US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[Ice Queen]

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, a lot of them are cowards, but we only have five guns. The math is not on our side.

That's an easy fix, though. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, a lot of them are cowards, but we only have five guns. The math is not on our side.

I've seen how they open carry--they have no discipline. Acquiring their weapons won't be difficult.

[kuenjato]

Wow, there are some serious defeatist broke-brains round here.

If--if--Trump wins in 2020, I'm not sure he'll live or be functional by 2024, given the pretty clear evidence of sundowning episodes more and more frequently occurring.

The top brass of the military hates him for his treatment of Mattis, Kelly et. all. Throwing his weight behind a disgraced SEAL assassin did him no favors, either.

Trump's base is literally dying off, to the tune of a million+ a year. The GOP is in desperation mode, thus we seeing the stacking of courts to attain some semblance of power in the coming generation.

When--when-- the economy finally tanks, thanks in large part to the steroids they've been pumping into it to keep optics high, someone is going to have to eat that shit sandwich--some sadistic/masochistic part of me wants the Rethugs to eat that shit sandwich, rather than have some crony Democrat save da day again-- and frankly that crah could happen fairly soon, even this fall. Hints of the 2007-2008 tumble were perceptible by early 2006 even by those on the ground level (I know, I was working construction back then). With the debt where it is coupled with declining tax revenues, entitlements will increasingly become unsustainable off interest payments alone. The Fed's tools to soften the crash are pretty much exhausted by this point, too.

Climate change, escalating automation, a youth generation soured on boomer vampirism and neoliberal status quo, the widening extremities on both left and right, bots and a self-interested media continually feeding off outrage, etc. etc. 

I get it. I joked on my social media feed that I wasn't bummed when Cyberpunk 2077 was delayed, because I only need to click on a browser to gaze long and despairing at our current (and much predicted) dystopia. But Trump is a symptom of a much greater malaise, and it seems like a lot around here are interpreting the noise for approval of his policies and personality, and are worryworting about the minutia of the idiot-in-chief rather than the enormous structural strains creaking through this late-stage empire. I'm getting serious flashbacks to this place circa 2004, after the Bush re-election. But this place is a lot more of a discordant echo chamber than it was in the early aughts, for various reasons.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

'm sure this comes off as bitter, dismissive, and snobbery (basically what I'm sure many here think of me in general). 

No it doesn't.  It comes across as a measured, thoughtful response to my inquiry as to why -- when I have mine own doots here -- she's getting attention in a way that means someone like me who isn't integrated  into these professional / academic performances. doesn't understand.  Thank you.

(Yah, you do often come across as arrogant, but I've been much informed so do I, so we're even, ya?  )

~~~~~~~~~

However as to civil war if he isn't re-elected or it is determined he won by cheating, etc. -- HE'S the one who has been kiting both more than two terms and civil war if he doesn't get a second term or refused a third.  THEY listen to this SHYTE.

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

(Yah, you do often come across as arrogant, but I've been much informed so do I, so we're even, ya?  )

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

 He's instituted a shitload of sympathetic members in the judiciary?  K, true, but they're never gonna be the ones that force him out in this hypothetical anyway.

So who is? I'm genuinely curious. In the odd take where the POTUS contests the legality of the election or the results or anything like that, who is actually responsible for him leaving? Especially in a state where his party backs him virtually unanimously? 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Anyone care to share what their primary voting situation is as a thread poll of sorts?  

In California it was way late when we voted last time, and I voted for Clinton because there was no chance Bernie could win at that point, and I just thought it needed to get on to going against Trump.

This year California is on 3/3 where it will be enormously important compared to the past and is inside of a month away, and I honestly do not know who I'm going to vote for.  I can say that there is no chance that I will vote for Biden and I hope that he drops out as soon as possible for everyone's sake.  I can't rule out a vote for Warren, Sanders, Pete, or Bloomberg at this point, and the who can beat Trump question looms very large for me.  Going to be an interesting month inside my higher primate brain.  

Last time Washington was in May, it was a caucus, and it was well past any actual value. My wife and daughter went Sanders, I went Clinton. Our caucus wasn't insane like Iowa; you go to a place, you find your area, you can then simply put in your vote and then leave if you want. 

This year Washington has gone to primary instead, and the primary is in March. It still might not matter - it's after Super Tuesday - but it's certainly more meaningful than it was before, and we're actually getting people and workers in the state campaigning. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Anyone care to share what their primary voting situation is as a thread poll of sorts? 

Like you, it will depend on who's viable by the time I have to send in my "absentee" ballot (I've maintained my Florida registration even since moving to Pennsylvania because I thought that'd be a more important vote in terms of presidential contests which is what I care about most.  Now looks like I'm wrong in that regard, been meaning to actually register in PA for November, just haven't gotten around to it yet - I'm pretty lazy).  In terms of ranked preferences mine would be:

1. Warren
2. Buttigieg
3. Biden
4. Sanders
5. Bloomberg

So, we'll see.  Florida's somewhat late in the cycle (and PA even later) - it's very possible someone will have the nomination wrapped up by then anyway.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So who is? I'm genuinely curious. In the odd take where the POTUS contests the legality of the election or the results or anything like that, who is actually responsible for him leaving? Especially in a state where his party backs him virtually unanimously? 

Well, we're talking about two things here.  In terms of November, if the election is close enough in some tipping point state where he can find a legitimate reason to take it to court, sure, maybe the Roberts court will find a way justify giving him the election a la 2000.  But as SCOTUS is currently composed, Roberts clearly is going to need some type of legitimate reason to justify that - his behavior has made it apparent that he's not just gonna rubber stamp Trump's bullshit.

In terms of him "canceling" elections or trying to use some type of pretext (e.g. "national emergency") either to stay in office after clearly losing or run for a 3rd term in 2024?  First, just as above, SCOTUS as currently composed ain't gonna let him do that.  But, you're right, they have no mechanism to stop him from ignoring their orders and are wholly reliant upon the other two branches - and public legitimacy - to comply with judicial review.  That's what Hamilton discussed in Federalist 78 talking about how the judiciary has "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." 

So, who would have to stop him?  The military; the "sword."  Any dictator is going to need their backing to overthrow a "democracy," such as ours is.  And there's no indication I can see thus far to suggest they would go along with official descent into dictatorship.  I mean, who would actually physically remove him from the Oval Office if he just refused to leave?  I dunno, not really sure.  I'd guess Congress would order the Capitol Police to.  Or, in the incredibly unlikely event he can get both chambers to go along with it, I suppose the courts could order the Marshals to do it - and the military or the secret service will stand aside.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

As much as pragmatic moderates worry that Sanders will keep centrists home in November, I have to say Bloomberg worries me in the same way--I cannot fathom a world where Sanders' supporters rally behind a billionaire--especially one like Bloomberg. I do think many supporters would come around to Buttigeg or Warren given the overwhelming evil that radiates from the White House. Bloomberg though? I think it'd be over.

Edit: and I've been thinking about Biden's collapse. The whole strategy of challenging people to push up contests and yelling at potential voters aside, maybe there's just one too many pictures of "Uncle Joe" rubbing uncomfortable looking women's shoulders, or kissing his granddaughter on the lips.

[The Marquis de Leech]

If Donald is planning for shenanigans in 2024, I think it's much more likely he foists the nomination on a family member, rather than tries a third term. Even this Supreme Court won't go there.

[The Marquis de Leech]

12 hours ago, sologdin said:

charles I prorogued parliament and the consequent personal rule cost him his head. 

Nah, not the Personal Rule. Backsliding on the surrender deal and trying to organise a fresh Scottish invasion cost him his head.

(And seriously, the Personal Rule gets a bad rap. Charlie Boy was so tight on cash that he had no choice but to keep the realm out of the Thirty Years War, and that's a good thing in anyone's book).

[Darzin]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

Anyone care to share what their primary voting situation is as a thread poll of sorts?  

I'm a die hard Pete supporter and have been from the beginning. I like his way of framing liberal policies with a conservative accent, in terms of faith family and freedom, I feel like he has some very obvious comebacks that democrats don't use. I like the fact that he's a trojan progressive he seems more moderate than he is.

In terms of policy I think a strong public option is the way to go. Americans like choice and Medicare for all who want it, will ensure everyone, (automatic enrollment) while giving people the option to opt out. The problem with Bernie and Warren's plan is Americans equate health insurance to healthcare I know that's wrong but when you tell the average voter you are going to take away private insurance they hear you are going to take away their healthcare. I also like his emphasis on structural reform, making DC and Puerto Rico states making election day a national holiday those are small "unsexy" things that will have big results downstream. I also like some of his labor ideas like having a schedule two weeks in advance a small thing but makes a lot of people's lives in retail a lot easier.

So that's were I'm at now, if Pete becomes nonviable it'll depend who's in the race, Yang is my real second choice but I don't think he'll ever be viable so probably Warren or Biden. I won't vote for Sanders in the primary. I supported him in the 16 primary but I now have severe concerns about his electability he is the least vetted candidate and there are piles of unused opposition research on him.

[butterbumps!]

Are the rumors about republicans showing up to vote for Sanders at the open primary in SC really a thing?   I saw reference to it somewhere, then googled and found mention the Hill, NYPost and National Review that GOP activists were pushing for this.  Is this a nothing, or is it something could actually have an impact?

9 hours ago, Triskele said:

Anyone care to share what their primary voting situation is as a thread poll of sorts?  

In California it was way late when we voted last time, and I voted for Clinton because there was no chance Bernie could win at that point, and I just thought it needed to get on to going against Trump.

This year California is on 3/3 where it will be enormously important compared to the past and is inside of a month away, and I honestly do not know who I'm going to vote for.  I can say that there is no chance that I will vote for Biden and I hope that he drops out as soon as possible for everyone's sake.  I can't rule out a vote for Warren, Sanders, Pete, or Bloomberg at this point, and the who can beat Trump question looms very large for me.  Going to be an interesting month inside my higher primate brain.  

I’m in NY, so I vote late April.  Assuming they’re all still in, my current ranking is

1.  Warren (strong preference)

2.  Buttigieg (happy to vote for)

3.  Bloomberg (like pulling teeth)

4. (Tie) Biden and Sanders  (please don’t make me do this)

I’m torn about the last 3.  I think Bloomberg might have the easiest time beating Trump of Biden and Sanders*, which is really the only reason he’s edged over the other two.   I think it would be devastating for the country if Trump won again, which I’m terrified Biden or Sanders gets us.  I think it would be only marginally less devastating if this election is bought by a multi billionaire.  

*I suspect Sanders would not be able to beat any of these other candidates one-on-one.   I think he’s benefitting wildly from a fractured field that has a lot of preference fluidity between the other other candidates.  My read is that he has the highest floor but lowest ceiling.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

Are the rumors about republicans showing up to vote for Sanders at the open primary in SC really a thing?   I saw reference to it somewhere, then googled and found mention the Hill, NYPost and National Review that GOP activists were pushing for this.  Is this a nothing, or is it something could actually have an impact?

I’m in NY, so I vote late April.  Assuming they’re all still in, my current ranking is

1.  Warren (strong preference)

2.  Buttigieg (happy to vote for)

3.  Bloomberg (like pulling teeth)

4. (Tie) Biden and Sanders  (please don’t make me do this)

I’m torn about the last 3.  I think Bloomberg might have the easiest time beating Trump of Biden and Sanders*, which is really the only reason he’s edged over the other two.   I think it would be unspeakably devastating for the country if Trump won again, which I’m terrified Biden or Sanders gets us.  I think it would be only marginally less devastating if this election is bought by a multi billionaire.  

*I suspect Sanders would not be able to beat any of these other candidates one-on-one.   I think he’s benefitting wildly from a fractured field that has a lot of preference fluidity between the other other candidates.  My read is that he has the highest floor but lowest ceiling.

 

There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone, who is a registered in SC, from voting in the primary on 2/29.  As it should be.  Personally, as long as the State is footing the bill I think everyone should be allowed to participate in both primaries.

(There is only the Democratic primary this year because the Republican Party canceled the SC Republican primary when it looked like their might be opposition to Trump).

[Ice Queen]

7 hours ago, Triskele said:

Anyone care to share what their primary voting situation is as a thread poll of sorts?  

In California it was way late when we voted last time, and I voted for Clinton because there was no chance Bernie could win at that point, and I just thought it needed to get on to going against Trump.

This year California is on 3/3 where it will be enormously important compared to the past and is inside of a month away, and I honestly do not know who I'm going to vote for.  I can say that there is no chance that I will vote for Biden and I hope that he drops out as soon as possible for everyone's sake.  I can't rule out a vote for Warren, Sanders, Pete, or Bloomberg at this point, and the who can beat Trump question looms very large for me.  Going to be an interesting month inside my higher primate brain.  

Ours isn't till April so the field should be winnowed pretty good by then.

The pragmatic part of me says Biden. We need someone who doesn't need on the job training and can hit the ground running on Day 1, someone who can start to repair the damage done with our allies. Nobody knows foreign policy better than Biden. Nobody. He'll surround himself with smart, dedicated people. 

I would love to vote for Warren--I just like her. But nothing--NOTHING--is more important right now than getting rid of Trump. Policy can wait.

I cannot vote for Bernie. I'm sympathetic to some of his positions, but another cult of personality is something we don't need. His "supporters" are just like Trumpers and he does nothing to rein them in. 

Bloomberg is actually growing on me. He knows Trump personally, knows his weaknesses, and can beat him at his own game. He's vastly more wealthy than Trump and it's a joy to watch him put the knifebin and twist it every chance he gets. He's also said he'll flood the airwaves no matter who the nominee is, and I can get behind that. Too bad he doesn't just buy Fox News...

[Inkdaub]

1 - Warren

2 - Sanders

3 - IDK...the rest

[butterbumps!]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone, who is a registered in SC, from voting in the primary on 2/29.  As it should be.  Personally, as long as the State is footing the bill I think everyone should be allowed to participate in both primaries.

(There is only the Democratic primary this year because the Republican Party canceled the SC Republican primary when it looked like their might be opposition to Trump).

Right, I’m not really talking about the openness of that primary- I know anyone can vote in that, and that’s cool.  I’m talking about weaponizing the openness.

I’m asking whether there’s anything to the rumors, reported in those 3 sources I cited, regarding organized efforts by GOP activists to encourage republicans to go in and vote for Sanders to tip the results in his favor as the candidate they feel will be easiest to defeat in the general.  So I’m asking whether there’s anything to the rumor that GOP activists are actually doing this, and secondly, whether this could have an impact on this primary (and by extension, any open primary).  Or is the danger really just in sowing the notion that this is happening to get the anti-Sanders camp to clutch pearls the way the Sanders camp does about rigging?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Sanders (strong preference)

Warren (fine)

Buttigieg (if he wins the primary )

Bloomberg (vommitting in my mouth)

Biden (holding nose and knowing he will be destroyed by Trump)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Right, I’m not really talking about the openness of that primary- I know anyone can vote in that, and that’s cool.  I’m talking about weaponizing the openness.

I’m asking whether there’s anything to the rumors, reported in those 3 sources I cited, regarding organized efforts by GOP activists to encourage republicans to go in and vote for Sanders to tip the results in his favor as the candidate they feel will be easiest to defeat in the general.  So I’m asking whether there’s anything to the rumor that GOP activists are actually doing this, and secondly, whether this could have an impact on this primary (and by extension, any open primary).  Or is the danger really just in sowing the notion that this is happening to get the anti-Sanders camp to clutch pearls the way the Sanders camp does about rigging?

I'm unaware of any organized effort, but then, I'm not a member of the SC GOP and I don't have much contact with those active in the SC GOP.  It wouldn't shock me.  I did see an acquaintance on Facebook, who is fairly conservative, expressing hope that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee.  I reminded him that many in the Democratic Party were hoping for Trump as the Republican nominee in 2016 and said, "be careful what you wish for" same as I said here in 2016.

"Strategic voting" in primaries can have very serious consequences.  

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm unaware of any organized effort, but then, I'm not a member of the SC GOP and I don't have much contact with those active in the SC GOP.  It wouldn't shock me.  I did see an acquaintance on Facebook, who is fairly conservative, expressing hope that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee.  I reminded him that many in the Democratic Party were hoping for Trump as the Republican nominee in 2016 and said, "be careful what you wish for" same as I said here in 2016.

Yes, it seems like conservative are bit like liberals with regard to Trump, with respect to their attitudes towards Sandars. Some conservatives think running against Sanders would be an automatic win for Trump. Others are pretty much, "like not so fast. Sanders could actually win." I'm pretty sure the conservative commentator David French put out an opinion piece warning conservatives of this.