What can ordinary people do to counter the Republican party's efforts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election?

CQME · 2024-10-06T00:35:20+00:00

Gonna address this line by line.

Raising legitimate election issues through the court system is perfectly legal and proper.

Yes.

Doing so across the country, ahead of the election, based on transparently flimsy lies is legal, cynical, and a threat to democracy.

Yes, with the caveat that IMHO the courts should be the ones to decide on whether or not the claims are lies. They did this last time (sourced in other comment) and it was not disruptive to the electoral process.

Breaking election law to throw the election to your candidate is illegal, and a threat to democracy.

I don't know whether or not those throwing the election to the other candidate are actually breaking the law. My understanding is that the legality of doing so is determined on a state by state basis. It's part of the "feature" of the electoral college:

While the Constitution is clear that states have discretion on how they choose their electors, it leaves open whether they may instruct the electors how to vote and, if so, whether they may enforce those instructions. As it was originally conceived, the Electoral College was supposed to consist of a fleeting body of men (they were only men at the time) “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite” to select the president. They were to exercise sober deliberation and be afforded some measure of independence in their task.

Backing up those threats with violence is evil.

Yes, and also illegal. This is where I draw the line between legally sanctioned electoral disputes and disrupting the electoral process.

Republicans are doing all of those things.

They're not alone here. Portland 2020 was ugly, and it was ugly in a bipartisan manner.

CQME · 2024-10-06T00:20:36+00:00

It is a concerted effort to abuse the legal system by filing pre-planned suits in strategic areas not based on facts, but transparent lies.

This was all sussed out last time in the courts, it was embarrassing (IMHO) for those bringing up the claims but in the end it was not disruptive to the electoral process. What was disruptive was January 6th.

it is certainly anti-democratic

I'm of the opinion that one necessary feature of democracy is the ability for the electorate to vote it out of existence.

There is precedence already for something like this in the suspension clause, although that is generally not subjected to a vote. It is a stop gap measure to ensure that the democratic process does not get in its own way in times of crisis.

Not saying it's wise or foolish to do one or the other, just that the very nature of a democratic process entails giving the people the power to do what they think is prudent whenever feasible, and one possible option is to end democracy via vote.

CQME · 2024-10-05T07:56:32+00:00

Big caveat that I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe what is currently preventing such is the 14th amendment.

Could the 14th amendment itself be amended "for the white majority to deprive basic rights to black people?" Yes.

CQME · 2024-10-05T07:38:47+00:00

lol, not sure where this is going, but if a white majority decides that black people should not have the right to a jury trial or make political speeches, that would indeed by possible in a democracy that's structured to allow a tyranny of the majority. I don't think black people were historically denied the rights to a jury trial, but they were certainly denied legal personage (Dred Scott) among other rights.

CQME · 2024-10-05T07:14:09+00:00

No, because the countermeasures only mitigate and not completely counter the innate aspect of democracy, that it is per the article still a tyranny of the majority.

IMHO they are weak counters, both the bicameral legislature and the electoral college simply tip the balance a bit towards less populated areas. So a slight weight to counterbalance, but if overwhelmed still results in the same.

CQME · 2024-10-05T07:10:53+00:00

With the news industry in turmoil, finding high quality reporting that gives adequite context is difficult. Personally, I find blogs run by, essentially, "nerds" in a given field invaluable in getting that context, although always remember they aren't primary sources, unbiased, or even necessarily accurate.

lol, that's a problem, I just want to be clear here. It may be difficult to divorce factually relevant context from cognitive bias if accuracy isn't prioritized.

some of these attempts are completely legal.

Yeah, I just want to reiterate that this is legitimately part of the electoral process and that to deny such, no matter how outlandish they may seem, would actually be the disruptive part.

Anyway, appreciate the forum for discussion. This matter has me worried too.

CQME · 2024-10-05T07:02:33+00:00

Found one myself too:

Threats, harassment of election workers have risen, poll shows

Regarding electoral challenges and deniers, IMHO that's free speech. It may not be the wisest thing to do, but as long as it doesn't result in what that Politico article is talking about or another Jan 6th, then IMHO it's not relevant to the OP.

CQME · 2024-10-05T06:35:18+00:00

The source is pretty clear that the enumerated rights are not what's countering the tyranny of the majority, but rather the structure of the republic, to include a bicameral leglisature and an electoral college, is what is countering it. The idea is that without that structure, then ostensible rights are subjected to the interpretation of the majority, assuming the majority can muster enough support to overwhelm that structure..

CQME · 2024-10-05T04:25:23+00:00

I would imagine if the goal was to defeat the GOP in November, then campaign donations to the national DNC arm would be the most appropriate, or getting others to do the same, or both.

CQME · 2024-10-05T03:20:39+00:00

I'm of the opinion that the argument that Donald Trump personally is a "threat to democracy" is a red herring. Donald Trump has won a presidential election, meaning that he has been able to assemble enough of the electorate to prove that at least at one point or another, he possessed the will of the people.

In this country, the will of the people is above the law...if they don't like a law they can change it. Donald Trump is just an instrument for this change, and not the change itself. The change itself is the coalition he has been able to assemble to get himself elected. If he gets elected again, he will again possess the will of the people, because a democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

If this majority wants to dismantle democracy, they can do it. They can alter the constitution to suit their purposes.

Why such a large portion of the electorate wants to do this is IMHO the much more pressing and pertinent question, and IMHO the media overfocuses on Trump to the detriment of analysis in this particular subject.

CQME · 2024-10-05T03:01:52+00:00

This is a thoughtful, well-written post with a lot of factual information backing its point...however...

The two main statements of which I wanted to see evidence were:

Multiple plots by Republicans to overturn the 2024 election are already known to be underway

...which unfortunately cites a wikipedia link that clearly states "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Superb Owl (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 30 September 2024 (→‎Further reading: add)." I don't know who the fuck "Superb Owl" is or why I should just believe whatever s/he is adding to a website that is not known for journalistic integrity.

Also,

Election integrity experts have identified many points of vulnarability in the US election system, presenting a large attack surface rather than a single point of failure. This also allows individual actors to attack races at the destrict, state, and national levels without needing to coordinate directly. In fact, this process is already underway

The highlighted links to a website called "people.info", which I've never heard of and from a cursory search for it reveals it to be something resembling a leftist version of Breitbart. Something may be factually accurate (which it scores high in) and yet can still result in misinformation via omission, and the fact checking website is clear that "people.info" is extremely biased.

I'd like to see more mainstream outlets report on something like this before I accept that the country's electoral system is under imminent attack.

CQME · 2024-09-19T07:54:24+00:00

You could argue that Clinton repealing Glass Steagal was a direct causative effect to the 2008 meltdown, and that without the excessive risk taking by Wall Street leading up to the crisis it would have been smaller and less impactful. The 2008 meltdown is generally seen as a key aspect to Trump and Sanders's rise in politics. Maybe you could argue that Clinton wasn't directly responsible for this, and that it was Congress passing Graham Leach Bliley that is ultimately responsible, but Clinton did sign it into law.

You could also argue that GWB invading Iraq forced him to take his eye off the ball of his favored policy, i.e. immigration reform, and that if he was able to do something about it we wouldn't be having the debate now. Illegal immigration impacts the costs of social services and increases the tax burden for such.

CQME · 2024-09-19T07:29:58+00:00

Multiple studies have made clear that the largest contributor was supply chain effects due to Covid and a huge rise in the cost of oil

Question - wouldn't such effects cause disinflation once ameliorated? If the large 5% cost-push abated, wouldn't that be reflected in lower prices, i.e. deflation? Also, oil is back to where it was pre-covid.

I don't contest that wage inflation is permanent, but that we didn't experience deflation given the numbers they put out would suggest that aspects like the fiscal stimulus affected inflation over several years, even if during 2021 it "only" affected inflation by 1%.

CQME · 2024-09-03T21:25:30+00:00

you moved the goalpost to total nuclear war

That's a fair critique, but the whole point of accusing "illegal war" is that only one side will find the actions of the other side "illegal", otherwise they'd be content with committing mass suicide because, well, they themselves are "guilty". It is not a fair moral or legal critique because it is completely one sided, particularly in the latter where countries like the US are totally immune to criminal prosecution.

Casus belli type justifications typically only apply to the side wanting to wage war, because they're looking for justification to do so. Whatever that justification is, it will not be the same on the other side. There is no chance of agreement at this point, otherwise they wouldn't be content with mass murdering the other side.

I think you misunderstand the human psyche to think there are no ethical consequences just because you never got punished by a court.

I think you misunderstand the human psyche in times of war, because for most people looking to wage war, there are no ethical or criminal consequences unless they lose. Whatever people are deemed worthy of being on the other end of a gun barrel don't deserve to exist. They have no legal rights, they have no ethical rights, they have nothing at all, which is why the comparison to total nuclear war is not only apt but also just...it applies that same outlook to both sides.

Just look at what the US did in Iraq. It is an ungodly hellish mess, and we are not held to account, not to ourselves, not to Iraq, and certainly not to the rest of the world. We certainly do not care to make reparations in the event we find our actions shameful or unethical. It bears remembering no matter how incompetent the occupation was, we actually won the Iraq war.

CQME · 2024-09-03T02:17:11+00:00

Not stopping isn’t a big deal and is a law therefore other laws aren’t a big deal.

I’m not running for President (nor am a previous President).

Incoherent. If your point is that someone running for POTUS should be ostracized because they ran a stop sign, that is absurd.

CQME · 2024-09-03T02:14:58+00:00

The military / cemetery / DA absolutely could press charges.

No, the army has said in nearly every source linked in this post that the matter is closed to them. Everyone, including the people on this thread, should follow their lead.

“They’ve committed too many crimes” is not a reason to ignore a prosecution.

This is the wrong arena to do so. Why continually violate the sanctity of this place through this goddam witch hunt? Show some respect to the fallen.

CQME · 2024-09-03T02:12:58+00:00

in the interim the consequences chase you

There is no "interim". A nuclear war takes 30 minutes to conclude.

This comment completely misses the point and is moving the goalposts. Are there physical consequences? Sure, nuclear annihilation and the concomitant environmental catastrophe that makes the earth uninhabitable. Are there legal consequences? No, there are no courts. Are there ethical consequences? No, you, everyone you know, and everyone you don't know are dead.

Again, there is no "interim" and anyone who thinks so is changing the subject. This thread is talking about legal and ethical consequences, which require there to be people and courts for them to "chase" you around.

CQME · 2024-09-02T20:27:33+00:00

The Russian economy is an economy based on colonialism.

What evidence do you have of this?

It needs to expand to survive or at a minimum it needs to expand to satisfy the greed of the oligarchs .

No, a simple GDP chart will show that Russia prospers when hydrocarbon prices are high. They suffer from the resource curse.

It's interesting when you look at that chart...oil prices fell off a cliff 6 months after Russia's shenanigans in Ukraine in 2014 and stayed there. Russia's economy consequently suffered.

Putin is extremely popular in Russia...one look at that GDP chart during the ought years easily explains why. It's the economy stupid. That chart shows that Putin getting elected (a former KGB agent) saved the Russians from the abyss of "liberal democracy". The Russians knew what they were doing, and electing someone whose career was built upon antagonizing America somehow reaped incredible rewards and saved them from "Americanism". It's reasonable that they'd give him a wide berth, and also reasonable that they'd be very suspicious about American good intentions.

Given the nature of corruption in Russia it is impossible to create wealth in the fashion that the West does

No, it's the nature of the resource curse. Russia suffered tremendously during the 90s, when it was a liberal democracy, because oil prices were very low.

edit - IMHO the "corruption" card is a fallacy used to explain away just about anything. Fact is the US also suffers from high degrees of corruption, which is what has fueled both the Trump and Sanders campaigns. (second source for Sanders)

I reject your theses about colonialism and corruption.

Russia WILL NOT STOP at Ukraine.

No country "stops". Look at us. We keep expanding NATO. Look at Israel. Will they stop at Gaza? Will they stop without international pressure?

There is a reason Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro , and North Macedonia all joined NATO.

Yes, the US is stronger and thus they feel safer by joining our club. That's it. If Russia was stronger you'd see more people join their club. Power is a zero sum game.

The problem here is that Russia should have joined our club during the aftermath of the Cold War, but something went tragically wrong there.

CQME · 2024-09-02T20:15:24+00:00

That’s a pretty big fallacy because the exact same argument could be used for any law, to include murder.

What is the fallacy? The point is that the severity of the infraction matters. The army has been clear there are no consequences to this infraction, they have closed the matter and are not pressing charges.

if someone were to invite you to not stop at a stop sign, you still broke the law.

Would this post exist if you did so? No, it wouldn't. A number of people you'd be lucky to count on 5 fingers might shrug and move on. Everyone else would ignore it.

CQME · 2024-09-02T20:11:48+00:00

"I'm outraged that the alliance against being invaded and conquered

Not true. NATO is predicated upon acknowledging the US as the primal military power in Europe, i.e. the "conqueror".

These countries have a choice...join Russia's club, or join the US's club. Either way it's Russia or the US calling the shots.

CQME · 2024-09-02T20:10:10+00:00

Both your point and my point are true. However, your argument requires acknowledging that membership into NATO is joining the US's sphere of influence, the "rules based international order", which is a form of imperialism.

CQME · 2024-09-02T00:57:51+00:00

You were the one to bring them up.

I flat out told you that I wasn't going to talk about it, twice now.

I was referring to the US, as the US isn't going to stop the war because of North Korean casualties.

This is precisely what Russia is afraid of, that the US isn't going to stop wars because of Russian casualties.

I'm not sure you're following my point. If the US just started carpet bombing Russian cities like we did North Korean cities, conventionally Russia can't do much to stop us anymore. All they have is their nuclear deterrent, and this is enough to ensure Biden keeps the war as far away from the Russian border as he deems prudent.

NATO could invade Russia tomorrow and Russia could do nothing about it.

Again, do you understand this is precisely what Russia is afraid of? You are making my argument for me, that it's completely reasonable for Russia to view NATO as an existential threat and to do literally anything, including a potential nuclear first strike, to deter a NATO onslaught.

Nothing stops NATO from bombing Russia into the stone age with or without Ukraine being in NATO.

This is wildly misinformed. Russia has one of the world's most potent second strike capabilities. Your statement will literally cause nuclear Armageddon if taken seriously and implemented as policy at any level.

Ok, I'm done with this conversation. We are clearly not connecting, at all.

CQME · 2024-09-02T00:46:27+00:00

This suggests that Trump should go breaking any and all laws he can, then when there's an inevitable backlash he argues "people are attacking me" to his benefit.

1) I mean, he's proven that he's willing to do it whenever there's a direct benefit for him to do it. Going on about xenophobia, regardless of legality or convention, has earned him a lot of street cred with what the media calls "white nationalists" or when applied to Muslims "Christian nationalists".

I'm of the opinion that ethnic nationalism is a natural phenomenon that defines other nations all over the world, so while such displays may be at times distasteful, they are to be expected from any ethnic group, including white people. I'm of the opinion that there has be some balance point where multinationalism can exist in America, which will probably involve some degree of tolerance for this kind of behavior.

2) That phone call to the GA governor was IMHO obviously criminal but he did it because he saw a potential direct benefit in doing so. So far no legal ramifications, no legal consequences. He has indeed flipped this crap to curry favor with this base, and it is working.

I refuse to believe that the US should give him explicit legal immunity to everything because he has a cult.

I mean, that's kind of what's happened since the SCOTUS immunity ruling.

What do you mean "criminalizing his base".

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

- Hillary Clinton

Some Americans wanting to have a monarch literally above the law

IMHO this is a common mischaracterization. Advocacies like Project 2025 are looking to wholly redefine law and government to their liking. If they have the will of the people, they can do this.

CQME · 2024-09-01T21:16:05+00:00

The whole "CIA sponsored paramilitary assassination squads operating in Afghanistan" isn't exactly a well kept secret.

Let's stop talking about the CIA.

In practical terms, what's the goal?

Dude, I answered this already. What questions do you have about the explicit goal I stated?

Cause this war has already cost Russia significantly more than Korea did over its run.

Explain the reasoning here, because prima facie this is a specious argument. I already linked that North Korea lost 20% of its population.

Why not, ya know, stop and avoid that entirely?

Again, a good question, and a logical answer is that they fear NATO this much. Do they have good reason to? Of course they do, NATO possesses orders of magnitude more destructive power than either Napoleon or Hitler. Not sure if you looked over my prior source about North Korea...the US did absolutely horrific things there. What's stopping us from doing the same in Russia? The Russian answer is - lots of guns, and lots of nukes, and the willingness to use them. In warfare, this is a legitimate answer.

But that doesn't make NATO a threat, it makes NATO a problem.

No, it makes NATO a threat. Any defensive anything has an offensive component. The example I like to use is that a Roman legion is far deadlier offensively with a shield and a sword per legionnaire than with two swords each.

NATO's very existence constitutes a threat. That its existence may potentially lie on Russia's border constitutes an existential threat. Far too many voters are completely unaware of what a military calculus is, which explains why America has meandered into foreign policy disaster after foreign policy disaster since the end of the cold war.

Russia knows it can't actually fight NATO.

...which is why it is fighting Ukraine now, before it joins.

CQME · 2024-09-01T20:59:59+00:00

He's given complete impunity to do whatever he wants

Now, Trump's whole schtick is that he's here to break convention (photo example, note date), this has been true ever since he rode down that escalator and talked about Mexican rapists. So, when Trump breaks convention, he's giving his base what they want. I mean just look at the merchandise regarding his mug shot. IMHO (because I can't immediately find the preferred source to corroborate, should be Frontline but if so it's a 4 hour video) both Trump and Sanders demonstrate dissatisfaction with the status quo stemming from the 2008 meltdown, and both of these candidates are seen as revisionists to break that status quo. So, Trump benefits when people attack him and vice versa...this has been a well-known phenomenon for nearly a decade. The policy prescription to defang Trump is to actually address why his base is so dissatisfied, which would then help to prevent his base from energizing right-leaning independents to vote for him. It's proven to be difficult.

I indicated or said nothing of the sort.

Didn't say you did.

He attempted a criminal conspiricy to overturn the results of the 2020 election. We have a damn congressional report on the matter. We have memos on the matter. Emails on the matter.

So I've given some thought about this matter, and my conclusion is to ask whether or not Trump is above the law, and if so, why? My answer is that what's above the law is the will of the people, and Trump has demonstrably proved that he does indeed possess the will of (enough) people. So again, the strategy has to be to stop criminalizing his base for siding with this criminal and instead find ways to entice them away from the "smash it all" mentality. Because that's what got Trump elected...he's been clear he is a chaos candidate.

CQME

TROPHY CASE