers of that behavior, the subject suddenly engages in the unwanted behavior at an extreme level, trying to get any reinforcement they can to continue the behavior because it's what's familiar and comfortable for them. Then, if you hold steady through the Extinction burst, or the series of them, then the behavior tends to go away. That's what all this feels like from the MAGA folks to me. Their way of life is changing and they don't like it. Time to act out to try to keep the status quo. We really just have to weather the storm and hope it doesn't do too much damage as it dies.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[JimLes]

No. We've known for centuries that democracy is a dumb idea always doomed to violent failure. That is why it was limited in the United States government to only the Legislative Branch. It is good for the people to have a voice but really, really, truly awful for the people to have the ultimate say.

For almost 250 years, the system has been maintained because nearly everyone believed there could be a chance things go their way, maybe not this election, maybe not next election, but it was a possibility. So long as there was hope, even the losing side would maintain the system to keep that hope alive. People are about to realize there is no hope, no chance, ever again of things going their way and I am deeply concerned they won't have any interest in maintaining the system. They'll want something different.

That's a lot of words to say you think white Christians should run the country.

 

[The Thriller]

You know this kind of echoes my thoughts on this all from a behavioral modification standpoint. In behavioral modification psychology there is a concept called an extinction burst. It's where, as a behavior is being eliminated through modification of the reinforcers of that behavior, the subject suddenly engages in the unwanted behavior at an extreme level, trying to get any reinforcement they can to continue the behavior because it's what's familiar and comfortable for them. Then, if you hold steady through the Extinction burst, or the series of them, then the behavior tends to go away. That's what all this feels like from the MAGA folks to me. Their way of life is changing and they don't like it. Time to act out to try to keep the status quo. We really just have to weather the storm and hope it doesn't do too much damage as it dies.

What’s the point of losing an election if changes to a political party’s platform and/or candidates isn’t made? Right now republicans are rigging the system in their favor despite having candidates who are less and less popular and are taking more extreme positions on major issues. I’d argue that it’s not even the status quo that they want but a reactionary “vengeance” against a country that has already rejected what they have to offer.

Republicans *could* change. They could take moderate positions, actually care about solving systemic racism, deficits, foreign policy, etc. That might take losing a few more elections because they would have lost kook voters but hadn’t yet established connections with new sane voters, standing up to Fox News, newsmax, and rejecting money from Christian nationalist donors. But in the long run, this is how democratic systems retain their integrity. Ultimately, there are plenty of good voters in the suburbs and cities of all different faiths and races. Unfortunately, one party has just decided to double and triple down on an increasingly homogeneous and racist detached from reality base and its propaganda full of grifters.

I truly hope what we’re seeing is just the last gasp of this. And in the next decade or two we can see a Republican Party that recognizes climate change, actually attempts to address real issues, and isn’t merely trying to make (white) people angry. Plenty of people care about traditional conservative views, deficits, foreign policy, etc. Actually compete with Democrats for voters rather than trying to prevent voters from voting.

 

[The Thriller]

I'm not reading the **** from the trolls, so I'm not sure where all this is coming from, but with it we need to ****ing kill gerrymandering. Kill it ****ing dead. Set up a full unconnected and unbiased outside panel to redistrict across the country to make the vote actually fair down to the local level. **** all these games these assholes play. It's gotta stop.

This is some really good advice here. Something I’ve neglected over the last few days. Al and the other trolls are just a waste of time. Trying to anger regular people because they’re so bored and miserable in their own lives.

 

[The Thriller]

That's a lot of words to say you think white Christians should run the country.

He’s one of the most low info xenophobic posters here.

 

[The Thriller]

Kinda telling how trumpers think becoming a felon makes him more attractive to black people.


View: https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1798438708581912731?s=46

 

[Al-O-Meter]

That's a lot of words to say you think white Christians should run the country.

With as poor of a grasp as you seem to have on the language, I feel sorry for your students.

I do not think people should run the country. Not white ones. Not black, asian or hispanic ones. Not christian ones. Not jews, or athiests, or muslims. I do not think people should run our country or any country. I do not believe democracy is a good form of government. I do not believe the Demos should have the Kratos no matter what Demos you're talking about.

 

[Sardines]

With as poor of a grasp as you seem to have on the language, I feel sorry for your students.

I do not think people should run the country. Not white ones. Not black, asian or hispanic ones. Not christian ones. Not jews, or athiests, or muslims. I do not think people should run our country or any country. I do not believe democracy is a good form of government. I do not believe the Demos should have the Kratos no matter what Demos you're talking about.

Your name is making more sense.

Bring on our AI overlords!

 

[JimLes]

I do not think people should run the country. Not white ones.

Right, it's just a massive coincidence that they have for the past 250 years or so.

Come on, this whole shtick is getting old. We're not idiots here, you've made it pretty clear what you actually believe, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Right, it's just a massive coincidence that they have for the past 250 years or so.

Come on, this whole shtick is getting old. We're not idiots here, you've made it pretty clear what you actually believe, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.

I didn't say you were an idiot, only that you had a less than good grasp on the language and now I'm thinking you have a poor understanding our government, which is not a democracy. For the past 250 years or so, we have been a Republic. We can have 99% popular support for a law and still have that law struck down as unconstitutional. The Demos do not have the Kratos. The US Constitution supersedes the will of the US people, and I like it that way. I'll take the Bill of Rights over MTG and Ilhan Omar any day.

 

[Sardines]

I didn't say you were an idiot, only that you had a less than good grasp on the language and now I'm thinking you have a poor understanding our government, which is not a democracy. For the past 250 years or so, we have been a Republic. We can have 99% popular support for a law and still have that law struck down as unconstitutional. The Demos do not have the Kratos. The US Constitution supersedes the will of the US people, and I like it that way. I'll take the Bill of Rights over MTG and Ilhan Omar any day.

The U.S. Constitution has no power on its own. It takes the will of people to enforce it. It can, by it's own rules, be modified by the will of the people. It takes a lot more than a single, simple 50.1% vote to change it, but it can be changed by the will of the people. It can also be ignored and discarded if there is no one willing and determined to protect it as the ruling document of our nation.

I know some people think the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired, but it takes people willing to abide by it for it to have any power at all.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I'm not reading the **** from the trolls, so I'm not sure where all this is coming from, but with it we need to ****ing kill gerrymandering. Kill it ****ing dead. Set up a full unconnected and unbiased outside panel to redistrict across the country to make the vote actually fair down to the local level. **** all these games these assholes play. It's gotta stop.

Oh dude, the Supreme Court is all over it. But it's called "Racial Gerrymandering" that's bad and they're eliminating that because it's like....political. If POC think the GOP is a better bet than the democrats, I would look at what they've done to your communities representation and vote. They're coming to silence you.

Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional map - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a ruling by a federal district court holding that a congressional district on the South Carolina coast was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices cle

www.scotusblog.com

https://www.myarklamiss.com/news/arkansas-news/us-supreme-court-sends-arkansas-racial-gerrymandering-case-back-down-to-lower-court/

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It can, by it's own rules, be modified by the will of the people. It takes a lot more than a single, simple 50.1% vote to change it, but it can be changed by the will of the people.

50.1% is the will of the people and that does not change the US Constitution. The Constitution can be changed but the changes themselves are guided by the Constitution which is why a 50.1% will of the people can't do it.

The U.S. Constitution has no power on its own. It takes the will of people to enforce it. ... it takes people willing to abide by it for it to have any power at all.

Ding! Ding! Ding! What you are describing is 'social contract theory'. So long as people believe there is a chance the system could go in their direction someday, maybe not this election, maybe not the next, but someday, they'll keep the system in place. If they think the game is now rigged and there is no hope, no chance things will go their way then they are going to want something else to take its place. More than once you've said that you don't care if half the country believes the social contract is broken so long as it is the half you don't like. Be careful what you wish for.