Paul Krugman warns that Trump may be preparing to deny the legitimacy of a Democratic win.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/pau ... 8b58799307

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman fears that President Donald Trump's insistent complaints of "voter fraud" are a setup to deny the legitimacy of a Democratic majority in the House should the party win in the midterm elections.

Those who don't believe such a scenario is possible "haven't been paying attention," the Nobel laureate warned.

Krugman retweeted Trump's warning Saturday that "all levels of government" are watching out for "VOTER FRAUD" in the upcoming elections.

Krugman is convinced that if the Democrats win a majority in the House, Republicans will claim the election was stolen, deny the legitimacy of the victory, and create a "nightmarish political situation."

Trump and the Republicans will "use claims of voter fraud to justify their disregard of the law and Constitution," he said. "If you don't think this is going to happen, you haven't been paying attention."

If the Democrats win a majority and are allowed to take their posts and subpoena Trump records as part of various investigations, Trump will simply ignore the demands, according to Krugman.

Alarmist? Maybe, but I wouldn't put it past Trump to try, given that he has openly campaigned on the position that the Democrats are a mob that's too dangerous to be allowed to hold power. I'm skeptical that most of Congress or the Supreme Court would support it, but I wouldn't bet my life or my freedom on that, especially after Kavanaugh.

If it comes to what Krugman describes, it will likely come down to a) whether a significant percentage of the American populace is willing to take to the streets to protest and remain their until Trump backs down, and b) which side the military will ultimately support.

For my part... if it comes to that, I have commitments that will keep me in Canada until December. Then I will have to decide how best I can serve in the fight to free my country.

I really hope it doesn't come to that.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

It's already come to that. And, It's gone past that point.

The men in both parties now cynically, overtly ignore the voice of the people, of the so-called resistance, the courts they are slowly gaining control over.

The patriarchy only let Kavanaugh's victims come forward with their stories, let other women share their stories on and off line, let there be a dialogue about sexual violence, only so they can look the country's female majority in the eye and say "ha, ha, fuck you!"

So, no, neither you nor Krugman are being alarmist at all. The entire nation, on all sides, are simp,y waiting, with held breaths, for the other boot to drop.

[mr friendly guy]

Lets be fair... Trump already said something similar to what Krugman is predicting when he was running against Hilary. Remember when asked will he accept the result if Hilary wins and he was non-committal? He has been also giving signs along this line in other ways. Remember when China retaliated against tariffs by counter tariffs targeting Trump states? What did Trump say? Why China is interfering in the US politics.

Seems like an excuse to use on the base if he loses. Just say China did it. Or voter fraud. Whatever works I guess.

[Ralin]

When Trump was running against Clinton his resources for fighting back if he lost boiled down to going on TV or Twitter and making thinly veiled requests for his mostly cowardly and aged supporters to hat up and take care of bidness in some way they'd have to fill in the details of. Now the military and police answer to him. China is a sovereign country and has the ability to retaliate in kind economically. If Trump declares that any given newly elected senator or representative did not in fact win the election and that his opponent will be taking the seat and that he'll be thrown in Guantanamo if he sets foot in DC their options boil down to protests and appealing to Congress/the Supreme Court and pretending that the guy who can have anyone in America assassinated by drone bomber on command has to listen to them.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't try to prevent at least some Democrats from taking office by force. Hopefully he gets distracted and drops it, but one way or another America's Tiananmen is coming.

[Tribble]

IMO Republicans wont be willing to physically prevent Democrats from taking office... this time around. If the Democrats take back the House and / or Senate I do fully expect them to say that that it was due to fraud though. And will blame Democrats for everything as usual. From the Republican standpoint the only reason why the Democrats could end up winning despite all the voter suppression and gerrymandering would be because of illegal votes.

Its going to be ugly no matter who wins.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's already come to that. And, It's gone past that point.

The men in both parties now cynically, overtly ignore the voice of the people, of the so-called resistance, the courts they are slowly gaining control over.

The patriarchy only let Kavanaugh's victims come forward with their stories, let other women share their stories on and off line, let there be a dialogue about sexual violence, only so they can look the country's female majority in the eye and say "ha, ha, fuck you!"

So, no, neither you nor Krugman are being alarmist at all. The entire nation, on all sides, are simp,y waiting, with held breaths, for the other boot to drop.

While I share your disgust with the state of the country, I do not believe that it is justified to advocate initiating violence now, for reasons both moral and pragmatic which I have already stated on many occasions.

I also must reiterate that I despise "both sides" bullshit in all its forms. Your attempt to equate Democrats and Republicans in this is the kind of rhetoric that did more than any single other factor, in my opinion, to make Trump President. Because if we start from the assumption that "all politicians are just as bad", then a rapist endorsed by the Klan isn't any different. This sort of cynicism is how Trump became normalized. The "Both Sides" narrative is one of the foremost propaganda tools of Trump and the Kremlin, and anyone who uses it is, wittingly or unwittingly, doing their work for them.

Frankly, any political movement, whether peaceful or armed, requires a broad base of support to have a chance of success. If you label Democrats and Republicans equally your enemies, you are simply ensuring that you will be marginalized, and accomplish nothing more than pissing into the wind. At that point, its not about trying to accomplish anything, just venting your hatred. And that is a selfishness we cannot afford right now.

[/quote]

IMO Republicans wont be willing to physically prevent Democrats from taking office... this time around. If the Democrats take back the House and / or Senate I do fully expect them to say that that it was due to fraud though. And will blame Democrats for everything as usual. From the Republican standpoint the only reason why the Democrats could end up winning despite all the voter suppression and gerrymandering would be because of illegal votes.

Its going to be ugly no matter who wins.

This is about right, I suspect.

Trump will say it, almost certainly. I'm not sure how far the rest of the party is willing to go to back him on actually forcibly suppressing the results of a democratic election. Its one thing to try to fudge the margins of a close election, or tighten voter id laws, or spread lies on the internet. Its quite another to actually order police or troops to forcibly suppress their fellow citizens for exercising their democratic and legal rights.

I also don't think saying "Its already happened, its inevitable" is productive at this point. We want people to be prepared for the possibility, but we also don't want (at least I don't want) people to conclude that voting is pointless, and that they should immediately resort to violence. Even if it did come to that, it would be far better for us if we ran a clean election first. Because most of the Left and Center (including myself) are not yet ready to take up arms. If people try to resist Trump by force now, there will be a few ugly incidents, which Trump will use as proof that Democrats are a violent mob, and then things will continue on their current trajectory. The majority of the country will not support a revolt unless it is clear, beyond any doubt, that Trump is the aggressor. So even if it did come to that, it would be best if we had the moral legitimacy of an election win (or a Republican win that was clearly fraudulent) to point to.

The moral high ground matters, in war as much as in politics. I'll point yet again to Abraham Lincoln at the start of the Civil War. That was as just and necessary as any war America ever fought, but Abraham Lincoln went to great pains to make sure that the South, not the North, fired the first shot- because otherwise he would have lost all the border states, and most likely the war.

Given a choice, I will trust the political instincts of Abraham Lincoln over those of the "burn it all now" crowd.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

This sort of cynicism is how Trump became normalized. The "Both Sides" narrative is one of the foremost propaganda tools of Trump and the Kremlin, and anyone who uses it is, wittingly or unwittingly, doing their work for them.

It's not cynicism, It's not a narrative, it is reality,. The lie that the two parties are any different from one another is the foremost propaganda tool of the patriarchy, and one of the things--aside from the "bros b4 hos" mentality--which got Trump selected by his fellow men to be President, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of aiding and abetting their criminal enterprise, guilty as charged of serving Trump and the alt-Reich. A good German by any other name.

And, yes, a rapist endorsed by the Klan is no different from a rapist who helped other rapists scapegoat his wife. They're both men. They're both rapists.

And, what we can't afford is the willful naivete of those who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la,la,la, not listening" rather than grow up and face unpleasant truths.

Because that sort of willful naivete is one of the reasons Trump became normalized.

, I do not believe that it is justified to advocate initiating violence now, for reasons both moral and pragmatic which I have already stated on many occasions.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but the violent revolution's coming, regardless of my say on the subject, and quite uncaring as to what you believe. What you fail to understand is that violence is precisely what Trump and the men behind him want. They want to violently bring down the tattered remains of my country, and turn everyone they hate into bloody smears on the deck, all in the hopes of creating their barbaric world order from the ashes and bones of the murder and mayhem they commit, same as the Church used Odacer Rex and the barbarians before him to replace the Rome they coveted with their thousand years of darkness and butchery.

[Ralin]

It's not cynicism, It's not a narrative, it is reality,. The lie that the two parties are any different from one another is the foremost propaganda tool of the patriarchy, and one of the things--aside from the "bros b4 hos" mentality--which got Trump selected by his fellow men to be President

40+ percent of female voters voted for Trump

, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of aiding and abetting their criminal enterprise, guilty as charged of serving Trump and the alt-Reich. A good German by any other name.

And, yes, a rapist endorsed by the Klan is no different from a rapist who helped other rapists scapegoat his wife. They're both men. They're both rapists.

What the fuck has gone wrong in your head these past couple years, and is there any chance of you getting back on your meds in the near future? Because I don't remember you going off the goddamn deep end like this until fairly recently.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not cynicism, It's not a narrative, it is reality,. The lie that the two parties are any different from one another is the foremost propaganda tool of the patriarchy, and one of the things--aside from the "bros b4 hos" mentality--which got Trump selected by his fellow men to be President, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of aiding and abetting their criminal enterprise, guilty as charged of serving Trump and the alt-Reich. A good German by any other name.

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your "Both Sides" argument is guilty of "aiding and abetting" fascism and rape?

And, yes, a rapist endorsed by the Klan is no different from a rapist who helped other rapists scapegoat his wife. They're both men. They're both rapists.

Bill Clinton is a scumbag who should probably be in prison, but I would say that outside this one issue, he's a better President than Trump, because he did not try to systematically turn America into an autocracy or conduct nuclear diplomacy via Twitter threats.

In terms of his treatment of women, he is scum- but he also does not define the entire Democratic Party in the way that Donald Trump currently defines the Republican Party. You don't become persona non-grata as a Democrat if you ever criticize Bill Clinton.

And, what we can't afford is the willful naivete of those who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la,la,la, not listening" rather than grow up and face unpleasant truths.

Because that sort of willful naivete is one of the reasons Trump became normalized.

It is not "naivete " to recognize that there are fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans, that there is a wide spectrum of views among Democrats (moreso than among Republicans), and that those differences matter. Cynicism is not automatically the more mature, informed, or intelligent choice, and in this case, its an active impediment to opposing Neo-Fascism.

Because tell me- if the Republicans are the enemy, and the Democrats are equally the enemy, who is left to fight on our side, whether in the political arena or, if worst comes to worst, in the streets? There are two political organizations with major nation-wide clout in the US, and you have just declared both of them the enemy.

If everyone who opposed Trump followed your view that the Democrats are just as bad, we would be left divided and without real nation-wide organization. And the Trumpers, they're unified, and energized. And united beats divided every time.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but the violent revolution's coming, regardless of my say on the subject, and quite uncaring as to what you believe. What you fail to understand is that violence is precisely what Trump and the men behind him want. They want to violently bring down the tattered remains of my country, and turn everyone they hate into bloody smears on the deck, all in the hopes of creating their barbaric world order from the ashes and bones of the murder and mayhem they commit, same as the Church used Odacer Rex and the barbarians before him to replace the Rome they coveted with their thousand years of darkness and butchery.

I understand perfectly well what Trump and company want. A white nationalist authoritarian regime, with Trump as its leader. I've been saying it longer than most people on this board.

As to what the future holds, no one can know that for certain. Countries that seemed strong have fallen into ruin, and countries that were on the brink have chosen to step back. All we can do is act as best we can according to our convictions, try to steer things in the right direction, and be prepared in case we fail.

What I do know is that whatever chance we have, whether in peaceful or armed resistance, lies in presenting, as much as possible, a united front against the Trumpers. They are the minority of the country. We can take some comfort in that. But as we saw in 2016, a united and energized minority will defeat a divided majority. And that is my fear. I have no doubt that the Trumpers can be beaten-could have been beaten at the ballot box in 2016-if the rest of the country were united against them. I believe that the percentage of the human race that truly wants fascism is outnumbered by those who do not. But it won't mean a damn thing if they're united and we aren't.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not cynicism, It's not a narrative, it is reality,. The lie that the two parties are any different from one another is the foremost propaganda tool of the patriarchy, and one of the things--aside from the "bros b4 hos" mentality--which got Trump selected by his fellow men to be President

40+ percent of female voters voted for Trump

, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of aiding and abetting their criminal enterprise, guilty as charged of serving Trump and the alt-Reich. A good German by any other name.

And, yes, a rapist endorsed by the Klan is no different from a rapist who helped other rapists scapegoat his wife. They're both men. They're both rapists.

What the fuck has gone wrong in your head these past couple years, and is there any chance of you getting back on your meds in the near future? Because I don't remember you going off the goddamn deep end like this until fairly recently.

Probably the same thing that went "wrong" in a lot of people's heads the last few years- watching the world slowly succumb to neo-fascism and feeling powerless to do anything to stop it.

I know 2016 (and the two years since) did a number on my emotional stability.

[Zaune]

Can we perhaps find some sort of middle ground between this #bothsides crap and absolving the Democrats of any blame for blowing it in 2016? Because while I still think they shot themselves in the foot by overestimating how far they could get by promising to keep everything pretty much the same as it had been under the Obama Administration, I don't consider them to be completely beyond salvage yet.

[Tribble]

Can we perhaps find some sort of middle ground between this #bothsides crap and absolving the Democrats of any blame for blowing it in 2016? Because while I still think they shot themselves in the foot by overestimating how far they could get by promising to keep everything pretty much the same as it had been under the Obama Administration, I don't consider them to be completely beyond salvage yet.

The problem is that whatever someone's picture perfect Democrat Party looks like, IMO it's largely a moot point. If Jesus and the Apostles themselves literally descended from the sky to take charge of the Democrat Party, Republicans would still keep saying that Democrats enemies of the people who need to be purged.

If you are not a Republican, by definition you are an enemy that deserves to go to jail and/or be killed. That's not rhetoric, that's actual Republican policy. Republicans are literally at war with the Democrat Party with the goal being total elimination. They have been at war for decades, and unlike the Democrats they are fully organised and committed to seeing this war to its conclusion. So long as the Republican Party views the Domocrats as their single greatest threat which has to be destroyed at all costs, it doesn't really matter what the Democrats do or fail to do in the long run.


Denying the legitmacy of a Democrat win is just the next logical step of their war campaign, that's all.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can we perhaps find some sort of middle ground between this #bothsides crap and absolving the Democrats of any blame for blowing it in 2016? Because while I still think they shot themselves in the foot by overestimating how far they could get by promising to keep everything pretty much the same as it had been under the Obama Administration, I don't consider them to be completely beyond salvage yet.

What Tribble said.

Moreover, Hillary Clinton was not the best choice of candidate (although her negative perception was also due partly to a systematic thirty year campaign of smears and false accusations and misogyny designed to ensure that she wouldn't be a viable candidate). But that is really a moot point now. We have two viable parties in the US at the national level. One of them is, at the highest levels, openly dedicated to extreme xenophobia, political violence, and the systematic destruction of basic democratic and legal institutions. The other is not. There really is no choice here.

So sure, the Democrats fucked up in 2016. No one's denying that. But there's really no point to rehashing that right now, other that to distract from the far more important question: Is America going to be a country based on the rule of law and equality? Or on hate, violence, and mindless obedience to the Dear Leader?

[Zaune]

If we don't talk about how and why the Democrats fucked up in 2016, they'll fuck up the exact same way in 2020. They'll pick a "moderate", respectable candidate who talks vaguely about reform, "hard-working Americans" and probably some sentimental glurge about #notallcops or something... And nobody is going to give a shit. And why should they?

TRR, I mean no insult by this, but I don't think you quite grasp something about politics: Giving A Shit is not a normal, default state of mind for the average person. Anything that doesn't directly, personally impact themselves or their immediate circle of friends and family is just kind of background noise: They might drop a few bucks into a GoFundMe page for a homeless guy who got lit on fire in his sleep by some local tearaways but the morning after they'll go straight back to stepping over every other poor bastard on the streets.

The only way this changes is if they get swept away by someone with charisma, and charm, and a gift for rhetoric. Someone who can seamlessly switch between telling them what they want to hear and making them believe what they're told to believe. Someone, in fact, who has the gift of salesmanship.

And yes, I am fully aware that the line between Sales and Marketing and Propaganda and Public Enlightenment is a very fine one. But you know what? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Evidence-based policy, civil debate and rigorous fact-checking failed miserably: Emotional manipulation, ad hominem attacks and barefaced lies were a roaring success.

And the only outcome worse than winning this race to the bottom is losing it.

EDIT: I just wrote a compelling argument to make Elon Musk the Democratic nominee, didn't I? Fuck. This must be how it felt for you to admit you were thinking of buying a gun.

[The Romulan Republic]

If we don't talk about how and why the Democrats fucked up in 2016, they'll fuck up the exact same way in 2020. They'll pick a "moderate", respectable candidate who talks vaguely about reform, "hard-working Americans" and probably some sentimental glurge about #notallcops or something... And nobody is going to give a shit. And why should they?

TRR, I mean no insult by this, but I don't think you quite grasp something about politics: Giving A Shit is not a normal, default state of mind for the average person. Anything that doesn't directly, personally impact themselves or their immediate circle of friends and family is just kind of background noise: They might drop a few bucks into a GoFundMe page for a homeless guy who got lit on fire in his sleep by some local tearaways but the morning after they'll go straight back to stepping over every other poor bastard on the streets.

The only way this changes is if they get swept away by someone with charisma, and charm, and a gift for rhetoric. Someone who can seamlessly switch between telling them what they want to hear and making them believe what they're told to believe. Someone, in fact, who has the gift of salesmanship.

And yes, I am fully aware that the line between Sales and Marketing and Propaganda and Public Enlightenment is a very fine one. But you know what? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Evidence-based policy, civil debate and rigorous fact-checking failed miserably: Emotional manipulation, ad hominem attacks and barefaced lies were a roaring success.

And the only outcome worse than winning this race to the bottom is losing it.

EDIT: I just wrote a compelling argument to make Elon Musk the Democratic nominee, didn't I? Fuck. This must be how it felt for you to admit you were thinking of buying a gun.

Take "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" too far, and no longer matters much who wins (except from a purely self-interested point of view), because the two sides really will be indistinguishable.

I think most people want to be engaged, especially now (we had over fifty percent turnout for a municipal election up here just a week ago), but they are often caught up in their own lives, and often feel like nothing they do matters. This is part of why the "Both Sides" stuff is so fucking poisonous- because it gives people an excuse to sit on the sidelines and accept anything, because "they're all just as bad and nothing I do matters".

I absolutely agree that you need someone exciting, someone charismatic. That does not mean that you need a dishonest con man, however, or an extremist, or that you need to throw principle out the window. Look at Obama- Obama was a fairly Centrist candidate, but he won in a landslide. Partly because he lucked out with the economy collapsing under a Republican President right before the election, and with McCain picking Palin as his running mate, but also because he could fire up a crowd and get people excited about something new. He wasn't a hateful, abusive man like Trump. He wasn't a hardline Left-wing ideologue. But he had charisma, and he offered people something new.

Policy-wise, I want a reliable progressive/democratic socialist. But campaign-wise, energy and personal charisma, the ability to convey ideas simply and directly in a way that excites people, are probably the most important qualities in a candidate. That and an appearance of consistency. Trump might seem to be the exception to that rule, but a key to Trump's great con is that he has turned lying into a perverse form of consistency- he is consistently dishonest and abusive, and it's a part of his strong man persona.

Above all, we cannot appear weak. Voters shun weakness like the plague. So I do think we need to stop hemming and hawing about whether we are being "civil" enough to fascists.

As to Musk... I honestly don't know where the fuck Elon Musk is on the political spectrum, or what he stands for except building sci-fi tech. Which, hey, I like, but I don't feel like he has a very consistent political platform or record. But I'd probably vote for him if it meant stopping the Republicans (and as a side benefit, putting space policy front and centre).

It's possible that there will be an appetite for a more "normal" candidate after four years of Trump, but I do think we need someone who can fire people up. If we're going purely by personal charisma, I'd suggest Corey Booker as an excellent choice for the Dems, even though I personally consider him too Centrist for my tastes policy-wise. The man can speak with passion and fire up a crowd (Bernie can do this too, but would likely be too polarizing after the 2016 clusterfuck of a primary- the last thing we need is a split Democratic base).

I think that it's most likely going to be Joe Biden, though. Not sure how I feel about that. Biden is likeable enough, but I don't know that he can really fire voters up the way that we need.

Of course, if we lose this election it may all be moot, because I don't think we'll have much in the way of democracy left if we give Trump two more years with unchallenged control of all branches of the Federal government.