The Joe Biden Presidency II : He's too old...or something like that!

Dude…you’re actively cheering for the sinking of the ship. You literally wrote good riddance. In certain circumstances…you’re shockingly close to that which you despise.

 

The ship is already sinking and can't realistically be saved. I'm of the opinion you go for the option that would result in the fewest deaths and destruction. The money blue states currently disproportionately use to subsidize red states can be used to help the refugees who would want to leave.

 

The red states won't be able to secede because of the blue cities. Look up how Kentucky remained in the Union.

 

I get you but the problem is simply trying to to explain to people we face a threat to the Constitution and freedom so we have to suspend those things in order to save those things.

All I want is the Supreme Court expanded to 13 so the GOP running to the Supremes to justify not certifying the vote would not be an option.

 

?
What do cities have to do with a state legislature voting to secede?

 

This, plus:

• Restore Voting Rights Act
• Repeal Citizens United
• Anti-Gerrymandering legislation

Would go a long way to stabilizing democracy.

 

That's why I told you to read up on why Kentucky stayed in the Union. I'm not going to teach you.

 

Once we get to 13 and Harris is made president then we can get to that. I do have a concern that should she get the electoral votes, the 30 states with GOP legislatures will not certify the vote and it will got to the 6-3 Supreme Court.

 

You can't. Although me and Jitty Slitter agree on the basic threat we face, there is one difference between our perspectives: while Jitty seems to envision a kind of "martial law" scenario to deal with a nascent fascist threat, I do not believe this is possible. As a matter of principle, the democratic forces cannot take the responsibility of being the first to cancel democratic norms. But the most important reason is that, in order to successfully resist a tyranny, you need broad popular support: in order to achieve it, the fascists have to expose themself fully and the population must first get an actual taste of what is in store for them.
Basically, if you want to rebuild a democracy from scratch, it has to collapse first. It is not pretty, but that is how it is. People suffer from normalcy bias and you are not going to get the necessary support otherwise.
The 6 January event was indeed a "political catastrophe", as Jitty said, but not of the magnitude required in order to trigger a massive call for complete constitutional reform.
That is why the scenarios I mentioned that could lead to such constitutional reform involve Trump and his cronies taking an axe to the remnants of the Constitution first. While it would cause significant damage, I do not believe it would be long-term: while I often mentioned the parallels with Hitler's rise to power pre-1933 (which are indeed many), I do not believe Trump and his Project 2025 have the capability to entrench themselves and create a solid dictatorship like in Germany of 1933-1939 or contemporary Russia.
I know that many from the Heritage Foundation dream of Orban's regime, but, beside the fact that Orban is more competent than Trump, he also has a very homogeneous population, he did not expose Hungary to any major economic shock (yet), he has no millions of immigrants to deport and, generally, has avoided rocking the boat too much (domestically). But if 1 million Hungarians were to take to the streets intent to get rid of him no matter what, Viktor Orban would likely fall.

However, my beef with the Biden administration is that are legal ways available to counter the authoritarian elements without resorting to some kind of "martial law"... but only if you are clear-sighted enough to understand the extent of the danger, you are willing to accept the political blowback after you have rolled the dice and act quickly and decisively, without giving the fascists time to regroup.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration and the democrat party have failed this test.

 

Then what do you think that the bolded statements are?

 

FWIW I did a quick google for 'why did Kentucky stay in the Union' and it came up with...

Kentucky remained in the Union during the American Civil War for a number of reasons, including its strategic location as a border state, political maneuvering, and Union military pressure:​

• Strategic location
  Kentucky was a vital base of operations for the Union, separating the Confederate States from the Union. President Lincoln once said that losing Kentucky would be similar to losing the entire war.
  Political maneuvering
  Kentucky's legislators initially favored neutrality because the state had strong ties to both sides. However, in the 1861 election, most congressional seats went to Union sympathizers.Union military pressureAfter a Confederate army invaded western Kentucky in September 1861, the state's House and Senate abandoned neutrality and a Union army followed.​

Are there specific parts of that of which we should make note?

 

And Republicans have already been conditioned to reject the will of the voters with "we're a republic, not a democracy".

 

I’m well versed enough in civil war history to know that the Kentucky legislature never voted to secede….and in fact tried to remain neutral.

If you want to make a point…make it, It don’t make an obscure reference and when called on it…lecture someone and tell them to do their own research.

So again,,,what do the makeup of cities in republican states have to do with their legislatures voting to secede?

 

"Arresting people plotting the over throw of democracy" is not martial law, indeed, and it should have been done faster and more ruthlessly, but "declaring the Supreme Court illegitimate", "announce reforms outside of the constitutional process", "some suspension of civil liberties" are very much akin to martial law.

 

Prominent Louisville elites threatened to leave Kentucky if the state legislature entertained secession.

If Texas threatens to secede, liberal Houston/Dallas/Austin/San Antonio will leave the state. It's where most of the people and economic growth are, and will force the new "country" to spend most of its resources.

We don't have red states and blue states. We have blue cities and red surrounds. A civil war like suggested wouldn't work.

 

This is what seems so amazing viewed from outside. You had a president telling people to go and attack the people certifying the election, which they did, and he was surrounded by members of the security service who MUST have known what was going on.

Why wasn't Trump and the people around him arrested within weeks of him leaving office with a charge of sedition and 'sweated' like any other criminal gang where they offer immunity from prosecution to minor figures, (some of whom gave evidence anyway, even though the major figures in the enterprise weren't being charged), to get a prosecution.

Viewed from outside it looks like you're treating this whole thing like it's a joke, presumably on the basis that, if he got in again and you DID get him up on charges in an aggressive way, he might do the same thing to you when the situation was reversed.

I've got news for you... he's gonna do that ANYWAY.

 

This is why I say expand to 13 then pass these policies.

 

Only if Trump wants to face an immediate and general revolt.

Look, we talk about an "unified reich", but a Trump regime will be extremely weak. Let's look at Nazi Germany and Putinist Russia as a comparison (I select these two because their dictators came to power through elections - sort of).

Both Germany in 1933 and Russia in 2000 had previously experienced a massive economic collapse, which caused huge deprivation for the population: when their economies took off again between 1933-1939 and 2000-2010, the contrast with the recent past was stark and the people were willing to put up with authoritarianism in exchange for a degree of prosperity. Trump and project 2025 are far more likely to crash America's economy after 2025 with their boneheaded ideas, rather than create any improvements.

Because of the economic boost, both Hitler and Putin had plenty of time to consolidate their power and entrench themselves against any possible revolution. Trump won't have that time.

Germany and Russia had also gone through two utterly traumatic events in recent memory, which had completely reshaped their polities and were perceived as national humiliations - loss of WW1 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because of this, the populations of both Germany and Russia were willing to put up with authoritarianism in order to recover their lost prestige. America did not experience anything similar. In fact, it is the other way: it is far more likely that a Trump regime would cause a collapse of America's international position.

The democratic traditions in pre-1933 Germany and pre-2000 Russia were almost inexistent. That is not the case with the United States.

In order to saveguard your dictatorship, you need hundreds of thousands of brownshirts willing to crack the heads of the opposition. There is no equivalent in the United States of the SA and SS or the Rosguardia.

Finally, both the Reichswehr and the Russian Army did not really care about democracy and, in fact, they rather favored an authoritarian regime. That is not the case with the US Armed Forces and the National Guard. When Milley stated some time ago that the US military took an oath to the Constitution, not to a wannabe king, that was a warning.

Yes, but the Supreme Court did no such thing (openly). They still dressed their bullshit in constitutional language and claimed they are following the Constitution. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who still buy it.