U.S. Politics: Dirt From Ukrainians, Bombs for Iranians, Shut Down Your Brainiums...

[Kalbear]

I'd like to add that there is nothing that summarizes the US left's problems better than when an impeachment inquiry is announced and actual extortion of funds is used to force an attack on a political rival, the conversation is partially about that and partially about whether or not people in the military are responsible for the deaths they cause. And of the two, the latter is the one that is getting the most talk. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

If there is him deciding to not step down itll be decided by congress and courts, just like 2000.

Well, the electors are chosen by state, so in this fantasy of him refusing to step down after a decisive loss and being backed up institutionally, it'd be the governors and each state's secretary of state he'd be relying upon.  The secretary of state to refuse to certify a clear loss and/or the governor to refuse to prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment that details which electors will be representing the state.  Casting a wide net, there's about 11 states that could be tipping points.  In MI, MN, MC, NV, PA, VA, and WI none of this matters since both the SoS and governor are Dems.  In Arizona, Ducey (R) is governor but he's got a Dem SoS.  Considering he wants a political future I can't see him refusing to sign the CoA if the SoS certified a Dem victory.  Ohio has both a GOP governor and SoS, but DeWine doesn't owe Trump shit - plus I have a hard time seeing Trump losing Ohio anyway.  So, that means the only states where this really has any possibility is down to Iowa and, of course, Florida.

If you're talking about recounts and such, good luck taking that to court if both the governor and SoS have certified the results.  Now, if we're talking about legitimately contested results like Florida in 2000, then yeah, Trump has the advantage in court.  Congress can object in their joint session counting the EV, but a state's certificate of vote can only be rejected if both chambers of Congress accept the objection.  So, keeping the House is important there too.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, the electors are chosen by state, so in this fantasy of him refusing to step down after a decisive loss and being backed up institutionally, it'd be the governors and each state's secretary of state he'd be relying upon.  The secretary of state to refuse to certify a clear loss and/or the governor to refuse to prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment that details which electors will be representing the state.  Casting a wide net, there's about 11 states that could be tipping points.  In MI, MN, MC, NV, PA, VA, and WI none of this matters since both the SoS and governor are Dems.  In Arizona, Ducey (R) is governor but he's got a Dem SoS.  Considering he wants a political future I can't see him refusing to sign the CoA if the SoS certified a Dem victory.  Ohio has both a GOP governor and SoS, but DeWine doesn't owe Trump shit - plus I have a hard time seeing Trump losing Ohio anyway.  So, that means the only states where this really has any possibility is down to Iowa and, of course, Florida.

If you're talking about recounts and such, good luck taking that to court if both the governor and SoS have certified the results.  Now, if we're talking about legitimately contested results like Florida in 2000, then yeah, Trump has the advantage in court.  Congress can object in their joint session counting the EV, but a state's certificate of vote can only be rejected if both chambers of Congress accept the objection.  So, keeping the House is important there too.

Wasn't thinking about electors, though I suppose that's a possibility. No, what I was thinking is something more like House of Cards. The election is done, Trump loses, but there are irregularities. Or maybe he simply CLAIMS that there are irregularities. He refuses to accept the results, and says that he won't step down until a full investigation has taken place. Until that time, he's declaring a state of emergency and martial law (or something along those lines). 

This is, of course, contested, and in a narrow ruling SCOTUS decides (after several months of talking, by which point we're in like April 2021) that POTUS does indeed have the right to declare a state of emergency, especially if it looks like the US elections were tampered with in any way. 

Alternately, he simply forces one state that was 'tampered' with to not certify (like you mention). Florida would be a good one for obvious reasons. Maryland might be another good one - it doesn't have to be a close election in that state, after all, simply one that shows that things were tampered with.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It worked for Nixon and Ford, and would work for Trump and Pence too.  Between his enormous wealth, his enduring popularity and the thinness of the case against him, he would probably survive any NY criminal law actions. 

Pence is as culpable in pressuring Ukraine to open fraudulent investigations into Biden and his son as all the rest of them. If Trump goes down, there's no way Pence manages to escape unscathed. 

[Jace, Extat]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'd like to add that there is nothing that summarizes the US left's problems better than when an impeachment inquiry is announced and actual extortion of funds is used to force an attack on a political rival, the conversation is partially about that and partially about whether or not people in the military are responsible for the deaths they cause. And of the two, the latter is the one that is getting the most talk. 

When you're right, you're right. And you, sir, are right.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

If I may be allowed to jokingly put on my tinfoil hat, a funny idea crossed my mind. If Republicans in the Senate clear Trump for asking a foreign power for dirt on his opponents, couldn't Democrats just turn around and say, "Okay, new precedent, we can get your help world. If you want to solve the climate crisis, attack the one major political party that's doing everything it can to prevent that from happening. Get the goods on all of them."

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

If I may be allowed to jokingly put on my tinfoil hat, a funny idea crossed my mind. If Republicans in the Senate clear Trump for asking a foreign power for dirt on his opponents, couldn't Democrats just turn around and say, "Okay, new precedent, we can get your help world. If you want to solve the climate crisis, attack the one major political party that's doing everything it can to prevent that from happening. Get the goods on all of them."

I'd have done that two years ago, it's a good idea.

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'd have done that two years ago, it's a good idea.

I would hope someone, somewhere, has been doing this for years. Aren't there at least some millennial hackers out there who want to destroy the oligarchy or something?

[Kalbear]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

I would hope someone, somewhere, has been doing this for years. Aren't there at least some millennial hackers out there who want to destroy the oligarchy or something?

There are, but they're also allergic to drone-fired hellfire missiles.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Florida would be a good one for obvious reasons.

I will say that if Florida is the tipping point state I do think it's plausible he remains in office despite a decisive loss there.  But I don't see your SoE/Martial Law scenario as realistic.  Is he gonna force states not to conduct their respective EC meetings?  Order Congress not to hold their joint session counting the EC votes?  Ignore Congress affirming his EC loss?  SCOTUS is not gonna uphold any of that.

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'd like to add that there is nothing that summarizes the US left's problems better than when an impeachment inquiry is announced and actual extortion of funds is used to force an attack on a political rival, the conversation is partially about that and partially about whether or not people in the military are responsible for the deaths they cause.

Well said.

Just now, Kalbear said:

There are, but they're also allergic to drone-fired hellfire missiles.

No, they're busy arguing about armed service members' culpability in the deaths the military causes!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I would hope someone, somewhere, has been doing this for years. Aren't there at least some millennial hackers out there who want to destroy the oligarchy or something?

Hey, productive way to show the military can do good things: cyber security! Learning about our electoral grid and its vulnerabilities this year was a rather terrifying affair. The right hacker could kill millions if they were able to shut off the Eastern or Western grids in the dead of winter and keep them off for weeks. You could also do the reverse to the Texas grid in the heart of summer and cook people to death with no A.C.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I would hope someone, somewhere, has been doing this for years. Aren't there at least some millennial hackers out there who want to destroy the oligarchy or something?

Right? I'm deeply disappointed that I never thought of that (I considered the benefits of allying with China after VEEP but that was all spite and no strategy) and even more disappointed that this is the first I've heard such a thought. Shame on you all! What do I enslave you people for?

Tywin, you have bought yourself additional years of service with this stroke of brilliance. I kiss your hand.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Right? I'm deeply disappointed that I never thought of that (I considered the benefits of allying with China after VEEP but that was all spite and no strategy) and even more disappointed that this is the first I've heard such a thought. Shame on you all! What do I enslave you people for?

Tywin, you have bought yourself additional years of service with this stroke of brilliance. I kiss your hand.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'd like to add that there is nothing that summarizes the US left's problems better than when an impeachment inquiry is announced and actual extortion of funds is used to force an attack on a political rival, the conversation is partially about that and partially about whether or not people in the military are responsible for the deaths they cause. And of the two, the latter is the one that is getting the most talk. 

Going to disagree 100% on this - I believe we're capable of talking about different things at the same time, we've been discussing impeachment for a year now and I don't think it's that weird for people to parse out Buttigieg's statement when it happens.  We're not then press and don't have some duty to provide the most pertinent content at the right time.  

And until there's more info re:Ukraine I don't see the problem in arguing some mundane academic point about a statement a Presidential candidate made.  Is there some hot take we're missing out on because Trumetis and Jace want to argue this concept in a pretty organic fashion as it rose from the discussion?

 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I will say that if Florida is the tipping point state I do think it's plausible he remains in office despite a decisive loss there.  But I don't see your SoE/Martial Law scenario as realistic.  Is he gonna force states not to conduct their respective EC meetings?  Order Congress not to hold their joint session counting the EC votes?  Ignore Congress affirming his EC loss?  SCOTUS is not gonna uphold any of that. 

No, he's going to point out (possibly correctly) that elections were tampered with, he has proof, and point out to the states to not hold their EC meeting until they've gotten to the bottom of it. And he'll sue to make sure that happens (or more likely, simply have his pet DoJ do it for him). SCOTUS won't say that he can cancel elections, but they will say that this isn't a constitutional matter and executive power broadly does cover this. And why shouldn't it? The alternative is that we ratify an election that was tampered with by outside forces, and I don't think anyone wants that as a possibility either. 

One thing to consider in this is that I still very firmly believe that Russia is going to go after the election again, and do so with far more force. The easiest way to do so is to attack the registration information, which is on the internet and is not particularly secure. Simply forcing a whole lot of people to not be registered at the time of the election would cause massive chaos. This could even be a problem in mail ballot states like Washington, where on the night or prior night of elections ballots all get flagged as 'not a registered voter' and are all discarded or set aside. (I am a ballot observer there, and this is one of the few vulnerabilities the system has). Other states have it far worse, since you only have to have an attack succeed on the day of the actual election. 

 

[Zorral]

They -- the WH and the rethugs -- are so rattled by this they sent the talking points memo in defense by mistake to -- Nancy Pelosi.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-mistakenly-sends-trump-ukraine-talking-points-to-democrats/2019/09/25/5170aa52-dfb2-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

MSNBC cut off coverage mid-'sentence' because he was lying so very much, particularly about the Bidens.  (He was actually howling about the Bidens, when through most of it his voice was pretty damned subdued.)  Then they did a fact check on all the preceding lies.

He's utterly deranged.  Take him out of there for his own good, if not for the good of the rest of us and the world.

You know if this wasn't such a pathetic disaster for our nation, this could be funny -- he went after Biden to keep the WH, but he went after the wrong candidate.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, he's going to point out (possibly correctly) that elections were tampered with, he has proof, and point out to the states to not hold their EC meeting until they've gotten to the bottom of it. And he'll sue to make sure that happens (or more likely, simply have his pet DoJ do it for him). SCOTUS won't say that he can cancel elections, but they will say that this isn't a constitutional matter and executive power broadly does cover this. And why shouldn't it? The alternative is that we ratify an election that was tampered with by outside forces, and I don't think anyone wants that as a possibility either. 

If the state is ready to certify the election and hold its EC meeting formalizing his loss (which is the hypothetical I'm assuming here), this would require SCOTUS to issue an injunction on the EC meeting.  Again, I don't see this as realistic.  If the governor or SoS of the state is in agreement with Trump's "tampering" charge, then yes this could happen, but that ultimately just goes back to the counting I did originally.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

One thing to consider in this is that I still very firmly believe that Russia is going to go after the election again, and do so with far more force.

Oh sure, I'm certainly very worried about what you outline in this whole graph, I just view it as distinct from Trump refusing to leave after a decisive EC loss. 

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

We settled this. Scot, DMC, Karradin, and I. We all agreed that responsibility for a body's actions are shared by the entirety of the persons compositing it. That conversation was settled. And then you felt the need to impress upon everyone that 'NO, EVERYBODY WHO JOINS THE MILITARY WANTS TO BE A KILLER. I JOINED TO BE A KILLER AND I'LL MAKE SURE EVERYONE I TRAIN WANTS TO BE A KILLER' (paraphrasing) which is just wrong. Your position has not been Karradin's reasoned 'joining the military, one should understand their complicity in killing' (paraphrased), but rather that joining the military in any way is volunteering to kill people. 

 

3 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

My position has been exactly the same as Karradin's, regardless of the horseshit incredibly offensive phantom you created to spar with.

After sitting on the sideline since we agreed our dispute had been grounded in misunderstanding I really think this entire thing is revealing a subtle distinction in understanding of "volunteered" in the US vs those outside of it. To me, and it seems to TM, volunteering does not say anything about why, its an action not a motivation. It means exactly the same thing as how I phrased it yesterday - an acceptance that the job may involve x and if that happens then I will perform x.

From the reactions of a number of you Americans that is not what volunteering means, and the concept seems to include not just willingness but a desire to do it.

To use a more neutral example - volunteer fire fighters are volunteering to fight fires but I'd never expect that they actually desire to fight fires and risk their lives. They might desire to save people and feel heroic or they may simply feel a duty to contribute but I would never assume they do it from a desire to fight fires.

Kalbear - Are you really surprised that people will continue a heated argument that's already in progress? Given most of one side aren't even American I really don't think this is saying much about the American left. But to say something on that topic

I think it's good news the Dems are acting and Pelosi's hand was finally forced. Whether impeachment or subsequent conviction is successful I think the symbolic act of trying to defend the rule of law is as important as the potential political/voter intention impact. 

[Zorral]

O come on now.  We all know this whistle blower fracas is a very carefully executed long game strategy of Pelosi's to get rid of both the so called potus and the so-called vp to the so-called potus to become potus herself.  She just waited and waited and waited until poor innocent witch hunted president mistreated like no other president ever just walked into her trap.

And her emails, the Bidens and Giuliani and so on also hurt him.  And the fake news media.

OK. to be serious now -- has there ever been a better lesson about what happens when one believes fake news and only fake news like he has for decades?  That whole bizarre Ukraine and Bidens thing -- was something the fake news people read

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/europe/political-stability-in-the-balance-as-ukraine-ousts-top-prosecutor.html

and turned inside out and blasted all over the internet and faux noose -- and that is what mentally deranged in chief heard and what he now believes.  He was howling, literally, all that, about the Bidens, when everything else he ranted was in a quite subdued voice.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

O come on now.  We all know this whistle blower fracas is a very carefully executed long game strategy of Pelosi's to get rid of both the so called potus and the so-called vp to the so-called potus to become potus herself.  She just waited and waited and waited until poor innocent witch hunted president mistreated like no other president ever just walked into her trap.

Heh ya know, hadn't thought about that.  Now that I do, I'm actually surprised Trump and co. in their insanity haven't brought up Pelosi's line in the succession over the past two days.  Way to give em ideas.