US Politics: Ruthless ambition

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

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.

Only problem, McConnell has zero credibility (mildly put) in general, but particularly when it comes to upholding democratic norms

I wouldn't believe him, when he told me turtle Island has a blue sky and lies in the middle of an ocean.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

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).

Again, people in power willing to abide by the law is kind of a given for any democracy to work.  This would be like if in the UK the prime minister decided to ignore the election results and the crown was like "cool."  That doesn't make the UK's democracy any weaker than anyone else's, just as it doesn't with ours.  What you could say is things like the EC, Senate malapportionment, and voter suppression are flaws in our system that enabled these people to be in power.

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Only problem, McConnell has zero credibility (mildly put) in general, but particularly when it comes to upholding democratic norms

He's not upholding norms, he's just telling Trump to be quiet about how they're gonna try to steal the election. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, people in power willing to abide by the law is kind of a given for any democracy to work.  This would be like if in the UK the prime minister decided to ignore the elections results and the crown was like "cool."  That doesn't make the UK's democracy any weaker than anyone else's, just it doesn't with ours.  What you could say is things like the EC, Senate malapportionment, and voter suppression are flaws in the our system that enabled these people to be in power.

He's not upholding norms, he's just telling Trump just be quiet about how they're gonna try to steal the election. 

So you want to get in contact with Chataya's ex, commandante DM Guevara?

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Again, people in power willing to abide by the law is kind of a given for any democracy to work.  This would be like if in the UK the prime minister decided to ignore the elections results and the crown was like "cool."  That doesn't make the UK's democracy any weaker than anyone else's, just it doesn't with ours.  What you could say is things like the EC, Senate malapportionment, and voter suppression are flaws in the our system that enabled these people to be in power. 

Yes, and until recently I think people didn't actually really understand that. That if the senate is going to do whatever the POTUS wants there is really no actual limit on the power - including doing things like stealing the election. That's 'what matters'. it's not that Trump is saying this sort of thing out loud (though really, it is a big deal that the POTUS is literally not committing to a peaceful transition of power out loud), but it's that they're now understanding what that would actually entail, and just how easily he could get away with it. 

Just now, DMC said:

He's not upholding norms, he's just telling Trump just be quiet about how they're gonna try to steal the election. 

yep, this. The biggest flaw of Trump in conservative views is that he keeps saying too many of the quiet parts out loud. 

[DMC]

Just now, Kalibear said:

That if the senate is going to do whatever the POTUS wants there is really no actual limit on the power - including doing things like stealing the election.

Well, the limit in this case is/was the Court.  Even now, the Senate is relying on the SC to hand Trump the election, not do it themselves.  The response to Trump's comments by the GOP caucus discussed above make that clear.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, the limit in this case is/was the Court.  Even now, the Senate is relying on the SC to hand Trump the election, not do it themselves.  The response to Trump's comments by the GOP caucus discussed above make that clear.

But that comes from the Senate's power to advise and consent too. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalibear said:

But that comes from the Senate's power to advise and consent too. 

Really?  Thanks, I was thinking about taking an interest in government recently.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Really?  Thanks, I was thinking about taking an interest in government recently.  

From your posts I'd have had no idea

[Jace, Extat]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

From your posts I'd have had no idea

You gonna pull my hair during recess now?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!

Strip! Strip! Strip!

Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

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:

As well as constitutional law and precedent:

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.  

I am not a lawyer, but I have watched several break it down and while there doesn't appear to be agreement, enough have said it's possible to make me think they'll at least give it a shot. And if they do, it will probably work.

Quote

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.

 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

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).

While this is true, it misses the mark. If it's not loudly checked, and the American public is rather indifferent, it kind of becomes legitimate for the president to meddle in the elections with threats of throwing out votes. It must be said in no uncertain terms, if this all happens, America as we know it is over, and there's no clear path back.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I am not a lawyer, but I have watched several break it down and while there doesn't appear to be agreement, enough have said it's possible to make me think they'll at least give it a shot. And if they do, it will probably work.

Like I said, they're definitely going to try it.  My point is it there's absolutely no legal basis.  As for it working, Gorsuch (and Roberts) would have to invalidate the state's EC law, ignore federal law, and overturn Rehnquist's precedent from 20 years ago.  That's...a tall order.  Still certainly possible Gorsuch does that, but I would not put it at probably.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If it's not loudly checked, and the American public is rather indifferent, it kind of becomes legitimate for the president to meddle in the elections with threats of throwing out votes. It must be said in no uncertain terms, if this all happens

As has been discussed, even Republican Senators are rhetorically pushing back on this.  In terms of public messaging, it is being checked.  My point was whatever Trump says right now doesn't have any effect on what will happen, he's been rhetorically trampling on democracy his entire presidency, so I don't see much of a reason to personally give a fuck.

[HoodedCrow]

Roberts resided over the Senate trial and he almost melted into the floor, but did nothing.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

Roberts resided over the Senate trial and he almost melted into the floor, but did nothing.

The Chief Justice's role in an impeachment trial is almost purely ceremonial.  That's why Rehnquist played dress up at Clinton's.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Like I said, they're definitely going to try it.  My point is it there's absolutely no legal basis.  As for it working, Gorsuch (and Roberts) would have to invalidate the state's EC law, ignore federal law, and overturn Rehnquist's precedent from 20 years ago.  That's...a tall order.  Still certainly possible Gorsuch does that, but I would not put it at probably.

Legal basis can be set aside when a power grab is at stake, and that goes double for precedent. Plus, Roberts may not matter if RBG’s seat is filled by a loyalist.

Quote

As has been discussed, even Republican Senators are rhetorically pushing back on this.  In terms of public messaging, it is being checked.  My point was whatever Trump says right now doesn't have any effect on what will happen, he's been rhetorically trampling on democracy his entire presidency, so I don't see much of a reason to personally give a fuck.

Who cares what two-faced Republicans have to say? They’re banking on apathy and changing norms, so not giving a damn is exactly what they want you to feel.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Legal basis can be set aside when a power grab is at stake, and that goes double for precedent. Plus, Roberts may not matter if RBG’s seat is filled by a loyalist.

It very well may still matter for Gorsuch, especially the Rehnquist precedent (remember he clerked for Kennedy, as did Kavanaugh).  He's decidedly not a Thomas or an Alito.  Roberts influence could possibly matter because if he votes against it that may well convince Gorsuch to as well.  

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Who cares what two-faced Republicans have to say?

The point is EVEN Republicans are pushing back on this.  Obviously Dems are as well.  As for not giving a damn, um, right.  Cuz choosing not to care about what absurdly ludicrous thing Trump says about the election results is totally the same as not caring about the election or our democracy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, sologdin said:

i've read about this sort of political paranoia before.

calm, kids.  the difference is one of degree, rather than type, in this current rightwing. hofstadter's paranoia is however supposed to be an attribute of the rightwing--birchers, teabaggers, trump cultists; liberal persons need to have faith in expertise, institutions, and the good faith of fellow citizens.

So... Donald Jr is going to stab Trump in a bunker and Alan Dershowitz is going to finish him off accidentally with with a magic marble?

[argonak]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, the limit in this case is/was the Court.  Even now, the Senate is relying on the SC to hand Trump the election, not do it themselves.  The response to Trump's comments by the GOP caucus discussed above make that clear.

 

Laws only matter as long as they're enforceable.  The real limit is always the DoD.  If the GOP stole the election and various states state governments started to line up and push back against the federal government, the only thing that will really matter is what the DoD says.

I can 100% picture a situation where the GOP steals the election, blatantly this time, and the Democratic (and probably a few GOP) Governors come together to say "No, you're not doing this."  And then it will absolutely come down to what the DoD does.   This same scenario has played out countless times in human history, with very similar players.

[DMC]

Just now, argonak said:

Laws only matter as long as they're enforceable.  The real limit is always the DoD.  If the GOP stole the election and various states state governments started to line up and push back against the federal government, the only thing that will really matter is what the DoD says.

The military has been crystal clear they're not gonna get involved in any post-election shenanigans on either side.  They'll let SCOTUS decide.