A Deeply Fractured US

[dimsum]

If those are the rules. No sense arguing that the Super Bowl would be better if played according to Canadian rules. What's done is done.

But the rules didn’t change. One “team”, let’s call it, said that the rules were unfair but the next game they say they’re fair.

 

[Kirkhill]

But the rules didn’t change. One “team”, let’s call it, said that the rules were unfair but the next game they say they’re fair.

I would argue that the rules did change.

My analogy is that if next year's Super Bowl is to be played on the 4 Down system then the correct time to announce that is the day after this year's Super Bowl, with the agreement of all parties. The wrong time to be changing the rules is at the coin toss.

Some of us are of the opinion that rules were being changed right up to the time of the coin toss. The changes may have been legal, although that is a matter of interpretation and open for challenge. The changes may even have been necessary or appropriate given exigent circumstances, although that too is a matter of interpretation and open for challenge.

The nature of rules is less important than that all parties accept the rules. Changing rules does not engender trust.
Especially when the working axiom is "Never let a crisis go to waste" - attributed to Winston Churchill and to Rahm Emmanuel, advisor to Obama and past Democratic mayor of Chicago.

....

As to the entire issue of challenging rules, there are rules for challenging rules and they too are part of the game.

 

[dimsum]

I would argue that the rules did change.

My analogy is that if next year's Super Bowl is to be played on the 4 Down system then the correct time to announce that is the day after this year's Super Bowl, with the agreement of all parties. The wrong time to be changing the rules is at the coin toss.

Some of us are of the opinion that rules were being changed right up to the time of the coin toss. The changes may have been legal, although that is a matter of interpretation and open for challenge. The changes may even have been necessary or appropriate given exigent circumstances, although that too is a matter of interpretation and open for challenge.

The nature of rules is less important than that all parties accept the rules. Changing rules does not engender trust.
Especially when the working axiom is "Never let a crisis go to waste" - attributed to Winston Churchill and to Rahm Emmanuel, advisor to Obama and past Democratic mayor of Chicago.

....

As to the entire issue of challenging rules, there are rules for challenging rules and they too are part of the game.

Ok - maybe I’m missing your point completely.

AFAIK, mail-in voting was legal in the 2016, 2020, and will be legal in the 2024 elections. Of course, it varies by state bc there is no big federal group like Elections Canada there.

For the 2020 election, the GOP pushed the narrative that mail-in voting was fraudulent. However, that had the unintended consequence of lowering the potential GOP voting bloc, some of whom would have voted by mail. Realizing that “mail-in voting is bad” narrative is not going to help them in the 2024 election, now they’re saying that it’s fine again.

I’m not sure what the “changed rules” are that you’re referring to? As I said, I may be completely missing your point.

 

[Remius]

Ok - maybe I’m missing your point completely.

AFAIK, mail-in voting was legal in the 2016, 2020, and will be legal in the 2024 elections. Of course, it varies by state bc there is no big federal group like Elections Canada there.

For the 2020 election, the GOP pushed the narrative that mail-in voting was fraudulent. However, that had the unintended consequence of lowering the potential GOP voting bloc, some of whom would have voted by mail. Realizing that “mail-in voting is bad” narrative is not going to help them in the 2024 election, now they’re saying that it’s fine again.

I’m not sure what the “changed rules” are that you’re referring to? As I said, I may be completely missing your point.

The only point is grasping at whatever excuse is possible to explain the discrepancy in opinion from one electoral cycle to another.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ok - maybe I’m missing your point completely.

AFAIK, mail-in voting was legal in the 2016, 2020, and will be legal in the 2024 elections. Of course, it varies by state bc there is no big federal group like Elections Canada there.

For the 2020 election, the GOP pushed the narrative that mail-in voting was fraudulent. However, that had the unintended consequence of lowering the potential GOP voting bloc, some of whom would have voted by mail. Realizing that “mail-in voting is bad” narrative is not going to help them in the 2024 election, now they’re saying that it’s fine again.

I’m not sure what the “changed rules” are that you’re referring to? As I said, I may be completely missing your point.

I am referring to the state by state changes.

I differentiate between the hyperbolic fraudulent used to gin up crowds and working the rules to advantage. The Democrats worked the rules to their best advantage. My opinion is the Trump also attempted to work the rules to his best advantage. Rather than working the popular vote he worked the Electoral College. I would also argue that he was quite within his rights to challenge any and all counts up to and past Jan 6. Those challenges are within the rules.

Rioting is not within the rules but Trump supporters were not the first people to exceed the bounds and to riot.



To be frank, despite the rhetoric from both parties, I see both parties equally to blame. I also see both parties operating within norms. Most people accepting and accommodating and some people pushing the limits to the point that they step out of bounds.

I don't expect virtuous behaviour. The pundit class seems to be composed of seminarians and revolutionaries. I am a fan of neither. I prefer shopkeepers.

 

[brihard]

I differentiate between the hyperbolic fraudulent used to gin up crowds and working the rules to advantage. The Democrats worked the rules to their best advantage. My opinion is the Trump also attempted to work the rules to his best advantage. Rather than working the popular vote he worked the Electoral College. I would also argue that he was quite within his rights to challenge any and all counts up to and past Jan 6. Those challenges are within the rules.

Absolutely. And he and his team brought case after case after case to the courts with staggering lack of success. In some cases attorneys were sanctioned for crossing professional and ethical lines in the types of allegations they tried to move through court. But he was absolutely within his rights to seek legal recourse, and he’s not in the slightest bit of hot water for that.

 

[dimsum]

 

[Kirkhill]

Absolutely. And he and his team brought case after case after case to the courts with staggering lack of success. In some cases attorneys were sanctioned for crossing professional and ethical lines in the types of allegations they tried to move through court. But he was absolutely within his rights to seek legal recourse, and he’s not in the slightest bit of hot water for that.

Nobody said you had to be bright to spend your money on lawyers.

 

[brihard]

View attachment 85268

His case was particularly concentrated and egregious, but the American high business/political class is riddled with it across the spectrum. There’s a whole social ecosystem of legacy admissions to prestigious schools, mutual back-scratching in offering internship and junior executive roles to the graduating nepo-babies, and so on from there. It certainly carries right through into politics.

 

[OldSolduer]

His case was particularly concentrated and egregious, but the American high business/political class is riddled with it across the spectrum. There’s a whole social ecosystem of legacy admissions to prestigious schools, mutual back-scratching in offering internship and junior executive roles to the graduating nepo-babies, and so on from there. It certainly carries right through into politics.

And in other institutions as well. Meritocracy is a laudable goal but eventually it gives way to nepotism.

 

[mariomike]

One “team”, let’s call it, said that the rules were unfair but the next game they say they’re fair.

Senators make the rules, and confirm the Supreme Court. I bet on Red.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782477790773686647

 

[Retired AF Guy]

But the rules didn’t change. One “team”, let’s call it, said that the rules were unfair but the next game they say they’re fair.

Kind of like saying this will be the last election using the "first-past-the-post" electoral system and then winning a majority and quietly ditching your promise to change the system.