A Very American Coup

@Heroclitus

Thanks for sharing your detailed write up. It includes some of my fears about what would happen post election day, although PA legislature has mercifully thus far stated they would not entertain the idea of overriding the popular vote. On your SCOUTS analysis I would question the assumption of 5-4 split with Roberts joining liberals. Kavanaugh has been voting with Roberts more often than not (something like 90%+), so them splitting would be unusual.

I appreciate well thought out and written discourse. Will have to remember to watch out for further posts of yours.

 

ah, yeah, the house does the impeaching, and the Senate decides to remove or not, so it's very hard to remove a President, Clinton was only impeached, not removed too

 

The whole world has been observing all his actions for four years - that didn't seem to alter his behavior!

 

No I am aware that people did vote for Trump. I alsdo know that before your election Trump was saying that if he did not win then it was a fraud, and many people were predicting Trump would try what the OP states, which certainly he appears to be doing, supported by more Republicans than people thought lacked integrity, and hence encouraging 'moderate' though uneducated on politics people to believe they have been cheated....and uneducated on politics does not mean uneducated or stupid it simply means uneducated on politics.

Why? Everyone who did not vote for Trump wanted for Biden. This is a massive amount of the people of the US. There were people on on the left who despite despising fascism did not vote for Trump or Biden because they did not believe that Biden was going to deliver what was needed - that being an economic system which can help the WWC as well as others. Personally Biden would not be my choice, Sanders would, but I am someone who believes in democaracy and that winner is Biden.

Frankly if anyone was putting in false votes I would think it was Trump. He was the person going on about this possibility before the election.

No mail voting is an accepted form of voting usually for old or absent people. However in this situation with the covid virus, Republicans also are aware of Trumps probable attempts to claim frauds, or voting places not being avialable, encouraged no postal votes. Hence the majority of first votes were for Trump but when they got on to the postal votes Biden won. This was expected.

when what happens? (I do appreciate that you have seemed to answer in a non baiting way. )

 

Mail in votes are the most vulnerable to fraud.

 

The peaceful transfer of power happens on January 20th. The transition should be happening now, except the obese orange impeached one-term cry baby loser won't do the decent thing and admit what everyone knows: He lost. Bigly.

 

It seems to be ongoing.

 

Trump of course did attract support among RW fascist wannabes, which reinforced Trump's own narcissist proclivities.

 

It seems like the argument eluded you. It was slightly complex because it proposed that people who thought Clinton was a Chinese spy (which you may consider unintelligent) were very often people who had a proper understanding that Electors of the Electoral College do not necessarily have to be elected by the people. This is called nuance. It's an old fashioned thing that used to be a feature of intelligent discussion.

And the fact that there will be unrest does not necessarily deter a group of people who are already suggesting that the MSMs proclamation of a Biden Presidency will be the cause of that unrest. Nor does it prevent a President placing his stooges in the DoD and making sure that those who would push back at the use of Federal troops to forcibly repress such protests are removed.

 

Where did that come from? You are one of my favourite posters.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-fave-posters.228005/page-34#post-1072195718

Well favourite poster or not I don't agree with you. Is that a problem? Firstly I did watch the video you posted which took some time. I am pointing out that is far as the law is concerned (which seems to be what other liberals are warning about) there is a perfectly legal and constitutional way (at least in so far as there is an argument that SCOTUS could accept and have some legal justification for accepting) for Trump to stay on. The whole point of the warnings being posted is that on a legal basis alone the USA is far from being a democracy (and the Right constantly say "we are a Republic not a Democracy"), no matter what recent traditions and customs may signify. You may use the word traitor as a metaphor or polemical insult, and that may be fair enough, but my wholee argument, the OP and I think even the link you posted, argues that Trump could stay on quite constitutionally, even if that did throw democracy in the garbage.

I agree with all this excepting that these people who are traitors to freedom, traitors to civilisation, traitors to the values of their country, traitors to what is right and moral, are not necessarily traitors to the US Republic as its laws are currently constituted. This is the whole point being made by people who are making these points about a coup. The coup is so dangerous precisely because it could take a form which can at least be interpreted rationally as being in compliance with the Constitution; ie: the coup leaders would not be guilty of the crime of treason under US law.

 

Wow, such a snowflake response! Look I paid you the respect of answering your argument point by point. If the tone was a little cutting well then that's an appropriate response to personal attacks and xenophobia. I am surprised you would give up so easily and resort to taking your bat home. Some folks can give it out but they sure can't take it!

I am thoroughly used to have people challenge my authority. I insist on it, or I fire them!

As to working for the Guardian? Of course I don't. If I had such a platform why would I need to come here? What "declaratory statements" are you on about? I linked an article and wrote the text of the OP myself. It was an argument, predicated on a lot of facts. I think you have lost your way here but I do thank you for the compliment that I write like a professional journalist. No need to give up. I won't be gentle with xenophobia or ad hominem attacks but apart from that I think you were doing fine which is why I spent time to answer you in detail.

This is a little bizarre. Firstly newspapers and news channels tend to segregate "news" from "comment". You can see this at Fox News now where Hannity et al are furious at the different direction the anchors are taking. So if I was doing what you were saying then I would only be emulating all news channels especially Fox. In the Guardian there is absolutely a split between news and comment and I posted a link to comment in the OP. Even having said that, in my view there is no "unbiased"news. The closest is probably the BBC. I listened to BBC world service during the US election (amongst other sources) and the even handedness in interviewing Republicans and Democrats was stunning. But it was kind of boring as well. Shouting at Hannity and gasping with the idiocy of the people on Fox and Friends is more fun! And when the "editorialising" goes well it can result in this magnificence:



The obvious rejoinder to your strange outrage that I post comment and opinion is that this is a forum, not a news channel! I am making no pretence to any kind of neutrality. Why would you expect me too? The whole thing on a forum is about "editorialising". We are debating different opinions. What are you doing suggesting that I shouldn't do this? Have you lost the plot?

I hope you find your way back and post something sensible next time so that we can have reasonable discussion. But thanks again for the compliment anyway!

 

Thanks. On your points: I think it is too early to say (but soon we shall see). The new justices may make efforts to show that they are independents and primarily concerned with the law, however I think they would have no difficulty upholding an Electoral College as constitutional even if some Electors had not been selected by the popular vote in their State (Faithless Electors). That would be an "originalist" approach. I think Roberts is more inclined to take a "common sense" approach as he did with Obamacare and so would be with the liberals. But who knows? Thomas and Alito are hopelessly and openly partisan and extreme right-wingers. On the PA Legislature I hope you are right but I saw the Governor of Florida was urging them to select faithless electors and given the moral fragility and opportunism of the GOP I can foresee that they would yield to pressure (and I read that this was starting to happen).

Of course overall I hope that none of this happens and probably I expect it not to; but to dismiss it out of hand as a possibility speaks to the complacency of liberals which is the root cause of all of this.

Actually the fact that Republicans are the bad guys, rascals, hypocrites, cheats and liars is just indisputable and arguing with Republican supporters is just sport. History will marvel at how a major political party can descend into a sycophantic cabal of cowards constantly in awe of a mob. Case studies on Graham, Cruz, Rubio and Christie will see future historians fascinated at such brazenly amoral and unprincipled political animals.

The real argument needs to be had now is with liberals whose arrogance, complacency and elitism confines them to a bubble which they think is the whole world. They are like the frog in the well. Their world is the world. Even four years of semi-fascism has not shaken them up. It's "back to normal" and they think that's fine.

 

Europe under the Euro is a German controlled entity, because its member nations have given up their sovereign currency-issuing capacity (and hence ability to devalue their currency via monetary policy, eg, to maintain competitive trade advantage), and the ECB is controlled by the most powerful member ie Germany which is ingrained with deficit mythology (related the Weimar years). That's why Europe faces the very real prospect of breaking up, as the rules don't allow for the quantum of deficits that sovereign nations like the USA, Japan and China can implement when necessary (like in this pandemic). Low growth and high unemployment are crippling France and Italy. (That's why right wing anti-immigrant parties are now a dime a dozen in Europe).

You don't seem to understand macroeconomic theory very well, as indicated above.

A knowledge of non-orthodox of macro-economic theory allows a simpler summation than you realize.

Certainly orthodox economists have been screaming about Chinese debt for a long time, predicting a crash that still has not eventuated.

Huawei was a global leader in 5G technology, readily adopted by many countries until 'rapturer' Pompeo decided the risk to US global hegemony was too great.

A paragraph which is basically correct EXCEPT for the first seven words.

Hint: planning is generally required to achieve a goal. So while the US has a large section of its economy devoted to pumped up private-sector junk consumerism - as 'directed' by profit driven 'free' markets - China has built the world's most extensive modern high speed rail network which will serve well in terms of productivity growth in the coming decades. And by 2030 China plans to be a leader in AI.

That's because Libertarian fools with their "small government" fetish are demanding democracy so they can attempt to reverse the outcome of the 1949 civil war and overthrow China's 'socialist' government; in effect they are demanding nothing less than separation of HK from China.
Nor surprisingly, China is drawing a line in the sand. Note: China now feels confident enough in its own strength for the first time in centuries, that it doesn't have to react to foreign provocateurs in Taiwan. A weaker nation would have started a war over delivery of US weapons to Taiwan....but China knows it has time on its side.

How many opposed British rule? Anyway, the wealthy in HK last year were urging the secessionists to stop rioting and smashing things (shades of Trump's BLM America in those riots), and go back to work.

China is no longer feudal, and has eradicated poverty just this year. China subsidizes basic services like housing, health and employment.

https://ellenbrown.com/2019/06/14/the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-in-china/

The US 'small government' business model results in increasing inequality with "neighborhoods like war zones", and the highest incarceration rates in the world. The Chinese system which puts economic fairness above freedom will likely win in the long run, as AI enabled production increasingly frees workers from the production processes.

Possibly.

 

I agree with you.

But I make this observation, which relates to 'democratic' government:

The people....are divided! (c.75 million to 70 million).

There's something wrong with Churchill's dictum, if China keeps growing peacefully and raising the living standards of ALL its citizens.

 

At one point or another it may come down to a use of the military

Now if Trump is seen as not being the legitimate winner of this last election then he will not be the Constitutionally mandated CINC of the military after January 21, 2021, Joe Biden will be. Some of the militaries are Trump supporters but it is far from all. OTOH ALL of the military take an oath to the Constitution, NOT the President, and just about all people in the military take that oath seriously, It is, after all the main reason they are in the military to begin with.

I think the military will not support Trump being in power as President past Jan 21. Some might but not all and I doubt very much that Trump's supporters in the military will be willing to violate their oaths and jeopardize their careers for Trump. Trump has shown very clearly that he is not at all supportive of people who help him to the point of being a very toxic person to even be around

 

The US is a republic with democratic features, not a democracy.

 

~ This just about sums it up. At least Trump forced everything out into the open.

 

I'll get back in touch with you on Dec.18th to check that theory........post #4...



The point is: get your own house in order.

China will grow faster than the US in the next decade, simply because "socialism with Chinese characteristics" - which includes a role for private enterprise (unlike the USSR) - can single-mindedly create and achieve its five-year plans via funding via its public (national) bank, in contrast to the US with its blind-leading-the-blind adversarial, insanely hyper-partisan two party 'democracy'- funded by private banksters - which either reverses the policies of the other party at the next election or more often results in stalemate.

And sadly for you, a nation that cannot engender BOTH fairness and freedom, will fail.

BTW, China has officially eradicated absolute poverty this year, and from now on it's all cream for the population who are becoming increasingly satisfied with their government.[/QUOTE]
You sound like a big fan of china, voted for Biden, did you?

 

Blah blah blah I think I am smarter than you blah blah.

The "argument" didn't elude me, the point you were trying to make did. If you believe people who thought Clinton was a Chinese spy were often the people who had a proper understanding of the Electoral College, I doubt that very much. Sure, knowledge is not always correlated with reality (see, Nietzsche), but it is doubtful people who believed Clinton was a Chinese spy could even spell "electoral" or "college." This would be akin to a person talking about chemtrails and them out of nowhere having a moment of lucidity and reciting the Rule against Perpetuities. I mean it is possible (as in it is possible for a monkey to sit at a typewriter for an infinite time and eventually type out Hamlet), but it "often" happening is not believable.

The MSM in proclaiming Biden's victory is not causing the unrest. Dumb people who don't understand how math works, and the fat, orange, piece of human garbage who is fighting a battle he lost over a week ago is the cause of any unrest that is happening.

 

See I told you we get this nonsense. It almost as a grunt. It requires no explanation. It is merely a catechism learned by the Right, parrot-like. But here it is.

If pressed on this a semi-smart justification for this would be to say that since policy and executive actions are determined based on representatives who are elected and not a continuous process of plebiscites (direct democracy) then the statement stands. Its only semi-smart because this sophistry depends on a definition of democracy that means there are no democracies today anywhere in the world.

The thuggish authoritarian interpretation of this is basically that the USA is not a democracy really at all but uses a few features of democratic governance. Most people regard the US Founding Fathers as concerning themselves with the tyranny of the majority against the individual, and introducing checks and balances to prevent that. Today's right are more analogous to eighteenth century monarchists, prepared to use some of the trappings of a parliamentary system as long as they can preserve their aristocratic privileges and rotten boroughs.

The objective of the Right today as they cheat, gerrymander and lie is to build a permanent tyranny of the minority over the majority. They dress themselves in the clothes of the American Revolution but their doctrine is counter revolutionary and their values are feudal.

 

Biden is doing what he can, but he is not receiving the funds or the briefings, or the access he is entitled to as president-elect.

 

Wow no need to be so touchy! Try and deal with the arguments and avoid ad hominem attacks.

The example I gave was a US CPA and CFO of a multi million dollar business. I do consider the American CPA qualification to be a bit inferior to its international equivalents but actually the guy was reasonably smart. You know I've heard equally absurd theories about birth certificates, Europe being under shariah law etc. from extremely smart people... members of the Federalist Society and such. Are you so in your bubble that not only don't you know these smart and numerous extremists but you post hysterical denial when it is pointed out to you?

Yup, missing the point again. Complexity you see. Something my "Clinton is a spy" CFO could navigate when it was a tough accounting problem. Let's take it slowly: I know the MSM is not causing the unrest. I am highlighting that some are arguing that the MSM, in trying to proclaim a fraudster the winner, is fomenting the unrest. I don't agree with those arguments but they are part of the well documented and commented on phenomenon of the Right priming their base for future lies. Any protests in the future will be blamed on the MSM.

Simplistic drivel. "Deplorables" kind of nonsense. Bubble stuff. Of the kind that has led to the Democratic Party being complacent and arrogant and letting these guys in.

 

I made zero ad hominem attacks.

Your contention was that people who believed Clinton was a Chinese spy were often the same people who had "a proper understanding that Electors of the Electoral College do not necessarily have to be elected by the people." I call nonsense to that. I would bet 90% of the American public knows how the Electoral College works (esp. that the state legislators can decide which electors to send), and 0% of people who believe Clinton was a Chinese spy know how it works. Assuming, I am wrong and this American CPA somehow believed Clinton was a Chinese spy AND how the Electoral College works, he would be unique in the true meaning the word and his knowledge and beliefs would not be found "often."

I have to ask: Did mommy and daddy never teach you manners? The first two sentences (and others from the last post) make me think they did not. (And you are crying about me making ad hominum attacks.)

Anyway, of course right-wing conspiracy theory morons are going to attack the MSM. They do that because most right-wing conspiracy theory morons surround themselves with people, newspapers, radio, TV, and now social media that creates their preferred "reality." When faced with true reality, they are perplexed because their "reality" is diametrically opposed with reality so both can not be true. Because they prefer their "reality," they denounce reality as presented by the MSM. So, according to them Biden stole the election, Trump saved millions of lives and has handled the pandemic well, the impeachment was a travesty, and any MSM source that reports otherwise is simply "fake news."



Simplistic drivel. "Deplorables" kind of nonsense. Bubble stuff. Of the kind that has led to the Democratic Party being complacent and arrogant and letting these guys in.[/QUOTE]

 

Not a terrible analysis. But its weakness is its rigidity and the extent to which it overstates the case. The Euro is dominated not controlled by Germany. In fact the very dislocation to the world and the potential for German austerity thinking to exacerbate a disintegration of Europe will be something that will probably lead to a loosening of such values. If you are driving off a cliff, some people do change direction. I judge the EU to be capable of that because they are dominated by pragmatic, centrist politicians who are highly committed politically to the unity of the bloc.

I think I understand it very well. I just don't see the world as a place full of fools who are outsmarted by guys like you on an Internet board. Your scenario was one scenario. Very crudely drawn. Do you think only you can see this potential disaster? The leaders of Europe are blindly driving along the road you describe unenlightened by your brilliance? The reality is that Europeans are constrained to an extent but are also able to react and adapt. Ironically it is the breakdown (and death spiral) of American global leadership that has come under Trump which may force them to change track. That was my point, not that I didn't understand the many structural weaknesses of the current EU set up.

If you think what you wrote was non-orthodox then I can't help you. It was simple to the point of triteness. It was entirely orthodox. Where was the zany bit?

Nothing here really. Not sure what point you are trying to make

Five year plans are not necessary for "planning". All nations plan. Have you never heard the military maxim that no plan survives the first engagement with the enemy. The reality is again more nuanced than your crude five year plan where everyone puts their hand up to agree it. I think it was McArthur who said "plans are useless, planning is indispensable". It is true that in comparison to other developing nations, China invested early and big in infrastructure, which served it well and continues to do so. But the growth of China is due to the laissez faire capitalism introduced by Deng and Zhao. There was nothing socialistic about this growth. It was the launching of the bourgeois revolution as the CCP understood that capitalism is essential - according to Marxist theory - for socialism.

China's health system is simple - you pay or you die. Health and Safety regulations are seldom enforced. Foreign investors offered vastly superior employment conditions to local ones. The planning that did happen was largely extremely damaging - local authorities organising vanity projects in terms of shops, office and apartments that are now either unfinished or unoccupied. And as to your distaste for consumer capitalism, have you ever been to China? And the governments plan now is to encourage an economic direction where such consumerism becomes the driver for further growth (as it rebalances the economy and relies less on manufacturing exports).

You are living in a democratic country and are free to argue that utter nonsense. I am not free to discuss it. Think what that is like, comrade.

This makes you sound like an ideologue from the sixties that is a member of one of those Maoist student sects. You are seriously suggesting that China is some sort of socialist paradise? You need to visit China as you clearly have no idea. If you need an operation to live and you do not pay in advance the hospital will not let you in. You will die. The only public health is in Hong Kong which has a run down version of Britain's NHS but offers almost free world class health care. China is a mixture of feudalism, unrestrained capitalism, and a tiny bit of socialism. It is a society in flux, which is why it is impossible to really say how things will develop.

You clearly have no understanding of how the Chinese system works. It is capitalism, often without the enforcement of laws to ensure that pollution, workers rights, health and safety etc. are regulated effectively (regulations which are enforced in democratic countries). This is the country with obscenely rich oligarchs (and the wealthiest politicians in the world by far), industrial workers sleeping eight to ten to a small room in dormitories and housing conditions that would be regarded as dreadful slums in any Western country. Gleaming skyscrapers stand next to filth and overcrowding, just as in Chicago or Pittsburg a hundred years ago. Still, hundreds of millions of peasants live in feudal poverty in the countryside.

What China has going for it is that its development, driven by cheap labour capitalism and a government policy that encouraged and nurtured this, has been the fastest industrial revolution in history and this continues to be so even as it changes. The CCP encouraged the emergence of a new bourgeoisie, like Lenin's NEPmen. It is precisely this that has driven the growth of China and Marx's description of nineteenth century industrial revolutions is a perfect description of China in the last twenty years - as would be immediately understood by anyone who has read their Communist Manifesto:

 

He will get all that when or if he is actually president elect. Today we have a President and his name is Trump.