Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Killjoybear

US Politics: Ruthless ambition

Recommended Posts

Just now, DMC said:

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

From your posts I'd have had no idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

From your posts I'd have had no idea

You gonna pull my hair during recess now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military splitting up into partizan politics would be horrific. They haz nukes n toys. I suppose defrauding voters is not important compared to that, but Trumpers are getting more and more violent and lawless.

Share this post


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

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.  

Gorsuch may, but like any good textualist his judicial philosophy is apt to randomly change if it suits his desires. He's not Alito, Thomas or Kavanaugh, but he's a pretty sad knight in shining armor if that's what you're hoping for.

Quote

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.

Some are, and by next week they'll pretend like it never even happened. The point is if these comments are largely met with a collective shrug now, it has a chance to further normalize what he's suggesting if he actually does it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, S John said:

Has anyone watched the Social Dilemma documentary on Netflix? Nothing in there was super new to me, or I would wager any regulars of this thread, but it painted a pretty bleak picture with regard to social media and political polarization, not just here but everywhere. I think maybe it naturally gives a little more weight to social media’s role in this than maybe it strictly deserves as there are clearly other factors at play, but damn, it’s certainly a major part of the problem. 

I haven't seen it but will when life isn't interrupting. School holidays here now so i might get a chance to get the kids to watch it with me. I don't have any social media other than the obligatory linkedin i never check as it seems to just be sales and people looking for work.

I think the way many sites are run exacerbates the polarisation as so many are averse to anything not following whatever narrative they are pushing. Posts (even if factual) that don't display the political leaning or narrative they're looking for get deleted and threads can run off into some silly fan-fiction based in very few facts but more the fear or fantasy of the 20% of members who make 80% of the posts. All sites have sets of rules about insults and personal attacks etc. but they tend to be applied differently based on the political leanings of the alleged offender. Same with media, very little balance on any one site. Not only in the actual reporting and blurring of opinion and fact but also in what is chosen as ok to report. It all leads to polarisation and a lack of nuance. But at least they pass the political purity test and don't get caught allowing the oppositions talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He's not Alito, Thomas or Kavanaugh, but he's a pretty sad knight in shining armor if that's what you're hoping for.

I agree, I'm just saying I wouldn't put Gorsuch's chances at over, or even really near, 50%.  Especially in the particular context that piece was referring.  That's, like, a last resort if Trump gets his ass kicked.  If it's closer, the GOP would very likely be able to employ a more valid legal strategy/challenge.

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The point is if these comments are largely met with a collective shrug now, it has a chance to further normalize what he's suggesting if he actually does it. 

And my point is there's a difference between the Dems, officeholders, pundits, etc. combating it and whether I should give a fuck discussing it on a message board.  I'd think that's pretty damn obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's long-promised healthcare plan is here. And as expected, it is a useless stunt. The highlight is literally a piece of paper saying pre-existing conditions should be covered and a vow to veto legislation sent to his desk not covering it. Of course, it's already in the law, legislation is not coming to his desk this year, and it says nothing about the SC striking it down as state AGs are urging.

 

Trump's health care 'vision' punts on two major issues

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-health-care-pre-existing-conditions/index.html

Quote

The President is also looking to shift attention away from criticism of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. More than 200,000 Americans have died from the virus over the past six months.
The first executive order will state that it's US policy that people who suffer from pre-existing conditions will be protected, the President said. Any legislation Congress sends to his desk must include this provision, he said.
"We're putting it down in a stamp, because our opponents, the Democrats, like to constantly talk about it and yet pre-existing conditions are much safer with us than they are with them," Trump said. "And now we have it affirmed. This is affirmed, signed and done. So we can put that to rest."
The President and Republican lawmakers have repeatedly said they will safeguard these Americans, even as they try to tear down the Affordable Care Act that already protects them. In a call with reporters, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declined to specify how the administration would guarantee these protections if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark health reform law in a case it will consider this term.

 

Share this post


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

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.  

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.

I saw a pretty well laid out argument that the main reason Trump is talking about this is because its one of the few areas he can appear "strong".  He can't talk poll numbers.  He can't talk the economy.  He can't talk much of anything.  Focus on how the Republicans will win even if they lose is a way to appear strong and stick it to the Dems (which as @DMC posted before, is actually a key priority for his base).  

Obviously this doesn't play well outside his base, but we've clearly seen Trump's focus is on his base.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really good state polls for Biden from Fox News (in particular, +10 in Nevada and +5 in Ohio) counterbalanced by a modest Emerson national poll where he is +3. Both state polls are interesting, maybe its more Biden has a Cuban American problem rather than a latino problem (although I'd suggest his lack on inroads in the Rio Grande imply some weakness/opportunity there too).

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...