Election 2020 - Page 590 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Doug64
#15158311
Yggdrasill wrote:Doug,

I was afraid we'd jump into the semantic weeds, but that's ok. I don't think I am confusing "legitimate" with "official". I'm using the "standard" dictionary definition of "legitimate" as being, "in accordance with the rules and laws."

That's my definition as well, which is why I don't consider Biden a legitimately election president--he didn't receive the needed number of votes cast in accordance with the Constitution.

Official simply means relating to an authority and it's duties/powers.

Again, we're in agreement--it is through the actions of the authorities that Biden "won" the election.

Taking your example of a sports match, the fans of the losing side could say that their team lost unfairly because of the bad calls, but it doesn't mean that the result wasn't legitimate. As I said earlier, the system is imperfect, but you have to respect the outcome and move on to try to improve the system. The NFL did exactly that by introducing challenges and instant playback reviews. I don't recall any losing NFL team ever saying, "Fuck that, WE won the Super Bowl." The important thing is that so long as the rules are followed, you respect the outcome, even - especially - when you think it's unfair. If you do not, the whole thing falls apart.

If by "respect the outcome" you mean recognizing that the process was followed and that Biden has been duly authorized to act as president, then yes, I respect the outcome--Biden is officially but not legitimately the president. His actions will have all the power that his official position grants. As with the sports analogy I've given, the official statistics will always count it as a win. But there will always be that asterisk after the name.

As to 2020, I don't see in your post any specific allegations with proof, so I can't really respond to those except to say that all the claims regarding substantial election fraud that I have seen have borne out to be unsubstantiated. So I don't accept your assertions that a number of states "lied", or that many state officers and judges behaved unconstitutionally. Perhaps a specific example would prove useful.

My "proof" is simple, right out of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..." No one has denied that in a number of battleground states judges and state executive officers mandated deviations from the laws passed by the state legislatures, and no one has tried to explain how those actions didn't violate the Constitution. They've simply pointed at all the judges that rejected the Trump campaign's lawsuits while ignoring that the vast majority of those rejections were based on procedure rather than the merits and therefore didn't make a constitutional argument. Of course, most of those lawsuits didn't make constitutional arguments, either.

@Verv, you're better off just ignoring SpecialOlympian. Ignore those that do nothing but mock, and maybe eventually they'll go away. And if they don't, at least you're not feeding their egos by giving them a respect they don't deserve.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15158314
@Doug64
My "proof" is simple, right out of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..." No one has denied that in a number of battleground states judges and state executive officers mandated deviations from the laws passed by the state legislatures, and no one has tried to explain how those actions didn't violate the Constitution. They've simply pointed at all the judges that rejected the Trump campaign's lawsuits while ignoring that the vast majority of those rejections were based on procedure rather than the merits and therefore didn't make a constitutional argument. Of course, most of those lawsuits didn't make constitutional arguments, either.


You simply won't read the case law. Your assertions are incorrect.

Besides. Those are state issues decided by state courts. And decided against Trump right down the line. I have cited Pennsylvania twice and you ignore it.

The SCOTUS did not get involved because there was no violation of the constitution. Simple as that. Trump lost. You are wrong. Every legal expert in the country knows it. Get over it and move on.
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158321
Doug64 wrote:That's my definition as well, which is why I don't consider Biden a legitimately election president--he didn't receive the needed number of votes cast in accordance with the Constitution.


Again, we're in agreement--it is through the actions of the authorities that Biden "won" the election.


If by "respect the outcome" you mean recognizing that the process was followed and that Biden has been duly authorized to act as president, then yes, I respect the outcome--Biden is officially but not legitimately the president. His actions will have all the power that his official position grants. As with the sports analogy I've given, the official statistics will always count it as a win. But there will always be that asterisk after the name.


My "proof" is simple, right out of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..." No one has denied that in a number of battleground states judges and state executive officers mandated deviations from the laws passed by the state legislatures, and no one has tried to explain how those actions didn't violate the Constitution. They've simply pointed at all the judges that rejected the Trump campaign's lawsuits while ignoring that the vast majority of those rejections were based on procedure rather than the merits and therefore didn't make a constitutional argument. Of course, most of those lawsuits didn't make constitutional arguments, either.

@Verv, you're better off just ignoring SpecialOlympian. Ignore those that do nothing but mock, and maybe eventually they'll go away. And if they don't, at least you're not feeding their egos by giving them a respect they don't deserve.


Which states besides Pennsylvania?
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158323
Let me be more specific. This link has a list of all lawsuits filed by Trump and other Republicans. Show me which ones meet your criteria.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c ... ts-2020-11

Also, it sounds like you have a different definition of legitimate than I do. I don't see any single instance where laws, rules, and procedures were not followed. Just because Courts ruled against Trump, or Trump's lawyers did not make Constitutional arguments, does not diminish the legitimacy of the outcome.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158328
Doug64 wrote:you're better off just ignoring SpecialOlympian. Ignore those that do nothing but mock, and maybe eventually they'll go away. And if they don't, at least you're not feeding their egos by giving them a respect they don't deserve.


Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.

We should all choose to use our time wisely -- it's the one thing that we can never have back.
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158330
Verv wrote:I think you may need to take a break from trying to infer anything and rest your head a bit, SO. We can go back & forth all day, and you never get any closer to understanding anything.

But for the benefit of people who may want to read & engage with something:

My original post has absolutely nothing to do with the preservation of the "white race," which is a pure social construct. What is referred to as 'white people' is just a collection of many different ethnic groups, and not everyone even agrees which groups can make it up.

It's about the preservation of what amounts to historic American culture & values, because any country that experiences a large demographic shift will undoubtedly lose its culture, and lose the values that were unique to that culture, and that previously defined who it is.

More importantly: it's about illegal immigration & policies that allow for massive legal migration as well, things that Americans have consistently voted against over the decades, but have not been able to rectify.

Another interesting example of a war over culture & identity -- one that does not have a 'racial dimension' to basically anyone: In Iran, the ethnic Persians (and Persian-affiliated ethnic groups like Gilekis and Lors) may actually be a mere plurality due to the sheer numbers of Azeri Turks, two different Kurdish groups, Baluchs, Arabs, etc., and any shift in the balance of power could actually result in the independence of some regions and lots of internal strife.

One could even look at the issues facing Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh as having loads of religous & cultural components with few actual racial issues, and wars have been fought over borders & identity.



WASP & black Americans, and the ethnic groups that have integrated themselves into WASP & black identities. For instance, there have always been Germans and Dutch in America, but they integrated near completely with WASPs, as did the Swedes; tthen there are subsequent groups which come and essentially take on the characteristics of WASP and black American culture, and ultimately no longer identify in any sense as hyphenated Americans.



LOL, you have not even alluded to different brands on the right.

You are literally just accusing people of being Nazis & posting memes with swastikas in them, hoping something is going to stick.


Verv, I'm not trying to insert myself in your tete a tete with SO, but I can't help comment on a couple of things you wrote.

1. Your definition of "historic American" leaves out Aboriginal Americans. Wouldn't you consider them to be historic?
2. I challenge the notion that American culture has ever been fixed or uniform. Mexican American culture has been part of the American mosaic since we took Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah (now dominated by Mormon culture) and parts of western Colorado from Mexico. I can think of a number of immigrant groups who have persisted in their cultural identity in ways that enhance the diversity of the country: religious communities such as the Amish, Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, Cajun, (some) Chinese immigrants communities. There are others that don't come to mind immediately.
3. There's a difference between losing one's cultural identity and that identity changing over time. No culture in contact with other cultures - either directly or through the internet and the media - can persist unchanged. Good luck controlling ideas, art, music, etc. No one can take your cultural identity from you, but neither can you guarantee that your grandchildren will share all the same culture values that you do.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15158341
Yggdrasill wrote:A quick recap: I mentioned Russian election interference as one reason Democrats felt the 2016 election was "unfair" but not "illegimate." You responded that such interference was an "insane" assertion, without any justification. My evidence was the numerous, credible reports and investigations outlinin

And they went on to investigate Trump with a special counsel based on a dossier financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign? That sounds like they wanted to make Trump illegitimate. It just hasn't worked.

Yggdrasill wrote:In addition, the notion that the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are Clinton-supporting "apparatchiks" is simply ludicrous and doesn't merit further response.

The notion that people associated with the intelligence community of either party are some how partisan opponents is ludicrous. It was John McCain (at least one of them) who forwarded Hillary's dossier to the FBI.

Yggdrasill wrote:The only specific person I mentioned was Mueller, a Republican who served in the George W. administration as FBI Director, and is widely considered to be of the highest professional integrity.

Uh... Whitey Bulger. Cough cough. Anytime you have bi-partisan praise for someone in Washington, you can assume they are dirty. Keep in mind, Comey and Fitzgerald at the time were trying to get rid of Cheney so that they could try and take down Bush--something they wouldn't do knowing Cheney would become president.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15158342
@Yggdrasill , again, it's not on me to provide evidence, it's upon you, the accuser. Many have tried and all have failed. Why? Because their reasoning for interference is starkly defective. Which you demonstrate;

Finally, as to Russian motives, my understanding is that the some in intelligence community did not conclude that Russia "wanted" Trump to win. Rather, Russia simply sought to undermine confidence in the electoral process and felt that helping Trump was the best way to do that.


Absolute lunatic level rubbish. Why would Russia want to ''undermine confidence in the electoral process'', when the Russian government rests upon the same Liberal and Democratic world order as the West does?

And they succeeded brilliantly.


Total and sadly typical American blindness and naivete. We are our own worst enemies, the defects in our society are all home-grown.

Of course, Trump and his allies immediately politicized the intelligence community's findings to discredit them.


The Trump team were able to manage that, ''politicizing the intelligence community's findings'', but their political enemies (top-heavy with present and former government officials in intelligence and elsewhere!) were not? :lol:

Truly absurd, sorry. Point being (excellent diversion by the way) that it remains clear that both sides view from this point forwards the candidacies of their opponents as illegitimate, especially if they win. Foreigners will be blamed (Chinese/Iranians/Arab Oil Shieks/Israelis help for Democrats as the accusation by the GOP, Russians/Israelis/Arab Oil Sheiks help for Republicans as the accusation by the Democrats) and the other party and their followers damned as ''un-American'', more controls imposed on the others when one party is in power, and so forth.

It's like the Optimates and the Populares in the last decades of the Roman Republic, masking Oligarch rule behind electoral theater.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158345
Yggdrasill wrote:Verv, I'm not trying to insert yourself in your tete a tete with SO, but I can't help comment on a couple of things you wrote.


Oh no, thank you for doing so. I wrote that hoping that there would be discussion around it, and feel better knowing that you read what I had wrote and are taking it seriously.

I must apologize that I have made such a long reply.

1. Your definition of "historic American" leaves out Aboriginal Americans. Wouldn't you consider them to be historic?


Yes, by design. Of course, in the sense that they are the original inhabitants and have lived here for thousands & thousands of years before Europeans, they are certainly the oldest & most historic peoples in America.

But both the Left & Right can acknowledge that they were on the receiving end of America, the country, for a long time, and were incorporated much later into the American system. Even still, due to reservations, they still remain semi-autonomous.

It's a sad reality but they do not actively factor into the defining of America and, even after being more integrated into our society and contributing much to it in the post-WWII era, they're numerically less relevant than even Asian-Americans (20 million versus 6 million, roughly), and are thus low visibility.

When we look at historic demographics, the US is historically 88% white and 10-11% black, with the remaining being miscellaneous other groups. The sources say the US was 1.2% Hispanic in 1920, and 3.2% in 1960 [1].

If Bulgaria is historically 1-2% gypsy, should we think of Romania as a country whose history is colored by gypsies? Not really so much -- we would think of it as a nation of its core ethnic groups that has a gypsy population.

Just as such, historically the US is not a nation defined by its groups that are extreme minorities, and a shift of Hispanics in 50 years from 3.2% to 16% (a 500% increase, roughly) is not really organic.

Romania today is 3.3% gypsy [2]. If Romania became 16% gypsy by 2070, people would wonder what happened?, and we would not immediately think that this means Romanian culture and gypsy culture are just interchangeable aspects of the same identity, and we would not think of the Romani language as the historic language of the Romanian people.

2. I challenge the notion that American culture has ever been fixed or uniform. Mexican American culture has been part of the American mosaic since we took Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah (now dominated by Mormon culture) and parts of western Colorado from Mexico. I can think of a number of immigrant groups who have persisted in their cultural identity in ways that enhance the diversity of the country: religious communities such as the Amish, Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, Cajun, (some) Chinese immigrants communities. There are others that don't come to mind immediately.


I've covered some of the Hispanic stuff... But to emphasize this: the Hispanic population in the American west that just carried over after the 1840s appears to be exceptionally small. Of course, it wasn't non-existent, but the settling of the West was done by regular historic Americans more than Hispanics. We should never ignore the fact that they were here, but it is just a fact that the Hispanic people did not comprise more than even 5% of the population until some point in the 1970s.

As far as unique communities... Yes, definitely the Amish, the Cajuns, unique Jewish groups, etc., exist, and are a part of the landscape, and are not to be ignored. But a person who speaks Pennsylvania Dutch at home and doesn't use electricity isn't part of the American culture -- they have their own culture.

I think that, to understand Asian-Americans, you must understand their home countries & how much they are different from them.

Korean-Americicans, as in the second generation, are rarely very Korean. You would think that some of these people like Suey Park or Sarah Jeong who have developed names as having an Asian identity as Americans would be quite Korean, but it is not the case. They focus on American issues from intersectionalist perspectives that are completely outside of the Korean political spectrum, and no Korean would relate themselves back to the society in political commentary in a way like that.

It stirred controversy in Korea when Kim Oh-jun made snide comments about poor Koreans still insisting on the rights of private property - even though owning no homes themselves!, and it absolutely scandalized the country when Tak Hyeonmin wrote a book graphically describing his sexual coming of age (a book that was basically banned)...

Awkwafina talking about 'my vag' and Sarah Jeong cheering on the deaths of white children with cancer are pretty unconscionable, and the inspiration behind these things would not coem from any Asian aspect of their culture.

So, the Asian-American is an American, with few exceptions; this often means that Asian-Americans integrate into typical WASP culture (hell, many Vietnamese, Hmong, Filipinos, and Koreans are already Christian) and intermarry with historic Americans. Or, even more commonly, they integrate into the newest sociological structure: secular white culture.

We may balk at using the word white here, but it is not really my choice -- everyone in Western academia talks about the distinctiveness of 'whiteness' and its domination of institutions, and Asians talk abou their own status as a 'model minority' and sins of integrating with whiteness. I think that this is a catgory that is impossibel to escape.


3. There's a difference between losing one's cultural identity and that identity changing over time. No culture in contact with other cultures - either directly or through the internet and the media - can persist unchanged. Good luck controlling ideas, art, music, etc. No one can take your cultural identity from you, but neither can you guarantee that your grandchildren will share all the same culture values that you do.


Yes, you are right, defintelly right.

I would say we saw WASP culture split into what amounts to Evangelical culture and Secular liberal culture, with all whites and many Asians & Hispanics breaking off into one or the other, and black American culture I am sure has its own distinctions which I am not qualified to talk about.

However, there is a root; the root can be returned to. The new developments can be sheered off and the tree can survive.

The Russians had a Soviet culture... and then, one day, like a miracle, it was gone, and the Russian culture returned.
By B0ycey
#15158351
Yggdrasill wrote:3. There's a difference between losing one's cultural identity and that identity changing over time. No culture in contact with other cultures - either directly or through the internet and the media - can persist unchanged. Good luck controlling ideas, art, music, etc. No one can take your cultural identity from you, but neither can you guarantee that your grandchildren will share all the same culture values that you do.


The visual motion of dialectical Materialism at work...

annatar1914 wrote:@Yggdrasill , again, it's not on me to provide evidence, it's upon you, the accuser. Many have tried and all have failed. Why?


Oh my GGGAAAWWWGGGG!!!

Why are you so damn obtuse? The user has given you a step by step guide why you are being assertive and not it. You made the claim there was voter fraud and gave no evidence except that it must be. Ignoring that the most logical conclusion for an unpopular president is to vote them out of office, you cannot prove a negative. If something never happened then there isn't evidence to show you something never existed. So no, it isn't for anyone on here to prove there wasn't any voter fraud - which is impossible. Or they will point to the fact there is no evidence of vote rigging as being evidence there was no vote rigging. Please learn the law of parsimony.
By Rugoz
#15158354
Doug64 wrote:My "proof" is simple, right out of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..." No one has denied that in a number of battleground states judges and state executive officers mandated deviations from the laws passed by the state legislatures, and no one has tried to explain how those actions didn't violate the Constitution.


Zero proof that state law was violated. The Wisconsin SC ruling didn't go in your favour either, you grossly misinterpreted it.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15158376
Absolute lunatic level rubbish. Why would Russia want to ''undermine confidence in the electoral process'', when the Russian government rests upon the same Liberal and Democratic world order as the West does?


Oh please. Russia still sees the US as its arch enemy and an existential threat. That is not even debatable. Top that off with the fact that Russia is suffering from sanctions from the US.... The notion that Putin relies in the confidence of the Russian voter to remain in power borders on laughable. In fact, if he can undermine the US election process it strengthens his own claims that he was legitimately elected. One more thing. Putin's efforts to influence the US elections do not, as you claim, "undermine confidence in the electoral process". Far from it. They actually rely on the electoral process to be effective.

Besides. At home Putin need not rely on anything so complex as tampering with elections. He just kills or imprisons any opponent who comes close to unseating him.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15158391
annatar1914 wrote:when the Russian government rests upon the same Liberal and Democratic world order as the West does?


Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

Image

Russia is not "Democratic". When a totalitarian dictator holds elections where his opponents disappear or die, it's not a Democracy.
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158406
annatar1914 wrote:@Yggdrasill , again, it's not on me to provide evidence, it's upon you, the accuser. Many have tried and all have failed. Why? Because their reasoning for interference is starkly defective. Which you demonstrate;


Yet despite this alleged starkly defective reasoning you can't show me any examples. I gave you evidence and you have ignored it. And you refuse to answer my question of whether you have actually read any of the reports I mentioned.

annatar1914 wrote:Absolute lunatic level rubbish. Why would Russia want to ''undermine confidence in the electoral process'', when the Russian government rests upon the same Liberal and Democratic world order as the West does?


So we're back to assertions of lunacy and writing sentences in bold. This is not my explanation of Russia's motivation, just one that I remember from reading the reports I mentioned. There is a wealth of detail in there if you're interested, though I suspect that you are not because you don't come across as someone open to considering new information. The claim that the Russian government rests on a Liberal and Democratic world order is bold, but outside the scope of this discussion; happy to talk about it elsewhere. I would ask you though, if Russia is our friend, can you explain the Solar Winds Orion hack? Were they just doing us a favor by testing our cybersecurity?

annatar1914 wrote:Total and sadly typical American blindness and naivete. We are our own worst enemies, the defects in our society are all home-grown.


You're assuming I'm American. Certainly, the defects in American society are home grown (where are they not) but those defects can be exploited and exacerbated by outside forces. Welcome to the world of agitprop.

annatar1914 wrote:The Trump team were able to manage that, ''politicizing the intelligence community's findings'', but their political enemies (top-heavy with present and former government officials in intelligence and elsewhere!) were not? :lol:

Truly absurd, sorry. Point being (excellent diversion by the way) that it remains clear that both sides view from this point forwards the candidacies of their opponents as illegitimate, especially if they win. Foreigners will be blamed (Chinese/Iranians/Arab Oil Shieks/Israelis help for Democrats as the accusation by the GOP, Russians/Israelis/Arab Oil Sheiks help for Republicans as the accusation by the Democrats) and the other party and their followers damned as ''un-American'', more controls imposed on the others when one party is in power, and so forth.

It's like the Optimates and the Populares in the last decades of the Roman Republic, masking Oligarch rule behind electoral theater.


Not a diversion because you raised it initially by saying that the intelligence community's findings were politically skewed in favor of Hillary, even well after the election was over.

And finally we return to the original debate, over whether each side finds the other's candidate illegitimate. I've already said everything I need to on that point, at least as far as the Democrats are concerned. Still waiting for a substantive response.
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158407
Verv wrote:Oh no, thank you for doing so. I wrote that hoping that there would be discussion around it, and feel better knowing that you read what I had wrote and are taking it seriously.

I must apologize that I have made such a long reply.



Yes, by design. Of course, in the sense that they are the original inhabitants and have lived here for thousands & thousands of years before Europeans, they are certainly the oldest & most historic peoples in America.

But both the Left & Right can acknowledge that they were on the receiving end of America, the country, for a long time, and were incorporated much later into the American system. Even still, due to reservations, they still remain semi-autonomous.

It's a sad reality but they do not actively factor into the defining of America and, even after being more integrated into our society and contributing much to it in the post-WWII era, they're numerically less relevant than even Asian-Americans (20 million versus 6 million, roughly), and are thus low visibility.

When we look at historic demographics, the US is historically 88% white and 10-11% black, with the remaining being miscellaneous other groups. The sources say the US was 1.2% Hispanic in 1920, and 3.2% in 1960 [1].

If Bulgaria is historically 1-2% gypsy, should we think of Romania as a country whose history is colored by gypsies? Not really so much -- we would think of it as a nation of its core ethnic groups that has a gypsy population.

Just as such, historically the US is not a nation defined by its groups that are extreme minorities, and a shift of Hispanics in 50 years from 3.2% to 16% (a 500% increase, roughly) is not really organic.

Romania today is 3.3% gypsy [2]. If Romania became 16% gypsy by 2070, people would wonder what happened?, and we would not immediately think that this means Romanian culture and gypsy culture are just interchangeable aspects of the same identity, and we would not think of the Romani language as the historic language of the Romanian people.



I've covered some of the Hispanic stuff... But to emphasize this: the Hispanic population in the American west that just carried over after the 1840s appears to be exceptionally small. Of course, it wasn't non-existent, but the settling of the West was done by regular historic Americans more than Hispanics. We should never ignore the fact that they were here, but it is just a fact that the Hispanic people did not comprise more than even 5% of the population until some point in the 1970s.

As far as unique communities... Yes, definitely the Amish, the Cajuns, unique Jewish groups, etc., exist, and are a part of the landscape, and are not to be ignored. But a person who speaks Pennsylvania Dutch at home and doesn't use electricity isn't part of the American culture -- they have their own culture.

I think that, to understand Asian-Americans, you must understand their home countries & how much they are different from them.

Korean-Americicans, as in the second generation, are rarely very Korean. You would think that some of these people like Suey Park or Sarah Jeong who have developed names as having an Asian identity as Americans would be quite Korean, but it is not the case. They focus on American issues from intersectionalist perspectives that are completely outside of the Korean political spectrum, and no Korean would relate themselves back to the society in political commentary in a way like that.

It stirred controversy in Korea when Kim Oh-jun made snide comments about poor Koreans still insisting on the rights of private property - even though owning no homes themselves!, and it absolutely scandalized the country when Tak Hyeonmin wrote a book graphically describing his sexual coming of age (a book that was basically banned)...

Awkwafina talking about 'my vag' and Sarah Jeong cheering on the deaths of white children with cancer are pretty unconscionable, and the inspiration behind these things would not coem from any Asian aspect of their culture.

So, the Asian-American is an American, with few exceptions; this often means that Asian-Americans integrate into typical WASP culture (hell, many Vietnamese, Hmong, Filipinos, and Koreans are already Christian) and intermarry with historic Americans. Or, even more commonly, they integrate into the newest sociological structure: secular white culture.

We may balk at using the word white here, but it is not really my choice -- everyone in Western academia talks about the distinctiveness of 'whiteness' and its domination of institutions, and Asians talk abou their own status as a 'model minority' and sins of integrating with whiteness. I think that this is a catgory that is impossibel to escape.




Yes, you are right, defintelly right.

I would say we saw WASP culture split into what amounts to Evangelical culture and Secular liberal culture, with all whites and many Asians & Hispanics breaking off into one or the other, and black American culture I am sure has its own distinctions which I am not qualified to talk about.

However, there is a root; the root can be returned to. The new developments can be sheered off and the tree can survive.

The Russians had a Soviet culture... and then, one day, like a miracle, it was gone, and the Russian culture returned.



Really great points and a great post. I still don't agree with you about the core "root" of American culture. In the Russian/Soviet example, Soviet dogma was grafted onto the Russian root, a top down approach. Those almost always fail, eventually (though what China is doing inTibet may prove the counterexample- I hope not). But the various elements of American culture tend more to become part of the root base, I think. Less visible, but there nonetheless providing nutrients to the tree.

I have to think about it more, not really having paid attention much to cultural studies for several decades. Super interesting question, though.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15158433
Oh please. Russia still sees the US as its arch enemy and an existential threat. That is not even debatable.


Actually it's very debatable, and appears to be more of a Western psychological projection upon Russia than the other way around. There's literally no sane reason why the two countries can't be allies, it would be for the good of humanity were that so. Instead, America's military industrial complex is trying to create an enemy where there was none.

Top that off with the fact that Russia is suffering from sanctions from the US....


Not really. It's actually helped some sectors of the economy.

The notion that Putin relies in the confidence of the Russian voter to remain in power borders on laughable.


All rulers rely on the confidence of the people. I have no doubt whatsoever that Putin enjoys more of a comfortable relation with the Russian people than Biden does with the American people.

In fact, if he can undermine the US election process it strengthens his own claims that he was legitimately elected.


Then you understand little of the political aspects of the Russian mind. Chaos and Anarchy is hated and blowback is a real Suka. Russia wants a strong America because the isolationism of a new American power vacuum, just as in the 1920's and 1930's, would produce new Hitlers by the dozen, presenting a real existential threat to Russia.


One more thing. Putin's efforts to influence the US elections do not, as you claim, "undermine confidence in the electoral process". Far from it. They actually rely on the electoral process to be effective.


What?


Besides. At home Putin need not rely on anything so complex as tampering with elections. He just kills or imprisons any opponent who comes close to unseating him.


No, he doesn't :roll:

He simply is the most popular choice out of a range of multiple candidates, with several different Communist parties and Nationalist parties all fielding candidates and unable or unwilling to rally behind one single Putin opponent, Putin is in reality is the most viable liberal candidate (yes, most viable candidate most resembling a Western Liberal) that wins a plurality of the vote over the others every time. The Left opposition parties for example are trying to rally behind one candidate, but all are seriously ideologically divided.

Let that sink in, honestly; President Putin's opponents are almost universally people who would not play nice with the West, very far less than he has.

You'll miss him when he's gone. Trump too I think, maybe. The new era we're entering is going to be a rough one all around.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15158434
Godstud wrote::eh: You are either a complete fool or you're drunk. :knife:

Russia is not "Democratic". When a totalitarian dictator holds elections where his opponents disappear or die, it's not a Democracy.


:roll:

Can you name a single political opponent of President Putin who disappeared or died, at all? And if so, can you clearly show that anything can be laid to his doorstep by way of responsibility?
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15158436
@Yggdrasill

Yet despite this alleged starkly defective reasoning you can't show me any examples. I gave you evidence and you have ignored it. And you refuse to answer my question of whether you have actually read any of the reports I mentioned.


I did read those reports, and they weren't convincing in the slightest. In fact, they were so unconvincing that it suggests something entirely different from what either conservatives or liberals believe is happening from behind the scenes.


So we're back to assertions of lunacy and writing sentences in bold. This is not my explanation of Russia's motivation, just one that I remember from reading the reports I mentioned. There is a wealth of detail in there if you're interested, though I suspect that you are not because you don't come across as someone open to considering new information. The claim that the Russian government rests on a Liberal and Democratic world order is bold, but outside the scope of this discussion; happy to talk about it elsewhere. I would ask you though, if Russia is our friend, can you explain the Solar Winds Orion hack? Were they just doing us a favor by testing our cybersecurity?


That has all the marks of an in-house operation, disguised as something else.


You're assuming I'm American. Certainly, the defects in American society are home grown (where are they not) but those defects can be exploited and exacerbated by outside forces. Welcome to the world of agitprop


I'm not assuming anything. Nor am I unfamiliar with the concepts you bring up. But Russia does not want a power vacuum caused by political instability or any other reason. The period from 1941 to 1945 has taught Russia that Hitler's Germany grew out of American withdrawal from the world in the 1920's and 1930's. Can you imagine that era with a vigilant and United States and Soviet Union preventing Fascism before it started?


Not a diversion because you raised it initially by saying that the intelligence community's findings were politically skewed in favor of Hillary, even well after the election was over.


Ah, which remains to be the case...

And finally we return to the original debate, over whether each side finds the other's candidate illegitimate. I've already said everything I need to on that point, at least as far as the Democrats are concerned. Still waiting for a substantive response.


At this point it's almost a tautology that neither side will ever again accept the legitimacy of the other's winning candidates.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15158438
@annatar1914

I am not going down your list of unsubstantiated nonsense. Seriously dude. You drank the Russian Kool-Aid.

Actually it's very debatable, and appears to be more of a Western psychological projection upon Russia than the other way around. There's literally no sane reason why the two countries can't be allies, it would be for the good of humanity were that so. Instead, America's military industrial complex is trying to create an enemy where there was none.


You do realize that this is not an argument. Don't you? Rather than address the facts you just call it "projecting". Amateurish. Won't work.

There are excellent reasons why the US and Russia cannot be allies. Russian hacks us continuously. They invaded Ukraine. They tried to undermine our elections. They are our historical enemy from the cold war and those feelings go deep. But here is the best reason. They do not want to be. Putin had every opportunity to behave and he won't.

Russian is a pariah state and not worth out time. There is absolutely no reason for us to make nice to Putin. If Russia is butt hurt because we don't like him let him take the steps it will take to repair our relationship. In the meantime Russia is just Brazil with nukes....
User avatar
By Yggdrasill
#15158445
annatar1914 wrote::roll:

Can you name a single political opponent of President Putin who disappeared or died, at all? And if so, can you clearly show that anything can be laid to his doorstep by way of responsibility?


I'll name ten:

Boris Berezovsky
Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova
Sergei Magnitsky
Natalia Estemerova
Anna Politkovskaya
Alexander Litvinenko
Sergei Yushkinov
Yuri Shchekochikhin

And as a recent bonus addition, Putin's current opposition leader (jailed after surviving a nerve agent assassination attempt):
Alexei Navalny
  • 1
  • 588
  • 589
  • 590
  • 591
  • 592
  • 598

Darwin didn't write anything about vaccines or re[…]

@wat0n 1. I have given examples of financial […]

...China is building a parallel global order, and[…]

I was drunk when I wrote that. But even now tha[…]