General US Politics

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

On a Wednesday!? How devilish. You guys get a day off for it yet (I say that as if it's a holiday where I'm from when it's not {well, I think, been a while since I've lived there}, course we don't have the issue of people fainting in lines because they need to wait so long either).

It was Tuesday when I posted this (and still is, here in Eagleland). Election Day is always "the day after the first Monday in November", and it's not a holiday. Would be cool to see it changed as such, but my state has early voting (including on weekends) as an option, so I don't see it as essential.

[Jotari]

24 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

It was Tuesday when I posted this (and still is, here in Eagleland). Election Day is always "the day after the first Monday in November", and it's not a holiday. Would be cool to see it changed as such, but my state has early voting (including on weekends) as an option, so I don't see it as essential.

I'm always in favor of more national holidays, being the lazy bastard that I am, but I don't see any reason why these things aren't just scheduled on weekends. That's actually how most countries do it, cause it makes perfect sense (in Ireland it's typically a Friday, presumably so we can hit the polls then hit the pints).

[Dr. Tarrasque]

16 hours ago, Jotari said:

On a Wednesday!? How devilish. You guys get a day off for it yet (I say that as if it's a holiday where I'm from when it's not {well, I think, been a while since I've lived there}, course we don't have the issue of people fainting in lines because they need to wait so long either).

Can't get Election Day as a holiday because it would be a Democrat Power Grab according to the Republican Senate leader.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The Minority Party fears enfranchising voters, this is true. It's also why they'd get behind raising the voting age to 21. Then to 24 in three more years. Then to 27 three years after that...

Federal holiday Election day would be great, as would expanding it into Election Week or Weekend, so people can show up on whichever day works best for them. Of course holding the Polls open for more days costs more money. The US has more elections than any other country and we sink a lot already on having them. Last month I voted on yet another Recall election because these are notoriously easy to make happen in California. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor costs just cause a thousand people said "sure, I'll sign. What's it for?". And it was hundreds of millions$ for that unsuccessful governor recall a couple years back. My state has mail in voting, so I feel like we've already solved this Election Day issue via that alone. But recall rules are definitely something I'd want to see reformed.

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Can't get Election Day as a holiday because it would be a Democrat Power Grab according to the Republican Senate leader.

Because democrats are the only ones who work weekdays?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

34 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Because democrats are the only ones who work weekdays?

Because if more people turn out and vote, "you will never see another Republican president".

Again, in their own words.

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Because if more people turn out and vote, "you will never see another Republican president".

Again, in their own words.

I'm sure their logistics analysts have some data to believe that's true, but it sounds like complete nonsense. The only way that would have an impact would be if the majority of people who wouldn't otherwise vote are democrats, which just sounds highly unlikely to be untrue. Having a job interfering with personal life is a pretty omnipresent thing (well at least for middle and working class, I assume those rich folk just sip champagne and snort coke on yachts all day).

[Sunwoo]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm sure their logistics analysts have some data to believe that's true, but it sounds like complete nonsense. The only way that would have an impact would be if the majority of people who wouldn't otherwise vote are democrats, which just sounds highly unlikely to be untrue. Having a job interfering with personal life is a pretty omnipresent thing (well at least for middle and working class, I assume those rich folk just sip champagne and snort coke on yachts all day).

I'm assuming that their logic is that with the way things are now, just enough Democrats are unable to vote or inconvenienced enough to not vote to keep the Republican Party competitive. And that making it easier to vote would enable more Democrat-leaning voters than Republican-leaning voters.

Or at least, that's just my assumption.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

20 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'm sure their logistics analysts have some data to believe that's true, but it sounds like complete nonsense. The only way that would have an impact would be if the majority of people who wouldn't otherwise vote are democrats, which just sounds highly unlikely to be untrue. Having a job interfering with personal life is a pretty omnipresent thing (well at least for middle and working class, I assume those rich folk just sip champagne and snort coke on yachts all day).

That's the beauty of it. It sounds like nonsense but it really is just them admitting out loud how worthless they know they are in terms of being a governing party. They're more interested in just taking the bribes as they have been for years and enabling corporations to do what they want so long as the rich keep donating to anything that backs the Republican party. They count on suckers, religious and old people falling for their culture war BS to hold on to power without providing a real platform or solutions to the problems people face.

What, you need a second job to get by? You're upset that CEO pay has gone up 1400% or so since 1978 while your wages haven't kept up with inflation?  You're tired of the ridiculous health care costs? You just found out the absurd tipping culture we have here isn't a problem in other countries? It's your fault and you just don't understand capitalism. We're in DC to get paid to say no to raising taxes on the rich and we'd have no problem taxing you normal fucks if we could enough enough suckers to give us total control:

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2022/4/senator-rick-scott-s-plan-to-raise-taxes-on-working-families-and-slash-essential-programs-would-cost-job-sand-reduce-economic-growth

20 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

I'm assuming that their logic is that with the way things are now, just enough Democrats are unable to vote or inconvenienced enough to not vote to keep the Republican Party competitive. And that making it easier to vote would enable more Democrat-leaning voters than Republican-leaning voters.

Or at least, that's just my assumption.

Pretty much. They understand that they banked too hard on the whites that resented the Civil Rights act and the white population is decreasing while the nonwhite population is increasing and they don't really have a solid way to get more non-whites without alienating the ones they hold on to. Cubans in Florida have become a boon for them in that state but it's still not enough in the grand scheme of it all.

Places with lower voter turnout tend to be low-income areas packed with people and whenever you see that term, you assume it's non-whites so opening up that pool isn't something they're confident will get them votes without giving Democrats more pieces of pie. It's the same logic they use for denying convicts that have served their time the right to vote.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Perkilator]

I honestly feel like WW3 is going to happen because of the US government at this point. Genocide is happening in Palestine as we speak and yet the US is actively encouraging it *as we speak.* I feel like it’s only a matter of time before the genocide spreads everywhere else and the US wins.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Perkilator said:

I honestly feel like WW3 is going to happen because of the US government at this point. Genocide is happening in Palestine as we speak and yet the US is actively encouraging it *as we speak.* I feel like it’s only a matter of time before the genocide spreads everywhere else and the US wins.

To have a World War you need to have another powerful side though. Russia is way too busy ousting itself as a Paper Tiger and China has no major interest in the western part of the middle east.

[Armchair General]

4 hours ago, Perkilator said:

I honestly feel like WW3 is going to happen 

Well, we're kind of overdue for another conflict, unfortunately. 

 

4 hours ago, Perkilator said:

because of the US government at this point

But I've always assumed that it would be an similar situation to what's going on in Ukraine than anything else.

 

4 hours ago, Perkilator said:

Genocide is happening in Palestine as we speak and yet the US is actively encouraging it *as we speak.*

But this honestly the first that I've heard of American politicians are actually cheering it on. I'm not really surprised because just look at fucking Trump.

[Etrurian emperor]

13 hours ago, Perkilator said:

I honestly feel like WW3 is going to happen because of the US government at this point. Genocide is happening in Palestine as we speak and yet the US is actively encouraging it *as we speak.* I feel like it’s only a matter of time before the genocide spreads everywhere else and the US wins.

My money is still on Russia. Even them being exposed as a paper tiger might not reign them in due to how delusional they are. In fact around WW1 Russia was itching for a good war to prove they weren't the deeply declining power their defeat against Japan exposed them as. 

Quote

To have a World War you need to have another powerful side though. Russia is way too busy ousting itself as a Paper Tiger and China has no major interest in the western part of the middle east.

Just to keep the WW1 comparisons going I'd point out that Austria Hungary wasn't exactly a powerful side but them getting into a beef with Serbia got Germany and the rest o Europe involved in the war. And its not unlikely Russia will be the particular corpse China will be shackled with that might drag them into a war.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Etrurian emperor

[eclipse]

On 12/5/2023 at 12:22 PM, Perkilator said:

I honestly feel like WW3 is going to happen because of the US government at this point. Genocide is happening in Palestine as we speak and yet the US is actively encouraging it *as we speak.* I feel like it’s only a matter of time before the genocide spreads everywhere else and the US wins.

While I think the US will be a huge factor in an upcoming world war, I don't think it's going to be because the US instigated it.  I have my own theory as to how this happens, which has to do with how many pies the US has its fingers in.

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

While I think the US will be a huge factor in an upcoming world war, I don't think it's going to be because the US instigated it.  I have my own theory as to how this happens, which has to do with how many pies the US has its fingers in.

Do share.

[eclipse]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Do share.

Right now, the US is embroiled in Ukraine and Israel's conflicts.  Ukraine's opponent is Russia, while Israel's stated opponent is Hamas (I'm aware that this is most likely not the entire truth but this isn't the time and place to expand on it).  Hamas IIRC is funded by Iran.  My guess is that those opposed to the US will take advantage of the situation by stretching US military resources so thin that we can't be everywhere at once.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Right now, the US is embroiled in Ukraine and Israel's conflicts.  Ukraine's opponent is Russia, while Israel's stated opponent is Hamas (I'm aware that this is most likely not the entire truth but this isn't the time and place to expand on it).  Hamas IIRC is funded by Iran.  My guess is that those opposed to the US will take advantage of the situation by stretching US military resources so thin that we can't be everywhere at once.

The US has done a decent job of stretching it's resource across the entire planet without a blatant anti American alliance (more overseas military bases than there are actual countries). But morever, I think one large point with these conflicts is that the US's resources is not in the form of US soldiers. It's, primarily, in the form of weapons. So if there is going to be a change as a result of stretching too thin it's going to be more economic than outright war. That is to say the US will stop funding groups across the world and become more insular. In either case of being stretched too thin, I don't see it resulting in an outright World War II. The US is just way too hard to invade so no country is going to go so far as to attempt that, and the US does not quite have the imperial ambitions to annex any of their enemies. The only path to total war I could see is if the US did become more insular, as I predict, and then China takes it as an opportunity to seize Taiwan, then, a rapid shift in US policy as a new leader is elected has the US come to aid Taiwan resulting in a pretty bloody conflict. But even then I'm not sure it could go global as Europe and Russia wouldn't have any express interest in getting themselves directly involved in such a distant conflict when they could otherwise just support via military aid. And there is a serious question as wether China even could take Taiwan even if the US is completely handsoff. People have also said that total war for China would be basically impossible with their current demographics as the result of the one child system would simply not lead to a populace accepting for so many families losing their only son to war. Which sounds rationale enough to me, though I don't think we have any real case samples in human history to test it against.

Tl;Dr I can see it leading to conflicts but not really global conflicts.

[eclipse]

On 12/15/2023 at 4:54 PM, Jotari said:

The US has done a decent job of stretching it's resource across the entire planet without a blatant anti American alliance (more overseas military bases than there are actual countries). But morever, I think one large point with these conflicts is that the US's resources is not in the form of US soldiers. It's, primarily, in the form of weapons. So if there is going to be a change as a result of stretching too thin it's going to be more economic than outright war. That is to say the US will stop funding groups across the world and become more insular. In either case of being stretched too thin, I don't see it resulting in an outright World War II. The US is just way too hard to invade so no country is going to go so far as to attempt that, and the US does not quite have the imperial ambitions to annex any of their enemies. The only path to total war I could see is if the US did become more insular, as I predict, and then China takes it as an opportunity to seize Taiwan, then, a rapid shift in US policy as a new leader is elected has the US come to aid Taiwan resulting in a pretty bloody conflict. But even then I'm not sure it could go global as Europe and Russia wouldn't have any express interest in getting themselves directly involved in such a distant conflict when they could otherwise just support via military aid. And there is a serious question as wether China even could take Taiwan even if the US is completely handsoff. People have also said that total war for China would be basically impossible with their current demographics as the result of the one child system would simply not lead to a populace accepting for so many families losing their only son to war. Which sounds rationale enough to me, though I don't think we have any real case samples in human history to test it against.

Tl;Dr I can see it leading to conflicts but not really global conflicts.

I'm not worried about a traditional war.  I am worried about what happens when the US puts its fingers in too many pies, then is forced to withdraw due to internal strife.  I don't see an explicit anti-Western alliance.  Rather, it's countries that see an opportunity and take it.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

This Colorado ruling is fascinating on so many levels. Frankly I'm not a big Constitutional Textualist myself when it comes to what we can and cannot do. But I'd support an exclusion clause for Insurrectionists who vowed to defend the Constitution about three times more quickly than I'd support excluding a candidate that has exhausted their term limit (and I do support term limits, I think we should consider having some more for judges and lawmakers!). And the other stuff like needing to be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, does anyone actually care to exclude based on that? Feels like that's the realm of personal preference. Compared to, say, Convicted Felons. You can theoretically be a lawmaker in Congress that can't legally vote in his own state, what a bizarre paradox. 

Anyway I fully expect the Supreme Court to appeal and strike it down for some lazy reason ("What's an 'officer'? And how can we prove that the 14th amendment framers didn't want the under-federal-investigation / not yet pardoned Jefferson Davis to run for president? And also please don't read Section 3's final sentence about the intended appeals process Trump is supposed to use to petition for eligibility - a legal recourse not offered for a 28 year old presidential hopeful). But I feel like that puts them in an awkward position for a few different reasons. They wouldn't just be ruling against the Constitution, they'd be a hyper-conservative Court ruling against States Rights to run their own elections with their own rules. That's some outrageous irony. The Court whose legacy is ruling states should have total control over Abortion, but not over their own ballots. Or heck, think of the precedence it will set when we're trying to rework/abolish the electoral college a few years down the line. One theoretical defense is the notion that Congress/Federal Govt shouldn't tell the states how electoral votes ought to be awarded, and that angle's about to dry up.

If I was a GOP megadonor attempting to metagame this disaster, I'd say "Let Them Have Colorado". I don't see the potential for a Domino Effect of other states ruling the same way, because they've tried already or expect the SC will deliver the final say anyway. Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, have all ruled in Trump's favor on this issue. Colorado's the odd one out, and by letting this state that was never in play keep their ruling, it helps create a bullshit narrative about election interference at no real cost.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Hrothgar777]

7 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

This Colorado ruling is fascinating on so many levels. Frankly I'm not a big Constitutional Textualist myself when it comes to what we can and cannot do. But I'd support an exclusion clause for Insurrectionists who vowed to defend the Constitution about three times more quickly than I'd support excluding a candidate that has exhausted their term limit (and I do support term limits, I think we should consider having some more for judges and lawmakers!). And the other stuff like needing to be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, does anyone actually care to exclude based on that? Feels like that's the realm of personal preference. Compared to, say, Convicted Felons. You can theoretically be a lawmaker in Congress that can't legally vote in his own state, what a bizarre paradox. 

Anyway I fully expect the Supreme Court to appeal and strike it down for some lazy reason ("What's an 'officer'? And how can we prove that the 14th amendment framers didn't want the under-federal-investigation / not yet pardoned Jefferson Davis to run for president? And also please don't read Section 3's final sentence about the intended appeals process Trump is supposed to use to petition for eligibility - a legal recourse not offered for a 28 year old presidential hopeful). But I feel like that puts them in an awkward position for a few different reasons. They wouldn't just be ruling against the Constitution, they'd be a hyper-conservative Court ruling against States Rights to run their own elections with their own rules. That's some outrageous irony. The Court whose legacy is ruling states should have total control over Abortion, but not over their own ballots. Or heck, think of the precedence it will set when we're trying to rework/abolish the electoral college a few years down the line. One theoretical defense is the notion that Congress/Federal Govt shouldn't tell the states how electoral votes ought to be awarded, and that angle's about to dry up.

If I was a GOP megadonor attempting to metagame this disaster, I'd say "Let Them Have Colorado". I don't see the potential for a Domino Effect of other states ruling the same way, because they've tried already or expect the SC will deliver the final say anyway. Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, have all ruled in Trump's favor on this issue. Colorado's the odd one out, and by letting this state that was never in play keep their ruling, it helps create a bullshit narrative about election interference at no real cost.

You underestimate America's current political climate. Any move against Trump by Dems, or any move against Biden by the GOP, or by courts which lean in the direction of said parties, will automatically be interpreted as a bad faith partisan move. There is no way to convince most members of the 50% of the US population on the receiving end that this isn't the case.

Which is to say Colorado's move is absolutely precedent-setting. WashPo, which is pretty liberal, has admitted on at least one occasion that there's a legitimate case for prosecuting Hunter Biden. It's not a stretch that some Republican-held state legislatures might turn this, combined with whatever memos the House's new impeachment inquiry might publish, into a reason to bar his father from the ballot in their state. And as hyperpartisanship sets in, the case needed to justify penalizing a presidential candidate will get more and more spurious until nothing but some incoherent screechings by a wingnut/moonbat podcast are all that's needed to convince large groups of lawmakers.

Imagine a version of 2024, or 2028, or 2032, or 2036, or 2040, where the Democrat nominee is disqualified from running in red states and the Republican nominee is disqualified from running in blue states. What's the next step beyond that? Red states not recognizing a president elected exclusively by traditional blue states, or vise-versa? Where will the country go from there?

Colorado is probably going to vote blue from now until the heat death of the universe anyway. If SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, then it goes without saying that Dems would be paying a rather trivial electoral price compared to the dystopian future such a decision would help avert.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

2 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Which is to say Colorado's move is absolutely precedent-setting. WashPo, which is pretty liberal, has admitted on at least one occasion that there's a legitimate case for prosecuting Hunter Biden. It's not a stretch that some Republican-held state legislatures might turn this, combined with whatever memos the House's new impeachment inquiry might publish, into a reason to bar his father from the ballot in their state.

...for the tax stuff? Yeah, you will find many liberals cheerleading a doped up rich kid having to pay his fair share. But okay Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory is correct. That there was some quid pro quo situation in Ukraine that made it into Joe Biden's pocket. It would affect our opinion of that man, but Is that insurrection? The first Trump Impeachment was about some extremely similar and more damning subject matter, and I haven't heard anybody tie that in to the 14th amendment's exclusion clause. We're focused on the second impeachment: Jan 6th. The GOP isn't chasing the Hunter Biden stuff or the impeachment inquiry because they expect to actually impeach Biden. They just need something constantly in the news to support Both Sides-isms and demoralize people from voting. Their path to victory in 2024 depends on people not showing up. They'll stonewall the fake scandals as long as they can

 

2 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Imagine a version of 2024, or 2028, or 2032, or 2036, or 2040, where the Democrat nominee is disqualified from running in red states and the Republican nominee is disqualified from running in blue states. What's the next step beyond that? Red states not recognizing a president elected exclusively by traditional blue states, or vise-versa? Where will the country go from there?

Colorado is probably going to vote blue from now until the heat death of the universe anyway. If SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, then it goes without saying that Dems would be paying a rather trivial electoral price compared to the dystopian future such a decision would help avert.

This bleak outlook depends heavily on us whittling away at the definition of "Insurrection" (a not at all common word before 2021), until it's lost all meaning. But the average American agrees that Jan 6th was an attempted insurrection to overturn an election and unlawfully install Trump as the winner. There's only a fringe collection of people that still debate the particular details (Exactly to what degree did Trump's rhetoric that day 'cause' it, was it somehow an 'inside job', was the election being protested actually fair and free, etc). If there are more Jan 6ths in the future - If this becomes an every four years thing, then yeah Insurrection is going to be a mundane, common noun. In which case, maybe maybe a state supreme court will take seriously the notion that a democratic congressman that marched in a BLM rally (after taking office) was "engaging in insurrection" and disqualify them. But this perfect storm of events doesn't sound very likely to me. Or at least not as likely as one of those coup attempts actually succeeding and making Insurrection a not-mundane word again. They're not going to hit the D and R candidates in 2028-2040 with the 14th amendment if there's no Insurrection to speak of.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Imagine a version of 2024, or 2028, or 2032, or 2036, or 2040, where the Democrat nominee is disqualified from running in red states and the Republican nominee is disqualified from running in blue states. What's the next step beyond that? Red states not recognizing a president elected exclusively by traditional blue states, or vise-versa? Where will the country go from there?

Sounds like a route to eliminating the post of president entirely. Which kind of sounds like a positive imo. If so many people are so freaked out every four years because one person got one job, then maybe it's the job itself and the vaguely defined powers that keep getting stretched which is the problem.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Jotari

[Hrothgar777]

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Sounds like a route to eliminating the post of president entirely. Which kind of sounds like a positive imo. If so many people are so freaked out every four years because one person got one job, then maybe it's the job itself and the vaguely defined powers that keep getting stretched which is the problem.

I'll admit, it is a little worrisome how the presidency is gradually turning into a Caesar-like office.

I recently had the privilege of visiting DC, and of touring both the Capitol and the White House. The former structure is a LOT bigger than the latter one, which tells us that the Founding generation(s) considered a body comprised of hundreds of individuals more worthy of elevation and exaltation than that comprised of a single man.

At the same time, there is no bipartisan support for amending the Constitution. One cannot replace the president with, say, a prime minister or a weaker president without this.

[Hrothgar777]

2 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

But okay Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory is correct. That there was some quid pro quo situation in Ukraine that made it into Joe Biden's pocket. It would affect our opinion of that man, but Is that insurrection?

A man can be barred from office for reasons other than insurrection, or for no concrete reason at all, if the right legislature decides to make this happen. This is the status quo until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Which hopefully they will soon.

2 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

This bleak outlook depends heavily on us whittling away at the definition of "Insurrection" (a not at all common word before 2021), until it's lost all meaning

Even if I were to agree with you that January 6 was a literal insurrection, the 14th amendment reads as following:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The term "officer of the United States" could be construed to include the Presidency. But in that case, why not just add President to this list? I mean, it wasn't exactly a negligible office that the Framers would just happen to overlook, since they bothered to explicitly mention Senators and Representatives. The most likely meaning of the term "officer of the United States" here, then, is a military officer, such as a general. Even if you dislike this interpretation and think it doesn't apply, that doesn't matter so long as the Supreme Court decides that they do agree with it, or employ some similar reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion. Or simply decide that January 6 wasn't an insurrection, which they also might.

Which is to say it's not constitutionally mandated that Trump be disqualified from office. That's an option, sure, but not one which has to be employed.

2 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

But the average American agrees that Jan 6th was an attempted insurrection to overturn an election and unlawfully install Trump as the winner. There's only a fringe collection of people that still debate the particular details

Bro. It's obvious you live in a blue bubble, both IRL and online. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it does show.

Based on recent polls which had Trump in a slight lead over Biden, it seems the number of Americans who disagree that Trump is an "insurrectionist constitutionally barred from office" is greater than the number of Americans who agree with said statement. Since, of course, most people wouldn't throw their support behind candidates who they know cannot or is unworthy to assume the office in question, and since there would be no uncertainty (that is, no "not sures") in a binary choice between Trump and Biden if only the latter was eligible to run, suggesting most of the "not sures" likewise don't believe Trump is constitutionally barred from office. What most Americans think, or any percentage of Americans greater than 25% think, isn't a "fringe" of the country.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Hrothgar777

[Zapp Branniglenn]

59 minutes ago, Hrothgar777 said:

A man can be barred from office for reasons other than insurrection, or for no concrete reason at all, if the right legislature decides to make this happen. This is the status quo until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Which hopefully they will soon.

okay so then we're not talking about the Colorado decision at all but some mystery future thing you are uniquely privy to?

Quote

The term "officer of the United States" could be construed to include the Presidency. But in that case, why not just add President to this list? I mean, it wasn't exactly a negligible office that the Framers would just happen to overlook.

Historically speaking, the office of presidency was a pretty insignificant one. Heck, they couldn't even choose their own gosh darned vice president until the 19th century. And the race for the presidency was also highly exclusive to participate in (only whites, landowners could vote etc). No, the bulk of decision making power lie with the Senators. Far cry from today's presidents with their executive orders, and twenty man cabinets.

Quote

The most likely meaning of the term "officer of the United States" here, then, is a military officer, such as a general. Even if you dislike this interpretation and think it doesn't apply, that doesn't matter so long as the Supreme Court decides that they do agree with it, or employ some similar reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion. Or simply decide that January 6 wasn't an insurrection, which they also might.

I am absolutely expecting the term "officer" to be a point of contention as I said. But if you're actually curious about the basis for Colorado's argument for why President is included in that language, they bring up one of the Amendment's authors. Representative McKee made public statements clarifying that the rebels shall hold no political power, which is why they rewrote with a wider net of language (ie 'Officer of the United States') rather than spelling out president, vice president, etc like they did in their first drafts. Then on page 77-78 we see debates on the new inclusive language back when it was being written, and how they determined it was clear enough. It's only us in the twenty first century second guessing their word choice. 

Quote

Bro. It's obvious you live in a blue bubble, both IRL and online. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it does show.

Based on recent polls which had Trump in a slight lead over Biden, it seems the number of Americans who disagree that Trump is an "insurrectionist constitutionally barred from office" is greater than the number of Americans who agree with said statement. What most Americans think, or any percentage of Americans greater than 25% think, isn't a "fringe" of the country.

Imagine being so extremely online that someone responds to you once and you think you've nailed down their politics. As to your alleged polls, I can only offer this one as a counterargument since it's the most recent on my mind when I posted. 54% is a slim majority of Americans who support Colorado, at least as their first blush reaction. I'd like to think you know what I meant when I talked about "people on the fringe" just before I began rattling off examples of conspiracy theories. 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Sounds like a route to eliminating the post of president entirely. Which kind of sounds like a positive imo. If so many people are so freaked out every four years because one person got one job, then maybe it's the job itself and the vaguely defined powers that keep getting stretched which is the problem.

Not to bust out the grade school civics lesson but our country was built on a system of checks and balances. Can't just remove the head of one entire branch and expect things to sort themselves out. What many people don't seem to get about the presidency is that it isn't just "one guy". It's one guy and all the guys that he associates with, his picks for judges, cabinet positions, his endorsements of other politicians as the Face of an entire Party at that moment in time. We don't elect a king, we elect a delegator.