> What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you?
For example: a delusional or demagogic leader who promulgates lies about the outcome of an election in order to fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons.
Not that such a thing would ever actually happen. I guess I'm just a worrier.
What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path to them attaining any actual power. Their actions were violent and bad, but had no actual effect on anybody outside of D.C. That is not what I call an "existential threat".
Again, you have to compare the downsides of free speech vs the downsides of censorship. If you only look at the cons of free speech, then of course you will hate it. But if you compare one impotent riot to the tens of millions dead as a result of suppression, then free speech seems much more valuable.
> There was no path to them attaining any actual power.
They currently have actual power. Their leader is currently the president of the United States. For the next 48 hours he could nuke Tehran if he wanted to.
And what actually happened is far from the worst-case scenario. Imagine a comparable mob, but well organized, and armed with assault rifles. That was (and remains) a real possibility.
You seem determined to focus only on the worst possible hypothetical downsides and not consider anything else. Of course in this case free speech will prove to be an evil that must be eliminated. You win.
That would be very bad if it happened, although existing institutions proved sufficient to prevent this.
Still, we've had many assassinations in our history, often at the presidential level. None of them were "existential threats". They were all handled by existing institutions and did not require throwing out our core values.
The worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years.
If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victim , it will cause a permanent shift in how Americans see their own democratic elections.
Historically, since democracy has existed, that vacuum is always filled by an authoritarian leader.
I find it odd that most of this could have been prevented if just one judge had said "you know what, you have a lot of notarized affidavits, and a reasonable claim to harm considering you lost the election by conventional wisdom, and you can't legally access any further data to prove your case unless we enter a discovery stage, so, sure, let's play this out and be done with it."
I also find it odd that none of the lawsuits prevented combined the affidavits (generally considered sufficient evidence to proceed) and reasonable proof of harm. Always one or the other (or neither).
Nothing will pour more gas on that fire than censorship.
I basically agree with your analysis on that point, and I'm resentful of Trump for helping to create that problem. But I consider big tech censorship to be the first step to an inevitable end of democracy, "destroying it in order to save it".
It's a really hard problem because the "anti-censorship" argument is also used by the side that wants to destroy democracy once in power.
Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will.
Currently, I'm not sure there is a sign of political will to restore democratic norms by suppressing white-supremacism.
> Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will.
Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War or stimulus measures after the Great Depression, Communism...
Of course, the combination of limiting free speech for decades leads to the death of the ideology because no one picks it up.
> Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War
Unfortunately these were suppressed with violence, far more than mere censorship. I don't think these causes are dead at all, however. Many Native Americans still pursue these goals and occasionally enjoy victories, while the other cause has changed with the times and shifted focus from land to a more vague idea of reparations.
> stimulus measures after the Great Depression, Communism
I don't think those are dead at all. They may not be especially popular among normal people, but one can certainly get elected and openly preach violent revolutionary ideology like "We are coming to dismantle this deeply oppressive, racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism, this police state. We cannot and will not stop until we overthrow it and replace it with a world based instead on solidarity, genuine democracy, and equality – a socialist world." [0] The organizers of BLM have explicitly stated that they are "trained organizers, trained Marxists" in the context of BLM's having adequate ideological direction. [1][2]
However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating.
Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.
Interestingly, the democrats would have fixed the elections but only managed to win the Senate in a tight run-off?
After spending $100 million, the Trump campaign's legal team found no admissible evidence of election fraud, just videos they can use for future campaigns attacking democracy.
What is happening to this site? The comment above is alleging election fraud, which has been debunked by multiple court rulings from judges across the political spectrum. It is not downvoted, flagged, nothing. The comment responding it to it gets downvoted?
My best guess is that liberals stopped reading higher in the thread. I would hope that moderates and conservatives would not find those claims very credible, but perhaps they do or are not so offended as to downvote.
I was personally fine with the integrity of the election right up until censorship ramped up. Now I have zero confidence that I would hear about any problems. I still don't think the election was "stolen" or anything, but I'm no longer confident enough to downvote such an opinion. How are we supposed to really know what's true or not when we only hear one side of the story?
What censorship? The president himself was saying the election was stolen from him for two months and that was basically the only thing the nightly news talked about (other than COVID) every day. At some point we should be able to say "Enough, evidence or GTFO," without being accused of silencing discussion.
I don't know anything about what the nightly news ran. All I know is that when my news sources got around to talking about it, a couple days later it's "oh I have to be very careful what I say about this, I already got a notice threatening a ban". From my perspective, the period of free discussion was extremely limited.
I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. [0] You can't tell just one side "evidence or GTFO" and expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially when the new narrative is that elections are fair and unstealable, which directly contradicts the claims of an unfair stolen election in 2016.
> I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years.
Clinton never claimed the counting of the votes were rigged, and I know of no serious politician claiming that Clinton should be installed as president because of the claimed Russian meddling, whether they believed it or not.
So, on one hand, we have a candidate who was pretty much dropped like a hot potato by fellow Democrats the moment she lost the election. On the other hand, we have mainstream media giving hundreds of hours of coverage to a president insisting he actually won the election, when all evidence says he didn't. ...And you're saying who is censored?
How is the video in Georgia debunked? They sent observers home (even a big newslet posted this on Twitter at that time), counted the ballots afterwards and Biden had a spike.
And btw I am from Germany, so I am on neither "camp".
No you saw a conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani, the man in charge of the Trump legal challenge to the election.
The video is so wrongly interpreted, Republicans were the first one to debunk it.
It's important to note, in a video, when someone leaves the screen or the room... you can't assume they've been sent home.
You mean how one side for the last four years has said that Trump "stole" the election due to Russian interference.
The fact is, this is all whataboutism. This is all due to instructional failure. Americans increasing do not trust the institutions, the media, the government, 'elites'. This lack of trust is the root cause for growing conspiracy theories. The answer to this is not to stifle speech, but to have more speech. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
1) I'm not an American and don't give a shit about American politics
2) Do you think that Russian interference changed the result of the election? If it didn't than the huffing and puffing about the Russians stealing the election is just as false as Trump's current claims
3) Trump supporters can equally point to affidavits and "evidence" about vote tampering. Whether you believe that evidence or not is another story.
My point was not about trump or biden stealing the election, it was that institutional trust is low. People no longer believe what the government or the media put out. No doubt some of this is driven by the "narrative approach" to truth, where everything tells a story that aligns to a group's ideology.
> fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons
You know the buttons/switches/etc to launch missiles (nuclear or not) are not at the Speaker's podium in the House, right?
In fact, "taking over the seat of government" here was literally just that.. a physical seat. The US government applies authority in people via roles not via seating position.
Were they a bunch of assholes? Yes and they should be prosecuted as such.
This is how a 'coup' works - the objective is not to 'take control of the country' by force, but of the political system.
If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president.
Why do you think that Congress reconvened right after the violence and very quickly pushed through the vote? And didn't wait a few days?
If the vote confirmation doesn't take place, someone takes the case to SCOTUS wherein they might rule the process was not complete and 'now you have two Presidents' - and very ugly ambiguous situation that could spiral out of control very quickly.
The fact that SCOTUS could have ruled 'incomplete process' may embolden millions of 'hard Constitutionalists' to one side.
This stuff happens all over the world, all the time. These things are fragile.
It was a nice little lesson in how actually fragile 'even the USA is' and that this is serious stuff.
If you're going to imagine Constitutional crises, you should understand the rules we're working within. Check out the first section of the 20th Amendment and please report back how there could be two Presidents.
Narrator: Turns out the system isn't that fragile. It continues on regardless because there are contingencies built in and improved upon over the years.
Obviously there wouldn't be '2 Presidents' by any reasonable application of a set of very clear rules.
But those rules are not clear.
One camp would believe, that Biden won a fair election, as stated by the DOJ, Homeland Security and the State Officals (it's their perogative), and that the preformative process of validating the results in Congress wasn't entirely necessary.
The other claim would claim with 'the election was disputed' and that the failure to confirm the results in Congress was a 'fully legal act' that abnegates the possibility of Biden from taking office.
AKA '2 Presidents' by virtue of you you interpret the outcomes of those events.
The 20th Amendment does not help us clarify that situation.
In these contentious scenarios, the credibility of institutions is stretched and populism starts to take hold.
It would be major crisis.
This is why institutions started to rally around 'one camp' as to facilitate a proper transfer of power.
Since much of this debacle was based off of misinformation, it speaks directly to issues with 'truth' and 'freedom of expression'. I'm not sure if there is an obvious answer on the table, but there are definitely problems.
Thanks for clarifying. I think your example is perfect:
Your conspiracy theory is not based facts, law, or well-established interpretations of either and yet you're fully bought in and sharing it. I see how that could be dangerous, but I think silencing you would be worse for you personally and society as a whole.
'Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed - or - if the results provided by the states were 'rejected' by a congressional vote.
?
Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us.
Also, irrespective of what the legal outcome might be, what would most US citizens actually believe? Would the losing faction have enough faith in the institutional decisions such that they do not revolt? After all, we just saw a fair election in which ~30% of the electorate 'do not believe' the results.
You do see the 20 000 soldiers out there for inauguration? Why do you suppose they are there?
Finally - here is some background material to help figure out who wins in the end [1]
> Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed [...]
Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us.
Nancy Pelosi.
Amendment XX: “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January [...] If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
3 USC § 19(a)(1): “If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.”
^ Exactly. There are lots of unclear and open to interpretation areas of law but this isn't one of them.
We have a well-established process with clear steps which apply in good times and bad times, whether any of the players like them at the moment or not.
It's not tough but people have to discard their conspiracy theories in favor of facts, laws, and reason.
There is no 'conspiracy theory' in the clear and obvious observation of an insurrection on Capitol Hill wherein many attempted to thwart the Jan 6 validation of votes.
Despite Dragon's decent response, it is far from clear what the outcome would be where the vote to have been stopped.
It's also false to suggest that the laws are clear enough to disambiguate these situations.
At very least, there would be a constitutional legal war the likes of which the country has never seen.
But most importantly - the issue is one of populism: if 1/3 of the country does not believe the results of what was by all accounts an unambiguous outcome - and were capable of literally stopping the process - then it 'doesn't matter what the law is' because already the system will have gone beyond objective reality and due process. It's Game of Thrones then.
> It's not tough but people have to discard their conspiracy theories in favor of facts, laws, and reason.
OTOH, one should not ignore conspiracy theories if one is trying to explain the actions of Q cultists.
Just because there is a clear reality doesn’t mean that every actor is motivated by that rather than a distorted, conspiracy-theory driven one on which fringe or outright untenable theories of law are among the basic operating premises.
"If a President shall not have been chosen before ..."
"If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify ...”
So Biden will not have been 'chosen' or did not 'qualify' ?
If the Jan 6 vote did not happen or if the results were not approved - Joe Biden was still unambiguously 'chosen' by in a free and fair election by all accounts?
Would the factual legitimacy of his election result in SCOTUS validating his claim to the Presidency?
Can the voting procedure (Act of 1887) [1] meaningfully deny the Biden his ascension to President?
VP Pence himself (a lawyer) indicated that he did not have the authority to stop the process.
It seems pretty ambiguous, and that legal scholars would be all over the place with this, no?
But my question was rhetorical - to illustrate that there's a wall of legal ambiguity in that situation, enough to enable considerable populist rancour to take hold, whereupon the winner may not have enough political momentum to actually take power, irrespective of what some entity like SCOTUS says.
Would Democrats even remotely accept anything other that Biden as President?
Why would they ever submit to 'Pelosi' as being President - which would be an admission of defeat, or even or possibly another election?
If the 'election was rigged' - doesn't that invalidate the entire Congress as well? Including Pelosi? And all the Senators?
If a free and fair election were already held in November, and it was overturned for political reasons, what would be the point of having another one, if the results can be ignored on the basis of populism?
> If the Jan 6 vote did not happen or if the results were not approved - Joe Biden was still unambiguously 'chosen' by in a free and fair election by all accounts?
The only account that has any force under the Constitution is the one made by Congress of the electoral votes cast by the States. That's why it was the target of the insurrection; if that could be manipulated, whether by giving courage to secret allies who might otherwise have a failure of conviction in Congress (what Trump overtly called on the crowd to do), or intimidation, or by forcibly removing members who were obstacles, then the election results could be undone; the “steal” could be “stopped”.
> Would the factual legitimacy of his election result in SCOTUS validating his claim to the Presidency?
Almost certainly not, and if it did it would be the Supreme Court voiding the Constitutional reservation of the role of judging electoral results from Congress, a different kind of coup.
> Would Democrats even remotely accept anything other that Biden as President?
No, if it was clear that the count was going to be obstructed and incomplete, rather than completed with a different outcome, but the House was capable of acting, they'd probably just elect Biden Speaker.
> If the 'election was rigged' - doesn't that invalidate the entire Congress as well? Including Pelosi? And all the Senators?
Legally, they are separate elections held at the same time, so, no, not in the eyes of the law, even if the first part was a conclusion of law, rather than a propaganda point to rationalize an application of raw power, which is what it would be.
> If a free and fair election were already held in November, and it was overturned for political reasons, what would be the point of having another one, if the results can be ignored on the basis of populism?
The same reason authoritarian regimes usually have elections; purely performative, rather than substantive.
> If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president.
If it just stopped the count, and Congress took no other relevant action thereafter, the Presidency and Vice Presidency would become vacant at noon on the 20th and Nancy Pelosi, by virtue of her office as Speaker of the House, would succeed to the Presidency.
But supposed the Congress (or a sufficient subset to deny a quorum in either House) were detained, and Grassley and Pelosi were killed. Then, when Trump's term expired, Trump loyalist Mike Pompeo (while cabinet members traditionally submit their resignation at a change in administration, they don't automatically leave office) would be next in line of succession with vacancies in the Speaker and President Pro Tem positions.
And, more likely the goal, what if Pence were killed (and probably Grassley, too) but then.Senators were released and a President Pro Tem amenable to exercising the arbitrary power Gohmert suggested the presiding officer would have in the electoral vote count were elected, and presided over the vote count as the Vice President was vacant?
(I do think any scenario results in “two Presidents”, I do think several result in “one President (in some cases of dubious legitimacy) who isn't Joe Biden, and (in several scenarios) is either Trump or a Trump loyalist."
For example: a delusional or demagogic leader who promulgates lies about the outcome of an election in order to fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons.
Not that such a thing would ever actually happen. I guess I'm just a worrier.