Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Most Important Thing About Democracy
So, anyone here ever taken PoliSci 101? Or wait — here we have the State Department explaining Democracy 101 to benighted, backward regimes to whom democracy must be explained:
That’s the big selling point when you’re trying to sell democracy to people who aren’t sure why this “democracy” thing Americans bang on about is better than a president-for-life, a junta, a monarch, a sultan, a council of faqihs, or a Central Committee of the People’s Permanent Revolution. Peaceful transfer of power. This is what we’ve been earnestly been telling ourselves and the world about why it’s great to be a democracy and why we think they should be a democracy, too. We have a system that allows us peacefully to transfer power. Yes, yes, we know you love your king. True, he’s a descendant of the Prophet, and certainly, the people do love him, that we can see … but are you quite sure all will be well when he dies?
Google “democracy” and “peaceful transfer of power,” and this is what you’ll find:
Yesterday, Donald Trump offered this thought to Chris Cuomo about what would happen if he reached the convention with a lead short of an outright majority:
I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think it would be — I think you’d have riots. I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous, many, many millions of people.”
If you disenfranchise those people and you say, well I’m sorry but you’re 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that. I wouldn’t lead it but I think bad things would happen.
Note: Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans don’t have the kind of superdelegates who can change their votes. So if Trump has a majority of the delegates, there’s no possibility of a contested convention. A contested convention could only occur if he fails to secure a majority. In that case, by definition, the majority would represent non-Trump candidates. Should they decide at the convention to pool their votes against Trump, it would not be undemocratic; nor would it be rigged. While Trump’s supporters would surely have cause to feel disappointed, they would have no cause to feel themselves robbed.
It’s one thing for a media figure or a disinterested observer to say, “Man, that could get ugly, I hope we don’t end up there.” But this is the candidate himself, the man who proposes to be the leader of the world’s most powerful former-democracy, saying, don’t go there, I’m warning you. There could be really bad violence.
This is really dark. We can argue about what the correct word is for a political figure who’s eager to wield the power of the state against his personal enemies, contemptuous of the idea of a free press, obsessed with bizarre conspiracy theories, prone to propagating lies faster than anyone can even keep track of them, and who casually — for the first time in any living American’s memory — proposes violence as a way of transferring power.
“We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”
The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
“I would certainly be open to closing areas [of the Internet].”
“I think our country does plenty of killing also.’’
“Obama doesn’t get along with Putin. Putin can’t stand our president and it’s causing us difficulty.’’
On people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt … ”
So, how do you feel about being threatened with violence by Donald Trump? Good? Bad? Indifferent?
Published in General
This article about violence on the Left may be relevant to your point, X:
http://spectator.org/articles/65782/meet-moveonorg-new-kkk
More people voted against Bill Clinton than for him. Was his presidency illegitimate?
This More People person isn’t even on any ballots, not then and not today. S/he is just an invisible friend that the establishment is hiding behind to justify blocking someone who’s winning within the establishment’s own rules.
Eric Hines
No, because he won according to the laws. Are the laws a good idea?
You do realize that the subject here is Trump threatening to use violence against fellow Republicans, not against BLM and their ilk, right?
It appears not.
And if the rules say You Must Have This Many Delegates to Ride this Attraction? I mean, if people want to say Trump should get it because he’s close, fine, but don’t trouble us with this nation-of-laws-not-men routine in the future.
One of the revelatory aspect of the Trump campaign is the ease with which some principles, previously deeply held and passionately defended, become bothersome impediments when they interfere with Donald’s ascension to the purple. Claire has it absolutely right: Trump’s remarks about riots, coming from a presidential aspirant, might not be the same as crossing the Rubicon, but let’s just say his socks are wet.
I think the rules say “You must have this many delegates etc. unless we decide in Cleveland that those delegates you thought were yours because of elections? They’re free to
sell their votesvote their consciences now.”Ex post facto law laws are mostly verboten; changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game is part of the fun of being the GOP.
Speaking of threats:
That was threats of mob violence from a sitting president. His proxies delivered the mobs, too.
Well, we’ll see, and adjust our opinions accordingly. As for the Obama comments: “Pitchforks” are metaphors; explicit warnings of riots are not. Even if they’re on the same rhetorical plane, the response to debasing the rhetoric is not to debase it further, because we Mean Well and They Don’t.
In some cases “pitchforks” was a metaphor for “thugs camping out on your front lawn and harassing your family.”
Pitchforks were not metaphors. They were on the payroll of Obama’s good buddy Andy Stern:
“Occupy Wall Street, Powered by Big Labor”
And that’s not the only time Obama made some comment and the thugs showed up the next day.
What “Liberty” is Trump’s rhetoric of threats and violence in defense of? We know what “Liberty” the Founders defended. What’s Trump’s “Liberty” defense? Because the rules as written and as understood by all didn’t anoint him?
That’s as relevant to who wins the nomination coming out of the primaries as saying “Trump is the tallest candidate.”
Neither metric is dispositive of anything with regard to the rightful nominee.
Is more in the imagination than in reality.
I would far rather face riots
In every Twitter encounter I’ve had with a Trump supporter (not many, admittedly) they’ve been emphatic that if Trump is not the nominee, they will boycott in Nov. Take 100% of a small sample for what it’s worth.
Trump has given the Republican party a huge gift here. If they’d work with him, they might turn it into a massive win. Therefore, you know what they’ll do…
A “massive win” for what? For who? If I hate everything Trump says, and everything he stands for, why should I “work with him” just to get a “massive win”? If all of us who are #nevertrump vote for Hillary, we will also get a “massive win.” And a very bad taste in our mouths.
I wonder if Greg Abbott will arrange for a group outing for the Texas Rangers Division. Perhaps to Cleveland in mid-July?
A massive electoral win. The turnout for Republicans in the primaries is at record highs, and a lot of that is people Trump is bringing in. For Democrats it’s at record lows.
If Trump sees Republicans as being with him, and we can work with him to repeal/pass some laws, pushing things in a Conservative direction, isn’t that what this whole enterprise is about? He’s clearly willing to do that, see Sessions and his comments on the Court:
Sounds dreamy. Good luck getting that out of Hillary.
Maybe you’ll quote what I said that gave you the impression this “people” invisible friend of yours is describing my position, and then walk us all through your logic in getting from what I said to this impression.
Eric Hines
Whatever rules the Rules Committee writes are submitted to a floor vote of all the delegates. If the majority of the delegates going into the convention support Trump, why would they vote to approve any rule changes to block his election?
The rules don’t actually exist, they haven’t been written yet. Writing and approving the rules is the first order of business at the convention.
The only rules in force right now are the rules governing the election of delegates. Much as we elect electors to the Electoral College who then elect the President, we don’t actually elect the party nominee, we elect the delegates who then choose the nominee. Once the delegates actually get to Cleveland, they as a body will vote to approve the convention rules, the party platform, and ultimately the nominee for President.
Thus any change to the convention rules is not ex post facto because it would occur before the fact, that is before the delegates vote on the nominee.
Dreamy? Sorry, but it sounds to me more like you’re dreaming. I don’t care what ThinkProgress says (ever), Trump is far more likely to nominate his far left sister to the Court than a conservative. Why would he push things in a conservative direction, when he is an extreme leftist? All of his conservative views have been adopted in the last few months, as a convenience, to fool the marks. He is offering to sell you the the Brooklyn Bridge, and you are gushing about what a great deal you’re getting.
You’re lucky to know his inner thoughts like this. It must be most intimate.
Yeah, it must be mind reading. I mean, its not like he’s been on television for the last 40 years telling everyone what he believed, while writing checks to the Clintons, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
So better to just cut out the middle man?
For all of his faults, if he just improved the immigration situation he’d be doing us a huge favor.
And people seem to forget this, but he is an effective executive. What he did with Wollman Rink was quite remarkable, and it earned him the gratitude of New York City.
Unlike all the politicians running this time around he does actually have a record of successful ventures. That goes +1000 for Hillary.
(And before you get to it, no businessman is successful 100% of the time, so pointing out that he’s had some failures is not a valid criticism.)
Ok, I agree with that. The problem is that on this issue, as on every issue, he is the candidate least likely to accomplish anything. He is not going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. He is not going to round up 11 million (frankly, its probably more like 20 million) illegals, ship them back, and then let the good ones back in.
The astounding unseriousness of his proposals demonstrates to me that he hasn’t given the matter a moment’s real thought, and just couldn’t care less about it. His entire immigration policy is nothing more than an applause line. And while he’s been at it, he has alienated the Mexican government, whose help will be important if we are really going to do something to control the border.
I don’t agree with that. We have three options:
Democrats: Get immigrants in as fast as possible: get them registered as Democrats.
Republicans: Slow down the Democrats, at best.
Trump: Stop it.
So, given those three options, he’s the only one likely to get anything done at all, as he’s the only one trying.
I read his immigration piece on his website the other day. I recommend it. Unlike the Republicans, he actually recommends stopping immigration until we can figure out what to do about it.
And the President can do that without Congress’ approval, as they’ve already granted it.
So I do think he could do something about it, credibly.
He’s going to stop all immigration? Legal immigration? Do you think he knows that it would require an act of Congress to do that? Or does he just plan to do it as a dictator? Do you think there is any chance in the world that he could get Congress to stop all legal immigration? And if a moratorium on all immigration is his policy, shouldn’t he have said that during the debates, instead of just hiding it on his website?
How does he square that with his calls for increased legal immigration under H1-B visas? Does it bother you that he is totally inconsistent from day to day?
And stopping illegal immigration? How? Oh, yeah, he’s going to get Mexico to pay for a wall. Do you actually believe that will happen? Seriously, do you?
Why is it that so many of his policies promise to “figure out what is going on” later? If you’re going to run for President, shouldn’t you have already tried to figure out what’s going on?
As I said, astoundingly unserious.
Congress has already passed that act. The President has already been granted the power.
I was unaware of that provision. Thank you for pointing it out. I stand corrected on that point. I have reservations about Congress delegating such a broad grant of power to the Executive, and I wonder about its Constitutionality. But if Congress has abdicated its Constitutional responsibility, then I guess that Trump actually could act as a dictator in this regard. That doesn’t necessarily make me feel better.