"History is written by the winners"

[hodad]

Bloombergs program may free up some 30,000 to vote who owe $1,500 or less.  This seems like a blatant quid pro quo, but if you can't trust felons, who can you trust? (kidding). 

Quid pro quo is something ceased to matter along about January.  I know you didn't watch those proceedings, but I'm sure you heard about them. 

Of course, right on cue, the state of Florida is starting to investigate  Bloomberg's plan to interfere with their vote suppression tactics.  They really, really want to stop folks from voting down there, don't they? 

 

[hodad]

Further evidence of Republican vote suppression:
The GOP is suing the state of Texas because the state's Republican governor moved to expand early voting by a week.  Why is the GOP so afraid of people being able to vote?  Highly suspect. 

 

[Recording Engineer]

@recording engineer... easy to be amused when you make up your own stories about what people believe.

I discussed the shenanigans with Googles search engine's skewed results when it first hit the news years ago.

JR

That seems contrary.

I’m not saying there’s not some or a lot of truth in it, but I’m also well aware that truth is always greatly exacerbated to sell the alternative brand, product, politician, or political team; and many times, they stink just as much or worse.

It simply gives me pause.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Further evidence of Republican vote suppression:
The GOP is suing the state of Texas because the state's Republican governor moved to expand early voting by a week.  Why is the GOP so afraid of people being able to vote?  Highly suspect.

Perhaps they don't want them voting before the debate...  ;D

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

You bring up another interesting thing. In today’s world, does anyone really need a live debate between party nominees? Does anyone really use it to help them make an informed decision on who the best candidate for the job is, or as most people say, who the lesser of the two evils is? Or are we just continuing tradition and formality?

 

[crazydoc]

You bring up another interesting thing. In today’s world, does anyone really need a live debate between party nominees? Does anyone really use it to help them make an informed decision on who the best candidate for the job is, or as most people say, who the lesser of the two evils is? Or are we just continuing tradition and formality?

$$$$$

 

[Recording Engineer]

I had thought money, but then thought really, for whom? I mean donors give to the campaigns, regardless. So money for the networks?

 

[crazydoc]

I had thought money, but then thought really, for whom? I mean donors give to the campaigns, regardless. So money for the networks?

More for both I reckon. Neither can ever have enough.

 

[hodad]

On the subject of winners writing history, I have probably shared that old saw right here in the past.

I was wondering this morning:  If history is written by the winners, why do we have so many statues of loser Confederate generals? 

But I digress.  As I noted, I'm not opposed to consideration of this point on an academic level.  What bothered me about what Barr said (and the context of his comment) is that it was a justification of present actions.  He was using that "old saw" as an excuse to abuse his office.  Any lie or crime is fine to Barr, as long as he wins in the end and is able to whitewash it.  And this man is in charge of the Department of Justice.

And Trump is right there with him.  Trump is not just "chumming the waters," as you like to say, with his attacks on the election.  He is also positioning himself to subvert the election in swing states.  And of course the whole Post Office thing.  And all the lawsuits trying to suppress the vote.  And while Florida worries about Bloomberg et al spending millions to allow people the opportunity to exercise their legal right to vote, Trump is busily shucking out billions in tax dollars in a desperate and transparent bid to sway key constituencies in his favor. 

What we're seeing here is how it happens that seemingly decent folks willingly throw away their democracy.  It's certainly something I've wondered about since at least as far back as high school*, and now that I'm seeing it up close, I wish I'd never had to. 

The moral  (and even epistemological) relativism, the shameless and wanton hypocrisy,  the willingness to allow their morality and decency to be sacrificed at the altar of "winning."  It's appalling too to look at all the prep work--people who planned for decades for such an eventuality--the billionaire-funded right wing "think tanks," the propaganda and mendacity of right wing talk radio and Fox "News," the fake grass roots movements like the "tea party," the demonizing of "liberals."  There's a huge swath of the American public that's been played (and honestly, none of us is completely free from that influence), suckered by a "long con."

 

[boji]

why do we have so many statues of loser Confederate generals?

"History is written by the winners"

Worth attempting integration of both of these quotes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Worth attempting integration of both of these quotes.

Indeed all those confederate statues were raised by the losers. Civil war can tear apart a country and that war surely did tear the US apart.

You can outlaw slavery by federal law, but you can't change the hearts of a population who just had their way of life turned upside down by legislation. I would speculate that a lot of the statue building was in protest (protected speech) against the federal law, and a show of local economic force to psychologically suppress the newly freed slaves (many of whom left as fast as they could).   

We have less confederate statues today than we had. ??? MS even removed the confederate battle flag from our state flag because it offends some people. I asked a neighbor born and raised here to defend keeping it, and he couldn't.

I am a yankee who moved to the deep south over three decades ago. My yankee friends joked that the south was still fighting the civil war and I discovered some truth in that.

One problem with close inspection of history is that we lose the context of the times. Slavery was never good but it was the accepted way of life. Slavery still occurs today worldwide, and is still wrong.

I feel that an accurate history is important, and there are examples over the centuries of history being distorted for some advantage. Generally you need to be in control to re-write history, but modern social media has changed those rules.

Caveat Lector

JR

 

[boji]

Not a bad attempt, thanks. 

 

[hodad]

I was thinking about my state's governor.  He's a Republican who leans hard right, and yet even with the vote suppression he built into the election (he was Sec. of State when he ran for gov), he barely won.  Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, and acts as if he has some grand mandate.  If Trump manages to retain the presidency, I expect him to lose the popular vote by even more this time--8-10 million.
But what we see here is a pattern:  Republicans, as their popularity wanes, don't adjust their policies to appeal to more voters.  Instead, they game the system so that more voters are disenfranchised or find it more difficult to vote.  Or they engage in disinformation campaigns to discourage people on the left from voting, or surreptitiously back left-leaning 3rd party candidates.

And one has to wonder:  if Republicans aren't interested in the will of the people, what are they interested in?  Certainly they keep their ever-shrinking base happy with extreme anti-abortion stances and a very thinly veiled white supremacy.  But aren't these really insignificant compared to tax cuts for the wealthy and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few?  Isn't that really what drives the GOP?

Democracy is a concept they like to shroud themselves in, much as they do the American flag.  But that's not really what they're interested in.  For decades people on the right have blathered on about denying "certain people" the right to vote--whether they advocate going back to a "literacy test" a la Jim Crow, or suggest that only land owners should be allowed to vote.  Of course, Republicans in numerous states have engaged in and are currently engaged in vote suppression tactics.  Superspreader Mike Lee of Utah recently had this to say:  "Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that."  Ignore all the window dressing after the first sentence.  He said it quite clearly:  Democracy isn't the objective. 

Democracy is not the objective of the Republican party. 

Democracy is not the objective of the Republican party.

They lie, they cheat, and then they lie about their cheating.  They pretend to hold the keys to the "real" America while working nonstop to destroy it.  The GOP in its modern incarnation is not only unAmerican, it is anti-American.  Full stop.

 

[crazydoc]

So how can it be stopped? It's not completely the fault of the plutocrats and their puppets - they just pander to the masses. You'd have to get rid of the large proportion of the voters who are either too ignorant or stupid to see through it, or those who will (or think they will) benefit (well-to-do, white conservatives and supremacists, and much of the basket of deplorables.)

For the near future we just have to hope that enough people have been able to evaluate what's happened in the last four years and have come to their senses. If not, then !@#$%^&*().

 

[boji]

Everyone knows that Republicans subscribe to shadowy philosophies that are latently evil and racist, mongering power at the expense of the wage-earner. ;D It's a dusty chestnut, as well the wish that majority rule could hold more influence over presidential/minority voting bloc interests.

A serious persuasive might reference the federalist papers while comparatively analyzing competing interests that balance governance, stability, and freedom in the digital age. There are anti-federalist points that can be made without treating the opposition like a creature of base instinct.

 

[hodad]

A serious persuasive might reference the federalist papers while comparatively analyzing competing interests that balance governance, stability, and freedom in the digital age. There are anti-federalist points that can be made without treating the opposition like a creature of base instinct.

Yes.  Let's sit beside the fireplace roasting dusty chestnuts and discussin the Federalist Papers. Ho hum.