Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Look, I typically find your posts to be aggressive, belittling, and of little use to me. So, let's just not, yeah?

Yeah, the arguments really aren't about you any more. Sometimes when you see someone doing something aggressive and stupid, you need to stand up and say something because it's important to show others what you support, and show others that you've got their back. I realize there is almost nothing I could say to convince you, because there is no convincing the zealous. You will continue to rationalize your viewpoints and dismiss any other and are entirely incapable of changing your mind. My stating this, in fact, will only convince you to double down and make yourself think you are even more right. The only way to change your views at this point is via emotional reaction, likely someone close to you who convinces you what you're doing is wrong. 

I'm not bothering to try and convince you. If I was, I'd send you a PM or something. No, I'm showing how wrong you are to the general populace, and hoping that you continue to dig yourself even more holes in fallacious arguments and irrational zealotry to show that the sort of person that does this really shouldn't be tolerated. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, the arguments really aren't about you any more. Sometimes when you see someone doing something aggressive and stupid, you need to stand up and say something because it's important to show others what you support, and show others that you've got their back. I realize there is almost nothing I could say to convince you, because there is no convincing the zealous. You will continue to rationalize your viewpoints and dismiss any other and are entirely incapable of changing your mind. My stating this, in fact, will only convince you to double down and make yourself think you are even more right. The only way to change your views at this point is via emotional reaction, likely someone close to you who convinces you what you're doing is wrong. 

I'm not bothering to try and convince you. If I was, I'd send you a PM or something. No, I'm showing how wrong you are to the general populace, and hoping that you continue to dig yourself even more holes in fallacious arguments and irrational zealotry to show that the sort of person that does this really shouldn't be tolerated. 

As you say. Thank you for not PMing me. 

Edit: If I might add (again), I never said the DNC suppressed votes. I said the DNC won't let Sanders be nominated if he won the primary, and I emphasized that is speculation as Sanders will never win the primary.

When this was turned into a conspiracy theory, I wrote about how "dems" suppress votes (dems are different than the DNC). I know conversations move quickly, but if you think you are making these grand counter-arguments to prove someone is "stupid," then at least try to be truthful to the point. If you want to jump in, you should at least try to honestly attack your moronic inferiors. 

 

 

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


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

Yeah I tried to mention this at the beginning of all that shit, but here's a link to clarify.  Normatively, I disagree with you on caucuses should be abolished.  I think they're a great feature of democracy in action, at best.  But they should be held on the weekends - or more ideally a voting holiday - in order to negate the disproportionate turnout tendencies.  That's how you remedy that, which is both an easy fix and unfortunately very unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Neither weekends or holidays fix the problem for those who work on both, and that's increasingly becoming the population. It especially doesn't fix it for those with kids, where now instead of having school able to take care of them have to find sitters and the like. These are nontrivial problems for a whole lot of people who would otherwise be interested in voting. 

I'm good with caucuses for local and state elections for the most part, at least for the primaries for those elections. But federal elections need to be as broad and nonrestrictive as possible, and there really isn't a way to make 'head to go hang out and vote for a few hours' nonrestrictive. 

Share this post


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

Neither weekends or holidays fix the problem for those who work on both, and that's increasingly becoming the population. It especially doesn't fix it for those with kids, where now instead of having school able to take care of them have to find sitters and the like. These are nontrivial problems for a whole lot of people who would otherwise be interested in voting. 

I'm good with caucuses for local and state elections for the most part, at least for the primaries for those elections. But federal elections need to be as broad and nonrestrictive as possible, and there really isn't a way to make 'head to go hang out and vote for a few hours' nonrestrictive. 

I think the closest we will ever get on a large scale is a combination of the two.  Have an open primary and give people the option to caucus if they want.

Share this post


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

I think the closest we will ever get on a large scale is a combination of the two.  Have an open primary and give people the option to caucus if they want.

I'm a huge advocate of Washington's vote by mail system, which is convenient, easy, incredibly secure and cheap, and gives a whole lot of ability to participate. 

I don't think having an option to caucus really works, as it's far less useful if it's not actually the main decider. At that point it's just a bunch of people standing in a middle school gym for the fun of it, and it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning. 

Maybe tech can solve this. Some kind of virtual caucus? That will hurt poor people and low-tech areas, but it might be interesting. 

Share this post


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

Neither weekends or holidays fix the problem for those who work on both, and that's increasingly becoming the population.

Well, the entire concept of the voting holiday is that everybody has it off, that was what I was referring to.  I mean, I guess yes, service industry workers are always gonna have to work on holidays.  So, to deal with that, have a mail-in option as well. (Looks like Guy Kilmore ninja'd me here.)  This is of course all fantasy.  Again, not gonna happen anytime soon.  I just don't think caucuses should be taken away in an ideal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aceluby said:

You'd think in 2020, 4 years after Clinton v Bernie, and countless discussions on that election, that we would stop rehashing it and focus on the current election and maybe how we can come together to beat Trump.

But nope.  Hard core Clinton supporters are talking about not voting if Sanders (unlikely) gets the nomination, and (some) Bernie supporters still badmouthing someone not even in the election.

At least one benefit is that 4 more years won't come with as much initial shock, just far worse overall outcomes that will still be felt when my 1 year old becomes an adult.

Well let's admit the left has always been pretty good at forming a circular firing squad, often over petty differences. 

The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most anti-Sanders establishment force seems to be the major media outlets, but mostly through subtle stuff like misleading headlines.  I think any unfairness in the primaries is more likely to come from other power structures than the Dem party itself; corporate donors and super PACs buying up misleading ads, or the media spinning shit, just typical post Citizen's United, protect the one percent, save the status quo capitalism in action.  Does the DNC probabaly like this?  Of course they do.  Do they have their thumb on the scale of the actual primaries?  Probabaly not in a significant way, they don't need to, there are other ways to hammer the left and especially Sanders without resorting to overt 'rigging'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, would like to thank Mrs. Clinton for her comments. In this crucial pre-primary period, there is no more effective way to solidify the support of the left wing of the party behind Sanders than what she just did, or to improve the turnout of existing supporters. I hope Sanders campaign will send her a thank-you note when they win Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that unhelpful as they are, even to her own goal of stopping a Sanders nom, I suspect the comments were a result of HRC being triggered by the Sanders-Warren spat, and responding to the Bernie Bros with their snake emojis and NeverWarren nonsense.

I can sympathize, though I wish she'd kept her (justified) anger private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

For a politician, her political instincts suck.

Anyway, how about that impeachment trial, eh? So far it seems like no breaking from the party line, although Collins is doing her usual thing.

All we can hope for is that there will be a big enough revelation from the impeachment trial that Republican Senators (who aren’t entirely in bed will Trump) will have a large enough presence to bring the final vote to 2/3s.

Any word on whether the Senate will allow witnesses to be called?  That would make a difference in my mind, hearing from direct witnesses so Republicans can’t scream “hearsay” about the information presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Edit: If I might add (again), I never said the DNC suppressed votes. I said the DNC won't let Sanders be nominated if he won the primary, and I emphasized that is speculation as Sanders will never win the primary.

But what does this mean? What is the mechanism they would use to stop him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

All we can hope for is that there will be a big enough revelation from the impeachment trial that Republican Senators (who aren’t entirely in bed will Trump) will have a large enough presence to bring the final vote to 2/3s.

Any word on whether the Senate will allow witnesses to be called?  That would make a difference in my mind, hearing from direct witnesses so Republicans can’t scream “hearsay” about the information presented.

Collins has suggested it is "likely" she will supports a motion on witnesses. Like I said, she is one of the gutless wonders of the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Any word on whether the Senate will allow witnesses to be called?  That would make a difference in my mind, hearing from direct witnesses so Republicans can’t scream “hearsay” about the information presented.

My read of the witness/document situation: Mitch has promised an up-or-down-vote to Collins and Romney to get them to toe the line on the Senate resolution but there is no indication that the moderates actually have the fourth vote beyond Murkowski. Lamar Alexander is often mentioned as the fourth vote but I have not seen any primary evidence (i.e. statements or quotes or tv interviews) from him to this effect.  So I think the most likely outcome is that any subsequent attempt to call witnesses will fail with three Republican defections. Collins gets to say she voted for witnesses when she runs for re-election in Maine and she's hoping that people will care more about her positions on healthcare and the thin veneer of bipartisanship she presents.  

But maybe I am wrong.  It's encouraging that Portman was reportedly amongst the "15" (!) Republican senators encouraging McConnell to extend the hearing time to 3 days.  And the requirement for depositions prior to testimony is an indication that Mitch is not confident he has the votes (or is planning fallback positions). There have also been public reports that the WH is preparing for Plan B in case Bolton comes to testify. 

So in the event the Senate actually issues subpoenas here's how I think it will play out: I think the prospect of subpoenas to WH, State, OMB, DOD is remote.  Documents may be more important than witnesses but production will also cause delay, and the WH will assert executive privilege in blanket fashion to avoid producing anything. 

On witnesses, the most important is Mulvaney because he executed Trump's hold on the aid and knows his real reason.  But Mulvaney will likely defy a direct subpoena from the Senate.  So too will Blair and Duffey. 

The only witness who has publicly stated he will testify in the Senate is Bolton.  If the Senate subpoenas Bolton it will be first for a deposition (as required under the Senate resolution) and will face the assertions of executive privilege by the WH's lawyers. 

The Democrats will likely make a motion to authorize the CJ to rule on specific assertions of privilege during the deposition (which will effectively be a closed session of the Senate).  These will include any direct conversations with the President, natch. 

If that motion fails, the WH will go to Court to seek an injunction against Bolton's testimony.  While the courts will likely reject such a request for an injunction, the effect of the delay will prevent Bolton's testimony). 

Best case scenario: Bolton testifies and has something explosive to share, the CJ rejects claims of executive privilege, and the federal courts don't interfere. 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

My read of the witness/document situation: Mitch has promised an up-or-down-vote to Collins and Romney to get them to toe the line on the Senate resolution but there is no indication that the moderates actually have the fourth vote beyond Murkowski. Lamar Alexander is often mentioned as the fourth vote but I have not seen any primary evidence (i.e. statements or quotes or tv interviews) from him to this effect.  So I think the most likely outcome is that any subsequent attempt to call witnesses will fail with three Republican defections. Collins gets to say she voted for witnesses when she runs for re-election in Maine and she's hoping that people will care more about her positions on healthcare and the thin veneer of bipartisanship she presents.  

But maybe I am wrong.  It's encouraging that Portman was reportedly amongst the "15" (!) Republican senators encouraging McConnell to extend the hearing time to 3 days.  And the requirement for depositions prior to testimony is an indication that Mitch is not confident he has the votes (or is planning fallback positions). There have also been public reports that the WH is preparing for Plan B in case Bolton comes to testify. 

So in the event the Senate actually issues subpoenas here's how I think it will play out: I think the prospect of subpoenas to WH, State, OMB, DOD is remote.  Documents may be more important than witnesses but production will also cause delay, and the WH will assert executive privilege in blanket fashion to avoid producing anything. 

On witnesses, the most important is Mulvaney because he executed Trump's hold on the aid and knows his real reason.  But Mulvaney will likely defy a direct subpoena from the Senate.  So too will Blair and Duffey. 

The only witness who has publicly stated he will testify in the Senate is Bolton.  If the Senate subpoenas Bolton it will be first for a deposition (as required under the Senate resolution) and will face the assertions of executive privilege by the WH's lawyers. 

The Democrats will likely make a motion to authorize the CJ to rule on specific assertions of privilege during the deposition (which will effectively be a closed session of the Senate).  These will include any direct conversations with the President, natch. 

If that motion fails, the WH will go to Court to seek an injunction against Bolton's testimony.  While the courts will likely reject such a request for an injunction, the effect of the delay will prevent Bolton's testimony). 

Best case scenario: Bolton testifies and has something explosive to share, the CJ rejects claims of executive privilege, and the federal courts don't interfere. 

In my opinion, if Executive Privilege applies in cases of impeachment and trial for removal from office impeachment is an empty threat.  The Congress will be prevented from actually investigating actions of the Executive by claims of Executive Privilege if it applies in this context.  That means it is next to impossible to remove a President from office.  That cannot be the intended result of the inclusion of the possibility of a President being removed from office.  

Honestly, we are damaged by the fact that it has never happened since the Constitution was ratified.  It creates the impression that it is never supposed to happen.  

[An aside]

Something occurred to me back in November.  As the Constitution was originally enacted the Vice-President was supposed to be the person with the second highest vote total in the Electoral College.  That was changed after the tumultuous election of 1800 by the 12th amendment ratified in 1804 which allowed a separate election for the Vice-Presidency. 

Before that change we had a built in "Shadow Government" in a manner similar to the Parliamentary systems of Europe where the opposition party was ready to jump into the Executive's role.  Could impeachment have been intended to operate like a vote of No Confidence with a replacement government ready to step into place?  Given the original structure it seems likely to me.  The concretion of formalized broad umbrella political parties rather than the varying "interest groups" anticipated by the Federalist Papers seems to have rapidly undone the possibility of that sort of a structure.   People vote based upon party membership rather than based upon individual assessment of the allegations against the current executive.  

Just a thought.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

[An aside]

Something occurred to me back in November.  As the Constitution was originally enacted the Vice-President was supposed to be the person with the second highest vote total in the Electoral College.  That was changed after the tumultuous election of 1800 by the 12th amendment ratified in 1804 which allowed a separate election for the Vice-Presidency. 

Before that change we had a built in "Shadow Government" in a manner similar to the Parliamentary systems of Europe where the opposition party was ready to jump into the Executive's role.  Could impeachment have been intended to operate like a vote of No Confidence with a replacement government ready to step into place?  Given the original structure it seems likely to me.  The concretion of formalized broad umbrella political parties rather than the varying "interest groups" anticipated by the Federalist Papers seems to have rapidly undone the possibility of that sort of a structure.   People vote based upon party membership rather than based upon individual assessment of the allegations against the current executive.  

Just a thought.

This is really interesting.  Thanks for sharing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

[An aside]

Something occurred to me back in November.  As the Constitution was originally enacted the Vice-President was supposed to be the person with the second highest vote total in the Electoral College.  That was changed after the tumultuous election of 1800 by the 12th amendment ratified in 1804 which allowed a separate election for the Vice-Presidency. 

Before that change we had a built in "Shadow Government" in a manner similar to the Parliamentary systems of Europe where the opposition party was ready to jump into the Executive's role.  Could impeachment have been intended to operate like a vote of No Confidence with a replacement government ready to step into place?  Given the original structure it seems likely to me.  The concretion of formalized broad umbrella political parties rather than the varying "interest groups" anticipated by the Federalist Papers seems to have rapidly undone the possibility of that sort of a structure.   People vote based upon party membership rather than based upon individual assessment of the allegations against the current executive.  

Just a thought.

An interesting thought.  I think this of a piece with the Founders dramatically underestimating the endurance of political parties. 

Interesting point on the radio this morning: this is the first presidential impeachment where the President's party is in control of the Senate,  forcing the Senators to choose between political loyalties and fidelity to the Constitution. 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

This is a feature, not a bug, for the Roberts Court though. 

 

 

 

 

How Citizens United Led Directly to Trump’s Impeachment

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/citizens-united-john-roberts-trump-impeachment.html

Is it just me or has Lev Parnas followed the same career model as Donald Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darzin said:

But what does this mean? What is the mechanism they would use to stop him?

By having more voters vote against him. The oldest method of election rigging. 

(sarcasm alert) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×