So they’re rejecting intersectionality?
It was a segment on NPR I heard the other morning
1 Like
He’s clearly a narcissist, and narcissism can extend to sociopathy, but I don’t see that with Trump. What I do see is that most people at Trump’s level business-wise or politically are narcissists, some are sociopathic, and very few, like Stalin, Che Guevara, were psychopaths.
If Trump was the dictator that he’s being painted, how many of his detractors have disappeared, been poisoned, had mysterious deaths, had to flee the country?
And as a narcissist, yes he’s come out with some outlandish remarks, but has any other man or woman in history been under the microscope, watched continually by so many people who have hated them for 4 solid years, 24/7?
I suppose an important difference is the type of countries different leaders operate in, the laws etc that exist as well as cultures (in society and leadership styles). I don’t know if Trump does or doesn’t have the potential to be more dangerous in different circumstances, but based on some of the character traits outlined I think it goes to show why checks and balances on people in power are so important. And why, regardless of the chances of success, some people are very worried about Trump’s attempts to undermine the democratic process.
2 Likes
You’ve got a point. But as to your last comment, I haven’t seen Trump or Rudy Giuliani attempt to undermine the Democratic process yet.
Not saying they won’t, but everything to do with recounts seems to be legitimate so far. Unless anyone can show anything illegal’s going on?
1 Like
Personally I think his legal challenges and repeated claims of voter fraud despite there being no evidence of it falls into that category. As has been discussed, he knows it probably won’t work but he is doing it to rile his base and build even more distrust in the system. I would say that is trying to undermine the process.
Demanding a recount in a close run race is one thing. Building a narrative over many months about the validity of postal votes then making legal challenges on the basis of the narrative you have created is something different and, I think, more sinister.
Of course, all politicians and political parties work in their own interests to secure their aims. But the general feeling does seem to be that this level of push back is unusual and not really the done thing.
5 Likes
I’ve noticed that the BBC is following the mantra of no evidence of voter fraud, although some of the US media have now moved from ‘no evidence’ to ‘no evidence of substantial voter fraud’, in other words it’s now within acceptable parameters. But who decides the parameters? Are there parameters?
I’ve always thought voting’s a grey area. Maybe there needs to be a digital and physical vote, both to be cast at the same time, there could then be 2 measures to compare. The problem is that if you say we can’t live in the dark ages, let’s just go digital… we all then have to trust big tech.
2 Likes
So is a sworn affidavit not evidence? Genuine question. I cannot find a clear answer.
This was the first google hit I got -
‘A written statement of evidence which is sworn before a person authorised to administer affidavits, such as a solicitor’
1 Like
Some interesting numbers here. No explanation as to why but still. I retrect my comment about Trump’s one black voter. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-biden-trump-black-latino-republicans?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
1 Like
Maybe no evidence of substantial fraud is just more accurate, like is there ever any zero fraud? It’s a good question about acceptable parameters. I don’t know.
I do accept that voter registration and widening access to democracy is difficult, and the voting process sounds incredibly complicated in the US. I don’t fully understand it. And yes also agree digitisation is a scary concept, is it worth the trade off if it reduces fraud? This comes back to the question of whether fraud is actually a problem… And the impacts on access to the democratic process.
These are big questions and it’s past my bed time so I’m going to leave it there! 
2 Likes
I think, as previously said, maybe it’s a turning away from intersectionality.
Maybe some people do not want to be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
1 Like
He’s destabilizing by cleaning house. He’s fired the secretary of defense and other high ranking officials. He’s denied Biden access to daily briefings. That’s just to start. Things don’t have to be illegal to undermine the democratic process. Interesting note that most of his lawsuits have already been dismissed because they haven’t provided one shred of evidence of voter fraud.
5 Likes
I certainly don’t believe that two wrongs make a right, but haven’t the Democrats been undermining the democratic process for the past 4 years by endlessly contesting Trumps victory? You reap what you sow.
2 Likes
Contest or complain?
I heard whinging about popular versus electoral vote, mostly just after the 2016 election. I did not hear of suits being brought against the results, besides those initially from the Green party.
The Democratic party admitted defeat as far as I remember the election was concerned.
2 Likes
I was referring to the Impeachment stuff to be fair.
2 Likes
Fair enough. That’s a whole other thing.
I didn’t take that as challenging the election process, but his fitness for office. Whether or not it was really about that given the likelihood of failure at face value though, I dunno.
1 Like
Yeah, I have blurred the lines a bit there.
1 Like
As I was mentioning to @Englishd last night, Hillary has spent 4 years and a worldwide book tour telling everyone that would listen that Trump really knew that she had won and he was in denial.
Plus he’s been attacked 24/7 for 4 solid years.
I’d pretty much say that’s undermining.
I only hope Biden can hold the more moderate and more radical factions of the party together for 4 years. That’s a tall order, and with the best will in the world he’s not the man he was even a year ago.
And I have no pleasure in saying that, 2 members of my family suffered for years with Alzheimer’s and it’s hideous.
2 Likes
It does boil down to some pretty simple stuff learned in recovery: Principles first.
So long as there’s a bunch of bickering and in-fighting, the groups (nations) rot from the inside, making no headway and serving no one.
I give Biden respect for sticking to that in the late game of the election, even and especially as results rolled in. As you say, can only hope.
2 Likes
It’s hard for me to understand why the impeachment of Trump delegitimates the observation that there’s no evidence of voter fraud. Those are two totally different things.
There was clear evidence that Trump tried to influence Ukraine to declare an investigation into Biden. Not to investigate necessarily, because he didn’t really care, but to say they’re investigating, so Trumps opponent would look bad. That’s abuse of power, per the constitution, and collaborating with a foreign power for own political and financial gain. You could say, whatever, let’s change the constitution; or you could try to make the checks and balances work, per the founders. Or you could say, as the gop did, it’s ok because he’s our guy and our jobs depend on him. Pelosi tried to make the checks work, to maintain the system supposed to limit abuse of power, and half the country villainized her for it.
There are several people on here saying those who say negative things about Trump must be biased. I’d like to know those peoples perspectives on the things said by Republicans. Like Ted Cruz, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/05/03/politics/donald-trump-rafael-cruz-indiana/index.html
Also hard to see why the baseless allegations of fraud are undermined by Clinton emphasizing that she won the popular vote. She did. The electoral college is a bad system. Separate point.
But a lot of this isn’t really, imho, about this particular weak-strongman. He is all glitter and smoke; there’s a limit to how much airtime he should get. It’s about how his presidency has revealed how many elements of American democracy rely on everyone being very gentlemanly in proper 18 century fashion. When the president breaks norms as well as laws, things can go horribly wrong. Trump per se is too lazy to be Stalin. The next one will be worse.
5 Likes