Jump to content

US Politics: Ruthless ambition


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I don't really buy that any sort of coup is coming. Chaos, a huge tantrum, and violence, yes. Another Bush v. Gore, quite possibly.

I guess it's not technically a coup if it's not illegal or unconstitutional but when I read about "50,000 volunteers in 15 contested states to monitor polling places and challenge voters they deem suspicious-looking" I think you may need international election monitors for this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

So they just played a quick clip of Trump on the news that reportedly just came from a few minutes ago, and in it he firmly said he won't commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and if he doesn't agree with the results the ballots will have to be examined which will then lead to a continuation of his power.

So that slow slide continues to snowball...

Why in the fuck should anyone be surprised by Trump's increasingly insane rhetoric at this point, and why does anyone think it matters?  Only two substantive effects I can come up with is further fomenting his boots on the ground - but how much more fomenting to those pathetic violent douchenozzles need?  The other effect of Trump's rhetoric in the past is his opponents using his own words against him in court which has come back to bite him in the ass before.  But of course, that's much less likely to happen anymore either.  In conclusion, I don't see any reason to pay attention to what Donald Trump says over the next five weeks unless you're seeking to raise your blood pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why in the fuck should anyone be surprised by Trump's increasingly insane rhetoric at this point, and why does anyone think it matters?  Only two substantive effects I can come up with is further fomenting his boots on the ground - but how much more fomenting to those pathetic violent douchenozzles need?  The other effect of Trump's rhetoric in the past is his opponents using his own words against him in court which has come back to bite him in the ass before.  But of course, that's much less likely to happen anymore either.  In conclusion, I don't see any reason to pay attention to what Donald Trump says over the next five weeks unless you're seeking to raise your blood pressure.

Trump sees all this as a negotiation.  He isn't going to just give away an advantage that he has (the awesome powers at his fingertips as president) for nothing.  He'll hold them in reserve and hope that he wins the election semi-fairly.  If not, he'll reassess whether stealing the election is a good move or one that might end in his entire family hanging from lampposts.  This is where we are as a country.  The election is just one more step in the negotiation of "does Trump continue being President", and it is by no means the last step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maithanet said:

Trump sees all this as a negotiation.

It's not.  It's people with a brain recognizing he's trying to steal an election and his supporters nodding along with whatever he says, which is not going to change on either side.  No matter how they rule, increasingly crazy rhetoric from now til November 3rd is very unlikely to affect the decisions of Neil Gorsuch or John Roberts, which is ultimately all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

It was a joke since we have JMP site licenses.....I can read whatever webpage I want.

Figured you could see the site, that's why I was confused.  And how the hell I am supposed to know you have JMP site licenses in order to get that joke?!? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why in the fuck should anyone be surprised by Trump's increasingly insane rhetoric at this point, and why does anyone think it matters?  Only two substantive effects I can come up with is further fomenting his boots on the ground - but how much more fomenting to those pathetic violent douchenozzles need?  The other effect of Trump's rhetoric in the past is his opponents using his own words against him in court which has come back to bite him in the ass before.  But of course, that's much less likely to happen anymore either.  In conclusion, I don't see any reason to pay attention to what Donald Trump says over the next five weeks unless you're seeking to raise your blood pressure.

Who said anything about being surprised? Kal and I have said this was likely coming for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

:rolleyes:

Ok, you're not surprised.  Why do you think it matters?

One way I think it (indirectly) matters is that it really shows how the entire history of the U.S. government rests on what is essentially (and in some ways, literally) a gentleman's agreement.

Get enough people with zero scruples together, put them in the right places, and they can break the government. That should probably be addressed if we make it to the other side relatively intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Basically there are six swing states with Republican legislatures, and one path to victory is having each Republican state party sue over the election results, pushing it to the date the electors are required so they can appoint Trump friendly electors and instruct them to ignore the states' popular vote.

I'm not trying to impugn Barton Gellman, but can anyone tell me where in the fuck this strategy has any even semblance of a basis?  Looking over the state laws for the EC, I barely see the state legislature mentioned - each state pretty much has the same process:  the state parties nominate their electors, the SoS and the governor certify the results, and then they send the winning parties electors to the college.  Seriously, let me know if I'm missing something.  I only looked at possible swing states, I just woke up an hour ago, and I may be guilty of some skimming.

Moreover, such a gambit clearly violates both federal law:

Quote

The Electoral Count Act (“ECA”) includes a “safe harbor” provision that treats as “conclusive” a state’s chosen slate of electors if two criteria are satisfied: (1) the electors must be chosen under laws enacted prior to Election Day, and (2) the selection process, including final resolution of any disputes, must be completed at least six days prior to the meetings of the electors. 3 U.S.C. § 5. This year, the ECA “safe harbor” deadline is December 8, 2020. A post-Election Day appointment of a state legislature’s preferred slate of electors would almost always deviate from the legal process for appointing electors established by the state prior to Election Day.10 Although the ECA safe harbor criteria are not mandatory, the consequences of failing to adhere to them are significant. Losing the safe harbor protection leaves Congress to decide which electors to count from a state, without mandatory deference to the preferences of either the state’s voters or legislature.11

As well as constitutional law and precedent:

Quote

The Supreme Court has explained that “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental,” and is subject to constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees. Bush, 531 U.S. at 104-05. The due process clause, in particular, protects citizens’ reasonable reliance on the expectation under state law that they will be able to meaningfully exercise their fundamental right to vote.13

That precedent - Bush 531 - was William Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v Gore btw.

To be clear, I am absolutely sure Gellman is right that they may try this.  And, of course, it may work.  Just, I dunno, maybe shut your face about it as all that does is grant something that's completely pulled out of their ass some semblance of legitimacy.  Plus, when we're talking about Trump's lawyers and their expertise on the facts of the case, it's quite possible you may be giving them ideas they'd otherwise never think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Get enough people with zero scruples together, put them in the right places, and they can break the government.

This is true of any government.  That's why the philosophers/theorists that spearheaded the democratization of the west 3-4 centuries ago referred to government as a social compact or contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

:rolleyes:

Ok, you're not surprised.  Why do you think it matters?

Even if it was suspected, hearing the president say he’ll throw out ballots to stay in office is important news to report. What does it say about our country if it isn’t anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

What does it say about our country if it isn’t anymore?

That our president has been saying batshit, dangerous, and hateful things since about thirty seconds after he was inaugurated (well, obviously before as well, but he was president then).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

This is true of any government.  That's why the philosophers/theorists that spearheaded the democratization of the west 3-4 centuries ago referred to government as a social compact or contract.

That's just an "It's turtles all the way down" counterargument. 

In the most basic sense, all of human civilization is one kind of social compact or another. Some have more effective built-in checks on the system than what we have here, where everything is basically predicated on nothing more than the honor system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That's just an "It's turtles all the way down" counterargument. 

In the most basic sense, all of human civilization is one kind of social compact or another. Some have more effective built-in checks on the system than what we have here, where everything is basically predicated on nothing more than the honor system.

No it's not.  There certainly could be better checks employed in our system, sure, but that has little relevance to Trump's comments in reference.  He's blatantly saying he's willing to ignored those instituted checks that are codified in state, federal, and constitutional law.  The only way this is a failure in the checks and balances of our system is because/if the president and the Supreme Court ignore those checks.  If they're willing to do that, then yeah, it's all based on the honor system.  There's no possible way to institutionalize checks or come up with some magical words to put into with the full force of law if the people in power are simply willing to ignore them.  That's not a flaw in the system, no government can overcome that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liz Cheney, Mark Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Andrew McCartney all vow a peaceful transition of power and valid election results this November. After Trump refuses to commit to peacefully leaving if he loses.

Basically the lawmakers are refusing to have his back on such a deplorable stand. Romney referring to it as "unthinkable" for a President to refuse to exit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/517956-liz-cheney-promises-peaceful-transfer-of-power-after-trump-declines

Kudos to these voices saying they would not go along with this if it comes to pass.

We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DireWolfSpirit said:

Kudos to these voices saying they would not go along with this if it comes to pass.

Of course they're willing to go along.  They're just telling Trump to shut his facehole and stop telling people that's what he's gonna do.  Even McConnell told him to shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

No it's not.  There certainly could be better checks employed in our system, sure, but that has little relevance to Trump's comments in reference.  He's blatantly saying he's willing to ignored those instituted checks that are codified in state, federal, and constitutional law.  The only way this is a failure in the checks and balances of our system is because/if the president and the Supreme Court ignore those checks. 

Fortunately the POTUS and SCOTUS would NEVER ignore those checks in favor of other things o wait

(The difference that it makes, by the way, is that a whole lot of people are realizing precisely how little our Democracy actually relies on and how laws they thought existed...don't (or don't matter). )

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...