Lascaris: Canada must prepare for America's rapid decline

71 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2022-01-10 22:30

JKR

Even Canadians fear US democracy could end soon; CNN; 10 January 2022

--------

Marche isn't the only Canadian worried about their southern neighbor's future. Just days before Marche's book released, political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon -- the executive director of the Cascade Institute, which focuses on ways to address threats to society -- penned a powerful op-ed in Canada's "Globe and Mail" that begins with a similar warning. "By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence," Homer-Dixon writes. "By 2030, if not sooner," he adds, "the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship."

--------

Tue, 2022-01-11 19:30

#53

Pondering

Nonsense to sell papers. The number of people willing to resort to violence is small and they mostly get caught.

There are certainly people who would like that but there are more people who are against it. US institutions are not failing. Trump was unable to steal the election. The wheel of justice moves slowly but it is moving. You can be sure lawyers are paying attention. Rioters will never get another chance to storm the capital and most wouldn't want to try because people are going to prison for what happened.

The Proud Boy and Oathkeeper organizations are going to go because they are being sued. They will go broke.

Social media is banning leaders who incite violence.

The US is no where near becoming a dictatorship.

Wed, 2022-01-12 20:45

#54

JKR

In the U.S. the Republicans could establish a dictatorship as long as they are the dominant party in just 26 states, which they currently are. Currently the Republicans dominate 26 states that comprise something like just 1/4 of the US population. The January 6 coup attempt failed because Mike Pence refused to go along with Trump's demands that he block the certification of enough of Biden's Electoral College votes to prevent Biden from gaining a majority of Electoral College votes. It is important to remember that if the House of Representatives doesn't certify a majority of the electoral votes for any candidate than the presidential election is decided by the House of Representatives with each state delegation getting just one vote in the process. So in electing a president California's representatives in the House of Representatives have as much votes as a state like Wyoming. California has a population of 40 million while Wyoming's is just under half a million. The Democrats have a lock on California while the Republicans have a lock on Wyoming and both states have equal weight in choosing a president in a “Contingent Election.” To understand how the U.S. could become a dictatorship one should understand how "contingency elections" could be usedin U.S. politics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election

The January 6 coup was an attempt to use the contingent election rules to override democracy. The coup failed because the Republican coup perpetrators were not supported by enough electoral officials. Since the election the Republicans have been appointing as many electoral officials as they can who support throwing the election to the House of Representatives if a Republican candidate for president loses an election. This craziness could work because a majority of Republicans believe that Democrats steal elections in order to win. This has become the US's "big lie."

Wed, 2022-01-12 20:46

#55

JKR

This is what many Republicans are thinking might be their ace in the hole in maintaining presidential power:

U.S. Contingent Election for President

--------

In the United States, a contingent election is the procedure used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate for one or both of these offices wins an absolute majority of votes in the Electoral College. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate. During a contingent election in the House, each state's delegation casts one en bloc vote to determine the president, rather than a vote from each representative. Senators, on the other hand, cast votes individually for vice president.
...

Edit

Presidential electionEdit

If no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes, pursuant to the 12th Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to choose a president from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state's delegation votes en bloc, with each having a single vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26 votes) to become the president-elect. The House continues balloting until it elects a president. As a consequence of the state delegation voting method, the party that holds the majority in the House could still lose the contingent election if the minority party holds the majority of state delegations.[5]The District of Columbia, which is not a state, does not receive a vote; the 23rd Amendment, which grants the district electoral votes, does not grant the District of Columbia a vote in contingent elections.

--------

Fri, 2022-01-14 12:04

#56

Pondering

All that depends on the vote being too close to call. Evolving demographics matter. With every passing year there are more Democrats and fewer Republicans even in some Republican states, to the extent that they want to discourage "liberals" from moving to red states.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-migration-pat...

This drip-drip-drip of young residents trickling down into red-state suburbs is helping to turn southern metros into Democratic strongholds. (Of course, migration isn’t the only factor pushing these metros leftward, but more on that later.) In Texas, Democrats’ advantage in the five counties representing Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin (the “Texas Five” in the graph below) grew from 130,000 in the 2012 presidential election to nearly 800,000 in the 2018 Senate election.

In Arizona, from 2012 to 2016, Democrats narrowed their deficit in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, by 100,000 votes. Two years later, in the 2018 Senate election, the county swung Democratic, with Democrats gaining another 100,000 net votes.

In Georgia, from the 2012 presidential election to the 2018 gubernatorial elections, the four counties constituting most of Atlanta and its suburbs—Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett—increased their Democratic margin by more than 250,000....

What’s remarkable about these changes isn’t just their size, but their resemblance to Trump’s 2016 margins. Trump won Texas in 2016 by 800,000 votes. He won Arizona by 90,000 votes. He won Georgia by 170,000 votes. If these states’ biggest metros continue to move left at the same rate, there is every reason to believe that Texas, Arizona, and Georgia could be toss-ups quite soon....

As noted above, migration isn’t the only reason southern metros might be shifting to the Democratic Party: Young southerners are surely pulling their region left, while older residents could be switching parties in response to Trump. Republicans have likely hurt themselves by moving further to the right to galvanize their white exurban and rural base, even as their support has thinned in the suburbs and among working-class white women.

But domestic migration is key. Just look at Texas. CNN exit polls for the state’s 2018 Senate election showed that Beto O’Rourke was buoyed by recent movers, winning more than 60 percent of those who had moved to Texas within the past 10 years. At current migration rates, the “Texas Five” counties could easily add another 200,000 votes from 2016 to 2020, putting more pressure on Trump’s margin in the state. A September poll conducted by Univision and the University of Houston found the top-six Democratic presidential contenders all leading Trump in Texas.

Outside of national elections, the blue flood of the Sun Belt could have other political implications, such as more showdowns between blue cities and red states. As The Atlantic’s David Graham has argued, North Carolina’s GOP-led general assembly has waged war against liberal cities such as Charlotte—for instance, by reversing a local ordinance that banned discrimination against LGBTQ people. This sort of state-city showdown could become a regular feature of southern politics. In the past six months, both the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer have run features bemoaning the Californication of northern Texas, with the former noting that “conservatives fear these domestic migrants will bring with them a liberal ideology that would disturb the Texas way of living.”

While such confrontations may be inevitable, over time the growth of liberal metros could force the Republican Party, which has lately been living off the fumes of retrograde xenophobia, to compete more aggressively for votes in the New South—that is, to be a party for moderates, black voters, and immigrants. The political shift could swing the other way too: Democratic transplants to Dallas and Houston could edge right toward Republican territory, won over by their conservative neighbors’ arguments for lower levels of state and local taxation.

Overall, the southern suburbanization of Democratic votes could be a force for good, not only for Democrats but also, perhaps, for the future GOP—and therefore for the country at large. Without changes to the Electoral College or to the distribution of Democratic votes, the U.S. may be doomed to replay the 2016 election for several more cycles. Coastal liberals will remain justifiably furious that their votes are systematically discounted, while rural conservatives will remain justifiably indignant that the heart of American business and media has flocked to cities that regard the countryside as a xenophobic backwater. The southern blue flood is not a cure-all for this schism. But if more white rural families join liberal transplants and nonwhite families in America’s diverse southern suburbs, Americans might discover, through the sheer fact of neighborly proximity, a less vitriolic and more optimistic political future.

"For several more cycles" is the key phrase. Of course Republicans will try every trick in the book to maintain power and it could work for awhile but longer term demographics will defeat them. They are a minority and shrinking not growing.

Fri, 2022-01-14 12:13

#57

NDPP

Despite the fond hopes of some here, we will not be saved by Democrats. Or the Canadian liberal-left who almost always gets everything wrong.

Fri, 2022-01-14 20:55

(Reply to #57) #58

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

Despite the fond hopes of some here, we will not be saved by Democrats. Or the Canadian liberal-left who almost always gets everything wrong.

Agreed. When I was young the Conservatives were considered centre right, the Liberals centre left, and the NDP left.

Now I would say the Conservatives are far right, the Liberals are centre right, and the NDP are centre left.

To me the threat is no longer that the Conservatives will lose, the threat is by the time the NDP takes power they will be the liberals and we are no farther ahead.

I think the coming balance will be
Conservatives far right, the Liberals centre-right and the NDP centre-left

The Greens may be the new left if they survive long enough.

Sat, 2022-01-15 06:14

(Reply to #58) #59

Debater

Pondering wrote:

All that depends on the vote being too close to call. Evolving demographics matter. With every passing year there are more Democrats and fewer Republicans even in some Republican states, to the extent that they want to discourage "liberals" from moving to red states.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-migration-pat...

This drip-drip-drip of young residents trickling down into red-state suburbs is helping to turn southern metros into Democratic strongholds. (Of course, migration isn’t the only factor pushing these metros leftward, but more on that later.) In Texas, Democrats’ advantage in the five counties representing Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin (the “Texas Five” in the graph below) grew from 130,000 in the 2012 presidential election to nearly 800,000 in the 2018 Senate election.

In Arizona, from 2012 to 2016, Democrats narrowed their deficit in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, by 100,000 votes. Two years later, in the 2018 Senate election, the county swung Democratic, with Democrats gaining another 100,000 net votes.

In Georgia, from the 2012 presidential election to the 2018 gubernatorial elections, the four counties constituting most of Atlanta and its suburbs—Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett—increased their Democratic margin by more than 250,000....

What’s remarkable about these changes isn’t just their size, but their resemblance to Trump’s 2016 margins. Trump won Texas in 2016 by 800,000 votes. He won Arizona by 90,000 votes. He won Georgia by 170,000 votes. If these states’ biggest metros continue to move left at the same rate, there is every reason to believe that Texas, Arizona, and Georgia could be toss-ups quite soon....

As noted above, migration isn’t the only reason southern metros might be shifting to the Democratic Party: Young southerners are surely pulling their region left, while older residents could be switching parties in response to Trump. Republicans have likely hurt themselves by moving further to the right to galvanize their white exurban and rural base, even as their support has thinned in the suburbs and among working-class white women.

But domestic migration is key. Just look at Texas. CNN exit polls for the state’s 2018 Senate election showed that Beto O’Rourke was buoyed by recent movers, winning more than 60 percent of those who had moved to Texas within the past 10 years. At current migration rates, the “Texas Five” counties could easily add another 200,000 votes from 2016 to 2020, putting more pressure on Trump’s margin in the state. A September poll conducted by Univision and the University of Houston found the top-six Democratic presidential contenders all leading Trump in Texas.

Outside of national elections, the blue flood of the Sun Belt could have other political implications, such as more showdowns between blue cities and red states. As The Atlantic’s David Graham has argued, North Carolina’s GOP-led general assembly has waged war against liberal cities such as Charlotte—for instance, by reversing a local ordinance that banned discrimination against LGBTQ people. This sort of state-city showdown could become a regular feature of southern politics. In the past six months, both the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer have run features bemoaning the Californication of northern Texas, with the former noting that “conservatives fear these domestic migrants will bring with them a liberal ideology that would disturb the Texas way of living.”

While such confrontations may be inevitable, over time the growth of liberal metros could force the Republican Party, which has lately been living off the fumes of retrograde xenophobia, to compete more aggressively for votes in the New South—that is, to be a party for moderates, black voters, and immigrants. The political shift could swing the other way too: Democratic transplants to Dallas and Houston could edge right toward Republican territory, won over by their conservative neighbors’ arguments for lower levels of state and local taxation.

Overall, the southern suburbanization of Democratic votes could be a force for good, not only for Democrats but also, perhaps, for the future GOP—and therefore for the country at large. Without changes to the Electoral College or to the distribution of Democratic votes, the U.S. may be doomed to replay the 2016 election for several more cycles. Coastal liberals will remain justifiably furious that their votes are systematically discounted, while rural conservatives will remain justifiably indignant that the heart of American business and media has flocked to cities that regard the countryside as a xenophobic backwater. The southern blue flood is not a cure-all for this schism. But if more white rural families join liberal transplants and nonwhite families in America’s diverse southern suburbs, Americans might discover, through the sheer fact of neighborly proximity, a less vitriolic and more optimistic political future.

"For several more cycles" is the key phrase. Of course Republicans will try every trick in the book to maintain power and it could work for awhile but longer term demographics will defeat them. They are a minority and shrinking not growing.

People keep predicting doom & gloom for the Republicans, but they are far from dead. The Republicans may be absolutely vile, but they are very smart & calculating. They always find new ways of consolidating power.

Although the Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections, they still continue to win Presidential elections (eg. 2016) because of the advantage they have in the Electoral College, and they have a strong chance of winning. back the House in 2022, and possibly the Senate. And then possibly the Presidency in 2024.

The Republicans also have a Majority on the Supreme Court, and will likely continue to do so for many years. As much as I would like to see the Republicans sent to the political wilderness forever, that is not likely to happen any time soon.

Sat, 2022-01-15 09:52

#60

Pondering

People keep predicting doom & gloom for the Republicans, but they are far from dead. The Republicans may be absolutely vile, but they are very smart & calculating. They always find new ways of consolidating power.

Although the Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections, they still continue to win Presidential elections (eg. 2016) because of the advantage they have in the Electoral College, and they have a strong chance of winning. back the House in 2022, and possibly the Senate. And then possibly the Presidency in 2024.

The Republicans also have a Majority on the Supreme Court, and will likely continue to do so for many years. As much as I would like to see the Republicans sent to the political wilderness forever, that is not likely to happen any time soon.

No, not anytime soon. Could take another decade. Maybe even two but I don't think so. They have to use dirty tricks to win. Without dirty tricks they lose. Their support is going down not up.

They could do great in the midterms now but will they still be doing great in 2030? Looking at the long term trends I would say that is a definite no. That isn't even considering how Trump's legal issues will impact the party. A lot of high level Repubicans could go to prison.

There could be two new states within the decade as well.

Mon, 2023-10-30 22:06

#61

NDPP

Global Stability is 'Fracturing'. For Canada, the Stakes are High, Joly Warns

https://globalnews.ca/news/10057964/melanie-joly-speech-israel-ukraine/

"The current era of global stability, built from the ruins of the Second World War is 'fracturing', Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly warned Monday. 'And for Canada the stakes are high.'

'Our world is marked by geopolitical turbulence, unpredictability and uncertainty. The tectonic plates of the world order are shifting beneath our feet,' an advance copy of Joly's speech shared with Global News reads. 'And the structures that built them are fracturing.'

On defending Canada's sovereignty, Joly's speech highlights Canada's partnership with the United States and investing in NORAD, as well as bolstering its military presence within NATO in Eastern Europe, and expediting partnerships with nations like Japan and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific.

Joly added Canada will not accept any form of foreign interference..."

How Canadian. Proclaim the imperative of national sovereignty while declaring an enhanced subservience and vassalage to the collapsing Yanqui empire of chaos.

A position of magnificent contradiction wholeheartedly endorsed by pro-American arse-lickers of the 'Canadian progressive left'.

Tue, 2023-10-31 11:52

#62

kropotkin1951

How is sending our navy and air force to the South China Sea not foreign interference in the affairs of all the countries that border it? The relationship of any of the Asian "democracies" to China is one of the most significant issues in the internal politics of those nations and we are thus directly interfering in the internal politics of places like the Philippines and Taiwan.

The Dominion of Canada happily followed Westminster's direction on foreign affairs. Since WWII we have happily followed the US's lead, although we used to pride ourselves on not being in lockstep with them at all times just almost all the time. Now we seem to have been given the role of a nasty little attack dog, with us doing the dirty work in places like Venezuela and Bolivia, coups are us or is that US.

Just remember though as a Canadian what you will not stand for is foreign interference in our affairs.

Tue, 2023-10-31 15:33

(Reply to #62) #63

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:
How is sending our navy and air force to the South China Sea not foreign interference in the affairs of all the countries that border it?

Are countries in the region asking Canada to send our navy and air force to their region? Even if that is the case I think we shouldn’t go there but that aspect of the situation does change the situation.

Tue, 2023-10-31 16:35

#64

6079_Smith_W

Is this about all those states, or is it about one which is laying claim to virtually the entire sea?

And if anyone has a problem with accepted international waters, what else is out of bounds?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/24/why-does-china-claim-almost-th...

Wed, 2023-11-01 18:07

#65

kropotkin1951

Taiwan also claims the same area and Vietnam and the Philippines also claim most of it. Seems to me that both Canada and the US are a long way away to be getting involved in this territorial dispute.

Should China send war ships to the arctic to protect shipping given the over lapping claims to major oil and gas resources by Canada and the US and Denmark and Russia?

Wed, 2023-11-01 20:15

(Reply to #65) #66

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Should China send war ships to the arctic to protect shipping given the over lapping claims to major oil and gas resources by Canada and the US and Denmark and Russia?

Should they, like other countries, be allowed to as long as they aren’t breaking any international laws?

Thu, 2023-11-02 09:58

(Reply to #66) #67

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Taiwan also..

Taiwan also? I thought they were the same country, and actually that government first made the claim before the People's Republic government existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line

And no, the other claims are nowhere near as overreaching as their line.

As for what is happening up north, Beijing is running ships through those disputed waters.

https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/chinese-container-ship-completes-first-...

I don't think anyone has complained about it, though there is some concern about them wrecking undersea cables with their anchor.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3238726/china-ship-newnew...

Fri, 2023-11-03 10:04

(Reply to #67) #68

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Should China send war ships to the arctic to protect shipping given the over lapping claims to major oil and gas resources by Canada and the US and Denmark and Russia?

Should they, like other countries, be allowed to as long as they aren’t breaking any international laws?

I think that only bellicose imperial states have ever done that kind of action. It is none of our fucking business and we should not b e sending war machines half way around the world to project our military power. I would far rather have all war machines banned from international waters but I know one country and its yappy lap dog that would never abide such a thing. You know it would be like calling for peace in Ukraine or a cease fire in Israel, something that the US led NATO will not allow, until it has achieved its hegemonic goals.

Fri, 2023-11-03 10:14

#69

kropotkin1951

Taiwan also? I thought they were the same country, and actually that government first made the claim before the People's Republic government existed.

Of course they made it decades ago because these are historic fishing rights disputes that have been exasperated by the oil and gas finds in the area. Canada and the US and NATO should not be there, it is none of our fucking business.

If Canada had its way it would still think it proper to run gun boats, like the USS Palos and Monocacy up the Yangtze, merely to protect international trade of course.

People like you and most North Americans do not know or chose to ignore the history of the Hundred Years of National Humiliation but it is very well taught in Chinese schools as living history. We are on the wrong side of morality and history when we harass China on behalf of NATO.

Fri, 2023-11-03 13:22

(Reply to #69) #70

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that only bellicose imperial states have ever done that kind of action. It is none of our fucking business and we should not b e sending war machines half way around the world to project our military power. I would far rather have all war machines banned from international waters but I know one country and its yappy lap dog that would never abide such a thing. You know it would be like calling for peace in Ukraine or a cease fire in Israel, something that the US led NATO will not allow, until it has achieved its hegemonic goals.

I agree that it would be great if all countries, China included, respected the sovereignty of other countries and didn’t threaten other countries independence and sovereignty. Unfortunately that’s not the world we currently live in. I think it would be great if a democratic internationally supported military based on the rule of law could provide peace internationally.

Tue, 2024-01-23 14:02

#71

NDPP

Given the ever-increasing signs of American decline and dysfunction, Lascaris' advice should be taken seriously.

Lascaris: Canada must prepare for America's rapid decline

Pages