Trump himself consents to transition
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Why would that be a reasonable proxy?
Well, to the perceived threat anyway.
TDS causes its sufferers to perceive great threat in everything he does. There is no analogue to TDS among his supporters at the time this took place. And no media support to amplify the hysteria. I didn’t even know about the intentions of these faithless Dem electors till I learned about it on a podcast. But one of them did in fact admit to the hope to build a coalition of faithlessness across the aisle to elect someone other than Trump.
-
Yeah, but for TDS none of this would have even made the news.
-
It’s not like this has only animated his detractors.
I mean, millions actually believe this shit. And believed (and hoped) it would would be successful.
Even some here.
-
You’re almost there. If Trump electors had attempted a similar stunt in his loss, it would have made the news. The Dem stunt would have been news but for TDS. The president mounting a campaign of fraud accusations will of course make the news one way or another. The elector scam was low key enough to be buried, especially considering it was tried and failed on the same day.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
You’re almost there. If Trump electors had attempted a similar stunt in his loss, it would have made the news. The Dem stunt would have been news but for TDS. The president mounting a campaign of fraud accusations will of course make the news one way or another. The elector scam was low key enough to be buried, especially considering it was tried and failed on the same day.
Another difference here is that these electors are one-off people with limited agency.
It’s not like it was the position of the Democratic Party or its leadership to push for faithless electors.
If there were faithless electors throwing in their hat for Trump (in the scenario that he lost) AND Trump were egging them on - that’d be a different story.
Hillary wasn’t pushing for electors to turn faithless, AFAIK.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
You’re almost there.
Ok, let’s get me the rest of the way.
Am I correct that you don’t see any material difference between the two efforts (2016 and 2020), just a difference in reaction? And that difference in reaction is due to TDS?
How does TDS explains the millions of Trump supporters who have jumped on the bandwagon too?
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
You’re almost there.
Ok, let’s get me the rest of the way.
Am I correct that you don’t see any material difference between the two efforts (2016 and 2020), just a difference in reaction? And that difference in reaction is due to TDS?
How does TDS explains the millions of Trump supporters who have jumped on the bandwagon too?
There is a material difference. No one played the threat to democracy card. Just constant escalation of words as each prior one fails. It’s Godwin’s law at its finest. The only good news is that there is no dry powder left.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
You’re almost there.
Ok, let’s get me the rest of the way.
Am I correct that you don’t see any material difference between the two efforts (2016 and 2020), just a difference in reaction? And that difference in reaction is due to TDS?
Of course there’s a difference. I struggle to find an obvious way to determine which was the more dangerous precedent - righteous political hatred of a pop culture mob which allowed for the unprecedented elector shenanigans in 2016, or Trump predictably being Trump and Ineffectually crying fraud in 2020.
How does TDS explains the millions of Trump supporters who have jumped on the bandwagon too?
Why would I need TDS to explain that? I’m sure there are wishfully thinking Trump supporters convinced tthat he election was stolen. Trump will leave office at the scheduled time and they’ll get over it. You can hand wave long term consequences of the dangerous precedent as you will. Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the heck out of watching Trump spin foolish fraud conspiracy claims daily.
Education is extremely important.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
I struggle to find an obvious way to determine which was the more dangerous precedent
I can think of one - how about extent of involvement by those with hands on levers of power? Let's just look at 2016.
Surely 2016 would look different had it been a full-on establishment push (say) involving the Obamas, Bushes, Clintons, McCain and Romney? What if hundreds of congressmen had signed on? What if the there were open discussions of jailing the non-cooperative?
How different would that have been than an effort by two guys no one has heard of and a cheerleader at Huffpo?
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc it’s reasonable to conclude that in isolation Trump’s unprovable allegations of election fraud are a worse precedent than electors abusing faithlessness to express their affiliation with a pop culture mob of hatred against the winner of the election. I did not bring the example up in the hopes of drawing an equivalence between the two, but rather to present an example of something ignored and memory holed - to the extent few people even knew of the scheme - in service of the widespread mindlessly destructive social idea know as TDS. All that said, I do not anticipate claims of election fraud to be as big a thing going forward as they are with Trump. This is an unfortunate bump in the road, a predictable one upon his defeat. You give him more credit than I do if you think the example he is setting, which will fail and which would cost a more normative person reputation, will lead future politicians to follow suit. You can feel free to say I told you so in 4 years as we see how the next loser handles their loss.
