Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

Nate Cohn says Beto underperformed Obama and Clinton amongst Hispanic voters, but he wildly outperformed Obama among college educated whites, and this accounts for virtually all of his remarkable performance in Texas—however this is not all that different from the results for generic democrats around the country in 2018.

The NYT estimates it would have taken 1.6 million more voters for Beto to make up the deficit and win, or ten million total voters—a number which is not outlandish for Texas to achieve in 2020 if it were contested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/upshot/beto-2020-texas-battleground-white-voters.html

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Rourke feels like the candidate  that has the highest ceiling, which is odd given that he also has an absurdly low floor. He generates press easily, dominates social media, is traditionally attractive and pure as the driven snow, in that he has not staked out many positions and therefore can be for almost anything people want him to be. I suspect low-info voters will be really happy with him. 

But I also think he waited waaaay too long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Can you elaborate on this?

He's candidate #16 in the race. He doesn't have the consistent name recognition of Biden or Sanders, nor does he have the national support built in for them. Coming in late is fine if you're already going to be a frontrunner, but otherwise you want to get as much early momentum as you can to get your foot in the proverbial door - and a lot of the people's opinions are already staked out on other candidates that they've spent their thoughts on.

And once you've said 'yes, this person is the person I like' it's really hard for people to switch. This is one of the reasons incumbents have an advantage as well. So Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, Booker - all have gotten a lot of people to say yes to them and make them their first choice, and those people are going to be much harder to sell on switching to O'Rourke.

Especially since O'Rourke is running on a lot of charisma and ideology but not a lot of actual goals. As someone on twitter said, O'Rourke had to make a choice between buying a motorcycle and running. If he had banked on his charisma and momentum post-2018 and gotten the ball rolling early, I think he could have staked out a lot of people. But now? Nope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

We'll never get a second vote in the Senate anyway.  It passed the House first, so if it's vetoed, it goes back there.  

You don't know that.  Of course it will be voted down in the House, but that doesn't mean the Senate Dems might demand and secure a symbolic vote in their chamber.  I don't think it's likely, but it's entirely possible.

4 hours ago, Fez said:

Alexander Blunt Collins Lee Moran Murkowski Paul Portman Romney Rubio Toomey Wicker

Those are the 12 Republicans so far that voted in favor of the resolution. Tillis flipped, and Gardner also voted no. Tillis is probably the second most vulnerable senator up for re-election in 2020 after Gardner

Yeah Tillis shoulda known better to just not touch this with a ten foot poll.  Vote present if you have to, or find a reason to be somewhere else.

4 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oh yeah, I think when it comes back around after Trump's veto you may have a few change their vote to not supporting an override of the But I think the more bipartisan the vote is, the more likely Roberts, at least, is to take that under consideration when the court cases inevitably make their way to the Supreme Court. 

Agreed, good point.

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

and the super delegates have been turned into a time bomb, not defused, and that bomb is going to explode all over the convention because no one will have a majority on the first ballot and the Bernie bros are going to riot like it’s 1972 (or was it 68?)

No.  I will not have it this cycle.  Shut the fuck up about super delegates.  They've never mattered and they have been changed to not matter even though they never mattered in the first place.  I will not accept ludicrous super delegate talk in this thread, meaning I will attack as insanely stupid every single time it's mentioned.  Consider this a shot across the bow.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

My suspicion is that the court will easily pass that the XO is constitutional. The argument is really, really simple, and is hard to refute:

- the NEA already provides what a POTUS can do as far as allocating money, and that's already been put into law. If congress wants something else, pass something else

- once that money is allocated, the NEA treats that money as already allocated to it; in other words, any money in certain areas that congress allocates can, by rule, be allocated to emergency actions, and this is a feature of all that money. If you don't like it, don't allocate it in the first place. 

- while it's clear that building a multi-year wall project to deal with a supposed 'emergent' situation is bullshit, it is well within the powers of the POTUS to do so, and there's no legal basis to deny it. 

The big problem here is that it is a massive norm violation, like Merrick Garland, and like Merrick Garland there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

More about this horribleness at Lawfare, which reached similar conclusions.

The bolded is not "really, really simple," and is very very hard to refute.  This type of casualness to clear constitutional distinctions is a really stupid and self-defeating counter-argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

The bolded is not "really, really simple," and is very very hard to refute.  This type of casualness to clear constitutional distinctions is a really stupid and self-defeating counter-argument.

It's shorthand, but it essentially gets at the point. Trump isn't taking any new money. He's using money that was allocated for one thing and then, by his authority and the NEA's laws, reallocating the money. 

But the money has already been approved by congress, and the NEA makes it pretty clear that that money can be apportioned to other things in the same department as long as it's covered in the NEA and Trump declares it openly - which he has. 

Reading the list of things that one can do is...kinda chilling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump isn't taking any new money

No, he's not..

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He's using money that was allocated for one thing and then, by his authority and the NEA's laws, reallocating the money. 

Yes, he is.  That money was already allocated.  The fact it's not "new money" is immaterial.  Because if presidents start reallocating money, that truly is the substantive end of separation of powers.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

the NEA makes it pretty clear that that money can be apportioned to other things in the same department as long as it's covered in the NEA and Trump declares it openly - which he has.

The NEA was designed to rein in the president, not advance his apparent unlimited powers.  Stop presenting it as opposite of its intent.  It was fundamentally undermined by SCOTUS, but that does not give the president carte blanche based on the NEA, and only the most craven of executive branch enthusiasts would suggest so.

Edited by DMC
rein not reign. it bothered me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Yes, he is.  That money was already allocated.  The fact it's not "new money" is immaterial.  Because if presidents start reallocating money, that truly is the substantive end of separation of powers. 

Per the NEA powers, I don't see how that can be reasonably argued. Not only is this an authority actually given, it's one that's been used at least twice: "Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces (1982)"

I don't see how that is particularly disputable on its face. Furthermore, this is literally what it was used for in 1990 and 2001 - specifically, any money that is allocated for military construction for whatever can be used to do so here. Again, prior statute shows that this is exactly how that money is spent. 

Just now, DMC said:

The NEA was designed to reign in the president, not advance his apparent unlimited powers.  Stop presenting it as opposite of its intent.  It was fundamentally undermined by SCOTUS, but that does not give the president carte blanche based on the NEA, and only the most craven of executive branch enthusiasts would suggest so.

Whether it was intended to do something 40 years ago isn't as important as whether or not it has been doing what, well, it has been doing. And in this case, Trump is specifically declaring a power that is enumerated in the law - the use of the military to do construction that are supposedly necessary to support the use of the armed forces. 

And if you're suggesting that he can't direct the military to do something unless congress approves of the funding directly, well, that's a specific thing that the NEA isn't talking about. If you want MORE money to do something, congress has to approve it directly - but money that has already been approved for military construction can be moved around in precisely these cases, and for this reason. That money has to be accounted for (per the NEA), but it isn't a requirement that it gets approved additionally. 

And yes, I absolutely believe that it breaks the intent of the law, as made by the various comments at the time of its passing and the general common use of the language. It is a crazy, huge, absurd violation of the norms of the office. I do not, however, think that that is enough to stay Roberts' hand in this, as he's made very clear that he's down with not interpreting intent of either the law or the uses of the law and is happy to stay in his lane, especially when it comes to rebuking executive power. 

But let's talk through that. Roberts also hates stopping parts of laws, especially established ones. He is a firm believer that if congress wants something, they can pass a law for it. If he decided against this specific EO, what basis would he have? I mean, the criteria put forward is a situation 'beyond the ordinary' and the code is just as vague:

"Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States."

Do you really think Roberts would stop this based on the notion that the president can't determine if federal assistance is needed to help state and local efforts or to save lives and protect safety? There are really no barriers there. Should there be? Apparently so, given where we are now. Same with the 'advise and consent' rules of Garland. But given how there's basically nothing in law about what constitutes an emergency other than POTUS saying so, I don't see how Roberts goes against this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here are the 12 GOP Senators that voted against Trump's emergency:

  • Sen. Roger Wicker (Mississippi)
  • Sen. Marco Rubio (Florida)
  • Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio)
  • Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
  • Sen. Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
  • Sen. Roy Blunt (Missouri)
  • Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
  • Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah)
  • Sen. Rand Paul (Kentucky)
  • Sen. Jerry Moran (Kansas)
  • Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)

Wicker sticks out.  Seems weird to me.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see how that is particularly disputable on its face.

I don't see how you're not getting that all of this depends on the legitimacy of the emergency declaration in the first place.  Like, seriously man, we've been talking about it for two months.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Whether it was intended to do something 40 years ago isn't as important as whether or not it has been doing what, well, it has been doing. And in this case, Trump is specifically declaring a power that is enumerated in the law - the use of the military to do construction that are supposedly necessary to support the use of the armed forces. 

Except Trump's declaration is exactly not what "it has been doing" in any other case.  There's absolutely no precedent.  This is a really easy legal argument to make and you're acting like it's complicated and unknown.  It's not complicated, but it is unknown.  Except that unknown aspect is simply how Roberts will decide on it, not the blatant disregard Trump had when declaring such an emergency - both constitutionally and statutorily.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do you really think Roberts would stop this based on the notion that the president can't determine if federal assistance is needed to help state and local efforts or to save lives and protect safety?

No, I really think he might stop based on the illegitimacy of the declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't see how you're not getting that all of this depends on the legitimacy of the emergency declaration in the first place.  Like, seriously man, we've been talking about it for two months. 

I get that, but doing research into it more I don't see how the legitimacy can be particularly questioned legally, and certainly not in a way that lets Roberts decide otherwise. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Except Trump's declaration is exactly not what "it has been doing" in any other case.  There's absolutely no precedent.  This is a really easy legal argument to make and you're acting like it's complicated and unknown.  It's not complicated, but it is unknown.  Except that unknown aspect is simply how Roberts will decide on it, not the blatant disregard Trump had when declaring such an emergency - both constitutionally and statutorily. 

The use of construction funds for this specifically is entirely what it's been doing and is spelled out. There are two cases that this has happened before - 1990 and 2001 - and both used money in exactly that way. 

And really, the only other thing in there is that the situation either jeopardizes lives (and it doesn't even have to be US lives) or that it is a situation that is beyond ordinary. Both of these happen to be accurate. One can argue whether or not a wall is the right way to deal with it (OMG NO IT IS NOT) but that kind of decision is not remotely reasonable by a justice. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

No, I really think he might stop based on the illegitimacy of the declaration.

Then I ask - how is the declaration itself illegitimate? 

He has the power to identify a national emergency at his discretion. This is specifically called out in the constitution and the NEA. He needs to state his reasoning and why he believes it to be a national emergency, and identify the situation that calls for it. 

The only thing I can see in there is that he specifically states in his declaration (stupidly, I think) that this has been going on for a while now, which makes it less out of the ordinary. In response, Trump could probably state that we're seeing a massively larger number of families that are coming to the border than we have before, and that's the thing that is changing. 

I suspect that Roberts will make it clear that this is a narrowly scoped thing that doesn't allow the POTUS broad overreach of his powers because he is only utilizing the funds that are allocated for a specific purpose, and he is only using a power that was specifically enumerated. He is not, as an example, defunding medicare or building a fleet of aircraft carriers, and therefore there is no indication that this is something that is going to be used in the future for greater shenanigans or is setting a precedent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalbear said:

I get that, but doing research into it more I don't see how the legitimacy can be particularly questioned legally, and certainly not in a way that lets Roberts decide otherwise. 

Uh, questioning - and potentially overruling - the legitimacy of actions or law is kinda the definition of judicial review.

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The use of construction funds for this specifically is entirely what it's been doing and is spelled out. There are two cases that this has happened before - 1990 and 2001 - and both used money in exactly that way. 

Yeah those examples are entirely irrelevant to the point.  You are overthinking this case.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Then I ask - how is the declaration itself illegitimate?

If you need to ask that question that's your own problem, I'm not entertaining such stupidity.  I've served my time in political philosophy seminars.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect that Roberts will make it clear that this is a narrowly scoped thing that doesn't allow the POTUS broad overreach of his powers because he is only utilizing the funds that are allocated for a specific purpose, and he is only using a power that was specifically enumerated.

I suspected you would suspect that.  Because you're overly pessimistic beyond reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Uh, questioning - and potentially overruling - the legitimacy of actions or law is kinda the definition of judicial review.

Usually when two things come into conflict though. And that's the real tough thing here. The illegitimacy has so far been based on whether or not POTUS has the right to declare emergencies without bearing on what makes it an emergency (which I think we can agree from the above comment that this meets that definition, even if it shouldn't) and whether or not POTUS has a right to do this to circumvent policy decisions he doesn't like. The former seems like a nonstarter, the latter seems like it gets to that whole intent vs. action thing, and the justices like to consider this kind of thing in more of a vacuum. 

Just now, DMC said:

I suspected you would suspect that.  Because you're overly pessimistic beyond reason.

It's mostly because it's similar to the thinking behind the Muslim ban, and Roberts stupidly decided that that was fine, too, once it got cleaned up a smidge. 

Hell, didn't Roberts essentially side on the DACA side for the same reason? I don't think Roberts is specifically siding with conservatives in this - I think he's siding on the side of broad, strong executive power that should not be curtailed typically, and the only thing that is more important is the rights of citizens. 

That might be a better angle for its defeat - the eminent domain fight being bad for people - but I think that's a separate lawsuit than the one the states are bringing. 

In any case, I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic to note that there's nothing absurd about the actual order or the moving of funds in this way, and that betting on 5 conservative justices with a history of protecting executive power to go against it is not 'beyond reason'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Usually when two things come into conflict though. And that's the real tough thing here.

No, it's not tough.  You're making it tough for, I don't know, a reason to argue or something.  I appreciate that generally, but not in this case.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's mostly because it's similar to the thinking behind the Muslim ban

It is definitely not the same kind of thinking behind the Muslim ban.  At all.

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In any case, I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic to note that there's nothing absurd about the actual order or the moving of funds in this way

Well, you're absurd to say there's nothing absurd about the way the "actual order" - which btw hasn't even attempted to be carried out in any way and will probably remain that way because Trump knows the courts will strike it down and is just hoping his base forgets about it - moves funds in such a unilateral way.  It's a bright line violation of separation of powers.  I know for a fact almost anybody that studies separation of powers will tell you that.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

that betting on 5 conservative justices with a history of protecting executive power to go against it is not 'beyond reason'. 

I didn't say that.  It's entirely reasonable to think Roberts may go the other way.  I just don't need to hear the bullshit justification he'd give if he did so.  Especially when it's presented as "reasonable," because it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703622867/state-department-says-all-u-s-diplomats-have-left-venezuela

And good news I don’t think was brought up in the previous thread:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/12/702873258/gov-gavin-newsom-suspends-death-penalty-in-california

It’s mind boggling that in 2019 the US is still executing people. 

Glad to see Newsom do this.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I am totally blown away by this 420-0 vote in the House to make the Mueller report public.  Utterly baffling.  Why would so many GOPers do this?  I would think that this would be perceived as an anti-Trump vote even if it's quite broadly popular with the public.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×