Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,801]

30 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

I read somewhere -I 'm not sure it is true- that Robespierre when asked about the reign of terror he said "what are you talking about ? I 'm the one who stopped it !".
He said that the terror committee planned some 70,000 beheadings and he managed to stop about half of them.
I doubt this was said in the day of the famous events in the national convention, which ended with his beheading as he did n't have time.
If he actually said that it must have been to his friend Saint Juste or to somebody else the days before.

This kind of thing is usual though.
In 1979 when Margaret Thatched was elected the rank and file expected her to arrest all the Indians and Pakistanis and send them away in a boat.
She did n't do it.

Always the rank and file wants to see more heads rolling on the floor than the leadership.

What you say is therefore possible but I doubt it.
I believe Trump will be inviting some new sexy starlets to the White House and he won't be bothering about these things.

However I regard him as the Pepe Grillo of American politics.
He should be polling 19%, not 47-48%.
But the dems have identified themselves with wokism and they have no business to do that, elevating him to prominence.
 

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,919]

3 hours ago, cosmicway said:

 

Donald Trump says he's equally Greek as Giannis Antetokoumpo

 

https://basketnews.com/news-214082-donald-trump-says-hes-equally-greek-as-giannis-antetokounmpo.html

Giannis Antetokoumpo is a famous basket ball player playing in the NBA and the national team of Greece.
He is Greek, born in Athens, been to the army, but he is black - his parents were Nigerian then naturalized.

There is an old racist taunt about him that he is not Greek - because of his colour.
Various crazy or half crazy extremist racist individuals repeat that from time to time in Greek tv programs, on the internet.
But it's not some kind of big international controversy.

Now Trump decided to pick on him saying "he 's a great player but he is as Greek as I am !".
Barack Obama called him to order.

It's strange.
Obviously his advisers asked him to say that.
Are there Greek-Americans of this kind of ideology he wants to attract ?
Most Greek-Americans I know are dems but I have also met one or two Trumpies.

Sometimes its actually shocking how racist he is. Even if you dont like kamala at all, she's clearly the only choice if its a choice between her and him.

[Fernando 6,458]

9 hours ago, Vesper said:

I often see anti-abortion types say they oppose it because it is murder.

BUT

many of them also say they make exceptions

including for pregnacies that are the result of rape and/or incest.

 

Now, IF a person thinks abortion is murder, why would it matter HOW the pregnancy came about?

They (the forced birthers) already said abortion was murder, the murder of a human being.

Following their logic (ie the ones who make exceptions for rape and/or incest), I should be legally ok if I murder any already-born person who was the product of rape and/or incest.

The forced birthers are excusing murder (in this case pre birth) simply because of how the pregnancy came about.

That is true you got a point, I did not saw it like that. 

 

[Fernando 6,458]

5 hours ago, Vesper said:

                                                   

The Editorial Board

Vote to End the Trump Era.

You already know Donald Trump. 

He is unfit to lead. 

Watch him. 

Listen to those who know him best. 

He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. 

He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences.

Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos.

He lies without limit.

If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him.

Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. 

He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations.

He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers.

Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats.

Americans should demand better.

Vote.

 

One thing about people, well not everyone as that is generalizing. But I would say a good amount of people tend to be rebellious. 

You tell them not to do this and they would do it. 

The New York Times with that article is going to pushed a lot of rebellious people to do the opposite. 

 

[cosmicway 1,323]

10 hours ago, Vesper said:

I often see anti-abortion types say they oppose it because it is murder.

BUT

many of them also say they make exceptions

including for pregnacies that are the result of rape and/or incest.

 

Now, IF a person thinks abortion is murder, why would it matter HOW the pregnancy came about?

They (the forced birthers) already said abortion was murder, the murder of a human being.

Following their logic (ie the ones who make exceptions for rape and/or incest), I should be legally ok if I murder any already-born person who was the product of rape and/or incest.

The forced birthers are excusing murder (in this case pre birth) simply because of how the pregnancy came about.

We say abortion on request not on demand.
A medical committee should decide - just like when I broke my arm and a medical committee was called upon to opine how bad it was in order to be excused from work.
There are circumstances in which it can be allowed.
There are also some ultras who don't want to allow it even if it is diagnosed that the child cannot survive.

[Vesper 28,801]

3 hours ago, Fernando said:

One thing about people, well not everyone as that is generalizing. But I would say a good amount of people tend to be rebellious. 

You tell them not to do this and they would do it. 

The New York Times with that article is going to pushed a lot of rebellious people to do the opposite. 

 

most anyone who claimed to be 'undecided' who then read that editorial

and said, despite the overwhelming evidence it presents as to the danger(s) of Trump

'Oh wow, I am going to do the opposite and now vote for him.'

was (extremely likely) never 'undecided' and were always going to vote Trump

[Vesper 28,801]

Ohio Sheriff’s Lieutenant in hot water after social posts;

“I am sorry. If you support the Democratic Party, I will not help you”

https://www.wtrf.com/top-stories/ohio-sheriffs-lieutenant-in-hot-water-after-social-posts-i-am-sorry-if-you-support-the-democratic-party-i-will-not-help-you/

CLARK COUNTY, Ohio (WTRF) — A Lieutenant for an Ohio sheriff’s Office is making headlines after some of his social media posts caught the public’s eye.

According to news station WHIO, John Rodgers, a Clark County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant for more than 20 years, made several Facebook posts that brought a lot of scrutiny to himself and the Clark County Sheriff’s Office.

Some posts, which have been shared more than 250,000, suggested that Rodgers would factor in a caller’s voting preference when responding to emergency calls.

Other posts stated, “I am sorry. If you support the Democratic Party, I will not help you” and “The problem is that I know which of you supports the Democratic Party, and I will not help you survive the end of days.”

According to WHIO, Rodgers wrote in another post that people would need to “provide proof of who you voted for” before rendering aid.

Chief Deputy Mike Young sent a statement to the news station that, in part, the Office agrees the comments made were highly inappropriate and do not reflect the Sheriff’s Office’s service delivery to all residents, regardless of their voting preference. He stated that the station and Lt. Rodgers would work especially hard to regain the public’s trust.

It is also suggested that a possible medical issue is involved in Rodgers’ actions.

WHIO obtained  an investigative file and discovered in an inter-office communication with supervisors that Rodgers wrote, “I do not remember writing these posts or deleting any posts.”

The file also indicates that Rodgers is prescribed sleeping medication, which Rodgers documented, “It does cause some of my communication to be ‘out of character’ which is a documented side effect.”

According to WHIO, the Sheriff’s Office apologized for Rodgers’ behavior and said he received a written reprimand for violating the department’s social media policy and will remain on duty.

[Fulham Broadway 16,844]

Looks very porcine

[Vesper 28,801]

Open Letter: Algorithmic Management and the Future of Work in Europe

Open Letter 4th November 2024

The EU’s new focus on algorithmic management could safeguard workers’ rights in a tech-driven workplace.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/open-letter-algorithmic-management-and-the-future-of-work-in-europe

 

On 17 September 2024, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen published the Mission Letter for Roxana Mînzatu, Executive Vice-President-designate for People, Skills and Preparedness. Building on the European Pillar of Social Rights, the letter directs the Commissioner-designate ‘to focus on the impact of digitalisation in the world of work’, including notably ‘an initiative on algorithmic management’.

This focus on algorithmic management — the increasing automation of traditional employer functions, from hiring to firing workers — is to be welcomed: it builds on the Union’s success in setting out the world’s first comprehensive framework for governing platform-based work, and the explicit recognition in the AI Act that automated decision-making in the workplace poses significant risks to decent working conditions and fundamental rights.

Important gaps remain: algorithmic management has long outgrown its origins in platform work, and has come to workplaces across the socio-economic spectrum, from factories and warehouses to professional service firms and universities. The AI Act fails to confer meaningful rights on individuals, and leaves little space for context-specific regulatory approaches, notably collective avenues for social dialogue.

Only a dedicated, legally binding, instrument can fill these gaps. Building on the Platform Work Directive, the Union should enact a Directive on Algorithmic Management, including prohibitions of particularly harmful practices; transparency obligations; rights to challenge, monitor, and rectify automated decision-making at work; and information and consultation rights for worker representatives.

This will secure a future in which workers’ fundamental rights are protected and socially beneficial innovation ensured. With confirmation hearings due to begin imminently, the European Parliament has a unique opportunity to clarify the expectations surrounding Vice-President-designate Mînzatu’s mandate: nothing less than a Directive will be able to provide Europe’s workers and employers with the clarity needed to ensure wide-spread adoption of genuinely productivity-enhancing technology.

Signatories:

Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Oxford University
Halefom Abraha, Utrecht School of Law
Antonio Aloisi, IE University
Diego Álvarez Alonso, Universidad de Oviedo
Alberto Barrio Fernandez, Copenhagen University
Joanna Bronowicka, European University Viadrina
Philippa Collins, Bristol University
Nicola Countouris, University College London
Valerio De Stefano, Osgoode Hall Law School
Isabelle Ferreras, University of Louvain
Giovanni Gaudio, Università degli studi di Torino
Elena Gramano, Bocconi University
Martin Gruber- Risak, University of Vienna
Piotr Grzebyk, University of Warsaw
Tamás Gyulavári, Pázmány Péter Catholic University Budapest
Ann-Christine Hartzén, Lund University
Frank Hendrickx, KU Leuven
Christina Hiessl, KU Leuven
Jorn Kloostra, Radboud Universiteit
Eva Kocher, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)
Miriam Kullmann, Utrecht School of Law
Marta Lasek-Markey, Trinity College Dublin
David Mangan, Maynooth University
Claire Marzo, Université Paris Est – Créteil
Marta Otto, University of Warsaw
Vincenzo Pietrogiovanni, University of Southern Denmark
Nastazja Potocka-Sionek, University of Luxembourg
Valeria Pulignano, KU Leuven
Luca Ratti, University of Luxembourg
Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo, Universidad de Oviedo
Six Silberman, Oxford University
Bernadett Solymosi-Szekeres, University of Miskolc
Simon Taes, KU Leuven
Annamaria Westregård, Lund University
Raphaële Xenidis, Sciences Po Law School

[Vesper 28,801]

1 Politician vs 25 Undecided Voters (Feat. Pete Buttigieg) | Surrounded

He is the single most effective American political debate communicator atm.

[Vesper 28,801]

Germany’s Governance Crisis: Why State Reform Can’t Wait

Henning Meyer 4th November 2024

Facing mounting challenges, Germany’s outdated, process-bound administration must be reformed to meet citizens’ needs and safeguard democracy.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/germanys-governance-crisis-why-state-reform-cant-wait

The German state has a problem. It delivers too little. The results of state activity far too often fail to meet the legitimate expectations of citizens. If the major challenges of our time, such as the transition to climate neutrality or managing rapid technological change, are to be successfully addressed, we need a more capable state. It must be said clearly: without prompt reform, the major goals are at risk—with all the consequences this would have for society and democratic stability in Germany.

 

What exactly does state reform mean? The key here is comprehensive administrative modernisation. The good news upfront: the existing problems are not caused by the people working in state institutions. Contrary to popular belief, most are highly competent. The bad news: they work in rigid and hierarchical structures that still largely follow principles from the 19th century. These structures are what cause the inadequate results and demotivate employees, instead of encouraging them to actively shape change.

Why are administrations so crucial? They are at the heart of statehood, fulfilling two essential roles. Administrations, especially at the local level, are the direct interface between citizens and the state. This is where direct contact occurs, and where it becomes evident when people’s experiences with authorities increasingly diverge from their everyday reality. Digital processes that have long been standard in private life and businesses? They are still far too underdeveloped in the state’s offerings.

A look at the implementation status of the Online Access Act (OZG) illustrates the problem. Since the end of 2022, all authorities at the federal, state, and local levels are actually required to offer their services digitally. The initiative began in 2017. The result: even in the autumn of 2024, we are still far from comprehensive implementation, especially in the states and municipalities. Why is that?

As the Federal Audit Office rightly criticised, the responsible Federal Ministry of the Interior took more than two years to determine which administrative services should be digitised, when, and to what extent. Only after that could the responsible ministries at the federal and state levels prioritise, which took about another year and a half. By then, much of the originally planned project duration had already passed before things really got underway. This illustrates how cumbersome cross-departmental and cross-level coordination can be. Such conditions understandably lead to frustration on all sides and undermine trust in the state’s ability to perform.

Administrations are not just an interface; they are also the executive organs of their respective governments. The widespread notion that newly elected governments can move into ministries and begin implementing their coalition agreements from day one is far from reality. Without efficient and capable administrations, political priorities and programmes simply cannot be realised. And if political promises to the electorate are inadequately fulfilled, this, in turn, leads to frustration and further loss of trust in the state. The growing gap between what is necessary, what is promised, and what is delivered ultimately results in an erosion of democratic substance.

Why do administrations not function as they should? How can this profound crisis of statehood be understood? A look into the sociology of the last century provides useful clues. At the beginning of the 20th century, Max Weber analysed bureaucracy as a form of governance, as opposed to monarchy and charismatic leadership. The core of his typology was the primacy of rationality and transparent rules in administrative bureaucracy. A century later, the state system is still largely process-oriented. Too often, the means of action take precedence over the necessary goals.

This process-orientation can be observed in many areas. Facilitated by the multi-level structure of Germany’s federal system and ministerial silos, employees in administrative institutions are far too often occupied with processes without clear outcomes. The multitude of actors involved in every issue, as demonstrated by the OZG example, inevitably leads to lengthy procedures and a culture of caution. The more veto players there are, the harder it is to change the status quo. The result is a sluggish and change-resistant system.

One could argue that the state system does produce results, specifically in the form of extensive regulations in an increasing number of areas of life. That is true, but it is part of the problem. Regulations are, in many ways, nothing more than the definition of rule-based processes for others and are therefore inherent to the process-oriented administrations. This at least explains why so much regulation is produced. The logic of the administration’s own framework of action is transferred to the outside world.

Individual regulations can be well justified in isolation, reflecting the rationality of the administrative system. Hence, any attempt at comprehensive deregulation is difficult and usually results in only cosmetic changes. Whether reducing the retention period for company records from ten to seven years is the ultimate solution is certainly debatable – to say the least. The problem is that the sheer number of regulations leads to overregulation. Hardly anyone has an overall view of the regulatory jungle, making compliance a massive challenge.

Overregulation hampers not only the private sector but, paradoxically, also the state itself. For instance, if planning procedures or building codes are so extensive that it takes years before construction projects can even begin, public housing companies also suffer. As a result, achieving political goals, such as social housing targets, becomes increasingly difficult or can only be realised with significant delays.

This malaise is also evident in the number of housing completions in general. In Germany today, significantly fewer apartments are built annually than in the 1970s. This is not due to interest rates, as even during the prolonged period of low interest rates, the number of housing completions remained below average. The federal government has significantly missed its goal of 400,000 new apartments per year. Overregulation and other bureaucratic hurdles at various administrative levels are a substantial part of the reason.

Absurd situations are also not uncommon. In Tübingen, a planned €250 million expansion of the university hospital, which is central to the medical care of three million people, was prohibited by the nature conservation authority. The reason: a rare bird, the nightjar, had nested on the hospital roof. Before construction could begin, a replacement habitat would be needed, which has proved difficult because the bird prefers extensive areas with little tree cover. There was even talk of partially clearing ten hectares of forest. The nightjar has not been seen for about a year. Perhaps the bird itself has solved the administrative problem in this case.

The problems of an overregulated, process-oriented system are less significant when it comes to managing the status quo. But that is precisely not what is needed in our time. On the contrary, we have been navigating from one crisis to the next for what feels like forever, and must simultaneously tackle the major challenges of our time. The Herculean tasks ahead cannot be managed with a process-oriented state. The entire administrative system urgently needs to be reformed and aligned with the quality of results rather than processes. Helmut Kohl once said: “What matters is what comes out at the end.” He was right.

What does administrative modernisation mean in this context, and what are the key approaches? How can the focus be shifted from processes to results? New approaches must be developed, especially in three areas: structures, personnel, and technology. First, the hierarchical structures and thematic silos must be gradually opened. This is a long-term undertaking that will not succeed overnight. However, there are concepts that can at least make a quick start.

The approach of consolidating the most important political priorities into “missions” is essentially an attempt to overcome structural obstacles and focus on achieving core objectives. This is precisely the idea behind the new British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s “Mission Delivery Boards.” The name says it all: it is about the state working with external actors to deliver quantifiable results. Therefore, all decisions are aligned with the concrete missions, and the boards are given the authority to push necessary measures through fragmented and rigid structures in Whitehall.

Even if Mission Delivery Boards mainly fight against existing structures rather than reforming them, they can still provide the right impulses. Ultimately, sustainably reformed structures are not possible without a cultural change within the administrations themselves. This can be promoted by experimenting with new structures and changing recruitment policies. In Germany, there is far too little personnel exchange between the public sector, private sector, and academia. The rigid administrative career path should no longer be the unshakeable cornerstone of administrative personnel policy.

There is ample evidence that organisations benefit from the diversity of staff profiles and personal experiences. In German administrations, however, people often spend their entire careers in largely predetermined paths, which also set the wrong personal incentives more often than not. To become more results-oriented, administrations must become more innovative and entrepreneurial. This needs to be reflected in personnel policies.

If the organisational culture changes, structures can also be sustainably reformed. This includes the much more effective use of digital tools, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI). There are two stages of development: in the first stage, AI-supported assistance systems will need to support the existing process-oriented work of the administrations. This is necessary to secure the state’s general ability to act in light of impending retirements. According to a PwC study, the public sector faces a shortage of at least one million skilled workers by 2030.

In the second stage, AI must then act as a catalyst for structural system reorientation in combination with a more open personnel policy. One of AI’s most important capabilities is evaluating large amounts of data and making them useful for strategic decisions. This will enable a new level of evidence-based policymaking and data-driven administration in the medium term. Both are necessary steps to move from process orientation to result orientation.

Another important step in results-oriented administrative modernisation is opening structures to participatory methods. Such procedures strengthen trust in the state and lead to practical solutions. Here, too, technology can play a significant role, as demonstrated by the digital platform “vTaiwan,” which has been innovatively implementing participatory methods in Taiwan since 2014. Such approaches increase the transparency and legitimacy of state decisions and reduce the distance to citizens. German sociologist Steffen Mau even argues that participatory methods can initiate social learning processes that strengthen the democratic culture as a whole.

Reforms in the areas of administrative structure, personnel policy, and the use of technology must therefore be interconnected and implemented iteratively in order to truly reform the ossified structures in the medium to long term.

In April 2021, US President Joe Biden convincingly argued in a speech before the US Congress that the proof of a functioning democracy that delivers results for its citizens needs to be re-established in the US. This proof is also necessary in Germany. The widespread impression that problems are piling up and that major challenges are not being addressed is toxic to the democratic substance of the country. The temptations of populists become all the more effective the fewer concrete solutions the state delivers.

To meet the challenges of our time, we need a strong and effective state. Therefore, administrations in particular must urgently be modernised. However, this can only succeed if the right impulses are set, triggering a change that ultimately comes from within the administrations themselves. As mentioned at the outset, the employees of the administrations are not the problem. On the contrary: they are the greatest hope for getting the problems under control.

The recent state elections in Saxony and Brandenburg have shown that the traditional people’s parties in East Germany, despite incumbency advantages and sharp polarization, can only narrowly keep the AfD at bay. A popular prime minister from the Left Party has already failed to do so in Thuringia. Time is running out. The state must deliver better results and create new conditions to achieve them.

This article was first published in German in Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung

[Vesper 28,801]

A very tired Trump is spewing complete gibberish right now

“And I said, first lady, first lady see this is a little bit of a weave, you see those stories, first lady book boom, but you can always bring it back when it comes to a time when it doesn't meet at the bottom, then it's time to say let's not do this shit anymore. We won't do this anymore. But so what happened…”

 

 

Edited November 4 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,801]

SAD MAGA FACES IN FINAL HOURS... ARENA HALF EMPTY?

THE DON BAFFLES WITH INCOMPREHENSIBLE RAMBLE...

VIDEO: CHENEY FIGHTS BACK AFTER TRUMP'S DEATH THREAT...

RECORD 76,438,831 HAVE ALREADY VOTED...

Conservative Megachurch Pastor Backs Harris in Last-Minute Op-Ed...

LIVE DATA...

+

Election Betting Odds Turn Sharply Toward Kamala Harris After Shock Poll Shows Her Leading Trump in Iowa

 

Meanwhile, PredictIt flipped the advantage to Harris in the hours after the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll drop:

Edited November 4 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,801]

*****BREAKING A RATED MARIST POLL*****

Harris 51% TFG 47%

U.S. Presidential Contest, November 2024

Harris +4 Points Against Trump Nationally

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/u-s-presidential-contest-november-2024/

Marist is rated 6th out of 282 rated pollsters on 538.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[Fulham Broadway 16,844]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

A very tired Trump is spewing complete gibberish right now

“And I said, first lady, first lady see this is a little bit of a weave, you see those stories, first lady book boom, but you can always bring it back when it comes to a time when it doesn't meet at the bottom, then it's time to say let's not do this shit anymore. We won't do this anymore. But so what happened…”

 

 

Doesn't make any sense. All Greek to me. Does he post on here ? 

[Fernando 6,458]

8 hours ago, Fernando said:

That is true you got a point, I did not saw it like that. 

 

So based on your argument then I will change my stance. I will only support abortion for medical reasons meaning doctor will save the women. 

I will no longer support abortion for rape. 

It is as you mentioned murder. 

I remember one case in the Bible a step brother rape his sister, she had the kid and the kid became important later on. 

So ya rape is bad but the kid might be something big in the future. Mother can always give the kid away as many people want a kid. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,844]

Whatever happens next, one day historians will have to explain why a candidate who earlier this year had been presented as disciplined started to veer off into unrestrained racist rhetoric and dancing for 40 minutes to his own playlist. Was it age, as plenty of commentators have speculated? Was it a brilliant attempt to balance dehumanizing attacks on minorities with an effort to make himself look human?

A much more sinister explanation must be taken seriously. We still assume that we are witnessing two campaigns for the presidency. But what if we are witnessing one campaign and one slow-motion coup, whose organizers need to go through the motion of campaigning for the plan to work? Since winning at the ballot box does not matter, taking a break to listen to Pavarotti isn’t a problem; conversely, a festival of racism and conspiracy theories, as at Madison Square Garden, is not about convincing any undecided voter, but motivating committed Trumpists to go along with another coup attempt.

The point is not prediction, but to call for preparedness. After all, there is an overwhelming number of reasons why, should Trump lose, he will once more try to take power anyway. His followers have long been primed to assume that evil Democrats will steal the election. The unchecked racism fits into a logic of far-right populism more generally: far-right populists claim that they, and they alone, represent what they call “the silent majority” or “the real people” (the very expression Trump used on January 6 to address his supporters).

If far-right populists do not win elections, the reason can only be that the majority of the electorate was silenced by someone (liberal elites, of course). Or, for that matter, people who are not “real people” – fake Americans – must have participated in the election to bring about an illegitimate outcome. This explains the Republican obsession with finding proof of “non-citizen” voting.

Dozens of lawsuits have already been launched to put election results into doubt. As in 2020 and early 2021, Trump is likely to make sharing his lies a test of loyalty.

Maga members have been primed to resort to violence. Trump and his allies have framed the election as an apocalyptic battle. Here analogies with other far-right populists are again illuminating: it is doubtful that all followers of the far-right Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland truly believe that relatively liberal prime minister Donald Tusk had colluded with Russians to have the country’s president, a member of PiS, killed in a plane crash in Smolensk in 2010. But professing the Smolensk conspiracy theory was not about making an empirical statement; it became a means to signal membership of a political tribe.

In theory, Republicans could seize the chance at last to break with Trump, who, after all, has only delivered defeats to the party. He has stated that he will not run again (though it would of course be naive to take any of his promises at face value). Yet there were already plenty of incentives to get rid of Trump in early 2021, and still Republicans did not disown, let alone impeach, him.

Most worryingly, Maga members have been primed to resort to violence. Trump and his allies – including the world’s richest man, who just happens to be a rightwing extremist – have framed the election as an apocalyptic battle. If Democrats win, Musk has claimed, there will not be any proper elections ever after; they will bring in more foreigners to secure a permanent majority. It is already half forgotten that Trump held his first major rally this election cycle in Waco, Texas.

Who knows whether Trump can really mobilize large numbers of people on the streets; it might be enough to prolong a sense of chaos. Vance has claimed that the 2020 election was problematic, because so many citizens had doubts about its “integrity” and Democrats prevented a “debate” which the country needed to have (never mind that Republicans had created the doubts in the first place). How long a debate would Vance like, exactly? Incidents like the infamous Brooks Brothers riot, where rightwingers in fancy suits stopped a recount in Florida in 2000, might accompany this debate. After all, as Jack Smith has claimed, Trump campaign operatives in 2020 already issued the order: “Make them riot.”

The hope may well be that, if decisions are kicked to the correct court, things could still go Republicans’ way. Trumpists know from the US supreme court’s decisions about ballot access and immunity earlier that some parts of the judiciary have given up on any conventional legal logic; they are likely simply to deliver whatever benefits Trump. The conservative justices’ decision this past week allowing the removal of voters from the rolls in Virginia so close to the election – a clear break with precedent – might well have been a preview of what a court captured by Trumpists is willing to do.

To be sure, the system as a whole is less vulnerable than in 2020. What is officially known as the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 makes it harder to challenge results in Congress; the theory that legislatures could overturn the outcome – popular among Trumpists in 2020 – has not found much legal support. But since Trump has everything to lose (including his freedom, given the charges still pending), there’s every reason to think that he’ll try everything.

• Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University 

[Vesper 28,801]

20 minutes ago, Fernando said:

It is as you mentioned murder. 

just to be clear

as long as it does not meet my clear sentientness and/or viability tests I do not consider it murder as it is not yet the taking of a human life

I understand that it IS murder to someone (and I profoundly disagree and have laid out why multiple times) who believes life begins at conception

if a person believes it is a human life at conception, then they simply have to (to be logically and morally consistent) never make 'abortion is ok' excpetions for rape and /or incest-generated pregnancies, as it is, still murder (given their stance of life beginning at conception)