[ExI] Trump, in an Escalation, Calls for Republicans to ‘Nationalize’ Elections

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 1:52 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, we all saw the pictures of the family on the beach and the filled-in skateboard park. I'm certain your media bubble has gaslit you into believing that those incidents didn't happen, but the rest of us are not so fortunate.

"Don't gather in this specific spot", and measures to discourage
gathering, is not "banning fresh air and sunshine".  To accuse it of
being the latter is bad faith.

> it's a choice between which authoritarian party is less likely to put its boot on my neck, personally, in the near to intermediate future, to the cheers of millions, and sleep well that night confident that they represent the moral arc of the universe.

And history shows that, given what is currently happening, that is the
Republicans.

> The Democrat party, and its partisans, /scare/ me, in a way that the Republicans, by and large, do not.

Because you are ignorant of history.  Those who governed the way
Republicans are governing now consistently wound up oppressing more
and more people, specifically including those who originally backed
them out of a belief that the new governors would never oppress them
only to be surprised when government enforcers showed up for them*,
until eventually they were stopped and removed from power.

* This is colloquially named the "Face-Eating Leopard Party".  "Sure,
they promised to eat peoples' faces, but it's not like they'll ever
eat MY face."
1) Until they do.
2) When the law constrains them from eating faces, they start ignoring
the laws.  People swear they aren't, but hard evidence (these days
including videos) keeps popping up that they are.

> Convincing me that the Democrats were largely factually correct will not convince me that they were not also totalitarian moralistic authoritarians who believe that being factually correct makes them morally entitled to rule with an iron fist when they feel it necessary - and to effect massive social changes in the name of a literally religious vision of social progress without even the slightest pretense of consensus-building or winning hearts and minds.

Well, you know, when literally faced with the choice between locking
down, or letting people who insist on being wrong go on to seriously
cripple themselves and everyone around them, what would you do?

There is no consensus-building with those who swear they are right and
anyone who disagrees is working for whatever enemy they are screaming
about today.  (China, Russia, LGBTQ+, "woke"...)  Such people can be
ignored so long as they are not literally crippling people - but

> It's the morality they are attaching to scientific correctness and social progress that is the terrifying part.

That there is such a thing as objective truth, even if you swear there
isn't?  How then would you suggest they deal with those who refuse to
acknowledge evidence, debate logically, and generally make stuff up to
support oppression and death?

> Quit arguing COVID - I genuinely don't care.

And yet, it's the main argument you've been citing against the Democrats.

> Argue instead that the next time the Democratic elite get panicked about something they won't start building the camps [oh, I'm sorry, "quarantine centers"] that they kept threatening to during COVID, and that Australia actually did.

Like mass detention centers, where those interred are denied even
humanitarian basics, and many of those within have not actually broken
any laws (even if the administration swears they did, on little to no
evidence)?

If that's what you're worried about, whatever you fear the Democrats
might do in that regard, take an honest look at what the Republicans
are doing and defending today on that front.

It's happening already, right now.  Let's put an end to it, then we
can try to put measures in place to stop anyone - Democrat,
Republican, or otherwise - from doing it again for any reason.

> This is survival calculus, not a public health policy disagreement.

How long do you think it will be before those with a clue about AI,
who aren't already on the US government payroll, start getting labeled
as a public menace because they might get AIs to do things the US
government hasn't pre-approved?  That would brand everyone on this
list an enemy of the US.

Think it won't happen?  History says it will, if the Republicans are
allowed to stay in power long enough.  All it would take is a growing
perception that non-government AI is becoming a threat to those in
power.

> "Good faith" argumentation of facts is a norm that only works when the faction has not already threatened and carried out political violence against me and mine for the crime of nonviolent dissent.

Such as recently happened in Minneapolis?

And no, good faith can be required even in times like this.  Arguably
especially in times like this, since it's part of the way to fix
things.