Should the Republican Party be regarded as a criminal organization?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, fix the issue of a broken system by using the same levors that lead to a broken system in the first place. That'll surely work...

You say that as if your idea won't require such destabilization to even get to the point where it might be feasible... Try a little self-reflection there TRR.

Note that I very explicitly did not say that the Republican Party should or could be outlawed- I noted in my very first post, in fact, that it would practically speaking be impossible to do so without defeating them in a civil war, something which I am not prepared to advocate. This thread was always intended to be a theoretical moral question-do the Republican Party's actions make it a criminal organization-not a how-too guide for overthrowing the government and implementing a radical Leftist dictatorship as some have seemed to treat it.

My idea is increased voter education, voting by a random sampling of people chosen across all demographics combined with single four-year terms for all elected officials followed by a two-term period where they're barred from any political involvement. Stagger elections so that 25% of all seats are open every year. Toss in a dash of boiling political campaigning down to televised debates and written statements only and you change what makes a politician electable and importantly what makes a politician re-electable.

It's a bit far fetched in that nobody within the current system would support it and there's no easy way to get there from here but it's less evil than your desperate fantasy.

See above reg. the purpose of this thread. Also, you should retract and apologize for such a despicable misrepresentation of my position which, if you have actually read the thread, you must know to be false.

As to the above ideas you propose: one is good, one seems well-meaning but flawed and likely to backfire, one I am largely neutral on, and two are utterly despotic and pointless.

Voter education is absolutely necessary- one cannot make meaningful choices if one is not informed as to ones' options and their potential consequences. Although it does raise the question of who is doing the educating, and what their motives and biases are. This, in part, is why I place such a great importance on freedom of expression and freedom of information.

Single terms sounds nice- we want our officials to be doing their job rather than worrying about getting reelected, right? And no doubt it appeals to those who regard all politicians as inherently corrupt and simply desire change for the sake of change. But it also largely removes the threat of being voted out if you fail to satisfy the voters- and thus actually removes a form of accountability for elected officials. Under this system, a politician could do whatever they wanted during their term, short of a crime, with little fear of suffering major reprecussions to their career. Term limits also are problematic to me because they artificially restrict the choice of the voters, and are therefore to some extent anti-democratic.

Staggering elections... shrug. It increases the rate of turnover, so if your goal is change for the sake of change, I suppose it makes sense. It might also lead to increased election fatigue, and to such rapid turnover that its hard for any but the most short-term policies to ever be enacted. Or it might have very little effect at all.

Having a randomly-selected sample of citizens vote and thereby stripping citizens of the right to one vote per person is anti-democratic. The goal, I assume, is to keep the unwashed masses from voting (ignoring that Trump lost the popular vote and was elected by the Electoral College)… but even that doesn't make sense, because it doesn't actually control who's voting, if its randomized. Please elaborate on this point, because right now it strikes me as both despotic and utterly pointless.

Passing laws limiting what you are allowed to say while campaigning that strictly would, I suspect, be a blatant violation of the First Amendment in the US, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada- and also somewhat pointless, as private citizens who were not officially part of the campaign could still say whatever they want. Unless you literally banned all political speech outside of debates and official written statements, which... yeah. That level of censorship is incompatible with any non-authoritarian form of government, and would simply be abused to highly limit opposition speech.

Much of this, in any case, is as you say not practical- indeed I am fairly certain that every single measure you propose beyond the vague "increased voter education" would require a Constitutional Amendment to be legal in the United States. A more viable approach to improve the electoral situation in the US would be to pass stronger protections of voting rights (Democrats will likely do this if they get a majority in both Houses of Congress) and having non-partisan or bi-partisan organizations draw the boundaries of districts to negate gerrymandering (some states are moving to implement such programs I believe), while attempting to nullify the Electoral College (presuming a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate it isn't feasible) but encouraging states to require their electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote (this is a movement that is already underway, and which a number of states have agreed to put into effect as soon as enough states to represent a majority of electors sign on). While also working to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will revisit and overturn Citizens United's absurd ruling that money is speech and that corporations have a right to spend as much of it as they want on politics. All of which is a tall order, but a lot less than what you are proposing.

For Canada... I flat-out dislike the Parliamentary system, which I feel greatly limits voters' options, and gives far too much power to a PM with a majority government. If it were up to me, I'd say Canada should call a Constitutional Convention.

You do realize that I'm not American right? I would like to see the US elect sane officials but I won't suck the Democrats off for being the least smelly turd to make that happen.

I'm aware. But if 2016 showed anything, it is that election rhetoric has influence across national boundaries in our time.

I think that purging people for what are ultimately personal issues is a wrong headed way to go about things. Purge people based on bad plans, bad outcomes, and bad policies rather than due to some scandal. Politics shouldn't be a popularity contest but instead a system by which a nation is run effectively. Yet you want to focus on being the good guy rather than being the effective guy, which is a very different thing.

Being a likely rapist is not simply a "personal issue". For that matter, neither is perjury. It gives me no pleasure to say this as a Democrat, but the Republicans were right to impeach Bill Clinton, and he should have been convicted and removed from office (even though the Republicans were utter hypocrites who were doing it for entirely the wrong reason).

As to the implication that morality and capability are mutually exclusive concepts- its an old argument, and my positions remains the same. I disagree. Indeed, I would say that a good chunk of the problems we're facing right now in our political culture can be traced back to the idea that morality and ability are contradictory things.

[Ralin]

What happens when your new system runs into teething troubles and you get a large faction wanting things to go back to how they were?

What part of 'shoot them' do you not understand?

So you're delusional then. Good to know.

Guy, you do realize we're talking about declaring the Republican Party a criminal organization and (presumably) banning them from organizing or campaigning for office, right?

Or you could simply break up the party leadership, ban the party, but permit its members to vote for other parties/candidates. Hypothetically.

And when those same people start voting and campaigning for candidates selected by the new Build The Wall party what exactly will have been accomplished?

[K. A. Pital]

But this is at least a radical idea, TRR (however misguided). You see that you have already attracted a huge share of attention and diverse opinions.

What is the point of now backtracking and saying this is purely about whether the Republicans can be criminalized, in theory? This requires neither an answer nor a discussion.

You sure can criminalize anything, and everything, the real questions are „is it worth it“, „what are preconditions“ and „what consequences“, the rest is just water.

If you are contemplating something that looks like a giant purge of Republicans, at least have the courage to say so.

Incidentally, civil war is also a pre-requisite to criminalize them, usually in the absence of civil war criminalization of political parties only occurs when progressing to a more dictatorial state of politics (not necessarily a direct dictatorship, either - modern democratic process has largely criminalized all „anticonstitutional“ movements, fully in accordance with the Jacobin cry „NO FREEDOM TO THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM“)

[Jub]

Note that I very explicitly did not say that the Republican Party should or could be outlawed- I noted in my very first post, in fact, that it would practically speaking be impossible to do so without defeating them in a civil war, something which I am not prepared to advocate. This thread was always intended to be a theoretical moral question-do the Republican Party's actions make it a criminal organization-not a how-too guide for overthrowing the government and implementing a radical Leftist dictatorship as some have seemed to treat it.

So just another TRR whinges about politics thread. Got it.

Voter education is absolutely necessary- one cannot make meaningful choices if one is not informed as to ones' options and their potential consequences. Although it does raise the question of who is doing the educating, and what their motives and biases are. This, in part, is why I place such a great importance on freedom of expression and freedom of information.

Ideally, a neutral third party agreed upon by all political parties would do the education, Practically, well no system is perfect and you'd need to stay on top of things to ensure that the educators don't get too biased.

Single terms sounds nice- we want our officials to be doing their job rather than worrying about getting reelected, right? And no doubt it appeals to those who regard all politicians as inherently corrupt and simply desire change for the sake of change. But it also largely removes the threat of being voted out if you fail to satisfy the voters- and thus actually removes a form of accountability for elected officials.

You can still remove the mid-term, which happens in functioning democracies or install a mechanism by which an election can be triggered early due to a suficiently large petition.

Under this system, a politician could do whatever they wanted during their term, short of a crime, with little fear of suffering major reprecussions to their career.

Only if you're an idiot and ignore the fact that I'd be basing my system of Canadian politics where politicians can be and are removed mid-term. Or did you forget how the NDP ended up taking the BC provincial election?

Term limits also are problematic to me because they artificially restrict the choice of the voters, and are therefore to some extent anti-democratic.

But they aren't limited, they can run again 8 years after leaving office. So if they want a career in politics they need to actually push for lasting changes for their next campaign.

Staggering elections... shrug. It increases the rate of turnover, so if your goal is change for the sake of change, I suppose it makes sense. It might also lead to increased election fatigue, and to such rapid turnover that its hard for any but the most short-term policies to ever be enacted. Or it might have very little effect at all.

It's to prevent large swings in power over a short period. So something like a recession doesn't mean one party loses big and another wins big due to one event that happened to land at a particular time and may or may not have anything to do with the current leading party. Voter fatigue isn't an issue if each election is a random sampling of 5% of the nations total population or if you enact compulsory voting laws both of which I favor.

Having a randomly-selected sample of citizens vote and thereby stripping citizens of the right to one vote per person is anti-democratic. The goal, I assume, is to keep the unwashed masses from voting (ignoring that Trump lost the popular vote and was elected by the Electoral College)… but even that doesn't make sense, because it doesn't actually control who's voting, if its randomized. Please elaborate on this point, because right now it strikes me as both despotic and utterly pointless.

The limited numbers of voters is so they can essentially serve voters jury duty. They have two weeks of mandatory courses about the campaigns of the current parties, followed by a simple test to ensure that they retained the knowledge taught (no, not like the old tests used to screw blacks and lower classes out of voting), followed by the actual vote. You can't do that for everybody so you need a random sampling so that all demographics are heard while ensuring that you get an educated voter base.

Passing laws limiting what you are allowed to say while campaigning that strictly would, I suspect, be a blatant violation of the First Amendment in the US, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada- and also somewhat pointless, as private citizens who were not officially part of the campaign could still say whatever they want. Unless you literally banned all political speech outside of debates and official written statements, which... yeah. That level of censorship is incompatible with any non-authoritarian form of government, and would simply be abused to highly limit opposition speech.

The goal is to take charisma out of the equation. You don't need a smile, a large advertising budget, connections, or speechwriters to run a nation. You need sound ideas and a framework in which to implement them. When taken with, hopefully, neutral and bland, voter education the idea is to vote for ideas and plans rather than people.

vague "increased voter education"

A concept I've elaborated on this very message board several times.

A more viable approach to improve the electoral situation in the US would be to pass stronger protections of voting rights (Democrats will likely do this if they get a majority in both Houses of Congress) and having non-partisan or bi-partisan organizations draw the boundaries of districts to negate gerrymandering (some states are moving to implement such programs I believe), while attempting to nullify the Electoral College (presuming a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate it isn't feasible) but encouraging states to require their electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote (this is a movement that is already underway, and which a number of states have agreed to put into effect as soon as enough states to represent a majority of electors sign on). While also working to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will revisit and overturn Citizens United's absurd ruling that money is speech and that corporations have a right to spend as much of it as they want on politics. All of which is a tall order, but a lot less than what you are proposing.

So you want to do the same thing as is currently being done, but with a few minor changes... How does this fix anything again?

For Canada... I flat-out dislike the Parliamentary system, which I feel greatly limits voters' options, and gives far too much power to a PM with a majority government. If it were up to me, I'd say Canada should call a Constitutional Convention.

Nah, you can fuck right off with that. The Parliamentary system is far better than what the US uses and tweaked versions, such as the one used in Australia, are pretty ideal as far as democracies go.

I'm aware. But if 2016 showed anything, it is that election rhetoric has influence across national boundaries in our time.

Care to prove that?

Being a likely rapist is not simply a "personal issue". For that matter, neither is perjury. It gives me no pleasure to say this as a Democrat, but the Republicans were right to impeach Bill Clinton, and he should have been convicted and removed from office (even though the Republicans were utter hypocrites who were doing it for entirely the wrong reason).

Proof for this one? Actual proof, not just she said hearsay that nobody is pressing in court.

As to the implication that morality and capability are mutually exclusive concepts- its an old argument, and my positions remains the same. I disagree. Indeed, I would say that a good chunk of the problems we're facing right now in our political culture can be traced back to the idea that morality and ability are contradictory things.

Okay, look at Churchill for example. Was he morally good? Not by modern standards. Was he effective? It depends on which period of his career you look at but I'd argue he got the job done.

How about George Washington, was he moral by today's standards? Was he an effective President?

-----

If you are contemplating something that looks like a giant purge of Republicans, at least have the courage to say so.

That's about the one thing people here will universally say that I do well. I stand by my (often ignorant) statements and own them for better or worse and in doing so I tend to see a lot of interesting debate.

[TimothyC]

I was watching this thread with a vague interest in seeing how far down the rabbit hole it would go - and I admit I was happy when the rest of the leftists called out TRR on the fact that his question boils down to "Should we have a civil war?", but then I ran headlong into this gem:

This does raise the question of whether it should be permissible to ban a political party if its actions are despotic or criminal. But there is precedent for that in the US- the communist party was (and to my knowledge still is) illegal in the United States.

I think the COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would differ on that point. People imprisoned in various Red Scares were not imprisoned for their political party membership, but for the acts they took in support of their goals.

[The Romulan Republic]

You suggested millions of people to be convicted as members of a criminal organization, TRR, not any of the actually revolutionary-minded like me.

I did nothing of the sort. You, like others, are making gross assumptions and inferences about my position, and then using them as the basis to attack me.

First, I acknowledged in the OP that labeling the Republican Party as a criminal organization, and treating it accordingly, would not be practical in real life. This thread is a hypothetical. At no point in creating this thread did I advocate the criminal conviction of everyone who holds a Republican Party membership, and that is a substantial leap from anything that I actually said. A leap which can be made so that those who actually do embrace more extreme actions can cover themselves by painting me as the real extremist.

It should also be noted that even being a member of a criminal gang, in and of itself is not illegal, so even if the Republican Party were branded a criminal organization, the prosecution of any person with a Republican Party membership would not necessarily or even likely follow from that. That is your concoction, not anything I actually ever said in this thread, and it is not the first time that you have demonstrated your gross ignorance of American politics and law.

The only way this would not result in civil war is if the country is occupied already by foreign powers who maintain a massive military presence, possibly for years during the trials and thereafter.

It would even then. As I noted in my OP.

Otherwise this is a huge purge that would, scale-wise, easily exceed the Great Terror and the Cultural Revolution taken together. And such events are in themselves a civil conflict, resolved with the use of the violent machinery of the state.

Yeah, no shit. Keep tilting at that straw man, Comrade.

I think your posturing as an „abstract humanist“ has no basis in reality, since you suggest these things very casually.

First, "abstract humanist" is your term, not one I have ever used to describe myself. But I've long since come to realize that what I actually say and how I am perceived, described, and attacked on this board are two very different things.

Second, you are insinuating that I am a liar and a hypocrite based on words you put in my mouth. This is not acceptable.

Oh, and FYI, I am not "backtracking". I am restating what I said in my fucking OP, because as usual, a bunch of lying assholes (or, more charitably, utter imbeciles) grossly misrepresented my views and then attacked me for them, so that they could call me a liar when I tried to set the record straight. Something which happens so routinely on this board that I can only conclude that a) much of this board's population are illiterate; b) much of this board's population have such a deep hatred of me that they are simply incapable of reading anything I say without automatically interpreting it in the worst possible light, or c) much of this board's population are unapologetic and habitual liars.

I'm not going to edit in detailed responses now to the several posts in a row smearing me for dishonesty, cowardice, whinging, etc. Because fuck it, I'm sick of this shit. If I called for the arrest of tens of millions of people, I'd (rightly) be attacked. If I don't, I'm attacked for not being radical enough, or for "backtracking", or maybe for not fitting the image of Straw TRR to which those with a grudge against me would rather respond. It seems like there is literally nothing that I can say that will not result in abuse on this board, simply because I said it, and it is clear that I am considered fair game to lie about. Every other thread I post in quickly becomes yet another "Why we all hate TRR" circle-jerk, and then I end up feeling like a self-absorbed asshole when I further derail the thread to defend myself. If I argue back, then I am accused of lying, trolling, thread derailment, etc. If I don't argue back, and just use the report button, I am accused of "reporting anyone who disagrees with me". It is quite clear to me that productive discussion on this board is virtually impossible if I am a part of it, and that the only terms under which I am welcome here is as whipping boy.

It is also, frankly, becoming clear that this board is increasingly a place where you are considered the enemy if you do not endorse and indeed enthusiastically cheerlead for terrorism, violent revolution, and mass murder; that it is rapidly becoming nothing but a forum for violent extremist propaganda. I realize that I have contributed somewhat to that climate, despite my feelings to the contrary, for which I am deeply ashamed. But even at my most radical or alarmist, I have always regarded violence as an ugly prospect, perhaps something that might become necessary, but never something to leap to or embrace as the first or best option. For which I have been repeatedly compared to a Nazi or Quisling on this board. So its pretty fucking rich to see the people who I have argued with about the issue of political violence for years, who have viciously attacked me for not being extreme enough, now attacking me for being an extremist and getting pats on the back from conservative board members for "calling me out".

I need to get away from this place. You can take that as a concession if you want, or as me being a coward and running away, or grandstanding, or whatever else you please. Hell you can take anything I say however you want, since its clear what I say has little to no bearing on what this board thinks I'm saying. I've tried to state what I believe clearly and honestly, much good it has done me, and my words will have to stand or fall as they are.

[Jub]

<snip>

So what exactly was the point of this thread then?

a) A rhetorical question where you knew no answer was going to be productive, instructive, or useful?
b) Another lets whine about the Republicans thread?
c) A thought experiment so poorly thought out as to generate no discussion except for debates about what level of stupid the criminalization of an entire political party is?

Pick one because there aren't any other options.

It is also, frankly, becoming clear that this board is increasingly a place where you are considered the enemy if you do not endorse and indeed enthusiastically cheerlead for terrorism, violent revolution, and mass murder; that it is rapidly becoming nothing but a forum for violent extremist propaganda. I realize that I have contributed somewhat to that climate, despite my feelings to the contrary, for which I am deeply ashamed. But even at my most radical or alarmist, I have always regarded violence as an ugly prospect, perhaps something that might become necessary, but never something to leap to or embrace as the first or best option. For which I have been repeatedly compared to a Nazi or Quisling on this board. So its pretty fucking rich to see the people who I have argued with about the issue of political violence for years, who have viciously attacked me for not being extreme enough, now attacking me for being an extremist and getting pats on the back from conservative board members for "calling me out".

I need to get away from this place. You can take that as a concession if you want, or as me being a coward and running away, or grandstanding, or whatever else you please. Hell you can take anything I say however you want, since its clear what I say has little to no bearing on what this board thinks I'm saying. I've tried to state what I believe clearly and honestly, much good it has done me, and my words will have to stand or fall as they are.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out and make sure you never stop screaming about how the sky is falling. You'll never get people to take you seriously if you stop screeching about the end of days for even a second so practice screaming while you sleep too!

[K. A. Pital]

Well TRR, what is the point of offering a moral issue if you are unprepared to discuss the actual implications?

I said already, the question is silly because when put as purely theoretical, requires no answer as it is as obvious as the fact you could build a very solid case to try US government officials for war crimes.

However, you wanted to know if it is morally justified to consider the entirety of the Republican party a “criminal organization” (something which has been applied in recent history to organizations such as SS, as a reminder). When, however, offered the moral - purely theoretical! - implications of that (the requirement of mass repressions of some form to happen), you started saying how we misrepresented you.

OK. Feel free to take a break.

[Alkaloid]

TRR. Real talk.

I've made a comment like this before and you ignored it, but I actually want to engage you on this.

Politics is not just about being right, it's about looking right. The way you deliver rhetoric, at least in text and I can only assume in real life as well, does not look right, This is a prime example. Declaring the Republican Party a criminal organisation is stupid. Not only is is stupid, any remotely rational person will immediately see it as stupid. Like it or not, legally, that is the current, legitimate government of the USA. Sad but true.

You need to realise that to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, right now you look like the Democrat equivalent of people who were calling Obama an illegitimate president because he's Kenyan.

Legit advice, look at the way Starglider and Stas post. I'm probably more closely aligned to you politically than either of them, but the way you write, even though I agree with a lot of your positions, makes me want to dissociate myself from you publicly.

Starglider posts rarely, and not always but usually about things he can stake professional authority on (AI and software development). That means when he posts about stuff he has no real expertise about he looks a lot more authoritative than he actually is, because people are used to taking him seriously and so are more likely to drink his libertarian kool aid.

Stas does things a bit differently. Posts more often, trolls occasionally and is quite vicious in taking apart anyone who strays into things he knows about, but only things he knows about. People don't tend to cross him because if you don't come loaded for intellectual bear, he'll make you look like an idiot, and he'll do it with sources. You don't hear a lot from him on subjects he can't back himself on, and so that doesn't dilute his presence ontopics that he can.

You post regularly, in every topic on N&P, often wildly overreaching making big claims that can be taken apart by people who disagree with you (see this topic). Even if you win an argument in a technical sense, you can lose in a public sense ifyou are made to look like you don't know what you're talking about. That drives the undecided away from you, and to the people who looked like winners, even if they were wrong.

You need to learn to chill. Don't pick fights you can't win, learn to celebrate the ones you can without gloating, and when you opponent gives himself enough rope, don't tell him that, just let him swing for a bit before belting him in the old solar plexus. Don't just be right, look right and look like you're already winning while you do it. That attracts people to your side, but hysterical screeching will at best annoy your friends.

[Tribble]

IMO a civil war of sorts has been going on for quite awhile, its just that the violence (whether through revolution or government oppression) hasn't really started yet. IMO it's more likely only a matter of when, not if. Who is more likely to win?

I most sincerely hope I'm wrong, though when it comes to my idealist side vs my cynical side, the cynic usually wins

[Jub]

IMO a civil war of sorts has been going on for quite awhile, its just that the violence (whether through revolution or government oppression) hasn't really started yet. IMO it's more likely only a matter of when, not if. Who is more likely to win?

I most sincerely hope I'm wrong, though when it comes to my idealist side vs my cynical side, the cynic usually wins

Is there anybody credible who agrees with you on this? Frankly, it feels to me like the US political system is due to for a massive self-correction soon likely to the detriment of the GoP. This might cause a little extra violence from the usual right-wing nutters but is unlikely to cause any major civil conflict.

[Tribble]

IMO a civil war of sorts has been going on for quite awhile, its just that the violence (whether through revolution or government oppression) hasn't really started yet. IMO it's more likely only a matter of when, not if. Who is more likely to win?

I most sincerely hope I'm wrong, though when it comes to my idealist side vs my cynical side, the cynic usually wins

Is there anybody credible who agrees with you on this? Frankly, it feels to me like the US political system is due to for a massive self-correction soon likely to the detriment of the GoP. This might cause a little extra violence from the usual right-wing nutters but is unlikely to cause any major civil conflict.

Its a gut instinct, nothing more. Though a lot of these "credible" people you speak of laughed when people such as myself warned years ago that Trump was going to run, that he would win the nomination and the presidency, that things like a Brexit referendum were inevitable and the the UK would vote leave, that the eurozone crisis would not definitely go away and that far right groups would rise in the EU etc.

Not desirable things and I always hoping I'm wrong, but forgive me for taking what the "credible" ivory tower people say with a grain of salt.

Edit: maybe your right in that it wont be a full on civil war, but im quite convinced theres going to be a lot more than "a little extra violence" at some point down the road.

[Jub]

Its a gut instinct, nothing more. Though a lot of these "credible" people you speak of laughed when people such as myself warned years ago that Trump was going to run, that he would win the nomination and the presidency, that things like a Brexit referendum were inevitable and the the UK would vote leave, that the eurozone crisis would not definitely go away and that far right groups would rise in the EU etc.

It's easy to just always predict bad things to happen and point out when you're right though, especially when those bad things happen to be based around things that have been growing thorns for years. You probably don't even remember all the bad things your gut said might happen that never came to pass. Things like 'Peak Oil' come to mind when I think of bad things predicted that are still possible but that haven't come to pass.

Edit: maybe your right in that it wont be a full on civil war, but im quite convinced theres going to be a lot more than "a little extra violence" at some point down the road.

That's vague enough to be unfalsifiable. Some point could mean in 30 years and in no way related to any current event and you could still claim to be correct. Let's at least put some constraints on this bad feeling.

Do you predict a large (more than 25%) increase in politically motivated violence in which both sides of the political spectrum participate within the next 5 years?

[Tribble]

It's easy to just always predict bad things to happen and point out when you're right though, especially when those bad things happen to be based around things that have been growing thorns for years. You probably don't even remember all the bad things your gut said might happen that never came to pass. Things like 'Peak Oil' come to mind when I think of bad things predicted that are still possible but that haven't come to pass.

You're kind of reinforcing my point though - who exactly do you feel I should be deferring to in this instance? Which politcal scientist do you feel has the knowledge, experience, and correct interpretations that I ought to be following and thus ignore what I personally feel, which in the polical context at least has been fairly accurate so far? And for that matter, how are making those determinations?

While political science is a field of study, i dont think it remotely approaches the same standards as the hard sciences, engineering, medicine etc. Predicting future political events is at best educated guess work, and I really dont think I must automatically assume that the "credible" people you speak of are my superior and that I must be wrong (also assuming that the "credible" people disagree with my view).

I'm guessing, yes. Hopefully wrong when it comes to this topic, though unfortunately ive been guessing pretty good so far.

That's vague enough to be unfalsifiable. Some point could mean in 30 years and in no way related to any current event and you could still claim to be correct. Let's at least put some constraints on this bad feeling.

Do you predict a large (more than 25%) increase in politically motivated violence in which both sides of the political spectrum participate within the next 5 years?

In this particular instance imo specifics dont matter so much as the overall trends. I don't think it takes a phd in political theory to spot the pattern towards extremism (and especially far-right extremism) in US politics over the past few decades. It seems pretty straightforward, particularly when it comes to conservatives: whenever they lose an election they tend to conclude that they lost because they werent conservative and extreme enough, then elect people more extreme. I aldo don't think it takes having a political doctorate to point out that one of the likely ramifications of this particular pattern is more violence, especially the longer it continues going on. If and when this pattern breaks and a major poltical correction occurs, i'm quite confident its going to be violent, and IMO the longer it takes for this pattern to break the more violent the break is going to be if/when it occurs. I concede though that its probably not going to be a full scale civil war.

As to when? That im not sure of - one can notice that a building is leaning more and more to one side and correctly conclude that its going to eventually fall down without knowing the exact date of when it happens. A possible trigger could be 2020 if Trump loses and refuses to step down and/or refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the election. That may be preferable in some ways than later on, as if the pattern continues Trump would probably be replaced by someone even more extreme and/or more competent in extremism than he is.

Again, just guess work, and I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.