USA Politics (redux)

[Florestan]

Only then could it be said of Trump that he tried to steal the election.  And really, it would just be trespassing.

Hah! 

Still, I'd just love the whole show! Wouldn't you? 

[Todd]

Hah! 

Still, I'd just love the whole show! Wouldn't you? 

Yes.  Imagine the ratings.  They would be yuge.

[Florestan]

Yes.  Imagine the ratings.  They would be yuge.

Forget about the ratings. It would show urbi et orbi that the most maligned Western country in the world (sic!) can still teach a lesson or two to the most lauded and applauded Western countries in the world (sic!). 

[Todd]

Trump's team (and supporters) did much more than took legal action in court. They pressured states to throw away votes etc. Well, now we know Republicans don't believe in the USA and it's democratic system. They just want their "king" in power. They want effectively monarchy. Make America Monarchy Again (MAMA) is their new thing.

I would need to know which specific statutes were violated in the course of the political discussions.  Applying pressure - which is as nebulous a phrase as exists - is not always illegal.  In fact, it's almost always legal.  If it is legal, it is fine.  No one wants a king, either, but I guess there may be some Americans who might still be agitated by such language.

[Florestan]

If it is legal, it is fine. 

How anyone could disagree with this is beyond me.

[SimonNZ]

How anyone could disagree with this is beyond me.

Perhaps if you took the time to seriously consider the replies you've had here instead of just jumping on Todd's That's Entertainment snark bandwagon.

Its clear from the way you're misrepresenting the ongoing conversation that you're barely reading but rather assuming what's being said.

please reread this - slowly, and without itching to mock:

Bill Galston (I think): The Republican Party is now actively cultivating a kind of citizen, and it is not a citizen of a democracy. It is not a given in human history that human beings just automatically do the right thing, even when it's costly, and you have to cultivate people who are willing, you have to reward acts of honorable sacrifice for the good of the political community. And right now Republicans are not doing that, they are doing the opposite: they are deliberately saying and doing idiotic, incredibly irresponsible things in order to get the cheers of (I'll be honest) an ignorant mob and in doing that, they're making the mob more ignorant and more hateful, and this is happening and repeating itself in a kind of death spiral every single day. These are people we have to keep living with, they're our fellow citizens who are going to keep voting, who are gonna protest who are going to be putting pressure on their elected officials going forward, and that's where it's scary. I don't know if, as [N.] said, that the exact scenario will be unfolding again in the future like it has this time without actually Trump on the scene, but other bad things can happen when such a significant chunk of the electorate is buying into this kind of civic poison that is now circulating around the country....

[Todd]

How anyone could disagree with this is beyond me.

Two main ways.  First is to insinuate that the actions were illegal, or to flatly lie about the legality of various presumably nefarious deeds.  This is very common.  Someone did something or other.  It had to be illegal because it had to be illegal.  Sort of like Trump and teams' claims of massive voter fraud.  It's balderdash.  Trump's leftist critics do the same thing every day of the week.  They will deny it of course.  Second is to lament something called "norms".  You see, these "norms" - or non-constitutional, non-statutory, non-mandatory forms of behavior - are critical parts of democracy.  Like conceding.  Trump did not concede.  Conceding is the "norm".  Of course, there is no Constitutional or statutory requirement to concede, but that does not matter.  Also, releasing tax returns is a "norm", not a legal requirement.  Surely you remember the multiple brouhahas about that.  Yes, there is justice above law, and such forth.

There are a couple quite delightful aspects of appealing to "norms".  First is the intrinsically conservative nature of such appeals.  This appears to be lost on many people who so revere "norms" now.  Second is the intrinsically fluid definition of "norms".  What are these "norms", who determined what they are, how, and why?  No one actually cares, of course.  The fluid, hopelessly nebulous nature of "norms" means that people can make them mean what they want them to mean, when they want to, and wield claims of normlessness wantonly and in an entirely unprincipled and purely partisan manner.  Trump's leftist critics do this every day of the week.

[Florestan]

Perhaps if you took the time to seriously consider the replies you've had here instead of just jumping on Todd's That's Entertainment snark bandwagon.

Its clear from the way you're misrepresenting the ongoing conversation that you're barely reading but rather assuming what's being said.

please reread this - slowly, and without itching to mock:

Bill Galston (I think): The Republican Party is now actively cultivating a kind of citizen, and it is not a citizen of a democracy. It is not a given in human history that human beings just automatically do the right thing, even when it's costly, and you have to cultivate people who are willing, you have to reward acts of honorable sacrifice for the good of the political community. And right now Republicans are not doing that, they are doing the opposite: they are deliberately saying and doing idiotic, incredibly irresponsible things in order to get the cheers of (I'll be honest) an ignorant mob and in doing that, they're making the mob more ignorant and more hateful, and this is happening and repeating itself in a kind of death spiral every single day. These are people we have to keep living with, they're our fellow citizens who are going to keep voting, who are gonna protest who are going to be putting pressure on their elected officials going forward, and that's where it's scary. I don't know if, as [N.] said, that the exact scenario will be unfolding again in the future like it has this time without actually Trump on the scene, but other bad things can happen when such a significant chunk of the electorate is buying into this kind of civic poison that is now circulating around the country....

My educated guess is that if at any time in the US history I had replaced Republican with Democrat in the above, or even kept it Republican,  I'd have still had a somewhat valid point --- especially if I were someone as partisan as Bill Galston.

[Todd]

Had votes been thrown away that would have been illegal.

What if a court ordered it?

I get it, people will forever insist that Trump and his supporters tried to steal the election.  They did not. 

[Florestan]

Two main ways.  First is to insinuate that the actions were illegal, or to flatly lie about the legality of various presumably nefarious deeds.  This is very common.  Someone did something or other.  It had to be illegal because it had to be illegal.  Sort of like Trump and teams' claims of massive voter fraud.  It's balderdash.  Trump's leftist critics do the same thing every day of the week.  They will deny it of course.  Second is to lament something called "norms".  You see, these "norms" - or non-constitutional, non-statutory, non-mandatory forms of behavior - are critical parts of democracy.  Like conceding.  Trump did not concede.  Conceding is the "norm".  Of course, there is no Constitutional or statutory requirement to concede, but that does not matter.  Also, releasing tax returns is a "norm", not a legal requirement.  Surely you remember the multiple brouhahas about that.  Yes, there is justice above law, and such forth.

There are a couple quite delightful aspects of appealing to "norms".  First is the intrinsically conservative nature of such appeals.  This appears to be lost on many people who so revere "norms" now.  Second is the intrinsically fluid definition of "norms".  What are these "norms", who determined what they are, how, and why?  No one actually cares, of course.  The fluid, hopelessly nebulous nature of "norms" means that people can make them mean what they want them to mean, when they want to, and wield claims of normlessness wantonly and in an entirely unprincipled and purely partisan manner.  Trump's leftist critics do this every day of the week.

Hereby I wholeheartedly agree with Huggy Bear aka Diner Cop and I beg all whom it might concern to identify me by those nicknames as well, because I resent and reject each and any discrimination.

[Todd]

No, it just legal.

That is literally the only thing that matters.

[Florestan]

Trump legally challenged the result of the elections.

Trump legally lost and will be legally replaced by Joe Biden

Then Trump is a Fascist.

Ummmm, okay.

[SimonNZ]

Hereby I wholeheartedly agree with Huggy Bear aka Diner Cop and I beg all whom it might concern to identify me by those nicknames as well, because I resent and reject each and any discrimination.

Lets try something else: Trump told a group of advisers in the Oval Office that he wanted to shoot migrants dead as they approached the border. The advisers pushed back. He then suggested just shooting the in the legs as they approached. They pushed back on that. (he also suggested building a moat and filling it with snakes and alligators and sharpening the points at the top of the wall so people would be impaled on it).

If he or his lawyers had found come precedent of vaguely defined emergency powers to give such an order the figleaf of legality would you be here saying that the law has spoken and if its legal then its legal. Or would you think both that the law had been perverted and also that there were extra-legal considerations that call such a position into question?

Because likewise with the current problem: the extra-legal consideration of undermining faith in fair and free elections and sowing dissent and potential violence and creating the idea that winning both the popular and electoral votes are essentially meaningless as long as you have the best lawyers are what you and Todd are stubbornly refusing to address.

You're divorcing the law from any questions of jurisprudence, of asking why we have laws in the first place and what they are fundamentally meant to be protecting, making it merely a game that one team may play better - or more cynically - than another.

[Florestan]

Lets try something else:

.

Okay, let's try isomething else. I'm game.

Trump told a group of advisers in the Oval Office that he wanted to shoot migrants dead as they approached the border.

Did he?

If yes, I'm game, If  no, I'm not.

[SimonNZ]

.

Okay, let's try isomething else. I'm game.

Did he?

If yes, I'm game, If  no, I'm not.

Yes. He did.

[Florestan]

Yes. He did.

I'm really willing to consider the source. Link, please .

[Florestan]

why we have laws in the first place

We? As far as I know you are not American. Why Americans have laws in the first place is beyond your power to answer, no offense meant.

[Florestan]

the extra-legal consideration

There is  no extra-legal consideration when judging a case, there's only the law.

Extra-legal consideration when judging a case were typical of Communism: why, of course, John Doe did not break any law, neverthless he was born in a privileged class, therefore his very existence is a danger to the working class, therefore he must be sentenced to 10 years of prsion, extra-legal consideration duly applied.

[SimonNZ]

I'm really willing to consider the source. Link, please .

Took a minute to go back and find. It was in an interview with Miles Taylor, the former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security in the New Abnormal podcast:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY29tL3RoZS1uZXctYWJub3JtYWw/episode/NjgwNzdkOTgtNDlhMC00NDhiLWE4M2ItMzBiYzU2YWVlZjZj?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwigrLTModHtAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAw&hl=en-NZ

The "shooting in the leg" part seems much better documented and googleable, answer that one, if you;d prefer, it doesn't change the question

Shoot Migrants' Legs, Build Alligator Moat: Behind Trump's Ideas for Border

[SimonNZ]

There is  no extra-legal consideration when judging a case, there's only the law.

Then forget it. You're not going to try and I don't know why I bothered.