[UncleMeat]

Well, then get to resisting. Like it or not, people with your ideology aren't going to be distinguished from the people that burned the government to the ground, destroyed people's lives, and sold the ashes to the richest men on the planet.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

It is a fascinating comment. Surely, you recognize things are hardly black and white. Like it or not, the guy has an actual popular mandate to do just that. If you accept that premise, the undistinguishing is already happening on both sides of the US' political spectrum.

[jrs235]

Less than 50% of voters voted for him and what was total voter turn out? 60%? So maybe a 1/3 of eligible voters voted for him. A plurality does not equate to a mandate.

[Izkata]

By that logic, no president is ever allowed to do anything - because IIRC that turnout is slightly higher than the historical average.

[ty6853]

The populace is always arguing about how I have to pay up for taxes for muh roads and schools whether I want them or not, or else go in a tiny cage.

Now they have to eat their crow of what it's like to legitimize the violence of a republic.

It may not be right, and I also disagree with our governance, but by god the schadenfreude is off the chart.

I hope the 2/3 learn something from this.

[trog]

I hope the 1/3 learn something from this

[core_dumped]

They never do

[UncleMeat]

Many things are not black and white.

But if the outcome is that the existing federal system collapses and we have a collection of fiefdoms run by CEO-kings, endless nuance won't be the appropriate response.

If Trump has a popular mandate to illegally dismantle the government, then what was Biden's popular mandate? Why were such comparatively small things like student loan forgiveness seen as tyrannical? Where was the endless supply of pundits saying "well that's the mandate" then?

[kelseyfrog]

You have to understand that arguing from "mandate" is a nice way of saying, "Please stop talking." Its purpose is to end the conversation, not to engage in further discussion.

[watwut]

Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate" for them. We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything.

So, no. This is just another asymetric rule designed to enable.

Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are. Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership".

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate"

We don't hear it from democrats now either. What is your point? That each side uses the best argument that supports their position and they decide on the argument after they decide what their expected result is? We all know this and it has been unfortunate part of the discourse for decades at the very least.

<< We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything.

Could you elaborate on this point a little? I had a longer initial reaction to it, but I realized that the phrasing can be interpreted in several ways.

I will say this just to give you an idea of my initial read: the vitriol( from republican electorate ) was the cause of the mandate ( to clamp down on bureaucracy ). Now, said clamping generates its own vitriol ( and seemingly some vitriol as well ). Which vitriol you want to focus on?

<< Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are.

Why.. do I care about it at all?

Asshole designation is largely meaningless to me. I will push that point further, because I worry that I might be misunderstood on this point.

You may find that almost the entirety of the situation we find ourselves is a result of people 'just being nice' and trying not ruffle feathers. There was rather ample time to do some of the incremental changes some recommended here, but no one wanted to be an asshole. We are way past the point, where that label would even register ( not even have and impact; register ). Edit: I will separately note that on this forum, I noted years ago that if those issues are not addressed, we will find ourselves having to make rather unhappy choices.

I am pointing it out for one reason some may be misunderstanding some very basic reality. I will offer one more example of this weird blindness to zeitgeist.

Did you notice how Trump was able to simply shrug off the felon label? Have you considered the why behind it?

<< Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership".

Again.. why does it matter to me? They can boo all they want.

[soco]

Being okay or ignoring such a label indicates a certain level of understanding it and accepting it. Trump is totally fine with being against the law because he is in a position of privilege - he can afford it. He doesn't care about those laws either, so basically is totally fine with being an antisocial - because a society codifies its principles in the laws it created. Now if another person is okay with being called an asshole, again it's because they are okay with being mean to others, to disrespect norms and generally other persons, out of a feeling of personal or group superiority and expected impunity - an impunity they see again and again in their role models. So while you cannot make the asshole care about it, the way you truthfully explained, it's important for the less-assholes to point this out to each other. Because the "others" are a group as well, even though nowadays it looks chaotic and actually just less visible in general. Just to be clear, I don't think anybody expects assholes fixing stuff for the rest, it's for the moment nothing more than flag waving. And also I agree that the system is seemingly built to be abused by assholes, something not even the founding fathers have considered. But what happened, happened, and the question is, what now?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Being okay or ignoring such a label indicates a certain level of understanding it and accepting it.

I am ok if people choose to believe that.

<< because a society codifies its principles in the laws it created.

In broad strokes, sure; no real disagreement here.

<< Now if another person is okay with being called an asshole, again it's because they are okay with being mean to others, to disrespect norms and generally other persons, out of a feeling of personal or group superiority and expected impunity - an impunity they see again and again in their role models.

No. Laws are laws. Norms are norms. Both are subject to change, but I worry that people confuse the two for whatever reason. Even the issue with Trump getting felon tag is resolved within the existing system since he is the president. You may disagree and despair that the norm "president shouldn't be a felon" is not upheld, but them is the breaks ( I was gonna write "that's democracy for you", but I don't think you would have found it as funny as I did ).

<< So while you cannot make the asshole care about it, the way you truthfully explained, it's important for the less-assholes to point this out to each other.

No. I am done with tacit acceptance of social coercion. It only allows current system to get more unstable as it basically rewards people who yell the loudest. If I really need to point out an example you may get behind, look at former Twitter. Musk bought recognizing that simple fact and used it to his advantage.

No. Pass on branding assholes with a giant A to point out to others.

<< it's for the moment nothing more than flag waving

Yes, thankfully thus far only minor incidents have taken place, but they are there and social media is not exactly helping.

<< But what happened, happened, and the question is, what now?

Honestly, I don't know, but my personal rule of thumb is to not make things worse.

[cthalupa]

Trump didn't even get half the popular vote. That's not a mandate.

[rofrol]

@cthalupa

> Trump didn't even get half the popular vote. That's not a mandate.

I think you confuse USA with some other country. Read about electoral votes.

[cthalupa]

I didn't say he wasn't elected. I said he didn't have a mandate.

If he did not secure even half of the popular vote then it is obvious that the median voter does not align with his views.

[Izkata]

"Not even half" is being intentionally misleading: He did get more than his main opponent, by over 2 million voters.

[cthalupa]

No.

We are explicitly talking about a mandate - the will of the median voter. Someone who did not receive even half of the popular vote is not representative of the median voter.

Just winning is not enough to receive a mandate.

[jrs235]

Mandates would come from popularity, not from weighted numbers.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I just had to check since I am admittedly sick. Even wikipedia has mandate[1] as

"mandate is a perceived legitimacy to rule through popular support. Mandates are conveyed through elections, in which voters choose political parties and candidates based on their own policy preferences."

Even if we play around with concepts here, in a very, very practical sense, if the mandate is conveyed through elections, at least at the very beginning of the administration, that administration has a mandate to govern. Now.. this perception may change, but you can't honestly tell me this administration has no mandate for one simple reason:

If it does not have a mandate, neither of the previous administrations did.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)

[cthalupa]

> If it does not have a mandate, neither of the previous administrations did.

I would agree with this. I think the last time an administration had a clear mandate was Obama's first term.

Every election since then the margin has been to small too clearly say that their policies reflect the will of the median voter.