American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 29 of 57)

My God, not only does this nightmare seem to never end, it keeps starting sooner than we ever noticed.

An essay on how Trump voters feel ignored by Democrats. Pretty much what TF said but much more long-winded.
https://www.salon.com/2020/11/15/unders … -it-right/

Alito would vote however the RNC tells him to.  He's a political hack.

The Trump legal strategy is too haphazard; there’s no chance the challenges they’re using will work.  Trump had an argument, but they’ve squandered their time and focused on areas that weren’t the best arguments.  Poll watching isn’t a game changer; but last minute rule changes on mail in ballots without legislative approval could be argued as a constitutional violation and would be Supreme Court candy.  Get the mail in ballots thrown out and Trump wins.

The Trump team isn’t really arguing the constitution; it’s taking a private attorney who went out on his own to argue it in Georgia.

It's over.  Transition finally agreed to by GSA.  Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham have basically admitted Biden is next.

TF the mail ballot extensions have been done for years, similar to when they hold polls open for people still in line.  There's never been a challenge to those maneuvers that went anywhere, and there likely won't ever be.  I truly don't think the Supreme's would go for tossing hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of ballots.  Maybe Thomas/Alito but not the others. 

Furthermore, the Trump claim was all about fraud.  So yes if it could be proven, the GOP and judges may have gone for that.  There's no evidence of that, which is why they can't charge fraud in court.  Tossing ballots simply because they arrived via mail, no shot.  GOP/judges would never go for that, in fact many expressed that it would be disenfranchisement.

The Georgia races only matter if you believe Biden won.  Otherwise the GOP holds the senate regardless of the outcomes.

I agree with this.  The problem is that it's not just a matter of the law.  It's a matter of much more than the law.  And while Supreme Court robots might be able to see it black and white, I think there's so much riding on it that no one really wants to get involved.  If you look at the major players, they're silent.  Pence, Pelosi, McConnell, even Harris and Biden.  The crusaders are outsiders or medium-level people like Ted Cruz.

So while I believe ACB is not going to take her job seriously, is she really going to want to mark her entire career on a decision that disenfranchises millions?  Even if she believes it's the right thing to do, can she be the tiebreaking vote in a situation like that?  Could Kavanaugh?  Could any of the Republicans?  Not only would they have to face Roberts, they'd face that scrutiny for the rest of their lives.

The problem, at least to me, is timing.  I know Republicans sued pre-election regarding the extensions, and Democrats and Pennsylvania voters were given time to adjust.  The votes happened.  I think at that point, it becomes more than the law.  I don't think it's fair to give someone a ticket for speeding, even if the law has officially been changed, before there was a chance to update the speed limit sign.  Maybe it is fair.  I just wouldn't think that would be fair.

It's like the drive-thru law in Texas.  Did they illegally change the law?  I don't know.  But people came and voted.  If they didn't know they were voting illegally, I don't see why *they* should be punished.  My argument then, if the votes were thrown out, was that anyone who voted and had their vote thrown out should be able to vote again legally.  That would be my same argument if mail in ballots were thrown out.  Give them a reasonable amount of time (a week?) to go in person and vote legally.  Because if they were told that it was legal and it was legal at the time per state law, then they didn't know they were breaking the law.

So since I don't think the Supreme Court would say "okay, let them vote again", I think their only option is to either punt the case or rule against it.  Maybe in their decision they say "if this had been pre-election, maybe you would've won but we can't overturn the election on a technicality - fix this" and then the states can fix it.

I agree that elections probably need help.  The problem is that both sides want different things.  Like it or not, Republicans want less people to vote.  Democrats want more people to vote.  And that ends up meaning that Democrats are okay with some illegal votes getting through, and Republicans are okay disenfranchising people.  Until both sides decide to work together, I think elections will remain a huge problem.

I wonder what would happen if Biden made his term about cleaning up elections.  Would Trump people feel better about democracy or worse?

Why were people concerned about the future of Roe v Wade?  It’s been law for nearly 50 years.  Challenged over and over.  Always stood.  Yet for the past two Supreme Court nominations we’ve had people wailing in the streets (and in one case climbing the statues of the Supreme Court building) because those Trump nominations could destroy Roe v Wade.

Things can change.  Things have changed.  You need look no further than a ruling made just yesterday:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/2 … ett-440808

In May and July, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government restricting church attendance.  It would have been the same result yesterday but for Amy Coney Barrett.  That one change flipped it in favor of the church.

Whatever you think is in stone is not.  Especially not now.  All those people protesting in the streets knew what could happen.

The situation is that no matter how the Court rules on the election, half of the country will feel disenfranchised.  The Supreme Court can go either way, and half the country will be behind them on it.  And to see how attitudes of the Justice’s could play out, you need only look at Scalia’s comments about Bush v Gore:

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article … et_over_it

“Oh, get over it.”

Barrett is of the Scalia cloth.

All that said, the Trump team hasn’t been making the right arguments.  The states are not yet showing an indication of going out on their own.  And then there’s Brett Kavanaugh.  For how much he was hated and attacked, he could turn out to be the Democrats’ best friend on this one.  Like John Roberts, Kavanaugh is Bush’s boy.  He is unlikely to do anything to help Trump just because he’s Trump.  Remember how Trump shredded the Bush legacy in the 2016 campaign.

As for me, I like puzzles.  I like seeing how reality could believably shift.  Do I believe Trump won?  I believe he could have lost; there were potentially enough split ticket Republicans to sink him.  What I’m having trouble with is that the universe of votes changed by 23 million between 2016 and 2020.  Who are these 23 million people that didn’t vote in the last election?  That is an incredible amount of people to appear from thin air; and I’m not so quick to just cheer it as a record breaking accomplishment in civic engagement.

That’s why I said a universe of 23 million extra votes; I was combining all votes that appeared since 2016 for both Trump and Biden.  It seems we agree that something doesn’t quite wash with that size of an increase.  Notice I say “seems” - I could be wrong.

But who are these 23 million?  Did they suddenly care how much Trump actually affected their lives?  Were they that energized by Biden?  I’ve seen Jay Walking segments and the like - significant numbers can’t even pick out the President if you show them a photo.  And they’re also the people who throw mail-in ballots in the trash because they think it’s just another piece of campaign junk mail.

It’s a puzzle; and how to solve it is a puzzle.

As for Cruz, he’s one of many trying to inherit Trump voters is all.  No one will be able to do that, though.

What happened here?

Looks like they moved in the kids’ table from Thanksgiving

And it's a desk sized so the person sitting behind it can share the spotlight with others. But when that person sits behind that desk alone, you see how small and weak that person is.

Joe Biden is not the candidate I wanted, but he has been becoming more of the candidate I wanted. It's interesting to look at his outburst with a plant worker who accused him of being part of a conspiracy to shutter second amendment rights. "You're full of shit!" Biden shrieked at him, ranting about how he owned guns himself for hunting and howling, "I don't work for you!" When a student asked him why Democrats should support him during his weak primary performance, Biden snapped that democracy is a caucus and a discussion (as opposed to a competition) and asked her if she'd ever even been to a caucus. When she hesitantly (and untruthfully) said she had, Biden shrieked at her that she was "a lying, dog-faced pony soldier" (?!?).

The back chatter is that when Obama formally began coaching him, the advice was to stop losing his cool like this. "You're not running for Senate, but for President," Biden's former boss allegedly told him. "Don't be senatorial. Be presidential." What does that mean?

In practice, it means that later, when a black kid asked Biden what he could do for black people and mocked Biden for saying that any Trump voters weren't really black -- Biden responded with a full and polite answer about giving black-owned businesses startup funds to encourage other investors to chip in, childcare that would allow black families to work and build wealth -- and no anger at the jibe or resentment at the mockery which he so richly deserved. It means that when a college student asked Biden why young people should support him, Biden responded by telling him that this current generation of youth is the generation that is the most educated informed and also the least prejudiced and ignorant, and that Biden would try to serve as a transitional president to their leadership.

I watched Biden saying after he won that Democrats should find ways to unite with Trumpists.

This is a silly fantasy. This is saying that we should be kind to the arsonist burning down our house, that we should have a listening ear to the racist shrieking that Chinese people are making good Christian Americans sick, that we should treat Men's Rights Activist terrorists as having a legitimate point of view in declaring that women are required to provide sex to any man who wants it. That we should be concerned with the well-being of the person who refuses to wear a mask during a pandemic.

But this is also the job: a president sets the tone he wants people to find. A president's job is to treat you like the absolute best version of yourself, the most honourable and self-sacrificing and empathetic incarnation of your being -- even if you aren't there yet, even if you may never get there at all. A president speaks to you as though you have conquered your failings and weaknesses so as to remind you that can choose to do so. And a real president sits at that tiny desk and allows himself to look smaller to make space for the other people around him. A real president does not sit there alone.

I think Trump is slowly getting where he needs to get.  He admitted at his Baby Table press conference that he'd leave the White House if the Electoral College voted him out - he said all the Trumpy things about how it'd be the wrong decision and it's a fraud and all that.  He also admitted this weekend that his Supreme Court plan may not ultimately work, saying "it's hard to get to the Supreme Court"

I don't really need Trump to concede.  Or for him to pay for his crimes.  I really just need him to leave the White House, and I need the GOP to clean up as much of his mess as they can.  I need McConnell or someone else to admit that the election was fair for anyone who will listen.  Of course, there will be those that don't.  There will be people who have their doubts or flat-out believe that the election was a sham.  I'm hoping the GOP does their best, once they've gotten everything they can out of Trump, to convince Trump voters that their voice was heard.  If a segment of the GOP doesn't want to believe the results and won't listen to their own leadership, then I don't think there's anything people could do to convince them.  Republicans were big winners this election so it's not like they can even claim the whole election was a scam.  Or even that the Democrats were very good at it.

And I think a lot of those people will move on too.  Just like the pissed off liberals who eventually just went back to life with Trump as president, most of the Trumpists will eventually forget how mad they are now.  OAN and Newsmax and Fox News will go after the Biden administration instead of harping on the election.  I'm sure the Republicans will try and impeach Biden for something weak.

But not hearing Trump's name in the news every day will be nice.  That's all I really need right now.

Very interesting.

I think the next four years will be really interesting for Trump.  I think he can essentially write his own plan.  He has the support inside the Republican party to do whatever he wants.  If he wants to run in 2024, he doesn't need all 74 million people that voted for him to support him - he just needs enough to win a primary.  And the Republicans in power seem to be kneeling to that idea.  That while he won't be in office, Trump will still be in charge of the party for the next four years.

But, and I've said this a bunch, does Trump want to run again in 2024 or does he just need to say that to do what's next?  If he said he was done, he doesn't really have any power.  If he says he's running in 2024, whether he is or not, he has enough power to have all the power.  And everything that comes with that.  But, and we've seen this in the last few weeks, he doesn't really seem particularly interested in doing the job.  He likes that he travels the world and gets to do what he wants.  And I think, once he's out of office, he'll realize that he gets all the "president" stuff without having to do the work.

And while everyone talks like it's a certainty, Trump will be 78 in 2024.  The same age Joe Biden is.  Biden has obviously slowed mentally since 2016 (not to the level everyone says but it is obvious).  Trump gets by because he's quick on his feet - if he slows, he's not Trump anymore.  Barry Allen without his speed is just a guy.  Trump who takes a second to come up with a zinger or who can't speak for an hour off the cuff is just a guy.

And that's if he's alive.  I don't want Trump to die, but he's coming across the average lifespan.  And he's not exactly in great shape.  If he's truly had a stroke or truly showing signs of dementia, all the money in the world may not save him.  Especially if he spends all his time traveling and speaking and all that.

The thing that gives me peace, at least for now, is that no one has really stepped up to take Trump's place.  None of his kids are capable of doing what he did.  I think Ivanka probably has the best chance to follow in her dad's footsteps, but she has zero of his charisma.  She'd be a different type of politician, and that means she's vulnerable to things that he wasn't vulnerable to.  She'd need to build up herself and her public image for a while - running for Congress or governor might work for her first.  I don't think any of the other Trumps could win a real election outside of areas where Trump was popular - they'd win on their dad's name - not theirs.

So if Trump were to die or before 2024, I think the Republicans would struggle - do they try to carry Trumpism without Trump?  Is there Trumpism without Trump?  If Trump decides not to run in 2024 because he can't or doesn't want to, he could pick his successor, but the successor still has to be the person.  I don't think Ivanka could do that.  Jared certainly couldn't.  Eric and Don Jr are laughable compared to Donald.

It'll be interesting.

Maybe.  That would surprise me a bit, but New York will throw everything at him.

Two questions that I can't seem to get answers to:

1. All but one of Trump's lawsuits have been knocked down, but if you listen to what his lawyers say, this is all part of the plan to get things to the Supreme Court.  I know the Supreme Court picks their own cases and it only takes four justices to decide to hear a case - which I'd think they'd easily get with six conservatives.  But is there any sort of deadline on that?  The electoral college votes in 10 days.  I'd think the longer this goes, the harder it would be for the Court to overturn.  I'm assuming the Supreme Court would either reject the cases entirely (as they've been knocked down pretty seriously by lower courts), but aren't we on some sort of clock?  Even if they wanted to, could the Supreme Court overrule the election in March?  How would that even work?

2. Trump is thinking about pardoning himself and his children.  Let's assume that the self-pardon works or that Trump does the "resign and Pence pardons him" trick.  What would that eliminate?  What federal charges are there looming over all their heads?  Would that eliminate all the impeachment stuff?  All the Mueller stuff?  Or is any of that state-level crime?  Is the Ivanka Trump lawsuit a federal or a state issue?  I guess I'm just wondering what that would clear the Trumps of and what would still be outstanding if he gave himself and everyone around him a blanket pardon.

I don't expect his base to be sick of it.  People stayed angry for four years of Trump.  I expect the GOP to stay angry for four years.  And while polls show that most don't buy Trump's bull, Trump can keep his base angry, either popping on OAN randomly, having a homebase there (or Newsmax), or on his own network.

But again, Trump's future depends on his own endurance, his own mental acuity, and his personal freedom.

He can win a primary with it.  He has a stronger base now than he did in 2015/2016 when he won the nomination.

And you don't have to take my word for it - look around.  The whole party is still deferring to him.  Either he's still the king or he's the kingmaker.  And either way, he still has the most influence.  Again, the person to look at is Ted Cruz.  Cruz wants to be president.  If Cruz thought that Trump was wounded, dying, or dead, he'd be pouncing.  He's not.  In fact, he's doubling down - pushing conspiracy theories and backing Trump's plays.

Why would he do that?  It doesn't necessarily help him in Texas, where Trump still won but not hugely.  Trump continued to lose major cities in Texas, and that would put Cruz in a dangerous spot next time he's up for reelection.  Cruz could easily separate himself as the next big thing by rallying Republicans around him.

But he's not.  And I think he's not because he's angling.  Maybe he's hoping to be the VP candidate in 2024 and logical successor in 2028?  Or maybe he's just trying to continue to show loyalty so Trump will anoint him as the next step in Trumpism.  I don't know.  But Cruz certainly is acting like Trump will be the nominee in 2024.

Maybe he's wrong.  But he's working against his own interests so he must be pretty convinced.

Huh.  And they picked Cardassians for their picture?

I think Trump would've blabbed it.  I just don't think he's capable of keeping a secret like that

**********

Word came out today that Trump is planning on taking Air Force One to Florida to run a competing rally on January 20th to announce his 2024 campaign.  Cool.  Fine.  Whatever.  Let's just move forward.

And Texas has done it:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 … ion-rules/

It will be interesting to see what other states now join in the suit.

Forget all of the other noise, this is the case to watch.  I really don’t think there’s enough time; the Trump team truly blundered this.  But if anything will change the outcome, this case is it.

The last time a state sued another, the Supreme Court took 15 months and still threw the case out.  They denied the PA case today, it's as over as it was a month ago.  This one will go adios as well, it has no merit.

Well the Attorney General of Texas is Ken Paxton.  Look up his very extensive list of crimes if you're interested.  But the theory I've seen is that he's just doing this to try and get attention from Trump so he can get a pardon.  Makes sense - although Paxton also faces state-level crimes and this wouldn't solve all his problems.

Well, then that's 18 states supporting an absurd and incoherent lawsuit, the basis of which is that voter fraud was somehow widespread in 2020 because there was no evidence of voter fraud and therefore no evidence that there wasn't voter fraud. As Transmodiar might say, "You can't prove a negative" -- which isn't true, but the underlying point still stands -- the absence of evidence is not evidence. Biden doesn't need to prove his votes weren't fraudulent he's not the one alleging fraud.

And, to my surprise, Trump's judges are not falling in line for their benefactor. Across the board, Trump-nominated judges are striking down his ridiculous lawsuits.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … ump-444023

Why is the Texas attorney general doing this? He's under investigation for corruption and he's hoping this hopeless lawsuit will win him a presidential pardon.

All 50 states (and DC) have certified their results.  These lawsuits are pointless.

The solicitor general of the state of Texas refused to sign the lawsuit.  Sen Ben Sasse suggested the AG of Texas, an accused crook, is simply doing this to be pardoned by Trump.  The Republicans have become post-democracy, not to mention this lawsuit is as anti-states' rights as you can get.

A bunch of House members are getting on board.  I assume to stay on Trump's good side?  I don't see any other reason for them to do it.

I almost feel bad for Trump, who clearly doesn't have the cognitive ability to understand any of this and certainly has a bunch of yes men telling him that there's a real chance of it working.  He probably thinks he has a real chance of staying, and no one has the balls to tell him the truth.

I almost feel bad.  I'm still hoping they have to taze him on the way out.

And Trump is handling it very well.  Probably shouldn't have nominated three Deep State judges.

Or his Deep State Attorney General.  It's pure comedy that everyone is wrong but he is right.

Do Americans really want to do this every time someone doesn't like losing an election... ?

There's been a lot of chatter about how one Senator and one Democrat can challenge the results and then it's voted on by individual states (which the republicans control more of).

From everything I've read, before it goes to that step, both the House and Senate have to approve it.  So even if Rand Paul and the congressman from Alabama object on January 6, several Democrats would need to agree with the objection for it to pass.  Even then, apparently McConnell has privately told Republican senators not to go along with it.

We'll see.  Twenty days.

Trump is completely full of crap.

A fair and sensible assessment.

Thank you.