Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 75)
Thread Tools
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2023, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I doubt even the current GOP would give up the pretense of "democratic" elections, even if they've already managed to rig many them almost beyond the point of no return (gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, voter registration shenanigans, etc.).
I don't think that the GOP have the inclination to override the President: if the President suspends elections, I expect the GOP to find reasons to support his decision.

... and this is a win-win - they don't have to deal with opponents, and they can (laughably) say that the decision wasn't theirs, if there is ever a reckoning.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2023, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If someone quotes my post, I assume the reply refers to what’s quoted.
Yes, but you are just re-stating what you wrote rather than respond to my post.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If the state has a Rep governor, the situation escalates a lot faster.
If the 2020 election is any indication, there were solid red states where a significant (enough) share of the voters did not vote for the Republican Party down ballot. Going by the outcome, they voted for the GOP for e. g. their state assemblies, Congress, but not president. So I think this is a likely scenario to think through.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
We aren't there yet, and it won't happen at all if 2024 isn't close. There would be no point, if altering one (or two) state totals would not change the winner.
Biden trails both, Trump and De Santis in some of the polls. I don't understand why you are not taking this more seriously. Even if hypothetically one or two states illegitimately changing their electors would not change the outcome, once this particular Rubicon is crossed and becomes normalized (“Oh, it didn't change the outcome of the election, no need to panic.”), who thinks the GOP would refrain from using that tactic in the future if an election is close?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2023, 07:55 PM
 
Try FiveThirtyEight for a wider range of polls. (also, 538 has no paywall) The WP polls are there - click the "Show more polls" button at the bottom to go back farther. The WP polls are among the strongest red. Among the wider range, Biden leads in most, and occasionally breaks into double digits.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't understand why you are not taking this more seriously.
We are over a year away from a vote. I expect:
• Ukraine to win before then, which will count for Biden.
• The Republican primary will be a circus, with lots of dirt being dug up on each other.
• Legal cases will advance against Trump.
• In the meantime, Republicans are showing their true colors at the state level, tearing down people's rights wherever they can.
• Demographics are continuing. Older folks do die, and younger voters are not becoming conservative as they age. Financial Times article (warning - paywall), alternate coverage. The overperformance of Dems in 2022 is likely to both continue and increase in the near future.

Also, what's the alternative? Assume this is the end, buy a pickup with flagpoles, and drive around in circles, shooting in the air?
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Even if hypothetically one or two states illegitimately changing their electors would not change the outcome, once this particular Rubicon is crossed and becomes normalized (“Oh, it didn't change the outcome of the election, no need to panic.”), who thinks the GOP would refrain from using that tactic in the future if an election is close?
If they try the ISL theory when it isn't close, the courts and public get to respond. The corrupt state politicians risk rolling the dice on their ISL theory, without anything to win on the table. So they won't try the gamble unless the vote is close. And I'm expecting Biden to win by a larger margin than in 2020. Reasons:

• Incumbent advantage. Most US Presidents get re-elected. It took a mishandled pandemic, among many other issues, to get Trump out. I'm not seeing anything comparable for Biden. Certainly not a possibly planted laptop, trying to embarrass Hunter, who isn't employed by the government.
• If Trump gets the R nomination - this breaks a political rule. If a candidate loses, you don't run them in the next election. Voters remember who they voted out, and will almost always vote them out again. It is standard practice for a losing candidate to sit out the next election. To try for the office again, a candidate should wait for the following election. Example: John McCain ran for Prez in 2000 and 2008, sitting out 2004 and 2012. If he'd been interested, he would have tried again in 2016.
• While the Republicans are gearing up for a hair-pulling contest, Biden has no significant challenger. He's trying something often called the "Rose Garden strategy" - he governs capably, staying mostly above the fray. While his opponents chase each other and get nothing done. The strategy doesn't always work, but Biden has delivered on his 2020 central campaign - he restored normalcy in the Federal government.
• Biden is popular within the Dem party. Trump (and possibly DeSantis) is popular among Reps. So 2024 will be decided by Independents. Where Trump is quite unpopular, and DeSantis is mostly unknown outside Florida. A clown they hear about on TV who busses (or flies) migrants to other states.

I'm sticking with my position - the situation is concerning and needs to be monitored. It isn't time to write off US democracy.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2023, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, but you are just re-stating what you wrote rather than respond to my post.
I took subego as not necessarily disagreeing with the notion of "elections" becoming a for-show circus without any impact — merely questioning christ's idea that they would be suspended outright.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2023, 05:12 PM
 
Why wouldn’t they? Who would stop them? SCOTUS? And, if they did suspend elections, the result would probably be people finally taking to the streets, law enforcement (or, y’know, “authorized” boys who are proud) turning the scene into a riot, and it plays on the media like a good reason to suspend elections “for now.” Lather, rinse, repeat.

Remember, the whole point is to hold and keep power. The ends justify the means for these folks.

We aren’t playing with your grandfather’s GOP anymore. These people are unhinged from reality. They’re looking to drive the economy off a cliff in a couple of weeks. You think suspending elections will be a bridge too far for them? Nah.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2023, 02:41 AM
 
Yep. They have been brazenly crossing the lines of the previously unthinkable for many years now.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2023, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I took subego as not necessarily disagreeing with the notion of "elections" becoming a for-show circus without any impact — merely questioning christ's idea that they would be suspended outright.
Precisely. I want to establish we’re talking about something different than suspended elections, and I would argue a less dire scenario.

@Oreo, what specific gambit from 2020 should I be looking at. Point it out here if you’ve already mentioned it in the thread.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2023, 02:59 AM
 
whether it was grandstanding or theater or what, but an R totally did suggest doing away w elections this week.
<looking for the link in all my doomscrolling history>

and even at the local level, they are using their power to remove checks and balances, offices of election, etc. This is beyond gerrymandering redlining and limiting voting locations in dem areas. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...on/ar-AA1bk2wJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2023, 03:52 AM
 
I’m not seeing a huge problem with the MSN story. What am I missing?
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2023, 08:34 AM
 
I don't see that much has changed for the better since 2017:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...2020-election/

... and if half the Republicans would have supported postponing elections back then, imagine how they would feel this time around after the last election was (in their minds at least) "stolen".

I genuinely feel that your next election is for the future of Democracy (in America, but then quite possibly the world), and I am frustrated that the general population of the US don't seem to see it that way.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2023, 04:39 PM
 
That’s going to be about 20% of the population, which isn’t enough support to pull that aggressive a maneuver without it backfiring.

Likewise, 20% is the “will say any stupid shit in a poll” number. Nixon had a 20% approval rating when he bailed.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2023, 06:07 PM
 
I really, really hope that the complacent ones are right.

I really do.

... but what if they are not? I seem to recall similar complacency before Mr Trump was elected as "that couldn't possibly happen".
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2023, 11:16 PM
 
Sorry for the late reply. I was half-way done with one, when I accidentally quit Safari. My post then was far more elaborate, or so it seems at least

Overall, my point is not that you are oblivious to the developments, you clearly aren't, but that you are still too complacent for my taste. I think the most likely scenario is a continuing slide towards more authoritarianism. Some might actions even be well-intentioned: imagine you are President and you can put a bandaid on some issue with an Executive Order, something that your predecessors might have already done before you? The reason is that Congress won't do anything on that subject. Or if challenges to clearly fair elections become commonplace, and an ever increasing share of US citizens does not even believe in elections anymore? What if an ever increasing share of people is priced out of participating in politics, because even races for county dog catcher have a political valence and need six-figure amounts? What if politicians increase pressure on academics who annoy them with things like studies and facts? (That's happening in e. g. Florida right now.) When did democracy in Turkey end?
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Try FiveThirtyEight for a wider range of polls. (also, 538 has no paywall) The WP polls are there - click the "Show more polls" button at the bottom to go back farther. The WP polls are among the strongest red. Among the wider range, Biden leads in most, and occasionally breaks into double digits.
Fivethirtyeight is my go-to, and was in fact the reason I learnt of this poll. Their polling average, where factors such as accuracy and partisan slant are taken into account, includes ABC/WP polls.

My larger point was that the race is far from a slam dunk for Biden. If e. g. De Santis wins the Republican nomination (which I am not convinced of, but could reasonably happen), then factors like Biden's age will certainly play a central role. And Biden's age is a problem.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
We are over a year away from a vote. I expect:
• Ukraine to win before then, which will count for Biden.
• The Republican primary will be a circus, with lots of dirt being dug up on each other.
• Legal cases will advance against Trump.
• In the meantime, Republicans are showing their true colors at the state level, tearing down people's rights wherever they can.
• Demographics are continuing. Older folks do die, and younger voters are not becoming conservative as they age. Financial Times article (warning - paywall), alternate coverage. The overperformance of Dems in 2022 is likely to both continue and increase in the near future.
Logically, you have a point. I'd also add Biden's very successful legislative agenda to the mix, things like the CHIPS Act were passed with bipartisan support. However, a significant share of the voting public is not amenable to such arguments. They are reflexively against whatever the Democrats are for. They buy into fear mongering that Obama will stop by and take their guns. They don't seem to care that the GOP does not seem to have a policy plan on basically anything.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Also, what's the alternative? Assume this is the end, buy a pickup with flagpoles, and drive around in circles, shooting in the air?
There is no panacea. In the long-term, Americans themselves must work to view government as something they are a part of and participate in, and view it with less disdain. E. g. countries with a higher degree of confidence and trust in their government fared much better during the Covid pandemic. Right now a lot of Americans seem to view government as something separate from them, and they limit their involvement to mindlessly supporting their chosen sports team.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If they try the ISL theory when it isn't close, the courts and public get to respond. The corrupt state politicians risk rolling the dice on their ISL theory, without anything to win on the table. So they won't try the gamble unless the vote is close.
I don't think that is true, they'd win even if they'd still lose the election. In a sense, it is easier to cross the Rubicon if there are no consequences (and likely no accountability) to your actions. Next time when it counts, it won't be the first time and the Overton window has already moved farther to the right.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
And I'm expecting Biden to win by a larger margin than in 2020. Reasons:

• Incumbent advantage. Most US Presidents get re-elected. It took a mishandled pandemic, among many other issues, to get Trump out. I'm not seeing anything comparable for Biden. Certainly not a possibly planted laptop, trying to embarrass Hunter, who isn't employed by the government.
• If Trump gets the R nomination - this breaks a political rule. If a candidate loses, you don't run them in the next election. Voters remember who they voted out, and will almost always vote them out again. It is standard practice for a losing candidate to sit out the next election. To try for the office again, a candidate should wait for the following election. Example: John McCain ran for Prez in 2000 and 2008, sitting out 2004 and 2012. If he'd been interested, he would have tried again in 2016.
• While the Republicans are gearing up for a hair-pulling contest, Biden has no significant challenger. He's trying something often called the "Rose Garden strategy" - he governs capably, staying mostly above the fray. While his opponents chase each other and get nothing done. The strategy doesn't always work, but Biden has delivered on his 2020 central campaign - he restored normalcy in the Federal government.
• Biden is popular within the Dem party. Trump (and possibly DeSantis) is popular among Reps. So 2024 will be decided by Independents. Where Trump is quite unpopular, and DeSantis is mostly unknown outside Florida. A clown they hear about on TV who busses (or flies) migrants to other states.
In traditional election logic, all of this is correct. But I don't think we are in traditional times, because we don't have two regular parties with different political philosophies and priorities. The US is still in an era of weak parties and strong partisanship.

The state of the economy is less a factor in my opinion. As far as I am aware Republicans weren't even using the high rate of inflation to their advantage. Unlike what National Review wants you to believe, I think it is very obvious that De Santis is a rather weak candidate, too. IMHO the biggest tell was when he blustered up and claimed he would stop Trump's extradition to NYC. Compare that to when the Tories gave up on Theresa May or Boris Johnson: their supporters just stopped excusing their non-sense in public. I am writing this not to support your argument, though, but to indicate how weak the GOP is. They couldn't even find it in themselves to kick out a clear and obvious fraudster.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm sticking with my position - the situation is concerning and needs to be monitored. It isn't time to write off US democracy.
Maybe we are just misreading your reaction, but my (our?) criticism was that you seem too complacent, not that you weren't aware of the situation at all. My biggest concern is that the slide towards less democracy will continue, but there might not be an obvious point in time where the US ceases to hold elections.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2023, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Or if challenges to clearly fair elections become commonplace, and an ever increasing share of US citizens does not even believe in elections anymore?
The above topic is good news in my opinion. During/after the 2022 mid-terms, there was basically nothing about election distrust. It looked to me like a normal election. No loud lawsuits, no Fox promotion of widespread fraud claims. General acceptance of who won or lost. Yes, a few losing candidates did not concede. But that was all.

It looks like 2020 was a fluke. And voters were not interested in re-hashing 2020 stolen election theories either - Trump's candidate picks lost heavily. We won't know for sure until 2024, especially if Trump becomes the R candidate. But I'm cautiously hopeful the election trashing has lost out. Good riddance.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2023, 12:09 PM
 
You’re assuming that Tr*mp is the cause, rather than the symptom.

I believe this assumption is a very dangerous fallacy.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2023, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The above topic is good news in my opinion. During/after the 2022 mid-terms, there was basically nothing about election distrust. It looked to me like a normal election. No loud lawsuits, no Fox promotion of widespread fraud claims. General acceptance of who won or lost. Yes, a few losing candidates did not concede. But that was all.
Was that really all?
The age of an average Fox News viewer is in the 60s, I think. So they are being aged out … and being replaced with NewsMax, Tucker Carlson's new show, Ben Shapiro and the like. E. g. I fully expect Carlson to make more money now in the long-term than he did at Fox News.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It looks like 2020 was a fluke. And voters were not interested in re-hashing 2020 stolen election theories either - Trump's candidate picks lost heavily. We won't know for sure until 2024, especially if Trump becomes the R candidate. But I'm cautiously hopeful the election trashing has lost out. Good riddance.
What makes you think this was a fluke and soon it'll be over?
Let me give you an alternative point of view: what if 2016 and 2020 are more like the Civil Rights era? Where the Democrats starting to champion Civil Rights laws had them lose the South for generations. We can still see the consequences today, be it that Civil Rights era laws are the topic of Supreme Court cases or that Democrats are just now starting to make inroads in some Southern States (e. g. Georgia).

Moreover, Trump did not happen in a vacuum — I gotta agree with Spheric here, Trump was not the cause, he was the consequence of what had happened in years prior. It is always hard to pinpoint a starting point as history doesn't work that way, but I think you can make an argument that Gingrich's speakership started the GOP on the path of winning >> being right/having better ideas.

That's why I think it's wrong to simply wait it out. When you hear people with contacts amongst Republican operatives, it seems that many of them have decided to “stay in the basement until it is over”. Even with Trump being as weak as he is now, they are still catering to him. Even De Santis, rather than exploiting Trump's legitimate legal troubles to get a leg up, he used himself as a human shield in a situation where none was needed. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut. You see so many try to emulate Trump. That might make you think that Trump is the issue. But I think they are just trying to emulate the person responsible for the last big Republican win and electoral upset.

Don't you think this is a viable scenario, too? If it is, shouldn't you prepare for it?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2023, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Don't you think this is a viable scenario, too? If it is, shouldn't you prepare for it?
Er, how? If you don't like the pickup with flagpoles, perhaps I should buy all the ammo I can afford, and sit on it? Fortunately, I don't smoke.

"Preparing for it" seems to be a genteel way to say: train up to be an unstoppable assassin. Get ready for the coming dark times, and quit your job to prepare. Body paint optional. They will learn to fear your name ...

An alternative view: 2016 was indeed a fluke. Hillary took it for granted she would win, and didn't try hard enough. She led in polling until the final week. Trump's primary opponents didn't take his reality-show yelling seriously, until it was too late and they lost the nomination. On the D side, Bernie was ahead on delegates, but the Dem campaign committee was almost out of cash, and Hillary's team had dough to spare. So she got the super delegates, and the nomination.

As I see it, a perfect storm in 2016 put an idiot in the White House with the lowest minority vote yet, by almost 3 million. And none of those contributing events are going to happen twice. Trump may get the R nomination, but only after heavy mud-slinging. That dirt may be useful in the general election. Biden has no obvious embarrassments to hide - no strippers to pay off. And everyone will take Trump seriously, right up to election day. Especially the prosecutors. With any luck, Trump will be watching the election results on the jail TV.

Our democratic institutions got pressured from 2016-2020, and pushed hard after the 2020 election. And you know what? Our institutions held. Even R governors and legislators would not go along with rigging votes, and Trump's attempt to steal the election failed.

The developments since haven't come as fast as I'd like, but they have come. The crazy side has gotten jail terms, been fined heavy amounts, and face further litigation. Trump has abandoned all his failed cronies to twist in the wind - not the way to maintain a team. He didn't pay legal bills for Guliani or Powell, and his Proud Boys mob are wilting in court rooms. At their own expense. He even dicked over Pence. He turned all his friends into enemies.

The bad guys have fewer resources than they did. Security is beefed up around the Capital. And other than Biden's age, there's no obvious weakness on the D side this time. While the Rs keep shooting themselves in the feet, such as with yet more abortion restrictions. Or doing everything they can to avoid expelling George Santos. Or trying to crash the US economy with a default. Or pushing open-carry laws, while we have record mass shootings. The list goes on - the Rs in power are making enemies, and showing everyone they're unfit to govern.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2023, 10:56 PM
 
I am surprised that you took this from my posts. I haven't mentioned what is essentially a civil war scenario. Why do you think that’s the only way to react to the present political situation?

I certainly don’t. I think the better long-term strategy is to reach out to people close to us and dare to talk about politics as well as other things that matter. Another thing is that many local races are unopposed. People should start running even if there is no chance for them now to get elected. It is about establishing alternatives and thinking that in 10, 20, perhaps 30 years there might be an opportunity to win.

Understanding this as a long-term problem is important, because it requires a long-term solution.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
An alternative view: 2016 was indeed a fluke.
Are you so sure that you want to bank on that? I'd love to be wrong. Seriously.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; May 22, 2023 at 02:57 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 11:37 AM
 
If the answer to the Capitol being storrmed by a fascist mob and several members of Congress, and the Vice President, only escaping grievous bodily harm (or even lynching) by sheer luck is to beef up security on Capitol Hill, the actual problem is being ignored.

That's like putting extra kitchen wipes on tables because people keep spilling their coffee when they get randomly shot and claiming that you've taken the problem seriously.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 03:03 PM
 
Let’s say a bunch of elected officials were executed on January 6th. Hell… let’s say it was all of them.

So what? What exactly changes? The power and authority these elected officials wielded derives from their position, not them as individuals. The positions still exist. The positions weren’t what was executed.

This is why nothing will go anywhere without the military on board. There needs to be a force involved with the power to subvert the position. Merely killing the people who occupy the position isn’t enough.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let’s say a bunch of elected officials were executed on January 6th. Hell… let’s say it was all of them.

So what? What exactly changes? The power and authority these elected officials wielded derives from their position, not them as individuals. The positions still exist. The positions weren’t what was executed.

This is why nothing will go anywhere without the military on board. There needs to be a force involved with the power to subvert the position. Merely killing the people who occupy the position isn’t enough.
Are you saying you don't know what the plan was, or are you saying that no one involved had a plan for next steps should they have accomplished exactly what they intended to accomplish?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 05:47 PM
 
I’m saying any plan would not succeed without significant support from an outside source.

I offered the military as an example. The Supreme Court could also do it. I know they’re not so popular around here right at the moment, but I’m highly confident they would not have, unless the law and precedent somehow points to that as the only option.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let’s say a bunch of elected officials were executed on January 6th. Hell… let’s say it was all of them.

So what? What exactly changes?
If all elected officials were executed, I don't see a way of formally verifying the EC votes in Congress, and you'd have a constitutional crisis. There wouldn't be a way to follow the US Constitution as written. Would the US have no President on 21 January? Would Donald Trump stay in power just this one time until a new Congress can be convened? The same guy who motivated protestors to go to the Capitol?

We can also think of similar problems in a less dramatic setting. Say, only VP Pence, Nancy Pelosi and a few other Congress people are killed. Even then I don't think it'd be clear whether the EC votes can be ratified by Congress in time — and you'd be again in extra-constitutional territory.

What would likely be more important, though, is momentum: revolutions/overthrowing governments live and die with momentum, and this vacuum would have given more momentum to the protestors. If e. g. part of the military would side with the protestors, you'd be in deep trouble. Before you dismiss that, look at revolutions in other countries such as Chile. Then-general Pinochet had other generals killed who remained loyal to the democratically elected government. Even if that fizzled out in the end, those actions would likely gravely damage US armed forces.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; May 22, 2023 at 08:41 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If all elected officials were executed, I don't see a way of formally verifying the EC votes in Congress
Unless I’ve missed something, it seems cut and dried to me.

If everyone in Congress is killed this soon after an election, each state governor would be called upon to appoint two interim senators. These interim senators would conduct the count.
( Last edited by subego; May 22, 2023 at 09:17 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Unless I’ve missed something, it seems cut and dried to me.
You are completely missing the time line: how long does it take to replace a single senator or Congress person? How long does it take to replace 538? Do you think that can happen within two weeks? What if it takes longer? What about the elections that determine the VP?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 10:32 PM
 
The amount of time it takes to replace a dead Senator is the amount of time it takes for a governor to appoint the interim replacement. So, like, a day.

The Vice President was there in his capacity as the President of the Senate. The Senate can choose a president pro tempore in the event of the Vice President’s absence.

The House would take two months at a minimum, but they’re only explicitly tasked with resolving ties.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The amount of time it takes to replace a dead Senator is the amount of time it takes for a governor to appoint the interim replacement. So, like, a day.
First of all, based on history, do you think it'd only take a day? And as far as I can tell, there are five states that fill open Senate seats by means of special elections only. There are some states where the state legislature has to approve the choice, in others it is the governor's choice. (E. g. Kentucky has changed the way it handles interim appointments, which probably has nothing to do with the fact that Andy Beshear is a Democrat and Mitch McConnell is 80 … )

I tried looking up typical time frames, but I doubt it was measured in weeks rather than hours or a handful of days. And that's assuming we are talking about a single person, not many.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2023, 11:44 PM
 
There’s nothing stopping it from only taking a day in the 34 states where it’s solely in the hands of the governor, and 10 more could swing it despite the restrictions.

Only 51 senators are required to convene.

Realistically, it would take more than a day to physically line up 51 in Washington, but not much longer. Certainly less than a week.
( Last edited by subego; May 22, 2023 at 11:59 PM. )
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2023, 06:48 PM
 
So, waddaya think, kids? Will enough House R’s vote to pass the budget agreement? Or, are the R’s totally committed to wrecking the US economy? A vote could come as soon as tomorrow.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2023, 06:51 PM
 
Biden knows something mccarthy does not want told. I don't know how else he got this done.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2023, 10:49 PM
 
They'd have to be crazy to both crash things, and take the blame. There isn't time to negotiate another deal.

As I write this, the House Rules Committee has released the bill to the House floor. Hardliners could challenge the Speakership - not sure if this would stall a vote on the bill or not. But if a few Dems sit out the votes, McCarthy still wins both Speakership and passage of the deficit bill. The hardliners get overruled, and the bill goes to the Senate. If a few Dems vote for the bill it becomes a slam dunk.

On a previous subject, the 2024 election demographics:

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
• Demographics are continuing. Older folks do die, and younger voters are not becoming conservative as they age. Financial Times article (warning - paywall), alternate coverage. The overperformance of Dems in 2022 is likely to both continue and increase in the near future.
Finally found a good link for this. On point, and without paywall. CNN video from the TV side (it's not on the CNN website).

     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2023, 05:03 PM
 
I dunno. I’m trying to be optimistic, but it’s hard. There’s just enough objectionable shit in the bill that could make it rough getting votes from both camps.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2023, 05:08 AM
 
Son of a gun, the House actually passed it, and pretty handily at that.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2023, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Son of a gun, the House actually passed it, and pretty handily at that.
I have to say, Biden seems to be a very capable operator. He got a lot of stuff passed, including a lot of bipartisan things. I see no way to spin this. Even if you say “Well, it isn't him, he is demented, which is why he has other people doing it.” merely translates to “He is very good at surrounding himself with very capable people who get shirt done.” And if you have any life experience, you can only surround yourself with capable people and keep them if you are capable yourself.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2023, 07:56 PM
 
Bernie is not going to vote for it, plus sinema and manchin, so enough dems in the senate are not a sure thing... unless there are still reasonable R's left in this world?

I guess they convinced Manchin by allowing the gas pipeline through...

Touting the House package with its budget cuts, McConnell said Thursday, “The Senate has a chance to make that important progress a reality.”

The hard-fought compromise pleased few in its entirety, but lawmakers assessed it was better than the alternative — economic upheaval at home and abroad if Congress failed to act. Tensions had run high in the House as hard-right Republicans refused the deal, but Biden and McCarthy assembled a bipartisan coalition, with Democrats ensuring passage on a robust 314-117 vote.

“We did pretty dang good,” McCarthy, R-Calif., said afterward.

As for discontent from Republicans who said the spending restrictions did not go far enough, McCarthy said it was only a “first step.”

Biden, watching the tally from Colorado Springs where he delivered the commencement address Thursday at the U.S. Air Force Academy, phoned McCarthy and the other congressional leaders after the vote. In a statement, he called the outcome “good news for the American people and the American economy.”

The White House immediately turned its attention to the Senate, its top staff phoning individual senators.

Overall, the 99-page bill restricts spending for the next two years, suspends the debt ceiling into January 2025 and changes some policies, including imposing new work requirements for older Americans receiving food aid and greenlighting an Appalachian natural gas line that many Democrats oppose.

It bolsters funds for defense and veterans, cuts back new money for Internal Revenue Service agents and rejects Biden’s call to roll back Trump-era tax breaks on corporations and the wealthy to help cover the nation’s deficits.

Raising the nation’s debt limit, now $31.4 trillion, would ensure Treasury could borrow to pay already incurred U.S. debts.

For weeks negotiators labored late into the night to strike the deal with the White House, and for days McCarthy had worked to build support among skeptics.

The speaker faced a tough crowd, as conservatives from the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, cheered on by outside groups, lambasted the compromise as falling well short of the needed spending cuts. Ominously, the conservatives warned of possibly trying to oust McCarthy over the issue.

One influential Republican, former President Donald Trump, held his fire: “It is what it is,” he said of the deal in an interview with Iowa radio host Simon Conway.

Democrats also had complaints, decrying the new work requirements for older Americans, those 50-54, in the food aid program, the changes to the landmark National Environmental Policy Act and approval of the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline natural gas project they argue is unhelpful in fighting climate change.

The energy pipeline is important to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and he defended the development running through his state, saying the country cannot run without the power of gas, coal, wind and all available energy sources.

But, offering an amendment to strip the pipeline from the package, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said it would not be fair for Congress to step into a controversial project that he said would also course through his state and scoop up lands in Appalachia that have been in families for generations.

Facing Republican resistance overall to even allowing more borrowing to cover the nation’s debts, Democrats powered the House bill to passage late Wednesday. All told, 71 House Republicans broke with McCarthy rejecting the deal.

As the House tally faltered on an initial procedural vote, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries stood silently and raised his green voting card, signaling that the Democrats would fill in the gap to ensure passage. In the 435-member chamber, where 218 votes were needed for approval..

“Once again, House Democrats to the rescue to avoid a dangerous default,” said Jeffries, D-N.Y. “What does that say about this extreme MAGA Republican majority?” he said about the party aligned with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” political stance.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the spending restrictions in the package would reduce deficits by $1.5 trillion over the decade, a top goal for the Republicans trying to curb the debt load.

In a surprise that complicated Republicans’ support, however, the CBO said their drive to impose work requirements on older Americans receiving food stamps would end up boosting spending by $2.1 billion over the time period. That’s because the final deal exempts veterans and homeless people, expanding the food stamp rolls by 78,000 people monthly, the CBO said.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2023, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
They'd have to be crazy to both crash things, and take the blame. There isn't time to negotiate another deal.
My worry is that if this is going to be a regular tactic, it will go wrong eventually. It is a giant Russian roulette. And it is a bullying tactic. A lot of Republicans are using the credit card analogy — completely incorrectly. You cannot refuse to pay your credit card bill for things you bought, if you want to save money, you just have to not make certain purchases in the first place or earn more money.

Moreover, it is a bullying tactic. Just imagine if the Democrats threatened with not raising the debt ceiling, because Republicans are unwilling to fix the US's medical system: either you will pass Medicare for All or we will simply not extend the debt ceiling!
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
As I write this, the House Rules Committee has released the bill to the House floor. Hardliners could challenge the Speakership - not sure if this would stall a vote on the bill or not. But if a few Dems sit out the votes, McCarthy still wins both Speakership and passage of the deficit bill. The hardliners get overruled, and the bill goes to the Senate. If a few Dems vote for the bill it becomes a slam dunk.
McCarthy getting this done without losing speakership is a bit surprising at first glance. I'm not sure I want to wade through the minutiae of GOP caucus politics to understand why at this point, though.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
On a previous subject, the 2024 election demographics:
Like I wrote, I hope you are right. But I just wouldn't bank on it that this is going to fix itself.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,