General US Politics

[eclipse]

I'm basing my predictions off of history.  So far:

- Trump's reign has been littered with lies and illegal things.  Yet he's suffered relatively little consequence for it.  For someone like Trump, it's enabling.
- When Obama had a Republican-majority Congress, a whole lot of nothing got done, and IMO that wasn't on Obama.
- Both Graham and McConnell were re-elected, among other Republicans who apparently thought it was okay to be an obstruction to Obama's SC picks but were more than happy to fast-track The Handmaiden.

That's why I'm predicting possibly fuckery in the EC.  The other "bad" scenario is that Democrats don't get a majority in the Senate - history shows us what will happen, and that's the last thing the country needs.  Top that off with a populace that thought it was okay to re-elect those that were key in making life hell for the Democrats, and we're in for a long and messy recovery.

Even in my corner of the state, the fact that Trump got just shy of 70k more votes than 2016 is depressing.  Especially after all the white supremacy bullshit he's pulled.  That's why I'm cautiously optimistic about Biden, but I'm saving the actual celebration until January 20, when I can see what the field looks like.

[Punished Dayni]

1 hour ago, Integrity said:

JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN Mk. II IS THE FORTY-SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OH NO SOMEONE WILL ATTEMPT TO SHOOT HIM TO SAY THEY SHOT JR

As yet another durty furriner, I do think there's reason to be worried about the potential for an authoritarian demagogue to try and take Trump's sheer image and gathering of fanaticism and meld it with their own policies and ideology. The Republican party's shown enough tendency towards that deal especially lately for that not to be possible.

But hey, the Senate might effectively flip Blue if Gerogia manages to be taken in the runoffs, so there's a goal aside from detrumpigating the White House to work on to not let that be too much of the thought.

[Crysta]

You can predict the fuckery but the amount of fuckery that's needed to happen is just not realistic to expect. There was a grand total of like two faithless electors last time. It's just not going to happen no matter how much you fear it.

Yes, it's depressing that this wasn't a total repudiation of Trump, but it is a repudiation. An important one.

 

[Jave]

I normally don't post in this topic, but I wanted to send a quick message.

To all of you who voted (or couldn't vote but still supported) Biden, you have my thanks.

[eclipse]

6 minutes ago, Crysta said:

You can predict the fuckery but the amount of fuckery that's needed to happen is just not realistic to expect. There was a grand total of like two faithless electors last time. It's just not going to happen no matter how much you fear it.

Yes, it's depressing that this wasn't a total repudiation of Trump, but it is a repudiation. An important one.

 

Really?

[Crysta]

Just now, eclipse said:

Really?

Well, for Trump.

My bad, I forgot most of them voted against him last time. Thanks, this just makes me feel better.

[Punished Dayni]

As for the faithless elector argument, any chance this Supreme court ruling kills that?

[Crysta]

11 minutes ago, Dayni said:

As for the faithless elector argument, any chance this Supreme court ruling kills that?

This is probably a better parsing of that document/decision.

Which I genuinely forgot about.

[eclipse]

9 minutes ago, Dayni said:

As for the faithless elector argument, any chance this Supreme court ruling kills that?

So we're assuming that I'm reading this right.  We're also assuming that I'm as smart as a Supreme Court Justice (hint: I'm not, I'm a bloody moron).

What stands out to me is this:

Quote

Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State’s popular vote. We hold that a State may do so. (pages 1-2 marked in the document, 4-5 according to my PDF reader).

After a bit of history, here's what the issue looks like:

Quote

This case involves three Washington electors who violated their pledges in the 2016 presidential election. That year, Washington’s voters chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump for President. The State thus appointed as its electors the nominees of the Washington State Democratic Party. Among those Democratic electors were petitioners Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors). All three pledged to support Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College. But as that vote approached, they decided to cast their ballots for someone else. The three hoped they could encourage other electors—particularly those from States Donald Trump had carried—to follow their example. The idea was to deprive him of a majority of electoral votes and throw the election into the House of Representatives. So the three Electors voted for Colin Powell for President. But their effort failed. Only seven electors across the Nation cast faithless votes—the most in a century, but well short of the goal. Candidate Trump became President Trump. And, more to the point here, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had. The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. (pages 6-7 marked in the document, 9-10 according to my PDF reader)

Unless something changed drastically in the rest of the decision, it looks like the issue is whether or not the states can hold the electors to their voting populace via their own laws.  The Supreme Court says yes.  Thus, if the laws are already in place, they can do that, but not all states have those laws on the records.

[Moblin Major General]

45 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Wait, how were Graham's and McConnell's opponents much worse than they were?

Republican Primary challengers. Their Democratic Party Challengers were okay.

[Crysta]

3 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Republican Primary challengers. Their Democratic Party Challengers were okay.

Ooooh, I was worried there. I know McGrath was pretty weak, though. She started running pro-Trump ads lol.

[Punished Dayni]

Yeah, I suspected this didn't change much on a federal level imposing on the states, but it does provide an angle for the limiting of such. I asked because this kind of national vs regional lawmaking is very much tipped in the nation's way over here so I don't have that kind of context (this is of course without accounting for the EU, but that's it's own sizeable topic).

[Jotari]

I've only recently learned faithless electors were a thing and I find it frankly ridiculous. I always assumed the electorial college was like a system rather than an actual group of people. Say what you want about the mechanics of the electorial college, but I see absolutely no reason for it to actually feature real people rather than just being automatic based on the votes.

[Lord Raven]

I remember four years ago this was a "THIS IS HOW HILLARY CAN STILL WIN" thing.

Not gonna happen. Even when the news circulated about potential fuckery this election, it didn't come to pass.

Mildly unpopular opinion, the far-right in this country resemble their icon; they're giant pussies.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

Giant pussies who are being arrested for doing terrorist things.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, they're dumb too.

[eclipse]

Dumb + no respect for the law is not a good combo.  But it's better than smart + no respect for the law - those guys don't get caught.

[Tryhard]

On the far-right, you've got both the larpers that tweet every year that their guns are ready and that there's going to be a civil war imminently but never actually do anything, and then the real crazy lone wolfers like Timothy McVeigh. The former are far more numerous.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Tryhard

[Etrurian emperor]

Given how the Trump era seems to be ending for America its interesting to speculate about Trump's place in history. 

Its very likely that historians will be incredibly harsh with Trump. Demagogues in general rarely get positive depictions in the history books and Trump being such a cartoon character makes him a very easy target. The unhinged attempts to deny his defeat isn't going to help his reputation either.  

Trump likely won't be listed as the definitive worst president because Buchanan exist. Unless Trump really does push America into a civil war Buchanan will likely always be worse for having done so. On the other hand if Harding owes his ranking as one of the worst president due to his extreme corruption, then it makes sense that an equally and far more openly corrupt president will be judged similarly harshly. Harding mostly enriching his cronies and his personal involvement not always being clear might even reflect very favorably compared to Trump using the presidency to directly enrich himself and his family. 

Its interesting to note that Trump shares traits with many of the worst president.
-Like Buchanan he stoked civil tensions to incredibly dangerous levels 
-Like Harding he's extremely corrupt
-Like Hoover Trump responded inadequately to a global catastrophy with death and suffering as the result
-Like Andrew Johnson Trump was racist, impeached and completely unwilling to work with the opposition

So while Trump might not go in the history books as the worst its very likely he will be presented as the archetype of the abysmal president because his flaws are so numerous and bombastic. Men like Harding and Buchanan are easily forgotten by the laymen but Trump's style will ensure he'll likely be a very memorable president, and entirely to his detriment. 

[Dai]

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1955-act.html

I was unaware that this was a thing, actually. We really do need a better education system...especially since there's a lot of stuff about former presidents and how they're treated. I wonder how much of that will change in regards to Donnie, since he's such a high-profile criminal as well?

Regardless...I can just imagine all of looney-bin's tweets on display in a library somewhere in Florida or whatever. Or would they curate it so that only SOME tweets get posted?

[Crysta]

I think, if it weren't for the great archive of tweets and other media, the history textbook writers would be compelled to give him a better edit just so we wouldn't look so dumb in electing him. We do for most of our presidents.

Even so, we'll probably still be much kinder to him than he deserves.

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Given how the Trump era seems to be ending for America its interesting to speculate about Trump's place in history. 

Its very likely that historians will be incredibly harsh with Trump. Demagogues in general rarely get positive depictions in the history books and Trump being such a cartoon character makes him a very easy target. The unhinged attempts to deny his defeat isn't going to help his reputation either.  

Trump likely won't be listed as the definitive worst president because Buchanan exist. Unless Trump really does push America into a civil war Buchanan will likely always be worse for having done so. On the other hand if Harding owes his ranking as one of the worst president due to his extreme corruption, then it makes sense that an equally and far more openly corrupt president will be judged similarly harshly. Harding mostly enriching his cronies and his personal involvement not always being clear might even reflect very favorably compared to Trump using the presidency to directly enrich himself and his family. 

Its interesting to note that Trump shares traits with many of the worst president.
-Like Buchanan he stoked civil tensions to incredibly dangerous levels 
-Like Harding he's extremely corrupt
-Like Hoover Trump responded inadequately to a global catastrophy with death and suffering as the result
-Like Andrew Johnson Trump was racist, impeached and completely unwilling to work with the opposition

So while Trump might not go in the history books as the worst its very likely he will be presented as the archetype of the abysmal president because his flaws are so numerous and bombastic. Men like Harding and Buchanan are easily forgotten by the laymen but Trump's style will ensure he'll likely be a very memorable president, and entirely to his detriment. 

On the "positive" side for Trump, if America stays in the clear of the illiberal menace, after a few decades, he'll find himself on TV a lot. Trump was as mad as Henry VIII after the infamous jousting incident ruined his brain, he compares favorably to Ivan the Terrible too. Sure, Henry VIII might have done some nice things, but it's his lunatic monarchy manifested in "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived" and the rise and fall of ambitious men like Cromwell, that gets the popular attention.

Trump will do well in the ratings, and thanks to modern everything, recreating him in CGI or with an actor's portrayal in 2060 will be extraordinarily easy. It'll be interesting to see when I've become a prune how closely in a more serious political drama a man could replicate his mannerisms though.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The only presidential library I have been to is Nixon's and yeah, don't expect anything in the way of criticism, implied or otherwise. Those written descriptions of each photo and prop are heavily sanitized. Trump's library is going for that same energy when it opens. I hear that the web site accompanying Nixon's library has actually complete information along with fabulous research materials for historians. Including the famous Nixon Tapes. But the in-person site profits off nostalgic baby boomers who presumably already like Nixon if they paid for the admission and will open their wallets for books in the gift shop written by Fox News anchors whom the MeToo movement have since exposed. And some cute elephant figures made by artisans who probably never knew where their things would end up getting sold. I think what I would look forward to most is the guided tour of a recreation of the house Trump grew up in. "It was probably here, at this dinner table, where his father gave him a small loan of a million dollars. Instilling the frugal attitude that the president needed to strip all of the extravagant initiatives of the previous administration."

Huh, Raegan's library is not far. That'd make a fun road trip. 

[Excellen Browning]

It's also worth remembering that Nixon accomplished a list of good things during his presidency. He set up the EPA and had environmental protection laws passed, he expanded social security, enforced desegregation of schools and set up the first affirmative action programme, and he signed arms control treaties with the USSR.

Nixon and Trump are comparable in the sense that both are assholes who tried to cheat the election, but they're very different when it comes to policy and their effectiveness. Nixon also didn't throw quite the shit fit that trump is doing right now

Edited November 8, 2020 by Excellen Browning

[eclipse]

Nixon also had his party attempt to keep him in line, somewhat.  Trump had enablers.