Both autocracy and civil war remain exceedingly unlikely. The Trump legal cases are not dragging out the election; most are getting heard and/or dismissed very quickly, and the case most likely to swing a few votes (the PA deadline case) will have no material impact on the election either way.

Trump is refusing to concede but his legal teams are backing off (see: AZ, MI, PA). The legislative revolt (red states that went for Biden certifying results for Trump) remains an outside possibility but it would require a coordinated and transparently anti-American effort across multiple states (to flip 37 votes) and sink the political careers of anyone involved (these states are purple, hyperpartisanship is unpopular). So far, these officials' behavior largely indicates that state governments are not playing along with a coup plan.

There's a lot of noise going on to set up Trump TV, OAN, and Newsmax, and to lay the groundwork for future voter suppression laws, but the reality right now is that the Trump case is being thwarted almost across the board (outside hyperpartisan federal politics) by American institutions. We're heading toward a less-normal but still democratic and peaceful transition of power.

That said, if war does break out, fun excuse to get rid of the r*rals.

Okay interesting. What are r*rals thou?

I’m glad that my election prediction got two states wrong:
North Carolina and Ohio

congratulations Biden?

knyte, how insensitive of you

Screw the r*rals

I still have no idea what does this mean...

Let Communism rule!!!

That's what I hear when I think of Democrats.
Basically, this country's political system is shit. We need another major party that isn't some extreme version of the Democrats.

just get rid of the winner-takes-all thing like an actual civilized country, then you'll get more

Here are the two houses of parliament of an actual civilized country where i just tend to live in:

"House of Representatives"


from left to right:
die LINKE (the left)
SPD (social democrats)
die Grünen (the greens)
CDU/CSU (the union of the two conservative parties)
FDP (close to libertarians i think)
AfD (the right)
white are members of parliament without party affilication

"Senate"


made up of the states governments.

Links if immages do not work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag#/media/File:Bundestag18D.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrat_of_Germany#/media/File:Bundesrat_Sitzverteilung.svg

Edited 11/17/2020 10:17:59

Lower Saxony seems chill

Yes, let each elector make the vote of their own district, and not have it changed because the rest of the state decided to.

@ baclavafuture

What makes you think that. :D

@ Georg Friedrich Ferdinand, Prinz von Preußen

What exactly are you referring to here?

George Bush doesn't care about black people

If you think the Democratic party are anywhere near communism, you should probably do a little more research.

Compared to European countries (which are not communist) the Democratic party and its members probably span everything from green parties, socialist parties, christian democrat parties, classic liberal and neoliberal parties and, where they exist moderate right wing nationalistic parties with the majority probably closest to christian democrats and liberal parties.
The Republican party and its members meanwhile span conservative christian parties, all nationalistic and xenophobic parties, and neoliberal parties.
In essence, in Europe the Democrats would be "center-right" and the Republicans would be "rightwing" to "extreme right-wing".


On the other hand, actual communist governments are (and some were) often governing as (neo)liberal nationalistic dictatorships (looking at you China), rather than following actual communist docrine so it's very easy to get confused. China for example, is very confusing when you look at its economic doctrine: at one hand, capitalism and free trade (mainly export) are extremely important, while on the other hand there is considerable state involvement and protectionism.

Therefore, it's important to understand what communism actually is:
* communist doctrine is "a concept" which has its positives and negatives like all concepts. Can be considered "good" if you wish if all people in it agree to follow it, but definitely bad if they don't.
* communist government is leadership (can be at any level, from a country to a sports club that is lead in a communist manner) that in theory rules following communist doctrine.
* communist party: a party that wants to impose communist doctrine if elected, but rarely follows communist doctrine among themselves, often authoritarian rather than communist.

In essence, communism is very easy to abuse. It takes only one person near the top of the food chain to abuse their power for it to become authoritarian. We know that power corrupts, and that's in addition to people in politics thare are typically in it for the power for themselves rather than the people they are supposed to serve. As a result, communism tends to divulge into a dictatorship most of the time. So while the theory is not bad per se (I'm not claiming it's good either, it's just a concept after all), it's simply very hard to implement it in an acceptable way. Consequently, what we perceive as communism is in reality a disguised form of authoritarian behaviour which I personally consider bad.

From what I know about American politics, purely from an outside view and not "manipulated" by (American) mainstream media, Democrats are not even close to being communist (not even Sanders), while Republicans are a lot closer to the authoritarian behaviour and abuse of power that gets easily associated with communism. I personally don't think there is a realistic threat of communism taking over any Western country in the foreseeable future, but I am afraid of more broadly authoritarian threats which currently seem more prevalent on the right side of the spectrum rather than the left side.

@Math Wolf
The Democratic Party doesn't seem Communist on the outside, but if you delve deep into their framework, beliefs, policies, and desires policies, you will see they are secretly Communist. They have set education standards so low, that many can not do simple core subject aspects. They want free education, health care, etc for all, without saying where that money will come from (taxes) they don't tax the rich sufficiently, and they are never going to do that. They have attempted to take away some very rights. They appeal mostly to the rich and lower class. The government assistance programs apply to the poor, which means they are now dependent on the government. The rich Democrats don't want to pay taxes, so they tax the middle class to death (28% of middle class income should not be going to taxes). There are many other reasons the Democrats are not good. This information is all specific to the US Democratic party, not the European ones.

The Republican party is extremely supportive of personal rights, and many will fight to the death for them. Republicans do not want complete power. They support the middle class and also support certain government programs, but they want to help you get self sufficient again, not support you for years on end. If anyone wants to privately talk about politics, feel free to PM me. It is one of my favorite topics.

I don't see the argument why any of this is communism, bur rather what Republicans are trying to make you belief what is communism.

They have set education standards so low, that many can not do simple core subject aspects.

Nothing to do with communism or any political belief. Also partially Republican caused. Low education standards are a major issue as it stiffles critical thinking. I belief this is a structural problem in America with no party truly set on improving it in practice.

They want free education, health care, etc for all, without saying where that money will come from (taxes)

That's socialism, not communism.

they don't tax the rich sufficiently, and they are never going to do that.

Communism would tax the rich A LOT. E.g. Warren's wealth tax should be considered a clearly socialist proposal. Actual communism would simply take away ALL money of the rich and distribute it evenly (in theory) - basically, it goes to the state.

They have attempted to take away some very rights.

Which has nothing to do with communism, which is an economic doctrine.
Additionally, so called "acquired rights" could be taken away if there is good reason for it.
Ridiculous example: would you want free speech if producing any audio would summon a swarm of killer wasps that would instantly kill your neighbour? In such case, a government should restrict the speech of citizens, or at the very least give it a different meaning (i.e. online). Because by not doing that, they would essentially allow murder and you'd live in an anarchy.
But, obviously the benefits of taking away a right should outweigh the harm. This isn't always clear-cut, hence the debate around covid (There is no clear answer to the question: "how much "right" do you want to take away to save 1 life?"). Democrats will be more focused on the "saving lives" part, while Republicans will be more focused on the "keeping rights" part. There is no best answer on which one is best, although the approach of the current government was pretty bad unless you prefer a bit less economic loss over hundred thousand deaths which is arguably evil.

They appeal mostly to the rich and lower class.

Definitely not communist which does not appeal to the rich. Communist doctrine takes away all wealth of the rich.

The government assistance programs apply to the poor, which means they are now dependent on the government.

They key to a succesful communist program is to make everyone, and especially the rich, dependent on the government. The poor are by definition dependent on someone willing to help them anyway, whether it be the government, a private organisation or a neighbour.
Assistance programs making people dependent on the government is a right-wing talking point and there is no scientific proof of this being generally true. Successful assistance programs are actually designed to give people chances to actually become less dependent on anything, e.g. by educating them on key topics for which there is an economic need. I don't know whether the programs in the US are successful or not and interpretation may even depend on which metric is used to evaluate them but it's certainly not communist.

The rich Democrats don't want to pay taxes, so they tax the middle class to death (28% of middle class income should not be going to taxes).

Not linked to communism, see above. Communism taxes the rich.
Also note, in Belgium (not communist), middle class pays nearly 50% taxes. We're among the top of the world there.

I think you need to study Communism, and not Socialism. China, Cuba, and Laos all have rich people running the country. You also always hear of those Chinese billionaires, right? When you have finished studying Communism (NOT SOCIALISM), then come back and we can discuss.

Maybe read my posts: China, Cuba and Laos are communist in name, but as most supposedly communist governments, they do not follow actual communist doctrine, but instead some mish-mash of ideas:

On the other hand, actual communist governments are (and some were) often governing as (neo)liberal nationalistic dictatorships (looking at you China), rather than following actual communist docrine so it's very easy to get confused. China for example, is very confusing when you look at its economic doctrine: at one hand, capitalism and free trade (mainly export) are extremely important, while on the other hand there is considerable state involvement and protectionism.

I'm not going to argue against a belief that the Democratic party wants to rule similar to the current governing structure of China. I believe that's also incorrect, but at minimum there are some similarities to that. Interestingly, the similarities are not the ones that are part of communist doctrine.