Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

His niece, Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist who psychoanalyzed him in her book TOO MUCH AND NEVER ENOUGH, says that he's so terrified of losing (again) that he wouldn't run in 2024. Plus, I'm sure he'll be in jail or hiding in a non-extradition country by then.

I sure hope no self-published authors who work as extras in Austin, Texas sell their homes and all worldly possessions to pay Trump's campaign bills! Haha!

**

In other news, the Supreme Court looks likely to spare Obamacare and John Roberts is god-damn sick of hearing about it and people trying to force him to kill something that just cannot be killed and which is not his job to kill.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics … index.html

Brett Kavanaugh also seems eager to move on with his life and accept that Obamacare is in it.

https://news.yahoo.com/brett-kavanaugh- … 05716.html

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This is truly remarkable.  From 1990:

https://www.heavymetal.com/news/preside … tal-story/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Like pre-election, I'm now varying between wildly contradicting feelings.  On one hand, Trump's legal efforts are his only shot.  If he can get enough doubt, they can either get to the Supreme Court or get results un-certified.  Both are still fairly bad options unless the Supreme Court goes super-politicized (I think the Pennsylvania case could go 8-1 with ACB being the only Trump vote with the incredible lack of evidence they're presenting).

But I still fear hijinks.  And I'm not entirely sure why the Supreme Court would even entertain such a case.  And I don't like that Michigan is entertaining any of this.  And I don't like that Georgia is so politicized.

I get super-confident...then I dig a little deeper into the crazy, and I get nervous.  I need to just stop paying attention.  Soon enough, it'll be over and Biden will be president.

1,685

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think there's a chance that Thomas would too.  Roberts would almost certainly vote against.  So they'd just need one of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to take their jobs seriously, and I think they'd have to put up with a ton of scrutiny to do so.  I even think ACB could fold under that kind of pressure and vote against.

Best case scenario in my mind is for them to refuse to take the case.  I know they can, and I doubt they will.  But that's the best case scenario to put this whole thing to bed.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Michigan's results are certified.

Do Americans really want to go through this every time they have an election? Where after the results are in, they have to argue whether or not the results are to be accepted because the losing party doesn't like losing?

1,689 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-11-23 21:34:40)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nothing is over until McConnell says it is.  And he still must think there's something to be gained in Georgia by backing Trump.

Funny thing is that a lot of Trump people on Parler are talking about skipping the runoff entirely or writing Trump's name is.  It probably won't be a lot of people, but if it's enough for one or both of the Democrats to win, that would be the funniest story of the decade.

1,691

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I know this will be instantly soured because of the site, but an interesting approach:

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/11 … ipulation/

Basically the Civil War in court.

But this is the type of argument Trump’s team should have been arguing.  It’s simple.  It’s clean.  Either the states changed the rules on mail-ins or they didn’t.  Either the legislatures were involved or they weren’t.  Either the constitution was violated or it wasn’t.  No trust of witnesses needed.  It’s in black and white for the Supreme Court to call a ball or a strike.

I do believe it’s important to clear up.  If a Secretary of State or lower court is going to have the power to change rules (like signature verifications) unilaterally, then that can later swing against Democrats as easily as it swung in their favor.  It’s all in the whims of one person, and that’s not the system of government we’ve had.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

I do believe it’s important to clear up.  If a Secretary of State or lower court is going to have the power to change rules (like signature verifications) unilaterally, then that can later swing against Democrats as easily as it swung in their favor.  It’s all in the whims of one person, and that’s not the system of government we’ve had.

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?

1,694

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

They already ran cases to the Supreme Court pertaining to mail in ballots, as well as changes including extensions.  The Court ruled that the onus was on the state legislatures and courts, not the Federal courts.  They were pretty consistent on that.  It's why Trump's team didn't bother challenging them any further, because they would have lost.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I've seen the "how did Biden get 80 million votes" question a ton from conservatives.  But the 74 million Trump got are never questioned.  Are we saying that Trump, in the middle of a pandemic that he's done almost nothing to help and during a time where he's done nothing to help get a second stimulus bill passed *convinced* an additional 12+ million voters to vote for him?  He's done almost nothing - were 12 million people convinced by Space Force?

If Biden's 80 million votes are in question, so are Trump's 74 million.  As we've discussed, Trump usually accuses people of doing what he's already done.  I'd be willing to bet that Trump and the Republicans engaged in plenty of election shenanigans.  Seeing what Lindsey Graham tried in Georgia tells me that he tried the same stuff in South Carolina.  Did he succeed there?

I've seen polls that half Trump's voters don't believe Biden won.  I've seen polls where about a quarter of Trump voters believe it was legit.  Either way, it's not half the country.  We're talking 35-60 million people.  Which is significant but not overwhelming.  I'm interested in seeing what the Republicans do after Georgia.  It doesn't help McConnell for people not to believe in elections.  I would assume once they've gotten everything they can get out of the Trump people, the GOP will drop the fraud business.  They aren't really helping with it in the first place, and I think they'll let Trump embarrass himself in court and then they can distance.

I still don't understand why people like Ted Cruz are helping.  Doesn't Cruz want to run in 2024?  If he's content with being where he is, I guess it makes sense.  But he's actively helping his competition which is bizarre to me.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Turnout was estimated to be high due to a highly partisan election year and few undecided voters. 23 million shouldn't be a surprise.

https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21549010/ … ction-2020

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What happened here?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En17g4rVoAEF9Lc?format=jpg&name=small

Looks like they moved in the kids’ table from Thanksgiving

1,700

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's a bill signing desk, normally used when they need extra space for guests

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En1Q99DW4AASV6z.jpg

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

What happened here?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En17g4rVoAEF9Lc?format=jpg&name=small

Looks like they moved in the kids’ table from Thanksgiving

pilight wrote:

It's a bill signing desk, normally used when they need extra space for guests

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En1Q99DW4AASV6z.jpg

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.

Joe Biden wrote:

For all those of you who voted for President Trump, I understand the disappointment tonight. I've lost a couple of times myself. But now let's give each other a chance. It's time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature, see each other again, listen to each other again. To make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as our enemies. They are not our enemies. They're Americans. They're Americans.

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.

1,702

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This was the "real photo"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En7fLYdW8AAJayZ?format=jpg

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://mobile.twitter.com/ditzkoff/sta … 3838488576

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My hope is that Trump will be in jail by 2024.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

1,708

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump will use the $170 million he has raised to fight in court in order to sustain his political whims for the next several years.  Beyond that who knows.  If Biden has COVID out of play and economics are moving up by the mid-terms, what would Trump even have as a slogan then?  He's failed to win 47% of the vote, twice, and his results have mostly been due to the simple aspect that people do not like him one bit.  That won't change.  2-3 years of him and his family bitching about their legal issues, crying the election was rigged?  People are already sick of hearing it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

2-3 years of him and his family bitching about their legal issues, crying the election was rigged?  People are already sick of hearing it.

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.

1,710

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump has proven he can't win with simply his base.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Trump has proven he can't win with simply his base.

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201 … scientist/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Huh.  And they picked Cardassians for their picture?

That’s what really caught my eye - what an odd choice of picture!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This fucking state.

Yes, things were changed.  But there's a pandemic.  People are staying home.  The rules have been known for months.  Sue then.  Get things straightened out then.  Doing it after the fact makes people like me (since they're doing it on my behalf) look like sore losers.  And for this state of all states to cross the line into other states' politics is insane.  How would Texas feel if California said they didn't like how they were doing something and sued to the Supreme Court?  They'd be pretty pissed off.

I don't know where I'll be in 2024, but I know what I'll be doing.  Actively working on the campaign of whoever runs against Ted Cruz.  He's embarrassed me enough.

1,717

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's a ridiculous case. Texas has no chance of getting this case forward because their case is dependent on claiming there were tens of thousands of fraudulent signatures -- and there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. (Absence of evidence to the contrary isn't evidence.) They can't establish evidence of injury or just cause for this lawsuit to go anywhere. (Not liking the results of a vote is not injury or just cause.)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

17 states have thrown their support to the Texas lawsuit:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/states- … n-win.html

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

1,722

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the following...."I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it.  Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."

The suggestion that one state has any say in how another state conducts its election is laughable.  The Trump legal team (whoever isn't COVID positive) is now 1 for 55 in court.

1,723

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the following...."I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it.  Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."

The suggestion that one state has any say in how another state conducts its election is laughable.  The Trump legal team (whoever isn't COVID positive) is now 1 for 55 in court.

Yeah I can't believe I'm agreeing with Cornyn, but it's very important that he speak up like this.

Again, if other states were suing Texas, Texans would be freaking out and threatening to secede.  And what's so stupid is that Republicans don't see how short-sighted this is.  This will bite one of them in the butt at some point.  There will be a close race and some BS lawsuit is going to cost them the election.  This stuff always comes back around and always bites the other party in the butt.  I just cannot understand how people who won elections this year can go along with the idea that their own election wins could've been fraudulent.

Although I heard an interesting stat on a podcast (I do not have a source, unfortunately) that said that while the majority of republicans think something fishy happened in the election, something like 90+% of republicans believe that their vote was counted correctly.  Which tells me that most people believe in elections as a whole and that this might be Trump-related.

Since, as far as I'm aware, this kind of stuff isn't happening down ballot, it gives me a bit of hope that this is Trump-specific and not something we'll be dealing with every election forever now.

1,725 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-12-10 14:54:18)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

"The justices are not going to have the slightest interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state — one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court into the thick of electoral politics."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics … index.html

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Game over for the Texas lawsuit.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/1 … ory-444638

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden got to 270 again!

The republican electors are sending their own votes to Congress in the hopes that it'll cause some problem.  From my understanding, Congress can retaliate.  Even if Congress fails to certify, the Democrat-led House can stall until Pelosi becomes president.  Or the House can just name Biden the Speaker of the House and he'd become president that way.

1,731

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

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

And now McConnell is Deep State too.

It would not surprise me to see Trumpists break off to form their own party.  Everyone can't be a RINO.  I guess they could just capture more of the party, but I can't get a good sense of whether or not traditional Republicans outnumber Trumpists.  They both are happy/willing to vote for him, especially over any Democrat, but if push came to shove, would it be easier for Trump's agenda to do his own party (and destroy everything) or to try and primary anyone who didn't support him (which is going to end up being most of the Republican senate and House)?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Not at all.  I was listening to a podcast and they talked about how the structures of democracy held....something that has helped calm my fears.  The Supreme Court didn't entertain him.  The state legislatures didn't try anything funny with electors.  All states certified their votes.  Even now, the GOP is starting to accept the results publicly.

....but

The podcaster followed that up with the idea that it only held up because of a few people.  The republican governors in Arizona and Georgia didn't blindly go along with Trump.  That one republican in Michigan didn't blindly vote against certification.  A lot of these lower level court cases have been decided by a single vote.  The system held, but a person here or a person there and things might've gone differently.  Maybe not differently enough to change the election but even one state going against the people is terrible for democracy.

I think the thing that makes me feel better about the long-term future is that Trump is unique.  Even Trumpist politicians down ballot didn't do this kind of thing.  We don't have 200+ contested elections in the House and Senate.  There's not fraud allegations and lawsuits in every election that far right politicians lost.  It's just Trump.  This seems unique to him, both because he has the power to screw with people who don't support him and because he's a child in a man's body.

If this doesn't work, and it looks like a one in a trillion chance now, then I think more established politicians (Rubio, Cruz, DeSantis, etc) wouldn't even go that route.

What worries me in the short-term is someone like Don Jr or Ivanka trying it again.  Not because I think they could win (I don't, they don't have the same power of persuasion that Trump has) but because I think they'd be more willing to try and would have nothing to lose.  And even if it was a colossal landslide, we could see chaos if they're able to get more Trump loyalists in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona.  Some of those one-vote decisions could go the other way and then I don't know what happens.

That's why it should be a priority to go after people who participated in this attempt.  Either politically or legally, there should be consequences so that there isn't the same problem next time.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

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.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump has crashed the COVID relief package.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/2 … ost-450343

On one level, Trump is calling for something good: larger cheques to people whose need is desperate. On a more realistic level, Trump is agitating for more attention because the nation is slowly but surely turning its eyes towards President-elect Biden and Biden's shockingly conventional and status-quo upholding cabinet picks which are everything Transmodiar warned against but may or may not be a political reality of contending with a GOP Senate.

Trump doesn't care about helping anyone. He just wants to be in the news, life is just a reality show to him. But it may lead to a government shutdown as the Trump-stalled stimulus is tied to the spending bill that would keep government in operation.

1,737

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is completely full of crap.

1,738

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

He's doing the right thing for the wrong reason.  The "relief" bill is an obscene barrel of pork.

Just for perspective, about 330 million people live in the USA. $600 each is less than $200 billion. The stimulus bill is over $900 billion. The vast majority of the money is going to special interests rather than the people.  $2000 to each of 330 million people STILL wouldn't add up to $900 billion. It would be less than $700 billion.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A fair and sensible assessment.

Thank you.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree.  Our leadership has no care for their own people that voted them into office - and that goes for Republicans and Democrats.  I can see the validity in targeting relief money (people who never lost their jobs don’t need money), but it’s beyond insulting to see the legislation include money for things like “gender studies” in Pakistan and refurbishing ships in Sri Lanka.  I don’t care that Congress merged multiple bills together to create this monster - it’s bad optics and a really bad taste in the mouth when people are expecting COVID relief and see all this other irrelevant mess tacked into it.

No matter who is blamed for it, people in the US are hurting out there; and it is one of the more critical times in memory that US citizens need the safety net of their own government that they’ve paid taxes into most of their lives.  Sri Lanka’s ships can wait.