Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DC becoming a state would be one of the most absurdly asinine and historically illiterate projects in the history of human governance.

    The entire reason DC exists? The sole purpose for there to even be a federal district? Is for it not to be a state. It has no other function other than to be a place to act as the seat of the federal government that is, itself, not a state.

    The reason for the bicameral legislature is that you have a "people's chamber", the lower house, and an upper house in the Senate - where representation is made on behalf of the sovereign governments of the states in the Union. The states as political entities, in other words, like nations send an ambassador to the UN. And it's the reason why they are equally represented, because like Mozambique and China are equal sovereigns, so too are Rhode Island and Texas. DC, though, doesn't need to be represented as a sovereign because it isn't one; or if you prefer to think of it as one, it's because it's already governed... by Congress. And the federal government does not need two Senators of its own to represent itself to itself in Congress. It would be like Trump appointing a US ambassador to the US. It's recursive lunacy.

    What's more, the District is more or less exclusively a grant of land by Maryland; a life estate, if you will. The federal government can't be in the district if the district wants statehood, but nor is there a reason for the district to be its own state if the federal government were moved to some new federal district (like if South Dakota ceded land to create one). In that case, it should and would just revert to being part of Maryland.

    So the choices are, at least under the Constitutional system of government and the rule of law, either
    • Washington, DC, a federal district that acts as the seat of the federal government and governed directly by Congress or under such home rule as Congress enacts, with no Senate representation, or
    • Washington, MD, a large city with a naval yard, shipping, and a nice tourist economy, but no longer the seat of the federal government because it's been transplanted elsewhere.


    There ain't no door #3 on that one.

    It's actually pretty embarrassing the House spent time with that dog-and-pony show, but they kinda had to to push the news cycle away from her Senate counterparts blocking the Senate from opening debate on police reform because they'd rather preserve an issue than solve a problem.
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

    Comment


    • Remember when the US went to other countries to protect the people from governments throwing citizens in vans and taking them away by unmarked military police? Those were the good old days. I can't believe what's happening in Oregon. Im beginning to think Americans should be able to come as refugees to canada.


      “I like who I am when I’m with him. I like who we are together.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GoSpuffy View Post
        Remember when the US went to other countries to protect the people from governments throwing citizens in vans and taking them away by unmarked military police? Those were the good old days. I can't believe what's happening in Oregon. Im beginning to think Americans should be able to come as refugees to canada.
        If Canada would take us. This is insane. No probably cause, no identification, no explanations. Words can't express my loathing for Trump, and my fear for this country.
        Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

        Comment


        • All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.

          What’s said in this post/comment is what I remember, my opinions, etc.



          * Again, I consider the problem is most Americans consider that they are richer and more powerful than they actually are.

          There was a relatively recent article which headline was something like, "billionaire is the new millionaire" and its' somewhat true. A billionaire in today's world isn't actually as powerful as a millionaire was during the Victorian Era.


          * But there's been a HUGE transfer of wealth from the poor, middle class, and upper middle class to the rich, the wealthy, the super rich, and the super wealthy. And yet some complained that stimulus money couldn't be easily used by corporations for stock buybacks.


          * I'm still waiting on results from some of the Primaries. But US President Donald Trump's polls numbers are abysmal. Some progressives didn't win key Primaries like in the Kentucky and Colorado Democratic Senate races. And US VP Joseph Biden is still not progressive enough. I waffle between whom I prefer for Vice President. But I certainly don't want any failed candidate like Stacy Abrams. I don't want a former cop like US Representative Val Demings. US Ambassador Susan Rice has never run for anything and is arguably even more conservative than VP Biden. It doesn't matter how bad US Pres. Trump's poll numbers are. We cannot afford to play around. The VP pick has to be US Senator Kamala Harris or US Senator Elizabeth Warren. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.


          * Bari Weiss leaving the New York Times isn't a loss. Bret Stephens's whole thing seems to be the Democratic Party should become like the pre-Trump Republican Party. US Senator Tom Cotton's opinion piece should not have been published by the NYT. Any opinion piece published in a paper means that the paper finds such an opinion legitimate.

          The NYT has become almost a center-right news source. You essentially have to ignore any political opinion or analysis that isn't pure fact. And yet some readers don't consider the paper conservative enough.

          The US actually wants Medicare For All, free public college, a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich and corporations, a 'Green New Deal', etc. The 'Progressive Agenda' is mostly a 'moderate' agenda. And that includes spending less money on the police and more money for education and such.

          Comment


          • bespangeled
            bespangeled commented
            Editing a comment
            Wrong VP choice and you will prefer 4 more years of Trump?

        • I’d say the answer to Nancy Pelosi‘s question is yes.

          Yes, this is a banana republic. For 231 years every leader has been a democrat in the true meaning of the word and thus you have never needed a safety net that makes sure rights the constitution doe not get thrown out of the windows.

          Now the US has a leader whose role models are Xi, Putin and Kim and who cares for nothing but his own power. And there is no way to stop his constant abuse of power and his misconduct.

          I stand by my point. I don’t believe there will be an election in November.

          flow
          ................................ Banner by buffylover

          Comment


          • If you want to know why there is an elevated law enforcement presence in Portland, it's because this is the sort of thing getting passed off as peaceful protest that's been going on there continuously for 50+ days.

            I don’t believe there will be an election in November.
            $500.
            sigpic
            Banner by LRae12

            Comment


            • flow
              flow commented
              Editing a comment
              Trump on Twitter 30th July 2020. „Delay the election?“ Honi soit qui mal y pense.

          • Chicken or egg?
            ................................ Banner by buffylover

            Comment


            • Originally posted by flow View Post

              I stand by my point. I don’t believe there will be an election in November.
              Of course there will. There are laws in place to prevent any kind of end-around on federal elections. If for whatever reason the election is cancelled, then the Speaker is placed as temporary president until one can be held.

              People have said this sort of thing during every election. People used to swear Bush was going to declare Marshal Law and there would be no election. Then the right said Obama would. In every case, votes were cast in November. The same will happen this year.

              Comment


              • Ah, okay. The Speaker becomes temporarily president. I am so relieved to hear that. And that’s stated where exactly? The constitution? We all know Trump will play by constitutional rules and the law.

                That‘s what people believed in Germany in 1933. Good to know history does never repeat itself.

                flow
                ................................ Banner by buffylover

                Comment


                • It's not explicitly stated anywhere that I know of, it's largely inferential - this term for Trump and Pence ends at January 20th, 12pm ET no matter what. At that point, if there has been no meeting of the electoral college to elect a new POTUS/VP, then per the 25th Amendment the sittings Speaker would be President, but that starts us down a very dark path - surely this person doesn't default into a four year term as President, right?

                  But it's a non issue because obviously there's going to be an election. The only pressure being exerted in the public square that would even tend against holding a full election is not coming from the Trump administration, which is clearly invested in opening up as much of business-as-usual as society can bear. All the effort to postpone/delay/cancel balloting throughout spring was happening in Democrat primaries and spring elections, and most of it was stomped out by the courts because, like it or not, there aren't actually sweeping "but it's an emergency" exceptions in the Constitution or its guarantee of a republican form of government.

                  And trust me, if it ever came to pass that a President of any party just decided to sieze and stay in power extra-constitutionally, it wouldn't be the people who've spent the last several weeks burning Portland, Minneapolis, NYC, Atlanta, Seattle, etc to the ground that American society will be turning to to fix it for them. It will mostly be the people that those guys spend most of their daily energy calling nazis.
                  sigpic
                  Banner by LRae12

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                    If you want to know why there is an elevated law enforcement presence in Portland, it's because this is the sort of thing getting passed off as peaceful protest that's been going on there continuously for 50+ days.



                    $500.
                    So you support a large powerful federal government with the absolute right to use federal troops in any state even when the state and local government demands that they leave.
                    Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post

                      And trust me, if it ever came to pass that a President of any party just decided to sieze and stay in power extra-constitutionally, it wouldn't be the people who've spent the last several weeks burning Portland, Minneapolis, NYC, Atlanta, Seattle, etc to the ground that American society will be turning to to fix it for them. It will mostly be the people that those guys spend most of their daily energy calling nazis.
                      I don't know. Most of them are okay with federal troops invading states. They are willing to trust Trump even when what he is doing goes against everything they claim to believe in. I'm sure that Trump could come up with a good rationalization that his followers will support. After all, he has them convinced that voting by mail during the pandemic is dangerous even though he routinely votes by mail. When he lose he will claim massive voter fraud and try to destroy this country.
                      Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bespangeled View Post

                        So you support a large powerful federal government with the absolute right to use federal troops in any state even when the state and local government demands that they leave.
                        The JTTF wasn't made up on the fly last week. These groups give public speeching calling for the "abolition of the United States". They are trying to burn down buildings. If anybody is surprised that the federal government is refusing to let them turn American cities into dystopian hellscapes without pushback, I'm not sure what to tell them.

                        With the extreme melodrama removed from most reporting on this what we're actually seeing in terms of government responses are A) total dereliction and surrender by municipal authorities or B) pretty standard soft-touch crowd control by JTTF agents.

                        I find the comps to "Putin, Kim, Xi", et al, just comical. Hong Kong freedom protestors get up every day hoping it goes as soft for them as it is in Portland. Anti-Putin rioting and arson would end with a summary pile of corpses being set on fire somewhere. Even at its most authoritarian, the US is pretty soft (as grotesque as FDR's internment of Japanese was, there are no mass graves there for historians to tour for a reason).

                        Originally posted by bespangeled View Post

                        I don't know. Most of them are okay with federal troops invading states. They are willing to trust Trump even when what he is doing goes against everything they claim to believe in. I'm sure that Trump could come up with a good rationalization that his followers will support. After all, he has them convinced that voting by mail during the pandemic is dangerous even though he routinely votes by mail. When he lose he will claim massive voter fraud and try to destroy this country.
                        I don't know many who are watching this with direct approval, it's essentially a heel-heel matchup. The state (i.e. governments, not state vs. federal - it describes them both) will generally protect its own writ to maintain order because its very legitimacy depends on its perceived ability to do so. If the red meat and potato flyover morlock Americans I referred to showed up in Portland or Milwaukee right now, it would probably be to do a much more emphatic job of restoring order than the government is doing - and odds are the government is trying to do it to prevent exactly that sort of escalation. I've said forever, there's a reason you've never seen a full on attempt at a Cuban, Chinese, or Russian style socialist revolution in this country.

                        I share the opposition to an impromptu 11th hour switch to vote-by-mail. There's always been good reasons for it being a fall-back position for absentees, because you weigh the option of not getting to vote at all against the inherent risks of voting in absentia - namely that it could be lost, discarded, destroyed or ultimately rejected. And this concern is entirely demonstrable with fact - like this postal carrier. Or this NY district that might reject as many as 1/5th of over 15,000 absentee ballots in a race with a margin of less than 600 votes. There's no evidence that Trump is trying to reduce the baseline of vote by mail that already exists, but I consider rejecting attempts to just "do it live" and convert the entire election to it to be sheer lunacy. And lunacy that isn't supported by social distancing standards that deem it safe to go to Wal-Mart and apparently safe enough to for political protest (well, of one specific cause; all others are grandma murder still apparently).

                        And "Trump rejecting the election" is just paranoid fanfic of real life, I'm sorry, there's not a really super constructive way to frame it. Trump isn't going to steal Hillary Clinton's schtick. Hell, there's as much Deep Think pieces online that he's actively trying to throw the election than that he'd ever reject the result. His 'dictatorship' is mostly just a think people LARP; 4 out of any 5 executive actions he's taken have been to rescind prior executive actions (which means by definition they can't be dictatorial unless the original was as well) and half the time a district court judge forbids him from doing so for barely no legally articulable reason. In many ways, Trump has governed "least" of any President since I've been around, and where he has it's been... pretty firmly within the lines. If anything, I wish he'd push ahead on some stuff he's routinely walked back from, like pulling out of Afghanistan. If we don't get out while he's in office, we'll still have troops there into the 2040s probably, no matter who wins, because he's been the only executive in a long time that wasn't owned directly by defense contractors - his biggest hang up is his own internal popularity contest and how easy it is to demagogue actually going through with withdrawing even though he campaigned and won in part on doing it.

                        I'm still not convinced it comes up. There aren't a lot of major differences in his overall polling right now than there was with Hillary in 2016, and whatever people have convinced themselves, I guarantee you there is still a "Trump effect" in polling - people that are going to vote for him tend to keep their support to themselves for fear of harassment in their personal and professional lives. I would vote for him if I still lived in FL a key battleground. I still might even though I live in a state where he'll win regardless, but I'm debating a Libertarian vote to help them get the 5% aggregate popular vote required for federal fund matching in 2024.
                        sigpic
                        Banner by LRae12

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by flow View Post
                          Ah, okay. The Speaker becomes temporarily president. I am so relieved to hear that. And that’s stated where exactly? The constitution? We all know Trump will play by constitutional rules and the law.

                          That‘s what people believed in Germany in 1933. Good to know history does never repeat itself.

                          flow
                          Yes, the Constitution. The 20th amendment. If there is no election, the president and VP are out of office in January. After that, it does become a little murky. After all, Pelosi, if there is no election, is also out of office in January. In fact, there is no more House of Representatives. Also any Senator who is running for re-election will no longer be in office. So the US would become a defacto Republic with the Senate having 65 members, 33D, 2I and 30R.

                          But either way, Trump will be gone in January if there is no election. It doesn't benefit the Rs to try to cancel it.

                          It's all just scaremongering nonsense like I said. They do it every cycle.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=KingofCretins;n698100]
                            The JTTF wasn't made up on the fly last week. These groups give public speeching calling for the "abolition of the United States". They are trying to burn down buildings. If anybody is surprised that the federal government is refusing to let them turn American cities into dystopian hellscapes without pushback, I'm not sure what to tell them.

                            With the extreme melodrama removed from most reporting on this what we're actually seeing in terms of government responses are A) total dereliction and surrender by municipal authorities or B) pretty standard soft-touch crowd control by JTTF agents.

                            I find the comps to "Putin, Kim, Xi", et al, just comical. Hong Kong freedom protestors get up every day hoping it goes as soft for them as it is in Portland. Anti-Putin rioting and arson would end with a summary pile of corpses being set on fire somewhere. Even at its most authoritarian, the US is pretty soft (as grotesque as FDR's internment of Japanese was, there are no mass graves there for historians to tour for a reason).
                            Whatever they are saying is called freedom of speech, and there have been many calls by right wing fanatics to get rid of the government. Should federal troops be sent out when they gather and call for the overthrow of the government?

                            The violent protests in Portland occurred in May, with a much smaller problem in June. The violence has actually been under control in July. Do you know what the feds are protecting federal buildings from? Graffiti. That is their mandate according to the govt. They are cruising the streets in unmarked vehicles and picking people up without probably cause rather than protecting the federal buildings. They have no insignia telling what branch of the government they are in, and no name tags or badge numbers. There is no probable cause, and no explanation of why a person has been taken into custody.

                            This has been confirmed by the feds. They say that this is how they operate normally, and that they do not have to identify themselves to American citizens who are not being picked up with no evidence that they committed any crime.

                            This is also a political stunt by Trump to exacerbate the problem in order to paint a liberal governor as unable to handle the issue. If the real problem was 3 months ago, why invade now? And make no mistake - this is an invasion.

                            The only reason you support this is political. You are ignoring the fact that once this is allowed, it can always be allowed. The pendulum will swing. Do you want to give a liberal govt the right to round up citizens for no crime and put them in unmarked vans. As you must know, governments that have this right can always find rationalizations to shut up "enemies of the state". Federal troops have no right to do this - it is outside their federal mandate. If this was a conservative rally, I would object because I believe in the constitution. The majority of protestors have peacefully assembled with grievances. What the feds are doing is trampling the constitutional rights of protesters.

                            BTW - if you support the right of a strong federal govt to deal with a state issue against the will of the state, then why don't you support a strong federal response against the pandemic? In one case it's only property at risk. In the other it's 140,000 Americans dead - and the death toll is rising.. The US accounts for over 1/4 of all deaths worldwide, and yet we have less than 5% of the world population.


                            I don't know many who are watching this with direct approval, it's essentially a heel-heel matchup. The state (i.e. governments, not state vs. federal - it describes them both) will generally protect its own writ to maintain order because its very legitimacy depends on its perceived ability to do so. If the red meat and potato flyover morlock Americans I referred to showed up in Portland or Milwaukee right now, it would probably be to do a much more emphatic job of restoring order than the government is doing - and odds are the government is trying to do it to prevent exactly that sort of escalation. I've said forever, there's a reason you've never seen a full on attempt at a Cuban, Chinese, or Russian style socialist revolution in this country.
                            Wait - I thought you said they were already in Portland earlier. That's your rationalization for invading.

                            I share the opposition to an impromptu 11th hour switch to vote-by-mail. There's always been good reasons for it being a fall-back position for absentees, because you weigh the option of not getting to vote at all against the inherent risks of voting in absentia - namely that it could be lost, discarded, destroyed or ultimately rejected. And this concern is entirely demonstrable with fact - like this postal carrier. Or this NY district that might reject as many as 1/5th of over 15,000 absentee ballots in a race with a margin of less than 600 votes. There's no evidence that Trump is trying to reduce the baseline of vote by mail that already exists, but I consider rejecting attempts to just "do it live" and convert the entire election to it to be sheer lunacy. And lunacy that isn't supported by social distancing standards that deem it safe to go to Wal-Mart and apparently safe enough to for political protest (well, of one specific cause; all others are grandma murder still apparently).
                            I live in AZ. 70% of our population votes by mail, and there have been no issues. Guess what - we even vote for Republicans by mail, although Trump has managed to turn our red state blue. For the first time in history we will have two democratic senators. And Trump is polling well below Biden. Trump's mishandling of the virus, and his desire to throw seniors under the bus has turned one of his largest voting blocks against him. Retirees are now against him. And his jihad against McCain has not helped him among veterans.

                            [QUOTE]And "Trump rejecting the election" is just paranoid fanfic of real life, I'm sorry, there's not a really super constructive way to frame it. Trump isn't going to steal Hillary Clinton's schtick. Hell, there's as much Deep Think pieces online that he's actively trying to throw the election than that he'd ever reject the result. His 'dictatorship' is mostly just a think people LARP; 4 out of any 5 executive actions he's taken have been to rescind prior executive actions (which means by definition they can't be dictatorial unless the original was as well) and half the time a district court judge forbids him from doing so for barely no legally articulable reason. In many ways, Trump has governed "least" of any President since I've been around, and where he has it's been... pretty firmly within the lines. If anything, I wish he'd push ahead on some stuff he's routinely walked back from, like pulling out of Afghanistan. If we don't get out while he's in office, we'll still have troops there into the 2040s probably, no matter who wins, because he's been the only executive in a long time that wasn't owned directly by defense contractors - his biggest hang up is his own internal popularity contest and how easy it is to demagogue actually going through with withdrawing even though he campaigned and won in part on doing it.

                            Well, I agree he hasn't governed. He mostly runs for office, seeking the adulation of crowds. The Republican party now stands for nothing except satisfying Trump's whims. Small govt and fiscal responsibility - no longer issues.

                            I'm still not convinced it comes up. There aren't a lot of major differences in his overall polling right now than there was with Hillary in 2016, and whatever people have convinced themselves, I guarantee you there is still a "Trump effect" in polling - people that are going to vote for him tend to keep their support to themselves for fear of harassment in their personal and professional lives. I would vote for him if I still lived in FL a key battleground. I still might even though I live in a state where he'll win regardless, but I'm debating a Libertarian vote to help them get the 5% aggregate popular vote required for federal fund matching in 2024
                            That's hilarious. Trump supporter's are to chickensh*t to tell pollsters anonymously that they support him. Talk about snowflakes. They play the victim card incessantly - oh, he was mean to me! There is no one more oppressed than us Trump supporters! They disagreed which makes me the victim of extreme abuse!!

                            I just don't get the obsession with Hilary, and I am not a Clinton fan. I believe he is a serial rapist and she is an enabler. But she lost. It's more than time to let it go.

                            As for Biden, his favorables are about twice what Trump has. Trump has lost the suburban white vote and the older voters. And remember, Hilary did beat Trump in the popular vote. The polls were right. Right now Biden has twice the lead Hilary ever had. Trump is going into the dumpster, and it's about time.

                            Why would you want to vote libertarian?You are for a strong federal government taking over a state, and denying the rights of protesters.
                            Last edited by bespangeled; 20-07-20, 02:51 AM.
                            Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X