volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ArtSmart like I said, complicated, but it's up to them.

They could have a conference call tonight and cancel if they felt like all of the penalties and public perception would be worth it.

And this prize is pretty big.

@GeePawHill No such question is before the voters, there is no mechanism to put such a question before the voters, it's just not going to be on the table anytime soon given the structure of the US government.

Folks who talk about ending democracy aren't being realistic about how government actually functions.

@ArtSmart going through the state by state polling results I don't think it's nearly that clear which would come out ahead. A whole lot has changed in the world since 2020.

So we'll see what Biden's campaign ends up looking like as he gets it moving. Still early days for him to really put the re-election strategy on the table.

As for the conventions, both parties are free to change the timing of their conventions, if they wanted to. It's really all up to them as more or less private organizations, though again yes it would involve a ton of complications involving state ballot access and such.

But they could.

@smach The thing I don't hear mainstream Republicans acknowledging nearly often enough is that mathematically they can't win with only Republican votes.

It's sad that not only does this go unacknowledged, but I don't think a lot of them realize it at all.

They aren't receiving good advice from their high profile figures.

@ArtSmart and my personal take on it, the interesting point is that even if nothing else changes, The party that nominates someone other than Biden or Trump wins the election.

So both parties have a tremendous incentive for changing nominees. They win!

So it's a funny situation when both are playing a silly game of chicken.

(I know, I'm being a little over simplified and dramatic, but I think it's interesting)

@okurth see I go the other way with that: All of Trump's efforts and then the events around January 6th fell so hard on their faces, exactly as they had to, because there was no way it ever would have worked.

The end of Trump's presidency shows that even when he pushed as hard as possible, it's just not going to work. It can't work. So he was completely rebuked like the swatting of a gnat.

And that was only a tiny reflection of the impossibility. It didn't even get into issues of unlawful orders being null or the procedure is in place to carry out the order of succession.

The US was designed specifically to counter that kind of thing, and generations upon generations of development as so firmly established the democratic process into the workings of the entire system, up and down multiple levels of government, that there is just no way it could be undone like that.

The inevitable failure we watched on January 6th just reflected that reality.

@entwininglife

@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com The problem is that so many of us saw the opposite with our own eyes.

That's the state of the country, though. Two sets of people looking at the same thing and disagreeing about what it is.

@okurth it's clear because that's not how the United States works. There is no mechanism by which democracy could or would be ended.

Presidents aren't presented with that choice. It's just not possible.

And so folks familiar with the structure of the US government recognize that claims like that are really wacky, and those promoting those claims come across as folks who have been really badly misled, taken advantage of.

@entwininglife

@ArtSmart and keep in mind that it's not even rocket science here. The conventions are welcome to nominate anybody they want, so they know how, it's just a matter of whether they will be political will to do it.

@kiwipaulb keep in mind that Trump voters are not a monolithic group.

Polling after he was elected the first time showed that they were a coalition of some extremely different groups with often completely opposite preferences and reasons for casting those votes. So it gets complicated.

Don't forget that there are some who vote for him just because they want to watch the chaos, and others who vote for him BECAUSE he's not a good leader, so they are betting on his being ineffective.

In other words, are the voters that completely agree with you and see your comment as a selling point!

@mattmcirvin this is part of why I think it is so critical that we teach the scientific method as a specific, step by step, strongly disciplined tool of investigation and carefully guard terminology to prevent it from being watered down through careless usage.

It helps build a protective shield on one hand and on the other even helps directly disprove some of those who would dip their toes in those subjects.

@freemo I'd say there is so much possibility of major changes in the situation between now and then that it's fairly unpredictable at this point.

This is more than the usual situation of wondering if there will be a significant but unpredictable world event that will tip the scales, since at this point there are so many humans with the abilities to make choices that will directly impact the scales and strong incentives to make those decisions.

Interesting times.

@freemo Hey such profound factual ignorance isn't exactly a GOOD thing :)

Yeah I'm happy to strongly fault people for this kind of basic lack of knowledge, when it's not exactly rocket science or state secret. And I'm also happy to consider that it might be intentional blindness, which makes it even worse.

If a person wants to talk about a president but hasn't bothered learning what a president actually does (or lies to themselves about what a president actually does) then I think they can't move forward from that.

At that point they're not even thinking about this reality, regardless of any reasoning they might need to build on top of that base.

@omegaman

@freemo and maybe just as importantly, basic knowledge of civics.

I seriously believe that if more people understood how the u.s government functions they wouldn't be as susceptible to these hysterical claims.

@omegaman

@omegaman It strikes me that I heard such outlandish claims before Trump was elected last time. People shouting that kind of foolishness look only more discredited after so many of the last claims didn't turn out.

It's crying wolf.

And in the end, I would say that if you want to oppose Trump then the best thing you could do is point out how ineffective he is, what a loser he was, instead of promoting these nutty ideas that actually earn him more support from the nutty base who might vote for him.

If you want to oppose Trump, why not point out that he's not the strong leader that would deport all the Muslims, or whatever, to a erode his support from voters who want to see that?

@freemo

@koteisaev Yeah when I said organized well I meant more about organized effectively and not so much in a positive way.

I completely agree about the issue of lies. And that's why I think it's so important to seek engagement to invite people to slowly recognize the small defects in their understanding that eventually makes them question more.

At least, that's been my experience.

@mral here's a link to the ruling for you to read for yourself.

If you read it you'll see that the ruling was explicitly against the ultra wealthy so it's only natural to defend it on those grounds.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep558/usrep558310/usrep558310.pdf

@mark_ohe

@LeftToPonder@mastodon.social and yet, no matter how much you dislike them, if you want to make political progress you'll have to engage with them.

That's just how the math works.

Hold your nose if you have to, but if you want to get support for your causes then you'll need to communicate with them and find ways to get them to agree to what you want.

That's democracy for you.

@jackhutton