Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

We also live in a country with arguably the world's strongest history of representative democracy, while the Weimar republic was extremely fragile and viewed by a majority or near majority of its citizens as completely illegitimate.

Congress currently has an 11 percent approval rating, and while Obama's might be a bit better it hasn't broken 50% in a while. (Currently hovering somewhere between 40-50%)

One of the reasons Trump is getting so much traction is because he's viewed as an outsider.

To be fair, while many people may not like our government, I hear few crying out that it's illegitimate. Yes, I know, some do, but is it any more than the usual amount?

Aside from the republicans being racist towards Obama and thinking that they should have won 2008 and/or 2012 by lightyears, no. Well, theres always the far-far-right fringe....

But yeah, the resemblance stops at the rhetoric, theres tons of things that are different which break the hitler comparison.

[Vector]

Well, if it's true, then I'm relieved; yet I'll still keep studying the history of the war.

[sluissa]

People hate their choices, people hate the other choices even more. Just because you're forced to vote for a giant douche over a turd sandwich doesn't mean you WANT them to be your leader. A vote doesn't necessarily mean "legitimate" in peoples mind, it often just means, "I dislike the other choice even more."

[smjjames]

Honestly, I think that the folks saying that Obama should not nominate the next member of the supreme court and should instead "leave it to the people" are saying something about the illegitimacy of the powers of the presidency.

We've also been having a hell of a lot of arguments, ever since Bush, about the electoral college and representative democracy in general being, well, illegitimate.

The whole SCOTUS thing seems to just be the republicans being republicans than anything about illegitimacy.

As for the whole electoral college stuff, yeah there were some discussions about how to change the system so that it works better, but then 9/11 came and distracted from all that. I didn't really hear anything about the system being 'illegitimate' so much as either 'lets get rid of the electoral college because it's not working' or 'how do we change the system so that it works better'. There was even speculation about some sort of amendment going around.

Nothing got done to change anything AFAIK.

People hate their choices, people hate the other choices even more. Just because you're forced to vote for a giant douche over a turd sandwich doesn't mean you WANT them to be your leader. A vote doesn't necessarily mean "legitimate" in peoples mind, it often just means, "I dislike the other choice even more."

And the two choices this year amount to a douche turd sandwich (from the republican side) vs a douche turd sandwich (from the democrat side). Both of them have pretty low favoribility ratings.

[Descan]

There's something or other going around the various states, 50% of the needed electoral college have ratified it (so basically 25% of the electoral college) that, regardless of how their individual state votes, they'll put their electors to the winner of the popular vote.

Obviously it doesn't go into effect unless and until they reach that 50% of electoral college.

I think the last state to ratify it was in the last year or so? Maybe in the last three. It was a small one though.

[TheBiggerFish]

I was thinking about mentioning that but went 'nah.'

@smjjames:Sanders could still win the primary?

[Bauglir]

But yeah, the resemblance stops at the rhetoric, theres tons of things that are different which break the hitler comparison.

I mean, okay, what's the bar for being "Hitlery enough"? What is a comparison to you? Because it's sure not an '=' to me.

I mean, look, if you think that any of the rhetoric about Sanders drawing Clinton leftward has merit, doesn't it stand that even a Trump who loses the election could be bad overall? And if many of the reasons that Hitler were bad, such as the xenophobia, egotism (even by political standards), willful misunderstanding of facts, exploitation of outrage, and endorsement of "justified" violence, are traits which Trump shares and which make a considerable contribution to his success so far, why is it an illegitimate comparison to draw? Because he doesn't hate Jews? Because he doesn't exist in a literally identical political atmosphere?

Pointing out differences between Trump and Hitler won't stop me drawing the comparison. Please explain why the similarities I am drawing are untrue or unimportant. If you'd like, I can write an essay explaining why I think they matter, at some point. Probably not immediately, kind of taking a break from writing a different essay entirely to write this post >______>

But, point is, it's a good comparison, as long as you don't treat it like some kind of implied equals sign and you don't get drawn into the same hysteria about Hitler's evilness that made Godwin's Law a necessity in the first place.

[smjjames]

There's something or other going around the various states, 50% of the needed electoral college have ratified it (so basically 25% of the electoral college) that, regardless of how their individual state votes, they'll put their electors to the winner of the popular vote.

Obviously it doesn't go into effect unless and until they reach that 50% of electoral college.

I think the last state to ratify it was in the last year or so? Maybe in the last three. It was a small one though.

Link? I haven't heard anything about it and that sounds like a decent idea to improve it.

I was thinking about mentioning that but went 'nah.'

@smjjames:Sanders could still win the primary?

He could, theres just a really low chance of him doing so. I saw a video on RCP with Sanders saying that he was going to try and get the superdelegates on his side at the convention, so, anything could happen.

@bauglir: I mean it's not an exact comparison due to loads of historical factors. It's still a good comparison anyway.

[Bauglir]

Oh! 

I apparently can't into reading comprehension. Carry on.

[WealthyRadish]

We also live in a country with arguably the world's strongest history of representative democracy, while the Weimar republic was extremely fragile and viewed by a majority or near majority of its citizens as completely illegitimate.

Congress currently has an 11 percent approval rating, and while Obama's might be a bit better it hasn't broken 50% in a while. (Currently hovering somewhere between 40-50%)

One of the reasons Trump is getting so much traction is because he's viewed as an outsider.

It isn't just approval though, it was a major segment of society saying that the November Revolution was completely bogus, the Kaiser should be brought back, and the democratic socialists had stabbed the army in the back and lost the war by making peace. You don't see Republicans saying that Obama did 9/11, and if elected they'll burn the constitution, make the Queen of England head of state, and take revenge on Canada for the war of 1812.

Though that is a platform that I could really get behind.

[Culise]

There's something or other going around the various states, 50% of the needed electoral college have ratified it (so basically 25% of the electoral college) that, regardless of how their individual state votes, they'll put their electors to the winner of the popular vote.

Obviously it doesn't go into effect unless and until they reach that 50% of electoral college.

I think the last state to ratify it was in the last year or so? Maybe in the last three. It was a small one though.

Link? I haven't heard anything about it and that sounds like a decent idea to improve it.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is an interstate compact because that bypasses the need for anything like a constitutional amendment.  By the bye, you may be hearing more about it fairly soon; if it passes in all states where it's being bounced about in committee right now, it will cover 269 electoral votes, or precisely 50%.  Unfortunately, what it needs is not just 50%, but also an absolute majority (50% + 1).  So if it does pass in all ten states, it'll be like flipping a coin and having it land edge.
^{Of course, hoping for it to not die in committee or fail to pass in all ten might be a bit of a forlorn shot.}

EDIT:
Oh, and the last state to ratify it was New York in 2014.  Descan is almost certainly thinking of Rhode Island in 2013, so that should be a pleasant update.

[mainiac]

People hate their choices, people hate the other choices even more. Just because you're forced to vote for a giant douche over a turd sandwich doesn't mean you WANT them to be your leader. A vote doesn't necessarily mean "legitimate" in peoples mind, it often just means, "I dislike the other choice even more."

But disliking the political establishment also doesn't mean you are amenable to the idea of a fascist dictatorship either.

[smjjames]

There's something or other going around the various states, 50% of the needed electoral college have ratified it (so basically 25% of the electoral college) that, regardless of how their individual state votes, they'll put their electors to the winner of the popular vote.

Obviously it doesn't go into effect unless and until they reach that 50% of electoral college.

I think the last state to ratify it was in the last year or so? Maybe in the last three. It was a small one though.

Link? I haven't heard anything about it and that sounds like a decent idea to improve it.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is an interstate compact because that bypasses the need for anything like a constitutional amendment.  By the bye, you may be hearing more about it fairly soon; if it passes in all states where it's being bounced about in committee right now, it will cover 269 electoral votes, or precisely 50%.  Unfortunately, what it needs is not just 50%, but also an absolute majority (50% + 1).  So if it does pass in all ten states, it'll be like flipping a coin and having it land edge.
^{Of course, hoping for it to not die in committee or fail to pass in all ten might be a bit of a forlorn shot.}

EDIT:
Oh, and the last state to ratify it was New York in 2014.  Descan is almost certainly thinking of Rhode Island in 2013, so that should be a pleasant update.

It'd just mean that it won't go into effect this year, I think, and I guess a constitutional amendment would be a possible next step to sort of put it down in stone, so to speak.

[sluissa]

People hate their choices, people hate the other choices even more. Just because you're forced to vote for a giant douche over a turd sandwich doesn't mean you WANT them to be your leader. A vote doesn't necessarily mean "legitimate" in peoples mind, it often just means, "I dislike the other choice even more."

But disliking the political establishment also doesn't mean you are amenable to the idea of a fascist dictatorship either.

It never starts out as a fascist dictatorship...

[mainiac]

I mean, look, if you think that any of the rhetoric about Sanders drawing Clinton leftward has merit, doesn't it stand that even a Trump who loses the election could be bad overall?

Democrats who oppose Sanders like what he wants but oppose his plan.  You can think that singlepayer is a good idea but not like campaigning on it when you haven't earmarked enough revenue and you can't get it through congress.  Republicans who oppose Trump are repelled by what he wants.  They either think he is a fraud and a con man or he is dangerous.  Trump is a warning sign for the republican leadership that draws their attention to problems they have been ignoring.

It never starts out as a fascist dictatorship...

So what?  Redking isn't going to become a fan of fascism as an alternative to the two party system after three or four months.