"It is wrong and immoral to seek to escape the consequences of one's acts." ― Mahatma Gandhi
Hi all. Welcome back to the Disciplinary Couples Club, our weekly gathering of men and women participating or interested in Domestic Discipline.
Well, life continues to be quite the fucking mess here in the U.S., doesn’t it? I retract my observation from a couple of weeks ago that 1968 was probably worse.
And, while I am very glad that the FBI and law enforcement are rounding up the culprits so quickly, the ease with which they are doing it makes me a little, well, uneasy.
The insurrection at the Capitol was so fresh, I almost didn’t post again this week. But, avoiding posting could quickly become a habit, and I don’t think I want it to. Yet, anyway. Belle suggested posting every other week, but I don’t think that would work, because I can’t really control the timing of events or interruptions that keep me from posting, so every other week probably would just result in my not posting twice as often. I suspect that ZM hit on the real solution – not changing, or even increasing, the number of posts but making many of them shorter and perhaps not as topic focused. At least that may be worth a try.
Alan suggested a possible topic, but I’m going to put it off for a week or so, because I did have something in mind. Or, I guess a couple of things in mind that are more or less connected to the events of the last few days. The first relates to lying. I like the way Biden’s “Big Lie” description of Trump’s election fraud claims has really caught on. Yes, a very substantial number of people doubt the integrity of the election – because a whole bunch of politicians and their supporters lied about it over and over and over, and did so without any real consequences.
And, while several Trump-supporting politicians denounced
the violence that ensued, I haven’t heard any of them actually apologize for
the Big Lie that was at the root of it all. If the last week illustrates
anything, it is that words have consequences, and that when those words are
lies, it is important for those in authority to call it out quickly and deal
with it firmly.
Otherwise, the lie takes on a life of its own. Of course, one of the mains reasons we lie is to avoid facing the consequences that the truth often entails. That, and our natural desire to avoid those truths we find too unpleasant to admit to, often because admitting the truth is embarrassing or undermines how we prefer to perceive ourselves.
Those were the two themes on my mind coming into this weekend. First, lying and its insidious effect. Second, our tendency to lie, whether affirmatively or by omission, to avoid consequences or unpleasant truths.
For my part, I have lied to avoid consequences, including getting spanked. Though, the lies in that category tend to be pretty trivial, and in most cases I know she doesn’t believe me anyway. Like if she asks how many drinks I had at happy hour and I reply “one,” when we both know it was more like three or four. It’s almost like a shared joke when I tell her something both of us know is not true. But, there are other times when I really am fairly ashamed of my behavior or mad at myself for not living up to a standard or rule, whether set by her or by me. I think my efforts at self-reporting tend to fail for that reason; it’s not that I am that concerned about avoiding a spanking but, rather, don’t like documenting failures that are embarrassing to admit, whether notable because of their severity, volume or frequency.
This is another area where certainty and immediacy of consequences would seem to have a big role in nipping the bad behavior in the bud. Despite the fact that we both know I’ve lied about my behavior with some regularity, and despite the many failures to carry through on any kind of self-reporting routine, I don’t think I have ever actually been spanked for the lie or for not reporting some piece of bad behavior. Especially in light of this week’s events, that kind of seems like a mistake. Maybe one she should think about adding to this year’s list of resolutions.
How about you? Have you ever been spanked, or given a spanking, for lying? Was the lie about behavior that was itself “spankable,” or about something else? Is lying itself against an express rule in your household? For the men, if you have lied to get out of a spanking successfully, were you happy or disappointed when it worked? If the husband gets caught in a lie, are there additional or more severe consequences than there would have been for the behavior itself?
I hope you all have a great week, and I hope you step in and slap down anyone you hear spreading the Big Lie. This shit has to stop.
Darn. I was excited to see a post and had time to respond, and finally felt an inclination to write about dd issues again.......but......while I would not pretend that a lie here or there NEVER happens, they are so rare for us that they simply are not a serious issue. In fact, you could say that one major bonding agreement between Rosa and myself is the need for honesty between us. As such, while a rule to make the bed might have been necessary, a rule to tell the truth would be like having to write a rule saying to please remember to breathe throughout the day.........utterly unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteOur biggest issue with lying is not lying itself but the occasional argument where Rosa will insist that what I'm telling her isn't accurate or honest. This is an extremely volatile issue for me precisely because if pressed, she would invariably admit that I don't lie to her. So what these arguments come down to is her insistence that her interpretation of an event is more accurate than what I tell her of what I meant in that event. A sore spot for us to be sure and one that seems to be rare enough to not be a major issue while still being "one of those things" that will probably never go away completely and always remain an annoying possibility.
Now, you do begin with a rather interesting political prelude. And perhaps I can focus on that. One interesting theme I have heard repeated this past week is that of misinformation being the primary challenge to any progress at reunification. I could not agree more.
What I would like to see happen immediately is a government requirement for two mandatory classes to be taught in every accredited school. Just like a certain number of years of math and English are required, these two topics should be required as well:
Starting with a basic introduction in Grammar school and developed through high school with more advanced levels, we should immediately require the teaching of the same level of American civics and politics as is required by any person seeking citizenship. My Rosa, who is now a citizen but who came from Peru, knows more about how Congress functions than most of my "born here" friends.
Secondly, certain schools do already teach the following, but it needs to be mandated nationwide: critical thinking, logic, and how to evaluate source material and information.
(Hmmmm Now you've given me an idea for a post of my own LOL!)
I would like to add a question to conclude: Which is more deserving of condemnation, inventing, promoting or spreading a lie, or being naive enough to believe the lie? Regardless of which might be considered worse, I think it would be unrealistic to think that people will ever stop lying for their own benefit. Therefore training people to not fall for a lie might be a better strategy.
DeleteWhile I hadn't really thought about it before, I can see myself going ballistic if someone simultaneously admitted that I never lie but insisted that I was lying in a particular instance. I don't do well with irrationality or illogical argument.
DeleteI agree with you that the state of civic education is appalling.
What is depressing to me is not so much that people fall for political lies, but wouldn't you think that as the lie gets more and more fantastic, people would approach it with more of a sense of incredulity and skepticism? If so, then how do you explain something like Qanon? I suspect that we are programmed biologically at a very deep level to follow the herd, and in this era of both extreme media saturation and extreme silo-ing of that media and our social networks, a message played over and over again to the same audience is almost hypnotic and we're programmed to go with the tribe.
Better and more civics education, check, more emphasis on critical thinking skills, check, identifying and managing social media misinformation (e.g. shutting down Trumps Twitter account), , check. While all of these are necessary, indeed essential, to combat the “Big Lie”, we must somehow also overcome the abysmal and widespread rejection Americans express for Science, the scientific method and the fruits of science. An incredible 30 percent of Americans believe in “Young –Earth Creationism” and as many as 60 percent of Republicans identify as creationists (Pew Research). This wholesale scorn of science is more than an international embarrassment; it is a national disaster in the making as European and even emerging nations increasingly overtake us in the classroom and in the lab. The malaise infecting the country is epistemological as much as it is political; large proportions of Americans are willing and eager to sacrifice the truth in exchange for feeling good about their lives and themselves. As a nation we must understand why so many want to live in a parallel universe before we can change it.
DeleteAlan
Dan: Well you have heard me discuss that issue before. It is the biggest obstacle for us as a dd couple. But, no relationship is perfect, and no single person is perfect. I have found that when Rosa gets the way I described, it is often related to some psychological trigger from her past, or associated with some hormonal swing....or both. She kind of eventually knows she was being irrational but usually can't see it in the moment......which makes those moments challenging for me to say the least.
DeleteBut again, while they do happen, at least they are rare.
Alan: I once ran a entire post of recognized polls of where Americans are on various things from reading comprehension to belief patterns.......and it was one depressing assortment of poll percentages!
Dishonesty is a BIG one. I definitely punish for that.
ReplyDeleteGood for you!
DeleteI will vouch for Merry.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the REAL punishments Merry gave me were for lying..about cigarette smoking. She could smell it on me, I refused to admit it. She found the cigarettes, in my car, then in my daily bag. So busted...
And it REALLY WAS the lying about it that bothered me more. Still, I Love you, and I'm glad we worked our way through it.
DeleteI too am an ex-smoker, and it is funny just how apparent the smell is to others and how unable we are to smell it on ourselves at the time.
DeleteOh, and policy again. Is it here The Disciplinary Couples Club, or political club USA? Please, create a new blog - Political blog USA. And there write your political messages and comments, Please.
ReplyDeleteWhy your wife doesn't beat you for it?
Bak
Or, how about an option that would take less work and effort on my part? You could fuck off and go worship your goddess. See ya.
DeleteI think openness and honesty would be the backbone of a DD kind of relationship. That’s a very attractive element of it to me anyway - where a couple is obliged to talk about anything and everything. No matter how difficult or embarrassing, the trust is there, we will work through it and, in so doing, achieve maximum intimacy. There is something liberating about having no secrets from each other. Trust is essential, so dishonesty is considered the gravest of offenses. Evasion after the fact may be a lesser offense than planned outright deception, but evasion undermines the bonding through DD that is its core value.
ReplyDeleteIt’s odd to be discussing honesty, lying and consequences in our personal and sexual relationships in light of national politics. I have a hard time relating one to the other. Trumpism is built on a body of lies. Once involved in a lie, you have to lie to hide the lie. You can’t continue to exist without more lies on top of lies. It was announced beforehand and inevitable that a lost election would have to be a fraud no matter how little real evidence could be presented, or how many courts shot it down. Only GOP wins could be trusted. When the Capitol was attacked, once the dust had settled, didn’t we all know the right-wing would have gathered up all their bogus and contradictory talking points — lie, spin, lie, downplay, lie, blame, spin, excuse, spin… do their little dance for us as they always do. Discipline in our relationships works because we’re redeemable, because we want the truth to rule the day. While at least some Republicans who enabled this mess have drawn the line at Trump’s inciting of the insurrection, it seems most have no conscience, no shame, no ethical imperative. Are we strong enough as a nation to hold them accountable?
I admit, the total openness and honesty is not that appealing to me. It's an area in which I think my "maternal" or power-exchange motivation for DD comes shining through. Kids lie. In particular, they try to lie their way out of trouble. And, when caught, they may pay the price. That dynamic is much more attractive to me on a gut level than complete openness.
DeleteI believe the personal and political are intertwined far more than we like to think. Why did so many women vote for Trump? I think for a good many of them, it's because they have wealth and power fetishes. They like rich bad boys in political life as much as in their romantic fantasies. Why did some people like Trump the more asshole-like his behavior? Because some people are assholes and he gave them a role model for letting their id run wild. I think Trump also really is inconsistent with your point that you have to lie to hide lies. If anything, he demonstrated that if you are shameless enough, you can spew a mix of lies and truth and not concern yourself at all with maintaining any kind of consistency. It doesn't surprise me how quickly the spin machine tried to deflect and downplay, but it does amaze me how quickly people jumped on some of the spin, like that the violence was all done by Antifa infiltrators.
I do think you (and maybe KD is saying the same thing from a different angle) are right that people in DD relationships may be, to the extent the relationship and the desire is real, more resistant to lying, being lied to and being misled. I've always said that one thing that distinguishes DD from Femdom and purely kink-based spanking fetishes is many men who crave DD do so out of some need for authenticity. The reason they push their wives to take more control and to be stricter, to the point of it feeling like it is truly being imposed, is out of a desire for it to be "real." I think that desire for authenticity is, on some level, incompatible with being led like a sheep, as paradoxical as that may seem on the surface.
The openness and honesty for me is an ideal, something to strive for, the feel-good pay off when things work. Getting caught and paying the price is also part of the appeal, as that satisfies a fetish. I’m not sure how that plays out in real life, but considering human fallibility, there appears to be the potential for something meaningful to happen. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m attracted to authentic DD because my fetish demands it be “real,” and then taking into consideration that dynamic, I want to benefit from it bringing us together to strengthen the marriage and our bond to each other. I’m also aware that my fantasies can fall apart logically when I factor in what is actually compatible with who I am and what works for me.
DeleteI agree with what you say about Trump and a segment of his most avid supporters. There are also many who are just using Trump and exploiting a popular movement for political gain, to further enrich themselves, or because they’re just so desperately invested in the right-wing anti-liberal agenda they’ll tolerate just about anything. It’s these types that feel they must rationalize and justify every craven thing Trump does, and so they must protect their house of lies with more lies. Many really believe they themselves are the good guys. Others don’t care what we think and just openly yearn for destruction.
"Many really believe they themselves are the good guys." In my experience, there are very few that don't. This was my objection to Julie's drivel about "assume good intent" from a couple of weeks ago. It's a completely vacuous starting point unless there is some basic agreement on what the good is. At the end of the day, most of the Nazi leadership fervently believed they were doing "the right thing." So did the Maoists, so did the Stalinists, so did the organizers of The Terror during the French Revolution. In fact, it's the "true believers" who are always the most dangerous. I've really met only a very small handful of people who are pretty open about the fact that they are doing what they do purely because they want to and it makes them feel good even when the thing is frowned upon by society. I always found them to be pretty fascinating people, even if I wouldn't want them as a house guest.
DeleteDan: Yep, that was indeed what I was saying though perhaps more personally in the case of Rosa and myself than a general assumption for all DD relationships. In fact, I think the way Rosa and I were treated in former relationships and by other people in our lives has more to do with us feeling like: "OK but that won't be a problem with US." And it hasn't been. One thing this blog has too often illustrated though is how different most DD issues are for me and Rosa than others, so making that broader assumption on honesty is something I would be hesitant to presume.
DeleteWe both wanted a very high-integrity relationship from the beginning. The DD came later. And for the most part that was what we had. But I did still occasional fall short; and oh boy was that a hot button for her.
ReplyDeleteI learned it was always better to suck it up, endure the embarrassment, and not lie to her. That and the fact that she always knew or figured it out quickly anyway. She was way too smart for me in that regard.
Not self-reporting of bad behavior wasn't really included in that. But if she asked....
It's funny how little some of us actually change over the course of our lives. When I was growing up, I was prone to doing things that seemed adventurous at the time that my parents would never have approved of. Like riding my little motorcycle a couple of hundred miles from our little town, into another state and back, on public highways. I would call periodically and tell my mother exactly where I was and what I was doing, but I did so because I knew she wouldn't believe me! I would be calling from a payphone a hundred miles away, telling her that was where I was, and she always believed I was joking! Today, it's kind of the reverse situation if Anne asks me how many beers I've had and I say "one" when we both know it's been three. In both cases, whether telling the truth or a lie, I didn't actually expect to be believed, which made it kind of feel like "no harm, no foul."
DeleteSometimes suppressing a truth is best. Is my occasional visits to disciplinarians a form of lying? Obviously I tell Mrs GL i'm off to work or "on a long walk" so I do tell a fib to ensure I have my cover. But is it really a lie not to share something. I choose to keep these occasional (6 times in 5 years, 5 different practionioners) trips to a harder chastisement secret because I judge that is best all round. I get something from them that allows me peace and tranquility for a short while. I know for sure that the consequence of exposure won't be a sore bottom but instead a very messy seperation. By my thinking I am retaining what me and Mrs GL have in the spanking department (which is mild and limited) whilst tasting the possibilities that could accrue should she ever committ to it. So to conclude my deception/lie is infact a window of stability.
ReplyDeleteGoes without saying Covid makes it impossible to make it 7 occasions. Cheers GLM.
Sounds a good reason, though peace and quiet now and then should be something both spouses can openly request and get.
DeleteSo my husband is not the only one to have done that. Interesting. You say that getting caught would result in a "messy separation". Is such a risk worthwhile? Shouldn't you talk to your wife about your need for harder spankings instead of putting your marriage at risk?
DeleteDanielle
And for the record, yes, what you are doing is seriously dishonest, in my opinion. But I am not going to judge you as harshly as I might have done before I found out about my own husband's cheating because I don't have enough knowledge about your circumstances.
DeleteDanielle
It seems like for most people, getting spanked by a pro would be so easily detected, from the markings. Though, that would be much less likely for me today, given that these days even the harshest spankings don't seem to create any more than temporary color. But, that was not at all true in the early days.
DeleteI’ve had a desire to see a professional disciplinarian for ages. On some level that idea is even more compelling than my wife doing the spanking. I think it’s something about the nature of the non-sex pro relationship where I could compartmentalize all the difficult feelings that go with punishment. This desire is made much greater due to the fact my wife doesn’t share my interests. I probably could have pulled it off behind her back, as there have been many times we’ve had to be apart for weeks, time for marks to fade, etc. The problem is that it would feel like cheating and a big lie to me. It’s not worth that kind of pain.
DeleteMy wife and I agreed from the beginning that lying would be an additional offence for which a spanking could be given. If I lie to get out of one punishment, lie and then get found out, I am spanked for both offences.
ReplyDeleteOccasionally, I have successfully lied and avoided a spanking, but it didn't feel good: there was the burden of guilt, since our lifestyle requires a large amount of trust. I therefore confessed and let her spank me as many times as she felt necessary to deal with the offence.
This may be a subtle distinction, but what doesn't feel good to me isn't really the lying per se but, rather, avoiding the consequences of the original bad behavior. It's similar to what happens if she gives a spanking that seems too little for the offense -- at the time I am very glad to have avoided something harsher, but later there is a sense of disappointment about it.
DeleteDanielle here:
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about this, and I find it an unexpectedly complicated topic. Obviously, I think lying is bad, and I think it is fair to have consequences for it. That was true when I was disciplinarian to my sons and they might, for example, give a dishonest answer to the question, “Have you finished your homework?” The kind of lie Wayne might try to tell sometimes could be in answer to a question like, “Did you work out today?” I have always been a bit of a fitness fanatic, and I sometimes have to “encourage” him to exercise regularly, so he has on occasion tried to lie about that. I see that as being a bit like Dan lying to Anne about how many drinks he has had. I think he might try to lie because he feels a bit ashamed. But Wayne is so bad at lying when asked a direct question that I don’t know why he even tries. His guilty look gives him away. I have sometimes disciplined him for claiming he worked out when he didn’t. But in my own mind I never really separated how much of the punishment was for lying and how much was for not doing what I expected of him.
But there can be serious kinds of dishonesty in a relationship that don’t even involve lying. When Wayne cheated on me by going to a professional disciplinarian behind my back, he didn’t technically lie about it. He just didn’t tell me until something prompted him to confess months later. I was so angry and hurt that I didn’t punish him at all at the time. Well, I guess I did punish him, but not by spanking him. I considered his wrongdoing too big for spanking. Instead, I suspended our FLR for a couple of months. I didn’t think of that as punishment at the time, but in retrospect I can see that it was more punitive than a spanking would have been.
Here’s where it gets complicated in my mind. When we began our FLR, I made a rule that Wayne was not allowed to criticize the way I spanked or to try to coach me. I thought that if we truly had a FLR, the only right way to spank was my way. Wayne agreed with me because the logic was inescapable. But in retrospect, I can see that my rule required him to be systematically dishonest with me about his feelings. He has always expressed gratitude after a spanking, often in writing. He would sometimes hint that he could take a harder spanking “if I felt like doing that”, that I didn’t need to worry about hurting him, but he never told me bluntly that my spankings didn’t satisfy him. That would have broken my rule, and the threatened consequence was that I might stop spanking him at all. After I got over my anger about cheating, I felt bad about having made a rule that made it impossible for him to be completely honest with me for years.
Maybe I am thinking too deeply about a simple question. Lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad. But if partners are going to be honest with one another, they need a relationship framework conducive to honesty.
Hi Danielle. Good to see you here again. I don't think your are over-thinking it at all. In fact, you hit on why I have always been such a critic of the whole "topping from the bottom" thing in DD. In "real world" DD versus "femdom fantasy world," making it work takes two-way communication. If that doesn't exist, one party is almost inevitably going to be unsatisfied or frustrated, and the other party may not even know that's going on.
DeleteI think my wife would say the same about my guilty looks giving me away.
Danielle,
Delete"I considered his wrongdoing too big for spanking. Instead, I suspended our FLR for a couple of months. I didn’t think of that as punishment at the time, but in retrospect I can see that it was more punitive than a spanking would have been."
I really don't like lies, but I think couples tell white lies. Sometimes, lies are through omissions. But suspending, or threatening to spend, a FLR works. My husband lied to me about a fairly large financial issue. I treat him well, and I essentially gave him what he wanted in a marriage. I benefit from it too. When he lied to me about a financial matter I was furious and threatened to end the FLR. That cured the issue. It came back to haunt him because when I issued my rule that his future bonuses must go to me as head of our marriage, I reminded him of what he did. I told him him to think of it as permanent punishment and during a discipline session tanned his bottom. The way he is wired, it turned him on and it upset him. Now, I control the money and hubby is pretty honest with me.
Carol H.
Carol, you are right that when your husband has a sexual craving for FLR, the threat of withholding FLR completely can be a great source of power. But I have learned that one needs to exercise that power carefully. Threatening to stop spanking my husband if he criticized the way I spanked was an unwise use of that power. But I agree with you that lying about financial matters in a marriage is a biggy. In the pre-FLR phase of our marriage, I didn't feel as though I had much control over Wayne's financial/spending decisions. We argued about financial issues sometimes because we had different priorities about how to allocate our limited funds. But I always felt that Wayne had the upper hand because he was the main breadwinner. When I agreed to his wish for a FLR, however, I acquired the upper hand because he had to do as he was told. I would put that up there with the reallocation of housework as one of the most liberating aspects of FLR for me. Before I came to the idea of putting Wayne on an allowance to limit his discretionary spending, he did try to lie to me a few times when I asked how much he had spent for certain things. Those were risky lies for him to tell because we have shared bank and credit card accounts, so I just had to go online to check statements if I suspected he had spent more than he said. If he tried to lie, he was gambling that I wouldn't bother to check. In those cases I definitely punished him more harshly for lying (with spankings and/or other consequences). And like you, I eventually imposed a permanent financial consequence. In our case, it was putting him on an allowance. Like your husband, Wayne finds the financial aspect of FLR unpleasant, but at the same time it turns him on, so he submits to it.
DeleteDanielle
Danielle,
Delete"I acquired the upper hand because he had to do as he was told. I would put that up there with the reallocation of housework as one of the most liberating aspects of FLR for me."
I agree with this. With my husband taking care of the chores and weekend cooking, I feel wealthy. I have time to exercise, read, take care of my appearance and relax. I work and still have time on my hands. My hubby jumped right on taking on more household chores when I agreed to a FLR, although I'm willing to help if there's a good reason. He works too, and his job often requires extra time. How amazing to have a man serve me lunch and then run the vacuum cleaner while dressed in a bra and panties. It's a sight to behold and looks a little funnier because he shaves his head and is a big guy. He benefits because he has wife that turns him on. I think my husband is used to the financial control, and I treat him well when it comes to gifts. I'm going to continue to allow him to meet up with his buddies a few times a year for outdoor activities like camping, fishing and so on.
Have a great weekend.
Carol H.
Calling it a "Big Lie" is just that much propaganda. There is zero doubt that numerous State legislature election laws were violated in this last election. There is zero doubt that observers were not allowed to meaningfully observe. There is zero doubt that the voting machines have big security holes. There is zero doubt that certain suspicious activities have not been fully investigated to the satisfaction of the opposing side. Does this add up to enough election fraud to have overturned the election? Who knows. I think at this point we will never know. In fact, on YouTube you are not even allowed to post a video raising any of these questions, a level of censorship that I'm sure few people are comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteYeah, whatever. No interest at all in going down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole with you again, and I hope others will refrain as well unless it is on your blog. Hope you're stocked up on Kleenexes for tomorrow.
DeleteI am in awe of your patience, or is it your ability to respect the rights of others to have an opinion.. and not just delete ridiculousness out of hand.
DeleteIf I wrote a blog (and I do, with Merry as the only follower), comments such as the posting of j would not linger long.
Some time ago,I removed SJS from my reading list. Some good does not outweigh so much bad.
Like this blog, YouTube is under no obligation to post anything, and certainly not lies that incite violence. As a business, I can see why they don’t want to be a part of that. The conspiracy theorists who can’t accept defeat had ample opportunity to make their case, and failing to come up with anything worthy, we move on to governing. Trump and his cult are free to continue spouting lies and all the crazy shit they like but, like all of us, they’ll have to find or create a platform that’s open to the message.
DeleteWithin limits I do try to recognize other opinions, though I'm a stickler for the premise that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts, and to the extent your opinion is based on lies and untruths I'm not going to pretend it's entitled to any weight or that it may not be downright dangerous and, as we just saw, seditious.
DeleteThe danger is when you become so convinced of your views, so firmly entrenched in them, that you start censoring the views of the other and make excuses for doing so. This can be done under the guise of "fake facts", or under the guise "it would lead to violence", or under the guise of serving some nobler purpose (e.g., weapons of mass destruction lie, we don't spy on Americans lie, masks don't work lie from Fauci earlier on).
DeleteSeems to me this rush to censor views one does not agree with under various of these guises is counterproductive.
For example, one of the things I state above that is objectively true that many states violated their own state election laws. It's also unquestionably true that gave an edge to Democrats (similar to the way gerrymandering often helps Republicans, even though that is done through process of law). Is that an "alternative fact"?
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty:
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
Deletejuliesp said:
“There is zero doubt that numerous State legislature election laws were violated in this last election. There is zero doubt that observers were not allowed to meaningfully observe. There is zero doubt that the voting machines have big security holes. There is zero doubt that certain suspicious activities have not been fully investigated to the satisfaction of the opposing side”
--------------------------------------------------
And to this spiel must be added that there is “zero doubt” that Donald Trump lost the election by millions of votes. This indisputable fact at this point is what matters and is the literal bottom line. Disputing Trump’s loss, even with the vacuous arguments put forth doing so, was probably OK in the early days and even weeks after the election. (Although even historical blackguards like Richard Nixon (1960) squirmed at the prospect of the damage doing so would inflict on American democracy –and Nixon actually had some solid grounds to challenge the Kennedy victory.
Dispute his loss,Trump nevertheless did as was his right , but after a decent interval ( certainly by late November) it was time for Trump to accept his defeat , concede the election, and aid the Biden transition during this time of continuing national peril. He did none of this but instead blatantly and without regard for life or safety fomented an insurrection on the Capitol to try to stay in power. Trumps behavior January 6th was treasonous and if a significant number of GOP Senators agree, he will be convicted in his upcoming trial. Today January 20 is a good day for American democracy; Trumps conviction in the Senate will be a great day.
Alan
Yes, it is an "alternative fact" to the extent the point of your observation about state law is that it made any difference in the outcome. The example your side likes the most is Pennsylvania's Supreme Court extending the number of voting days because of Covid. But, as REPUBLICAN senator Toomey stated during the Electoral College confirmation, the votes during the votes you are contesting with that issue were set aside and were not part of the final tally and, hence, did nothing to "steal" a victory there.
DeleteBut all that aside, I am serious about not getting sucked down this fucking rabbit hole again, and I'm going to start deleting comments. If you want to open this discussion on your own blog, people are free to follow you over there.
Well, you made a political post and thus it gets a political response. Are you surprised? Or did you only want your own side commenting and saying "how brave you are!"
DeleteTrump did not incite anything. He called for peaceful protest, as did those supporting BLM over the past 9 months. Fringe elements on both sides brought the violence. If you hold Trump accountable for one, hold the various Democrats who said nary a word responsible for the other. For example BLM/Antifa destroyed Washington DC alone to the tune of $1B-$2B and countless lives lost over the 9 months of rioting.
Trump used what legal and constitutional defenses against what he perceived to be an unfair election, and then when none of it had traction he peacefully moved on. I don't see the crime.
"I'm going to start deleting comments."
DeleteMy comment got deleted and it was on topic and not about politics :( .
Cecilia, no, I didn't delete yours. I just had content moderation turned on.
DeleteJulie. No, it wasn't a political post. It was a DD post inspired by current events. In fact, it actually was inspired by you, namely your insistence that speech is free only to the extent it is free of consequences and, conversely, if it comes along with any consequences (dropped from a platform, de-linked, or simply being ignored) that is censorship. So, speech and its just consequences became the topic.
DeleteI actually don't think Trump's words at the rally incited the mob. It was his rhetoric and actions before and after. I think Liz Cheney, Republican leader from one of the most conservative states in the U.S. who put it best: "The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not." Well said. Further, I think the Democrats are making a mistake by focusing on the insurrection in their impeachment efforts. I think this one is a close case on the incitement issue. What is not at all a close case is his efforts to get Georgia election officials to manufacture a vote count in his favor. That one is crystal clear, caught on tape, and while you'll come up with some cutesy argument to the contrary, my money is on the criminal authorities in Georgia indicting him.
Regarding BLM, I actually do think that various mayor and governors should have drawn a firmer line between protest and and rioting, and the Democrats paid a political price for that in the down ballot races. On the other hand, I absolutely reject your moral equivalence insinuation. The BLM protests occurred because of a series of incidents in which unarmed black men were murdered by white policemen and/or white citizens playing cops. While the rioters attacked government buildings in some cities, there was no effort to actually overthrow the existing government or the rightfully elected government by force, which clearly was what several of those who invaded the Capitol were aiming at, as demonstrated by their own emails and texts which are dribbling out in the indictments. Further, antifa makes a nice whipping boy for you on the right, but you always conveniently forget that antifa didn't exist just a few years ago and arose only as a counter to the increasing boldness of demonstrations by white supremacists and far-right thugs, like in Charlottesville. I think their premise is actually right, as it was built on the historical fact that the Nazis likely could not have come to power in Germany were it night for the common street thugs who supported Hitler in the Munich beer hall putsch. Groups like those in Charlottesville and the Proud Boys boldly announce that they are coming to town to pick fights. I personally have no problem at all if they get one.
Now, I note that you have been very quiet about your abhorrent views on your own blog since the riots. Why don't you run back there and do one of your misleading posts about the source of the riots. You can probably just crib something from Tucker Carlson.
Dan said: On the other hand, I absolutely reject your moral equivalence insinuation.
DeleteIt’s tiring. False equivalence has become the bread and butter of Trump apologists. As everyone is guilty to some extent or at some time saying the wrong thing, causing unintended consequences, not speaking up when they should have, etc.. it’s so easy to say, yeah, but look what you did, yadda, yadda, yadda… Indicting Trump is also easy because he embodies corruption, and he and his cronies exist in a moral vacuum where they reap the rewards of favoritism and no accountability. I’ve run out of energy trying to keep up with every new scandal and its defenders. What a relief if we can take a rest from it for awhile.
Oh, I intend on posting a good one about this weird delusion that the riot was any sort of serious attempt to "take over the government", but was interested in more of the facts coming out before taking a position. You would have thought at least one shot would have been fired by all these heavily armed, super serious, insurrectionists with a plan? No, it was a larping extremist fantasy of doing so combined with some egging on from anarchists. If you think Trump supporters were cheering on violence, you do not know Trump supporters.
DeleteIt's not a "false equivalence". It's a very straightforward equivalence. Peaceful protests, regardless of whether you agree or not, are fine. Political violence, no matter the perceived justification, is not fine. Apply the same standard to election protests as to BLM protests, and expect your leaders to denounce violence in both cases (which many Democrat leaders failed to do or were very slow to do).
It's a "weird delusion" that people intent on overturning an election stormed the Capitol to overturn an election . . . but I'm really glad you're not taking a position yet.
DeleteJulie: THIS? Coming from you? "Or did you only want your own side commenting and saying how brave you are!" With YOUR following? And their fawning and drooling over any little tidbit you toss at them? You have the nerve to say this to Dan of all people?!?!
DeleteI was naive to think you could actually be reasonable. You don't just love Trump, you ARE Trump.
And then the capitol nonsense in your latest? Do you have ears? Eyes? Did you hear those people? Watch them? Larping? Next you're going to say they were just all members of the "Fantasy Insurrection League" meeting in Washington for their fantasy draft picks....and things just got a little out out hand due to over-enthusiasm!
I'm sorry but your credibility was pretty abysmal before, but now? You have none.
Dan: the delusion is not that some fringe extremists planned just that, it's that there was any widespread conspiracy from Trump and his supporters to have such an insurrection. That's crazy talk.
Deletekdp: I note you completely skipping over my main point that peaceful protests are fine, and political violence is not and should be denounced. In that, there is no comparison between nine months of BLM associated violence, looting, burning, assault deaths, and what happened at the capital. Sorry, your math is not adding up. Do you have ears? Eyes?
You seem to be quite selective in your skepticism about widespread conspiracies, given your promotion of the lie that a large number of election officials and workers, many of them Republicans, in several states engaged in a coordinated effort to steal an election that their own party's candidate otherwise would have won. On that, you have no problem with speculative conspiracies.
DeleteFor the record, I don't think that Trump engaged in some kind of conspiracy to storm the Capitol. But, I think his lies (and yours, among others) laid the groundwork for it, failed to do anything to stop it while it was going on, and it took him four tries to come out with any real condemnation of it,
When the *President of the United States* calls a bunch of fanatics to Washington, screams at them to march on the Capitol because their country is being stolen from them, where electoral votes are being certified at that moment by opposition he’s demonized, says he’ll go with them but instead stands at a safe distance doing nothing while watching the violence, finally comes out when it seems to not be getting anywhere and tells them to stop but that he loves them, it’s a special kind of thing. BLM riots were incited by a cop murdering a black guy slowly in plain sight. The assault on our democracy was incited by Trump and his insurrectionists. Fortunately the mob was kept away from their targets, but how it was able to get in is also something to investigate.
DeleteWhile I think the incitement case is a wobbler from a legal perspective, this fact always gives me pause: "says he’ll go with them but instead stands at a safe distance doing nothing while watching the violence." It certainly doesn't take any wild flight of imagination to conclude that Trump didn't go to the Capitol as he bragged he would because he knew violence was likely. Though, the easier explanation that certainly fits his history is that he's a physical coward and a congenital liar, which makes dicey to read intent into his failure to show up at the Capitol when it could be plain old bragging followed by gutlessness.
DeleteActually, the riot started 20 minutes before his speech ended (where he encouraged his followers to protest patriotically and peacefully). No doubt his people told him what was going on so he of course chose to distance himself at that point. He stated afterwards that nobody who did violence was any supporter of his.
DeletePeople are allowed to question an election. Heck, the Dems did it formally in Congress re electors for the 2016 election. During inauguration there were riots all over Washington DC no doubt egged on by these views. Can you equally condemn that? I have no problem with the election questioning, I have a problem with riots.
Re. The 2020 election the only truly dumb views are "I'm 100% sure it was stolen" and "I'm 100% sure it was not stolen".
No, I think it is quite rational and, indeed, evidence-based to say I'm 100% sure it was not stolen. There is some fraud or attempted fraud in every national election. Every single one of them. There are some instances of mechanical and human failure in vote counting in every single national election, period. What you cannot begin to come up with is actual evidence of (a) actual fraud; (b) that was significant in volume, let alone widespread; (c) that actually changed the result; (d) in a single state, let alone in enough states to change the actual result in the Electoral College. I'm also curious, do you consider Republican efforts to tamp down minority voting through shenanigans like putting far more polling stations in white communities than black, urban areas to be "stealing"? Somehow, I'm guessing you don't even though there is far more evidence of Republican efforts to disenfranchise minority voters than there is of actual fraudulent votes by either party.
DeleteOh, I think everyone is very clear that you don't have any problem with election "questioning," aka in the case of Trump, McCarthy, Johnson, etc. election LYING.
No there is no clearcut evidence of fraud, but there are clearcut cases of illegalities that might have been sufficient to hide fraud that swung the election. The unconstitutional changes to election law certainly might have, extending dates, loosening signature verification, and implementing mass mail-in voting when not approved by state legislatures might very well have been sufficient to swing more than one state. Of course, the time for Republicans to have fought against that was leading up to the election, not afterwards. And note I say "might", because I don't hold either of the two truly dumb views.
DeleteI find it telling that you can't bring yourself to condemn the same thing, questioning election results, challenging electors in congress, violence subsequently breaking out, Democrat politicians pushing a proven phony narrative, when it's on the other side. Hmmmmm...
This argument regarding the exclusivity of state legislative authority reflects a wrong-headed understanding of the Constitution, which is understandable, but also a failure to think through the hypocrisy of it, which is less so. The argument, promoted by folks like Hawley and Cruz, is really a two-parter. First, they argue that the Constitution places the role of running state elections in the hands of the legislature, so court ruling on issues related to the running of elections is unconstitutional. Second, they argue (implicitly) that Congress can then step in to address the first point if the states got it wrong. The first point reads words into the Constitution that simply is not there, namely that the state legislatures have the "exclusive" role in determining *all* state election issues and that precludes *all* executive and court input. That is utter nonsense. Until this election, no serious constitutional scholar ever suggested that once a state legislature has set up election procedures, that state courts have no role in addressing concrete legal disputes about those procedures, including whether state legislative action regarding the elections, or executive action carrying out those elections, violates state statutes or the state constitution. This is simply a made-up argument. Second--and this one shows the total hypocrisy at issue here--after just arguing that state legislatures have the *exclusive* power to govern state elections, Hawley and Cruz and their ilk argue flip their position 180 degrees and argue that *Congress* can step in and trump state election processes during the Electoral College certification process, in effect arguing that it is *not* states that govern state elections but, rather, the federal government through Congress. It is that point that now has lots of Federalist Society members coming down strongly against Hawley and Cruz, because not only does that argument have zero support in the text of the Constitution, it is totally inconsistent with the entire federalist structure underlying state elections. It would establish Congressional primacy over state election laws, which is the exact *opposite* of how it is supposed to work. And, again, you once again skipped right over the fact that the Pennsylvania votes that came in during the period you are alleging violated Pennsylvania election law *were not counted* in the final tally. So, once again, the focus on states ignoring their own laws and that Congress could overturn it under the Constitution is a lie, as is the assertion that Pennsylvania going your way on that issue would have changed the outcome.
DeleteI think I did address your issues about phony narratives. The fact that Russian interference may not have affected the outcome doesn't say anything about whether there was, in fact, Russian interference (there was) and whether Trump invited and applauded it (he did). I also (several comments up this chain) said that mayors and governors should have stepped in more firmly to put down violence during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations. As for challenging electors, the point your side always ignores is that when it has been done in the past, the losing candidate had already conceded the election. It was not being down with the intent of actually overturning an election. And, it was always a tiny number of people who did it, not 2/3 of the losing party's caucus. I'm happy to say I think those proforma objections are pretty dumb and serve no purpose, but that's really more a reflection of the idiocy of the Electoral College. In fact, most of your argument just illustrates that everyone would be better off, and we would certainly have less drama and more certainty, if we just jettisoned this constitutional relic of a system that was put in place largely to prop up slavery.
Dan: Get rid of the Electoral College!?!?! You mean go to a system where when some idealistic yabbo says "every vote counts" it would actually be true for once? Heresy! LOL
DeleteYour clear explanation of a federalist view on the Constitution and how it empowers the states is further proof of the need to educate people in how our country ACTUALLY WORKS. What you wrote is indisputable, but ask yourself: how many people even KNOW what you're talking about? Such objective ignorance is dangerous. Differences of opinion are to be expected, even welcome. But differences based on clear objective contradiction to the facts should not be censored, but ridiculed and dismissed by those who actually know what the Constitution says and what it means. The best reaction to a Hawley or Cruz, is not censorship, or worse tribally-motivated partisan support, but to be laughed off the stage by both parties who understand the essential flaws and misrepresentations in their position.
Oh and for the record? I read The Federalist Papers back when I was like a sophomore in high school, on my own, because it was NOT required or assigned. I even entered a debate contest and spoke about the Federalist viewpoint. ( Came in second place, BTW, LOL)
DeleteUm sorry but that should have read "Speech Contest" not debate contest. Coming in second in a debate is not so good. LOL But second place with a bunch of students all giving speeches is a little better. ;-)
DeleteDan wrote: “…the easier explanation that certainly fits his history is that he's a physical coward and a congenital liar, which makes dicey to read intent into his failure to show up at the Capitol when it could be plain old bragging followed by gutlessness.”
DeleteI’m no lawyer. Maybe he’s just so dense, he didn’t realize what he was doing. Maybe he can plead insanity. Much of what he does, I find myself wondering whether it’s incompetence on the one hand, or intentional neglect or criminality on the other. Sure he’s a coward who didn’t march with his whipped up crowd, but if he had made a genuine urgent attempt to immediately call off the violence, and to take some executive action to get help in there to protect the Capitol of the United States, he’d have a better leg to stand on. Like a good mob boss, he knows how to give orders or make suggestions to his goons with enough ambiguity to protect his own ass. His known fanatics were in full view, and many have been arrested. He can act all innocent after it’s over, yet he wanted to have his cake and eat it too by praising his supporters while they still occupied the Capitol. Only much later did he throw them under the bus. He didn’t give documented step-by-step instructions to the mob he assembled so, I expect to his supporters, that will clear him of responsibility.
Or maybe he is an idiot savant-a political genius but defective in just about every other area of cognition. If he somehow turns out not to be an actual idiot savant, he is surely an idiot and we could consider the savant portion of it to be a work in progress
DeleteAlan
Dan, I don't disagree with your take.The time to have challenged the court rulings as being counter to state law in the state courts was much earlier. Republicans were outmaneuvered early on by aggressive Democrat election gaming. Likewise for states certifying voting machines that have security and audit holes you can drive a truck through.
DeleteMy point re the Russian Collusion Hoax, which you stubbornly refuse to condemn, is that Democrats challenged the election result on that basis, they pushed the phony narrative for 3 years, violence resulted at the inauguration, and it was horribly damaging to the country. You lose credibility if you can't condemn your side when it behaves even more badly.
Re Trump being some kind of "idiot"? Delusional. He was a billionaire from his own efforts and against all odds became the 45th President of the USA, defeating ISIS and getting the first meaningful peace treaties between Israel and multiple Arab states in place, among many other accomplishments. Credit where credit is due.
Julie, you can label something a hoax all you want. You constantly misrepresent the actual Mueller report in full context. It was NOT an exoneration of the President by any means. And, I brought up the specific case of Roger Stone, Wikileaks and Gucifer, which you of course ignored.
DeleteA billionaire on his own efforts?? Have you paid any attention at all to the reporting on how much he inherited from his father and the number of times Fred stepped in to bail Donald out. It is the classic case of being born on third base and claiming you hit a home run. If you inherit $300m, one could take that money invest it in an index fund, and it would generate more wealth than most estimates say he has now.
KD: If you haven't seen this, you should check it out. It is so germane to your point about the relationship between education and voter behavior. It's also just LMFAO hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzDhm808oU4
DeleteDan - now you're sounding like a die-hard conspiracy theorist. After one of the most massive investigations in history, with investigators highly motivated to get Trump, with leakers abounding, and after all that, and I quote from page 9 of the Mueller report: "the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
DeleteSubsequent to that we learned that the entire investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier which was a fabrication paid for by the Clinton campaign. We also learned that the FISA warrants had 18 significant problems, one of which the person has been convicted for and found guilty.
Fake news was covering this breathlessly for 3 years as if it was true. Schiff,, Nadler, Schumer, Pelosi all effectively perjured themselves in the process.
Not your Dems' finest hour. :-).
Julie, the report spends well over 150 pages documenting Russia's efforts to interfere in the elections and the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia and efforts to get dirt on Hillary Clinton via Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0. That language you quote "evidence to sufficient to charge" is very important and not remotely the same as "no evidence." As I'm sure you know, the report expressly ties its "no charge" decisions to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidentiary standard and also to the "scienter" standard under the relevant statutes that required showing not just that a law arguably was broken but that each potential defendant *knew* about the law and that they were breaking it. Schiff, Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi were never witnesses, let alone sworn witnesses, so they did not "perjure" themselves. You really should learn some law before tossing around these legal terms. It's also pretty telling and amusing that you bitch non-stop that 80-some court cases were dismissed without, according to you, looking at the evidence, yet you insist that an impeachment process in which no witnesses testified and Russia facts that were never put to the test in court somehow shut the book on Trump's dealings with Russia. BTW, yes or no, did Trump lie during the campaign about whether he was pursuing business deals in Russia? I'm sure you either won't answer or will obfuscate. We can add it to the existing list of points made by you that are you ignore, which so far includes:
Delete-- Whether efforts to make it more difficult for eligible voters to cast their votes is form of "stealing the election"
-- Whether the claims of "massive voter fraud" by Trump, Giuliani, McCarthy and others out of court were a lie.
-- Whether the claims that Congress could overturn state election certifications were a lie?
-- Whether Trump was caught on tape trying to get voting officials in Georgia to manufacture votes on his behalf?
-- Whether Trump is a self-made man as you claimed or, rather, a spoiled rich kid?
Can you believe that anyone would credit Donald as a self-made billionaire? On what planet? That alone destroys all credibility.
DeleteThe Russia “hoax” was a legit investigation that more than justified itself by uncovering foreign interference in the election, sent criminals to prison, was a clear view into campaign shenanigans, and documented obstruction of justice. Mueller is a conservative who bent over backwards to give Trump every break. It didn’t prevent a peaceful transition of power, and those pursuing the investigation were focused on limited issues of national security. And since when is an investigation of the POTUS considered damaging to the country? That’s rich. No comparison to the Trump attempted coup, which was only more evidence that investigating him was warranted because he’s a threat to democracy. If there was sufficient evidence to justify more investigation into widespread voter fraud, then the institutions of government would be doing it. On the contrary, it was determined to be secure.
I don't have to discipline husband for lying. He doesn't lie to escape discipline. If I ask him if he's disobeyed one of My Rules, he'll tell me even though he knows he's going to get a spanking. I don't usually give him a break on discipline for being honest. He's supposed to be honest.
ReplyDeleteHe's never been afraid to stand up for anything he's said or done if he's asked about it.
When he first was my boyfriend, he told me he won't always volunteer information, but, if I ask, he'll always tell the truth. I can accept that.
A poem from Emmanuel.
ReplyDeleteThank you
When you told lie after lie after lie
When you bartered facts freely and cheaply
or disposed of them when they got in your way
you taught me to seek out the truth
whatever it is, wherever it hides
and value it deeply.
When you scorned the desperate ones
fleeing murder or hunger or both
who travelled, often with babies and kids
far from what used to be home
to knock in vain at locked gates
patrolled by ICEfaced gunhipped guards
you taught me to pray for a heart as wide as the ocean
you taught me to love and to welcome
all of my brothers and sisters here in the world.
When you tapped out your tweets
replete with insult and heat
you taught me to let go of anger
and give it to God.
You taught me to celebrate laughter
and share it with God.
You showed me that whatever we feel
spreads out through the world
to demolish or nourish
and that feelings
however intense they may be
are not who I am, are not me.
Grateful am I to begin to be free.
These are lessons you taught me.
I consider them worthy and true.
I trust there’ll be others.
Thank you, my brother.
Peace be with you.
As usual with your comments, much wisdom in that. I've thought myself that the one possible benefit of the insurrection is it may have finally brought a lot of evil out into the open, where it can be addressed.
DeleteI'm not a believer in a deity but that was simply wonderful. Thought-provoking and poignant. You do have a way..... ;-)
DeleteThis was not my writing. But I deemed it worthy of sharing here.
DeleteMajority rule is indeed an alternative to the Electoral College, but it was rejected by the Framers of the Constitution. Ben Franklin, I believe, said that majority rule is two wolves having a sit down with a sheep to decide what's for lunch. The real Nazis are not those who invaded the Capitol (surely a foolish, pointless and idiotic act) but the Cancel Culture savages who try to destroy the lives of people who exercise their free speech rights and say things the Cancel Culture doesn't like. Just like the Nazis and their book burnings -- although note that the book burning destroys only the book, not the person who wrote the book (that came later if the Nazis really didn't like you).
ReplyDeleteThe Cancel Culture aspect of the comment does relate to the blog topic, which was intended to be about consequence-free speech. It's a pretty interesting development that is now conservatives who are the most strident in arguing (a) that speech is free only if it does not have any consequences; and (b) that there is something wrong with private consumers voting with their $$ or exercising control over their own business platforms by blocking people they don't like. Remember all those signs on the doors of Southern businesses a few decades ago saying: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." My, how the world changes.
Delete,,,“Majority rule is indeed an alternative to the Electoral College, but it was rejected by the Framers of the Constitution” But it was not rejected in response to some kind of anti-majoritarian sentiment, as you later imply but in order to broker a consensus between the large populous states and smaller less populous ones. It is true that some of the framers harbored doubts about democracy. But in the late 18th century, these were more philosophical than applied since only a small slice of mostly prosperous men could vote. Electoral democracy with a wide franchise didn’t exist, so the compromise of an “electoral college” was really a way of reaching agreement during the Constitutional convention rather than an assault on democracy.
DeleteAlan
I can't imagine either of us lying to the other. Whatever DD we manage to sustain is built on the same unflinching honesty we bring to every other part of our marriage and parenting. I would expect a lie to be its own punishable offense in addition to what the lie was about. I don't expect us to have to test that, though.
ReplyDeleteCoy lying does sound like a fun basis for interrogation role-playing, as discussed several weeks ago!