Jump to content

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Quite the contrary, any gag order imposed for security issues will likely be validated by the courts, since this is the basis for restrictions on the 1st Amendment already. The legal precedents are well-established and in this instance there might even be a way to make executive privilege part of it, if you say that executive privilege also means the *current* president is free to place limits on the former presidents' freedom of speech for security reasons.

Obviously if he's divulging classified information that's one thing.  But other than that I gotta strongly agree with @Tywin et al. here.  I'm no legal scholar, but looking at the obvious relevant case law on prior restraint (e.g. Schenck v. US 1919; Near v. Minnesota 1931; NYT v. US 1971; Haig v. Agee 1981), seems pretty damn clear he wouldn't be violating any established standard if he's just tweet-shitting like he does now.  And I highly doubt the courts would uphold any type of gag order attempt.  Maybe under this SC if Trump was a Democrat, but even then I could only see Kavanaugh and Alito voting to uphold for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously if he's divulging classified information that's one thing. 

I'm assuming that's what we're talking about on some level or the other. Either that or other kinds of threats to national security (like inciting violent action) that can also be dealt with under the current laws. The usual tweet-shitting I wouldn't be too concerned about. Once Trump is out of office his relevance will gradually fade. Worse case scenario he'll have the same media power as Ann Coulter or other right-wing nutjobs. And that's all assuming he remains i) as energetic as he is today (he's 72 after all, and the presidency isn't an easy job) and ii) out of jail/ serious legal trouble.
An interesting question would be whether a judge can restrict his use of social media if he's convicted (or merely indicted even) of something like obstruction of justice through said social media. Or of anything else for that matter.
One could even speculate that all this is a moot point because once he's out of office twitter will quickly have numerous reasons to suspend his account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm assuming that's what we're talking about on some level or the other. Either that or other kinds of threats to national security (like inciting violent action) that can also be dealt with under the current laws.

Well then yeah, those clearly are violating established standards of prior restraint.

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

An interesting question would be whether a judge can restrict his use of social media if he's convicted (or merely indicted even) of something like obstruction of justice through said social media. Or of anything else for that matter.

Pretty sure a judge could for any other citizen if they're under indictment (hell, Roger Stone's judge is considering a gag order), so don't see why one couldn't with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Been reading a lot of Virginia Dems are worried Northam will hurt them in the upcoming state legislature elections - which happen this November.  The GOP Senate has a 21-19 majority (and wasn't up in 2017) while the GOP House has a 51-48 majority (and was up in 2017).  This just smacks of typical Democratic hand-wringing.  You're worried about the GOP attacking the Dems due to Northam refusing to resign?  Then fucking impeach him.  Would the Republicans block it?  Probably, just like the Dems did with Mark Sanford (which is probably the closest recent comparison I can think of in terms of a party wanting its own governor gone and him refusing to leave), but it would certainly mitigate GOP attacks on Dem legislators.

Also, the same same website that propagated the Northam photo is now bringing up old sexual assault allegations of Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax:

 

What would they impeach him for? Has he lied or obstructed in some impeachable way?

There has to be a political statute of limitations on dumb, non-criminal behaviour. Otherwise the racist reactionaries in the right will win. The left can dig up dirt on dodgy sexist, racist etc behaviour by the right. But most of the right doesn't care, and in some quarters it improves the street cred. If the left finds evidence of cross-dressing, homosexual behavior etc, they can't use it, because that's weaponising something that progressives want to normalise. But the right has no qualms about using that stuff, since to a lot of them that stuff is evil and despicable. 

The more the left / progressives allow the right's expose's of left / progressive political figures to ruin careers, the worse it's going to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What would they impeach him for? Has he lied or obstructed in some impeachable way?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.  The Virginia constitution states impeachment can happen for "malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor."  Not hard to build a case for at least one of those.

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There has to be a political statute of limitations on dumb, non-criminal behaviour. Otherwise the racist reactionaries in the right will win.

The already incredibly high standards for conviction of an impeachment render this pretty damn moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't really see people discussing this last thread so thought I'd bring it back up here given it's magnitude. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/joe-biden-on-busing-so-wrong-that-he-was-alas-way-ahead-of-his-time

Could very easily be used to depress the AA turnout in 2020 should he decide to run and win the nomination.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Didn't really see people discussing this last thread so thought I'd bring it back up here given it's magnitude. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/joe-biden-on-busing-so-wrong-that-he-was-alas-way-ahead-of-his-time

Could very easily be used to depress the AA turnout in 2020. 

 

Again, have you even read the article?  Even if Biden runs and wins the primary this probably wouldn't depress black turnout.  Why would you think it would?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm assuming that's what we're talking about on some level or the other. Either that or other kinds of threats to national security (like inciting violent action) that can also be dealt with under the current laws. The usual tweet-shitting I wouldn't be too concerned about. Once Trump is out of office his relevance will gradually fade. Worse case scenario he'll have the same media power as Ann Coulter or other right-wing nutjobs. And that's all assuming he remains i) as energetic as he is today (he's 72 after all, and the presidency isn't an easy job) and ii) out of jail/ serious legal trouble.

Not really. There are certainly some obvious examples of things that Trump could say that would get him silenced, but that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I am more worried about him stoking anger (not necessarily violence) and being as divisive as possible to get his base in an uproar. 

I think you're wrong to assume he'll fade from relevance once he's out of office, assuming he's not in jail. Trump is a modern P.T. Barnum, and he knows how to draw attention. It's quite possible that he'll start a new media company once he's out of office, and if he can be successful at that, the amount of damage he could do is unpredictable. It could be that I'm fretting over nothing, but Trump is a vindictive attention w---e, and he has as big a reach as anyone who has ever lived. That will fade with time, but he could use said platform once he's out of office to do an immense amount of damage, and he wouldn't be phased one bit by the devastation he could leave in his wake. That's certainly a volatile situation imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Didn't really see people discussing this last thread so thought I'd bring it back up here given it's magnitude. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/joe-biden-on-busing-so-wrong-that-he-was-alas-way-ahead-of-his-time

Could very easily be used to depress the AA turnout in 2020 should he decide to run and win the nomination.

 

One might begin to consider whether poster is a troll of some sort?

There is so much to go after Biden for, of which I'm so aware, starting with his protection of and shilling for credit card companies and Big Chemical, which makes him totally unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.  Not to mention this stuff, of course.  There is so much. But it's the racially divisive that the poster focuses on, not the money side of things . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I am more worried about him stoking anger (not necessarily violence) and being as divisive as possible to get his base in an uproar.

So same as today, but without the powers and influence of the presidency...

Nah, sorry, can't get worried about that. By the time Trump's out of office, either his base will be pandered to by another slimeball Republican politician (they'll be lining up to take the role) or said base will have become less relevant and/or less vindictive.
By himself, Trump is a nuisance, but not smart enough to be much more than that. If anything he could be a useful idiot if the resentment and anger he's fueling aren't used by someone smarter. He could even be a problem for Republicans, which would be hilarious.
Really, I don't think Trump would be a major problem outside of office. Trumpism otoh... The worst-case scenario imho is Trump finding a smarter, younger, more charismatic piece of shit dude to name his spiritual/political heir. Picture an American version of Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz basically. And then that guy running for president. Now that, that would be terrifying. After 8 years of Trump (yeah, I'm assuming the buffoon is reelected) a smarter version of Trumpism might destroy America as we know it for good.

Edit: on a completely different note, I think the latest SMBC (online comics) is funny. So there, check it out:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Again, have you even read the article?  Even if Biden runs and wins the primary this probably wouldn't depress black turnout.  Why would you think it would?

You asked the same thing when I cited articles showing Trump's poll numbers weren't particularly hurt among non-hispanic whites and Pelosi's poll numbers plummeted in the aftermath of the shutdown.  The question I asked was if the information in the article would dissuade Pelosi to go through another shutdown. Still don't see what you read in the articles that makes me asking if Peloshi would be more reluctant to go through a shut-down so unreasonable.  Here, Biden is expressing pretty negative views on a policy meant to help in the process of desegregate. It's not really hard to see why someone might think this story could depress the voting rate for African-Americans in 2020 should he run and be nominated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You asked the same thing when I cited articles showing Trump's poll numbers weren't particularly hurt among latinos and Pelosi's poll numbers plummeted in the aftermath of the shutdown.  The question I asked was if the information in the article would dissuade Pelosi to go through another shutdown. Still don't see what you read in the articles that makes me asking if Peloshi would be more reluctant to go through a shut-down so unreasonable.  Here, Biden is expressing pretty negative views on a policy meant to help in the process of desegregate. It's not really hard to see why someone might think this story could depress the voting rate for African-Americans in 2020 should he run and be nominated. 

On the Pelosi thing: why does the Speaker of the House need to worry about polling numbers?  She's been the Right's punching bag and is still effective.  And despite whatever those ninbers say, Pelosi indisputably was the winner in the shutdown.  Regardless of the numbers, she got the government to reopen without giving Trump a wall.  Why would she just cave next time? 

I assume you're either trolling or lack basic reading comprehension with regard to Biden.  Just because one person argues Biden's policy might be harmful, doesn't mean it will be.  In fact the article mentions a bunch of other things that could have sunk Biden, but didn't.  Your argument is literally "someone said his position 40+ years ago might have been problematic 20 years ago, but currently isn't that problematic, so I think that this will hurt black turnout in 2020."  

Maybe the resurgence in Monarch Butterfly populations is due to the number of times Trump mentions the Wall per month.  Because they cross the border  when they migrate.  

I am concerned this will affect millennial voter turnout in 2020.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

 

The already incredibly high standards for conviction of an impeachment render this pretty damn moot.

What I meant by that was, in particular with the progressive / left eating their own, that you don't call for people on your own side to resign over social indiscretions committed decades in the past. Especially not when it's content that has always been in the public domain.

naturally it is the nature of opposition politics to reflexively call for the resignation of as may opponents as possible over. But there has to be some kind of plan of when you will rebuff opposition political attacks and when you will throw the accused under the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But there has to be some kind of plan of when you will rebuff opposition political attacks and when you will throw the accused under the bus.

I don't think there's ever going to be a plan or set standard.  It's dealt with on an ad-hoc basis, as it should be since there's many factors involved in each individual case.  In this case, it's very hard to argue throwing Northam under the bus isn't the clear politically expedient option, no matter one's personal feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Meanwhile, in the entertainment division of US politics, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson is back in the mix!  

CNN described him as "embattled doctor," lol, dude is now Trump's chief medical adviser. 

 

 

Which is one reason why I suspect Trump has a massive fatal coronary before his term is up.  Been thinking this ever since I saw a profile pic of him shortly after a doctors visit and scoped out the heart attack risk charts on the wall.  Trump pretty much ticks off all the boxes.  I mean, this should be obvious to any health professional or anybody else whose looked into the whole fitness thing.

 

Of course, the Base will insist it's really an assassination, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

On the Pelosi thing: why does the Speaker of the House need to worry about polling numbers?  She's been the Right's punching bag and is still effective.  And despite whatever those ninbers say, Pelosi indisputably was the winner in the shutdown.  Regardless of the numbers, she got the government to reopen without giving Trump a wall.  Why would she just cave next time?

Because she might want to continue to be Speaker or branch out into another political office in the future and she is less likely to be seen as appropriate if her popularity slides down enough?  Because the whole shutdown doesn't appear to have  dealt significant long-term damage to Trump? Because Trump may be willingly to offer temporary protections to dreamers again. I see these as adequate reasons for Peloshhi to be more willingly to compromise Honestly, I dont see anyone as having have won. Trump's wall only only ever appealed to his most die hard supporters who will never stop supporting him wall or no wall. however despite polls  Pelosi has shown however regardless of the actual polls she's not giving Trump a cent for his wall. 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I assume you're either trolling or lack basic reading comprehension with regard to Biden.  Just because one person argues Biden's policy might be harmful, doesn't mean it will be.  In fact the article mentions a bunch of other things that could have sunk Biden, but didn't.  Your argument is literally "someone said his position 40+ years ago might have been problematic 20 years ago, but currently isn't that problematic, so I think that this will hurt black turnout in 2020."  

 I assume you're an intelligent fellow who knows accusing your opponent of probably being a troll or simply stupid isn't productive. Let's try to be civil here.  My argument is "this story of Biden expressing negative views of a policy meant to help in integration(something a lot of African see as good thing) could hurt his popularity among African-Americans."  Do you agree with the views Biden stated on bussing? Honestly, I'd be surprised if Biden himself still holds such views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...