This could be won in so many ways! Loyal and sane Americans might apply so many under-used tactics to settle this latest phase (#8 I reckon) of the recurring U.S. Civil War, restoring peace and rationality to civilization. Elsewhere I offered 100+ such tactics.
But right now - as frantic pearl-clutchers moan for Joe Biden to withdraw - two proposals stand out.
Today, please consider the most plausibly effective one.
== Joe, make it about facts. The very existence of facts. ==
Amid all the hoorow over Joe Biden’s shaky performance in the first presidential debate of 2024, Lawrence O’Donnell nailed it:
“How come the (100%) liar is seen as ‘winning’ a debate?”
How come? The answer’s simple. Though our savvy ‘blue’ pols & pundits never get it.
Somehow, here in the most scientific, technologically competent and progressive society the world ever saw, the word ‘fact’ is debased to a mere matter of opinion.
I’ve been railing about this for eons. Right after the debate, I crafted a careful description of how this mental trap likely has you ensnared and thus rendered politically useless. Only then I realized - you won’t read anything complicated.
Instead of lamely murmuring “That’s not true,” as he did many times in the debate, Joe Biden (and every other Democrat) should shout:
>> There is no better test of who shouldn’t be president than which of us is lying!
So let’s check that now!
>> I propose right now that Donald Trump and I nominate respected, mostly-nonpartisan Americans for a commission to adjudicate just that one matter.
Which of us is a big, fat liar.
>> I will offer a list of nominees tomorrow that includes Republicans and Independents, scientists, sages, biblical scholars, and retired senior military officers, all of whom should be acceptable to any opponent who is an honest person.
>> Let’s see your list, Don! Widely revered Americans who aren’t overtly partisan or under anyone’s thumb.*
Let’s join in this one thing! Helping separate truth from lies, restoring FACT to some meaning in American political life.
>> Just don’t give us any crap about how “It’s all subjective” or “Truth isn’t decided by experts voting on it.” You use biased ‘experts’ all the time. (Many of them operating in Fox or Kremlin troll shops. Today it’s the same thing.)
Look at the list I’ll offer! If you don’t offer up a matching list of widely respected, judicious, mature and knowledgeable Americans to participate, we’ll all know why.
It’s because you don’t have any! …and because you know that you are the big, fat liar.
And that is why you run away from challenges like this one, screaming more lies as you flee.
== WHY THIS WON’T HAPPEN ==
Sure. Yeah. I know all the reasons why you are shrugging this off, right now. Why you are muttering “It’ll never work, Brin. Trump and his minions will just ignore this, or mock it.”
Alas, all that proves is your laziness. Because it’s worth a try!
(I get similar responses when I push the tactic of demanding pre-staked wagers over easily fact-verified challenges like ocean acidification. It always works, making the cultists flee in panic. Always. Yet, lazy bums make excuses to never even try it for themselves.)
Do I think Trump will actually accept, if Biden issues this challenge? Will Donald Two Scoops nominate a list of admirably cogent and responsible adults to join Biden’s nominees on such a fact-adjudicating commission?
Of course not. He doesn’t dare! If Trump accepts the challenge and names qualified people, he’ll be fact-checked into oblivion. If he names shills, that will be clear! And if he refuses…
No, of course Fox and the Kremlin trolls will shriek denunciations, like “You don’t vote on facts!” Or “Our viewers do their own research! By leaving ‘fact’ presentation to us!!!”
Only, that’s the point, fool. Their shrieks and excuses will be the silver bullet. Because millions will see the cowardice! They will see Biden’s long list of respected American sages** and compare it to whatever list Trump provides… of shills and raving loonies and KGB agents. And just those lists, compared side by side… will say it all.
Okay. I know that I type too much, in an era when almost no one has the patience to read. I have so much more to say about this, like how Biden whining “That’s not true!” during the debate was utterly counterproductive. I’ll follow this posting with all that stuff, even knowing how futile it is.
== Other ideas ==
I also have a second proposal, in case Joe-B wants to both soothe and satisfy those calling for him to withdraw. It’s potential gesture he could make that could be a win-win-win all around!
I’ll post some of that, midweek… if I can find the heart for it.
Only it can be hard, these days. Because (again) I know that it is futile. If one side in this phase of the U.S. Civil War consists of confederate-Kremlinist incantation junkies flocking around Vlad Putin and a cabal of microcephalic inheritance brats…
…the other side – the side with all the cogent citizens and fact people and scientists and loyal Americans and just plain decent folks who can’t stand a pervert-traitor slathered in tanning dye, makeup, hairplugs and bad karma… alas, the good, loyal, Union side in this phase of the 250 year culture war over America’s soul…
… has the collective political/tactical IQ – en masse – of a crypto biotic tardigrade.
===
* We can interrogate each others’ nominees before cameras, like in jury selection. Televised. Let’s do it!
** The thing about such a list is the dems don’t even have to line up these folks, before listing them! The whole purpose is to list folks who AREN’T overtly very partisan! Being listed can be involuntary, since all you are saying is “here are people I respect and would listen-to.”
Okay, in today’s polarized nation, most such folks have already taken sides. But still, just offering such a list is worthwhile! Because you’ll get Trump to denounce them! And each august American he denounces will be a blow that rocks some supporters out there.
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216And meanwhile this is what an actual lawyer is saying about the Supreme Court decision as opposed to a hack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs
You may panic now.
Unlike the clowns of the DNC, the leadership of the Republican Party and their backers have been thoroughly planning this election and its following days. Between this and project 2025, the question will not be wherever the US will become a dystopia but wherever this dystopia is Gilead or Night City.
Quite frankly I have to ask what the flying **** with wings the Democrat leadership have been doing for the last 4 years ? Did they learn absolutely nothing from 2016 ? They have not been preparing any plan B candidates. They have skipped on primaries which would have brought fourth any issues with Biden in advance. They have not prepared any counter measures to plan 2025 despite the plan being in the open for years. They have let two right wing members torpedo legislation to protect democracy. They push to continue supporting an Ethnic cleansing despite not only the UN, the ICJ, the Global South (who's support we need more than ever), the majority of their party voters and members (including Jewish ones) screaming at them not to, but also despite Netanyahu and AIPAC actively supporting a Trump victory. Our host keeps saying Russia is blackmailing Republicans into being this awful. Quite frankly I dread to think what kind of Blackmail is responsible for this kind of political masochism. Hanlon's Razor can only go so far.
The only way they can redeem themselves at this point is to make use of the opportunity given by the supreme court. President can ignore the law ? Time for Biden to make use of this opportunity to go nuclear. You lot might like to stick to the rule of law and all, but you don't stick to the Queensbury Rules while the other guy is pulling out a machine-gun. Time for centrists for a change to be the one that give up their purity standards in the name of saving democracy.
My apologies if I come of as angry, but the world can really not afford Trump to win and yet the democrats continue behaving as if we live in normal times.
John Viril:
Or that a President can claim that assassination is rooted in the power to defend the constitution vs. all enemies foreign or domestic?
That's the plausible scenario. The claim that Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or even Liz Cheney are dangers to the republic.
to the point they're assuming the King-like powers they envision will only apply to Republican party Chief Executives.
What they assume--rightly in my opinion--is that Democratic presidents won't exercise king-like powers even if they could, but once a Republican is in office, he will. Alfred here, who is firmly on the Union side of the Civil War, agrees with that sentiment, arguing that President Biden should not even try to scare them into noticing how an imperial presidency might be a bad idea for them.
I'm guessing you've read Project 2025. Believing that a Republican administration would not make immediate use of king prerogatives seems like the kind of wishful thinking my late father would have clung to because the alternative is unthinkable. But the alternative is happening (, Reg)!
Pappenheimer:
and some of your neighbors may be happy to turn you in just to keep their TV cable services going.
Not to mention the ones who are openly on the side of the fascists.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jul05-4.html
France moved sharply and decisively to the right last week and the U.K. moved sharply and decisively to the left yesterday. What's going on here? One possible explanation is that in the U.K., people are just tired of the Tories after 14 years, especially since many of their leaders have been weak and ineffective. It may be less ideology than "these guys couldn't run a lemonade stand."
With all due respect, the same applies to the Republican Party, which has been evident since at least 2005. And yet tens of millions of voters are like, "Yeah, that's what I want in a government!"
France moved sharply and decisively to the right last week and the U.K. moved sharply and decisively to the left yesterday. What's going on here?
The main difference between France and GB is mainly, I think, GB has no far right party with a strategically, long-term-planning leader like Marine Le Pen. She has thrown out her own father and founder of her party, and tried to smooth the edges, veil the iron glove. GB has had a number of political clowns like Farrage and BoJo, and Stamer is mainly a centrist - he is predicted to not rejoin the EU and maintain many of the policies the Tories have installed. That may or may not work.
While Populism relies heavily on charisma, propaganda and lies boldly told often enough, they can only thrive on a soil already fertilized by the failures of previous administrations. Centrists bear as much responsibility for doing not enough and doing it too late, out of fear of losing support. That can work for a time (see Merkel) but will bring it's own price with it.
And thus, if Stamer leaves everything as it is, he might end up in a few years were Macron is now.
I wonder if any of the "Joe must go" folks would benefit financially from a 2nd Trump administration?
Tim H:
I wonder if any of the "Joe must go" folks would benefit financially from a 2nd Trump administration?
That might explain some in the media. They're ready to sell Trump the rope he'll hang them with in exchange for clicks.
It doesn't explain the student protesters. On almost every issue they care about, including the lives of people in Gaza, Biden is much preferable to Trump. They just seem more than willing to cut off their face to spite their nose (sic).
“"re: immunity decision
I am cautiously hopeful that it isn't the disaster the Democrats say it will be. It all depends on the legal regime the courts will create to distinguish core powers of the presidency vs. official acts vs. non-official acts.
At first blush, it seems certain core powers should have immunity. Most state actors have some kind of qualified immunity, even down to the municipal level. Since no president has faced criminal prosecution before now, the courts have little to no jurisprudence with respect to presidential criminal immunity.
Obviously, I'm hoping that the lower courts will not interpret the decision like Sotomayer did in her dissent. In many ways, she's giving a worst-case interpretation to attack the majority's opinion."
I am astounded at the sheer naivete of these statements. Have you been ignoring Trump and what he’s done for the past 9 years? You don’t need an Ivy League law degree to know that it should be obvious that what Trump is accused of doing constitutes abuse of official powers, and should not be allowed. The lower court ruling was perfectly fine, and there was no good excuse for SCOTUS to get involved. Do you think that they would have ruled the way they did if it were a Democratic former President under indictment? If you say “yes” you’re going to need to show a lot of work, given the track record of this court.
Giving someone like Trump power with zero guard rails is like giving a chimp on meth a rocket launcher. He is motivated by greed, cruelty, and a need for adulation that is like a black hole. Look at his past abuse of the pardon power- he allowed the likes of Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Joe Arpaio, Charles Kushner, Paul Manafort, Duncan Hunter, Chris Collins, Steve Stockman, and Micheal Flynn to escape the consequences of their criminal actions. He has let war criminals like Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nicholas Slatten, Paul Slough, and Eddie Gallagher (whose actions were so egregious his own unit turned him in) off the hook. That was BEFORE the SCOTUS trashed the remaining guard rails. Now what’s to stop a King Trump from offering pardons for sale? Seriously WHO is going to stop that? Republicans in Congress? Please don’t even try to suggest that. The courts? He’ll emulate Andrew Jackson and dare the courts to enforce such an order. Then what?
Don’t think that he’ll start harassing and persecuting political opponents? That talk of a military tribunal for Liz Cheney is just catnip for the base? The trouble is, plenty in the base want that, and Trump craves their approval. Remember the rally where he encouraged vaccinations, the crowd booed, and he backed off? He absolutely could be egged on into such things, given his susceptibility to flattery. The former adults in the room will have been replaced by the likes of Steven Bannon and Steven Miller, who have zero scruples there. Who would reign him in? Ivanka? Melania? What evidence is there that they care about anything beyond feathering their posh little nests? They had the opportunity to be moderating influences during Trump’s term, and I see little evidence of them even trying much. Note Ivanka’s weasel words before the Jan 6th commission. There was her chance do to the right thing, and she failed her country, so unlike the very brave Cassidy Hutchinson.
The worst realization for me from these past 9 years is just how many people actually approve of a President who deliberately hurts people, and how many others seem indifferent to the approaching danger. Fleeing abroad isn’t a realistic option for most of us. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Europe, etc don’t want an influx of Americans, and I can’t blame them. This is our mess. And our fate to deal with it.
It doesn't explain the student protesters.
I think it is a mixture of cult dynamics & structures, toxic leaders and susceptible followers with the need to make a difference or to rebel against the mainstream.
Those movements often center around narcicisst and charismatic individuals who can attract vulnerable persons. They don't care about the long term effects of their protests, only about rage, control, and power. Some of those toxic leaders actively provoke to create overeaction, to gain sympathizers and activists, as well as using the outside pressure to increase group cohesion. A few might even dream of Trump as the catalyzator for an uprising.
Again, fertile grounds help those cults to grow.(That is not to say that the collective west did not make grave mistakes. One does not give the likes of Netanjahu, Orban etc. carte blanche.)
"It doesn't explain the student protesters. On almost every issue they care about, including the lives of people in Gaza, Biden is much preferable to Trump. They just seem more than willing to cut off their face to spite their nose (sic)."
I have repeatedly asked this question in a number of on-line forums:
"How does a 2nd Trump administration make things better for the Palestinians?"
Wisely, I have not held my breath waiting for an answer. But this question needs repeated asking. These kids have the most to lose, and attempts to get through to them need to accelerate.
The way I see it, Israel has a crappy government, and the Palestinians have a crappy government, and both crappy governments aren't much concerned with the well-being of Palestinian civilians. Given how much we're already armed Israel, I wonder how long they could keep that war going even if the US stopped all further aid today. I'm guessing months, at least, but I welcome input from those who know more. So short of a massive occupation by the US/UN, what stops this war fast enough to satisfy the student protesters?
“One person with small arms obviously isn't enough. A thousand of them is a different matter.”
I discuss this thoroughly here: The Jefferson Rifle: hidden essence of the gun debate - http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
"The way I see it, Israel has a crappy government, and the Palestinians have a crappy government..."
There are degrees. The Palestinian AUTHORITY in the West Bank is trying to do well by its people under difficult conditions, in part because it has no army to oppress them but does have civil servants to (supposedly) help them.
At the opposite extreme, Hamas is pure evil, having taxed Gazans into penury in order to build tunnels and funnel billions$ to a dozen lucre mafiosi in Bahrien. In this fight they first murdered & kidnapped civilians in Israel and then herd their own citizens on huddled masses in front of them as human shields, figuring the more die the better it looks to western idiot siding with them.
Israel as a whole gives rights to Arab citizens and women are strong. But demographic - huge families - have given the Haredim huge voting blocs that keep in power a horror like Netanyahu, who should enforce rules to minimize civilian casualties and failing that should be put up for war crimes.
Flypusher:
The worst realization for me from these past 9 years is just how many people actually approve of a President who deliberately hurts people, and how many others seem indifferent to the approaching danger.
Exactly. That was my biggest disappointment in 2016, even bigger than the prospect of a Trump presidency itself. And now, I can hardly believe how many good people just don't think politics is important enough to care about, who give me the stink-eye for even being so uncouth as to mention it*, and who think of the choice between Trump and any Democrat--not just the sitting president--as being either "the lesser of two evils" or "no difference between them."**
Democracy is in danger of dying, not even to thunderous applause, but to a barely-stifled yawn.
* I'm reconciled to my co-worker who only thinks about the stock market and somehow credits Trump with past gains, or the owner of the sign posted along I-90 west of O'Hare airport which reads, "I miss $1.87 gas, strong borders, and mean tweets. Honk if you agree!" But even from my own mother and in-laws--liberals all--I got the feeling that I shouldn't have said that the 4th of July cake with the flag on it was part of a going out of business sale.
** "But her e-mails!" "He's old." "Kamala Harris, are you kidding me?" It's not just Biden the "rather elect a Russian than a Democrat" crowd objects to. There's always some reason why whoever the Democrat is can't be countenanced. Republicans hate them all, using the excuse of calling them all socialists, but what they really mean by that is "tolerant and problem-solving." And Democratic voters tire of them if they don't produce every desire in the first hundred days, regardless of the realities of governing.
Tim and Larry
"I wonder if any of the "Joe must go" folks would benefit financially from a 2nd Trump administration?"
Yes. CNN and MSNBC have declining numbers.
RE Supreme Court Decision
What legally prevents Biden from publicly committing a crime as a presidential act to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of his new powers in defending, preserving and protecting the constitution?
Slim Moldie:
What legally prevents Biden from publicly committing a crime as a presidential act to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of his new powers in defending, preserving and protecting the constitution?
His integrity, unfortunately.
Alfred and I have differing opinions on this. He believes it is better for Democrats to hold the line on lawlessness and demonstrate to the public how different they are from Republicans. And I can't say that he's wrong or that I want him to be wrong.
But I think the best way to remind Republicans in power of the virtue of checks and balances is to make them afraid of an unchecked Democratic president. I don't want President Biden to abuse the power of the office for personal gain or for unearned power. But I would like him to test the boundaries enough to make the Republicans reconsider the efficacy of "cutting down every tree in England."
What legally prevents Biden from publicly committing a crime as a presidential act to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of his new powers in defending, preserving and protecting the constitution?
As far as I can tell, nothing, although I would expect some crazy IOKIYAR spinning from SCOTUS in response. But It's Biden's respect for the rule of law that prevents him, just like it prevents him from pardoning Hunter. It reminds of the infamous Vietnam War saying: "We had to destroy the village to save it." Biden doesn't want to destroy the village, even thought it would be far better for him to have the kingly powers than Trump. Obviously I'd rather no President have them.
I can’t say whether Joe should stay or go, because I don’t have the crucial bit of data: what his true current cognitive state is. His inner circle does know. Back when he announced that he was running for re-election, his fitness may have been good enough, but he is in his 80s, and while people age at different rates (notice that Bernie Sanders is still as sharp as the proverbial tack), it is not impossible for him to have since declined enough to merit concern. Incumbency remains a big advantage in an election, but if the inner circle is covering for such a major decline, they are taking a dangerous and irresponsible gamble. The Ds are better than the Rs in everything that matters, but I don't delude myself into thinking that they would be above attempting such a coverup. If the bad debate performance was just a fluke, then Biden has to prove it, with more live appearances. But the interview tonight, that is pre-recorded? The excuses of jet lag, and the suggestion of well, we'll just make sure that he doesn't work past 8 pm are not reassuring to me. No, I won't be voting for any GOPer this year, and probably never again, but if this is looking bad to people like me, we know it's playing far worse to the undecideds/double-hater blocs.
If the Ds find that Biden isn't going to make it (as far as looking functional) to election day, better sooner than later to get a replacement.
Biden's age and possible decline do indeed worry me, but Trump’s malice, dishonesty, ignorance, corruption, and petty vindictiveness horrify me. Trump has his obvious age and cognitive issues too, probably even worse than Biden's, but unless he is severely incapacitated or drops dead from his health issues, the GOP is riding that horse to the bitter end.
onward to one of my more important ones. (Help spread it?)
onward
Post a Comment