Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile a bunch more people from the Trump Administration are getting Covid, possibly from the election party that was on last week.

Meadows and Carson confirmed, who knows how many more.

These next few months will be a fascinating period to observe regardless of how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

So the Four Seasons landscaping, that place between a crematoria and a sex store that Rudy did his press conference at, is now a VR chat room. And its populated by furries. 

Sometimes the Trump campaign is the gift that keeps on giving. 

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/1325874611284815878

And, that "election fraud hotline" the Trump campaign set up? It has turned into the number one target for prank phone calls.

https://time.com/5909443/trump-hotline-prank-calls-voter-fraud-election-tiktok/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jotari said:

Puerto Rica and Guam (and the US Virgin Isles) yes, American Samoa, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuaua_v._United_States

They are officially designated American Nationals, but not Citizens. They have the right to travel and work in the US though so getting Citizenship isn't too hard for them. Still bloody weird though. In my research it's basically the only real part of the world where people are designated Nationals non Citizens. There's some obscure scenarios with British Nationals and British Subjects, but it's mostly to do with now defunct British Empire stuff that ended when Hong Kong was returned. So to be a British National or Subject Non Citizen you need to be born to British Nationals non Citizens in a part of the world that would otherwise make you stateless. Some south American countries also render people under the age of adulthood as Nationals non Citizens, but they gain Citizenship upon reaching 18 (or some other year thereabouts) so it's not really the same case.

Huh. You're right, I was wrong.

The truth is we don't really care about any of those territories. I suspect most aren't even aware of their existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think this is a rather big dilema. Things can go horribly wrong whether Trump is or isn't prosecuted. 

Trump ending up in jail will no doubt radicalize his followers. They will never accept Trump's prosecution as legitimate. They will see it as ''the deep state'' locking up their great champion for daring to oppose them. This can get incredibly dangerous with armed militias possibly even trying to get revenge for Trump. The resentment will never go away which will make a second Trump inevitable. 

On the other hand if Trump is not prosecuted then it might radicalize demagogue politicians. Trump breaking every rule in the book and shamelessly enriching himself without any negative consequence will convince any malicious person that the presidency is the land of milk and honey. They will be shown they can abuse the presidency for their own wealth as much as they can without it costing them anything. The temptation of abusing the presidency will never go away which will make a second Trump inevitable. 

I'll take deranged commoners over corruption at the head of the government.  One of these is easier to deal with, from a layperson's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this isn't to talk down to etrurian emperor but Trump deserves persecution and it doesn't matter what Joe Biden does when the same crowd will just bitch at him or about him anyway. Peace is the presence of justice, not the absence of conflict and all that.

Share this post


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

Yeah, this isn't to talk down to etrurian emperor but Trump deserves persecution and it doesn't matter what Joe Biden does when the same crowd will just bitch at him or about him anyway. Peace is the presence of justice, not the absence of conflict and all that.

Do note that I didn't say he shouldn't get prosecuted. I said its a risky thing to do, just as how not prosecuting Trump is also a risky thing to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Crysta said:

Huh. You're right, I was wrong.

The truth is we don't really care about any of those territories. I suspect most aren't even aware of their existence.

I expect that's true of any country with distant overseas territories in the modern day. France seems to be the most together when it comes to legal parity between it and it's overseas territories with almost all of them being 100% legally France (and the ones that aren't are because they want it that way, I think). Though I'm not sure if the average French person has heard of Reunion or the like. New Zealand also has a weird status with Niue and the Cook Islands where in they are overseas territories of New Zealand, but have a ridiculous amount of independent authority. Like literally the only thing tying them to New Zealand is that they have New Zealand passports and they can only have diplomatic relations with countries New Zealand has diplomatic relations with (which is basically everyone but like North Korea because New Zealand is a pretty chill nation). It's to the extent that some New Zealanders I've spoken to are surprised to hear that they are not in fact independent countries.

Of course take everything I say with a grain of salt. I'm no expert in the legal status of modern overseas holdings. It's just a topic I find quite interesting.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Crysta said:
*snip*

Honestly, I'm leaning more towards this being some big distraction while he loots the White House for everything that isn't nailed down. I recently saw a few people sharing a letter from Spanky's team asking for funds to fight voter fraud. In the fine print, it dictates that some or all funds provided may be used towards campaign debts. I'll have to find it again. Of course, it could be something else, but honestly, I'm pretty sure he knows he won't get anywhere and is just wasting time, money, and energy for the rest of us.

Edit: Hoi

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/524899-trump-fundraiser-for-legal-challenges-also-pays-down-campaign-debt-report

Edited by Dai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I brought it up earlier.  The GOP has no issues with playing fast and loose with the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the republican party willing to give up an electoral process that disproportionally favors them just to get four more years out of their least effective president? No, they're saving this trump card for somebody greater than Trump. Because if they cause a constitutional crisis in the next couple months, they can bet that the current generation of democrats will make it their lifelong mission to abolish the electoral college. The GOP will take their chances with Biden, who has been smart enough not to opine on the procedure. 

37 faithless electors would be required to force a contingent election. No, more than that, as several states and the RNC/DNC have proven capable of replacing an elector with somebody who will pledge a vote for the correct candidate. It's a small sample size, but let's assume that 30% of cases will be corrected as they were in 2016. That's a total of 52 or 53 faithless electors. You're talking more than a multi-state coalition, and what do they even gain from another trump presidency? It's not money, that campaign is hemorraging what they have left on a search for voter fraud. A large batch of electors did try it last time, but faced threat from the RNC, leading to just two of Texas' electors finally flipping out of the supposed 20+. The DNC could do the same thing.

And as for the contingent election scenario, it's hard to predict how state delegations in the House would vote (since this scenario has not happened in two centuries and I can't find any info on who would be tasked with casting their vote from each state). Let's say every state delegation votes in accordance with whatever candidate won their state, it's a 25/25 tie with no tie breaker. They just keep repeating their poll until one side loses a vote. I can't think of any theory for which side would flip first, but unlike most elections in recent memory, a contingent election scenario in 2020 doesn't seem like an "easy win" for the republicans.

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I mention how Trump said after the 2016 election there was voter fraud and 3 million invalid votes from Democrats "bussing in illegals" to vote on their behalf. And he won that election?

Trump can't handle losing the popular vote and still winning, never mind losing electorally as well.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


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

Is the republican party willing to give up an electoral process that disproportionally favors them just to get four more years out of their least effective president? No, they're saving this trump card for somebody greater than Trump. Because if they cause a constitutional crisis in the next couple months, they can bet that the current generation of democrats will make it their lifelong mission to abolish the electoral college. The GOP will take their chances with Biden, who has been smart enough not to opine on the procedure. 

37 faithless electors would be required to force a contingent election. No, more than that, as several states and the RNC/DNC have proven capable of replacing an elector with somebody who will pledge a vote for the correct candidate. It's a small sample size, but let's assume that 30% of cases will be corrected as they were in 2016. That's a total of 52 or 53 faithless electors. You're talking more than a multi-state coalition, and what do they even gain from another trump presidency? It's not money, that campaign is hemorraging what they have left on a search for voter fraud. A large batch of electors did try it last time, but faced threat from the RNC, leading to just two of Texas' electors finally flipping out of the supposed 20+. The DNC could do the same thing.

And as for the contingent election scenario, it's hard to predict how state delegations in the House would vote (since this scenario has not happened in two centuries and I can't find any info on who would be tasked with casting their vote from each state). Let's say every state delegation votes in accordance with whatever candidate won their state, it's a 25/25 tie with no tie breaker. They just keep repeating their poll until one side loses a vote. I can't think of any theory for which side would flip first, but unlike most elections in recent memory, a contingent election scenario in 2020 doesn't seem like an "easy win" for the republicans.

If the republicans are smart they should start trying to dismantle the electoral college system now. As while it seems to favor them now, it will monstrously favor the democrats in the future should Texas ever become a blue state like it's trending towards. If the democrats manage to have both California and Texas they would basically never lose any election via the electoral college because the seats of those two states combined account for so much.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's theater for the base and the georgia run-offs, not out of a sincere belief that they can actually overturn the election

additionally

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jotari said:

If the republicans are smart they should start trying to dismantle the electoral college system now. As while it seems to favor them now, it will monstrously favor the democrats in the future should Texas ever become a blue state like it's trending towards. If the democrats manage to have both California and Texas they would basically never lose any election via the electoral college because the seats of those two states combined account for so much.

Republicans are aware of how unpopular their platforms are, and are unwilling to change so long as the electoral college and Senate exist to enable them. They would not last in a post-electoral college environment. Think about how we've had five elections this century and they lost the popular vote in all but one of them. Yeah, Texas looks like a ticking time bomb from their perspective (I don't think we'll see Texas as a solid blue state in our lifetimes like California is, but certainly as a swing state), but they need the existence of swing states to clutch elections otherwise they're left with no chance until their opposition just puts up a thoroughly unelectable candidate. They ought to be more afraid of grassroots movements in places like Georgia than what's happening in Texas.

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Is the republican party willing to give up an electoral process that disproportionally favors them just to get four more years out of their least effective president? No, they're saving this trump card for somebody greater than Trump. Because if they cause a constitutional crisis in the next couple months, they can bet that the current generation of democrats will make it their lifelong mission to abolish the electoral college. The GOP will take their chances with Biden, who has been smart enough not to opine on the procedure. 

37 faithless electors would be required to force a contingent election. No, more than that, as several states and the RNC/DNC have proven capable of replacing an elector with somebody who will pledge a vote for the correct candidate. It's a small sample size, but let's assume that 30% of cases will be corrected as they were in 2016. That's a total of 52 or 53 faithless electors. You're talking more than a multi-state coalition, and what do they even gain from another trump presidency? It's not money, that campaign is hemorraging what they have left on a search for voter fraud. A large batch of electors did try it last time, but faced threat from the RNC, leading to just two of Texas' electors finally flipping out of the supposed 20+. The DNC could do the same thing.

And as for the contingent election scenario, it's hard to predict how state delegations in the House would vote (since this scenario has not happened in two centuries and I can't find any info on who would be tasked with casting their vote from each state). Let's say every state delegation votes in accordance with whatever candidate won their state, it's a 25/25 tie with no tie breaker. They just keep repeating their poll until one side loses a vote. I can't think of any theory for which side would flip first, but unlike most elections in recent memory, a contingent election scenario in 2020 doesn't seem like an "easy win" for the republicans.

We're both assuming a lot of things, and I'm not sure which one of us is right.  I hope you're right, since I think the endgame to the GOP plan is to completely dismantle all the checks and balances so that things work in their favor.  Which means even if they fail now, they'll see how much they got away with, and reattempt it the next time some charismatic R is president (Trump appeals to a not-insignificant number of lunkheads, and they still have their voting rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2020 at 10:14 AM, eclipse said:

Not all states.  Luckily, one of those is my state, and I'm positive that no one's gonna be dumb enough to pull that this election (even if we had one last election).  We're also looking at a party that's hardly what I call "law-abiding", which is why I have my doubts.

And that's the point that everyone's missing.  It's not over until it's formally done.  I'm 80% sure that things will go by the book and the worst is that Georgia has to endure another two months of campaign signs.  The other 20% isn't sure just what nonsense will be pulled This Time.

All states have laws on the books delegating their choice of electors to an election in that state, and most have laws giving all that state's electors to the winner of that election.

Faithless electors are a non-issue. As people have pointed out, the number that would need to flip away from Biden is about as many as there have ever been in the whole history of the USA. If it didn't happen in 2016, when there was talk of Democrats and Republicans electing a compromise Republican candidate, it's not going to happen here. Not a chance.

As long as all the laws are followed, Joe Biden will be elected the next President. Obviously, Trump has many ways to break laws to stay in power, but as far as your democratic institutions are concerned, he's lost.

EDIT: Aw, crap, the law-breaking has already started? Jeez, your democracy is unhealthy.

Edited by Seafarer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seafarer said:

All states have laws on the books delegating their choice of electors to an election in that state, and most have laws giving all that state's electors to the winner of that election.

Faithless electors are a non-issue. As people have pointed out, the number that would need to flip away from Biden is about as many as there have ever been in the whole history of the USA. If it didn't happen in 2016, when there was talk of Democrats and Republicans electing a compromise Republican candidate, it's not going to happen here. Not a chance.

As long as all the laws are followed, Joe Biden will be elected the next President. Obviously, Trump has many ways to break laws to stay in power, but as far as your democratic institutions are concerned, he's lost.

EDIT: Aw, crap, the law-breaking has already started? Jeez, your democracy is unhealthy.

Most states have laws dealing with faithless electors, but only 14 states actually override the vote of the faithless electors. The others just fine the faithless elector and let the vote go through anyway (or don't do anything at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Seafarer said:

All states have laws on the books delegating their choice of electors to an election in that state, and most have laws giving all that state's electors to the winner of that election.

Faithless electors are a non-issue. As people have pointed out, the number that would need to flip away from Biden is about as many as there have ever been in the whole history of the USA. If it didn't happen in 2016, when there was talk of Democrats and Republicans electing a compromise Republican candidate, it's not going to happen here. Not a chance.

As long as all the laws are followed, Joe Biden will be elected the next President. Obviously, Trump has many ways to break laws to stay in power, but as far as your democratic institutions are concerned, he's lost.

EDIT: Aw, crap, the law-breaking has already started? Jeez, your democracy is unhealthy.

The crux of your argument is "as long as all laws are followed".  Events that are playing out in front of your nose indicate that there's a severe disregard for the law on one side.

Share this post


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

The crux of your argument is "as long as all laws are followed".  Events that are playing out in front of your nose indicate that there's a severe disregard for the law on one side.

I wasn't arguing that Trump wouldn't try to hold on to power, though? I'm just saying that faithless electors are not a problem and you shouldn't waste energy worrying about them?

EDIT: Oh yeah, your original point was about it not being over until the EC votes. But if Trump's willing to break laws to steal electors, what makes you think he won't ignore the EC result too? Either way, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant, and you can either relax now, or not relax until Biden's sworn in and inhabiting the White House.

Edited by Seafarer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2020 at 6:27 PM, Seafarer said:

I wasn't arguing that Trump wouldn't try to hold on to power, though? I'm just saying that faithless electors are not a problem and you shouldn't waste energy worrying about them?

EDIT: Oh yeah, your original point was about it not being over until the EC votes. But if Trump's willing to break laws to steal electors, what makes you think he won't ignore the EC result too? Either way, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant, and you can either relax now, or not relax until Biden's sworn in and inhabiting the White House.

He can try to ignore the EC result, but he's going to face a much larger opposition assuming the EC votes how it should (pretty sure this will get the attention of the military, but whether or not they'll Do Anything, I'm not sure.  Pretty sure the Secret Service will throw his ass out if he's no longer president once January 20 rolls around.).  Stealing the electors means that he's president according to our Constitution, and that's where things get ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...