fr336 wrote: » WTF is going in with trump packing the pentagon with his picks? Very worrying.
Robert2014 wrote: » Everyone was fed up with it before it went to the Supreme Court and Gore accepted its verdict.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Here for example when we're all pissed off at the Big Parties , we vote Green or Independent etc. as a "protest" vote of sorts.
serfboard wrote: » Donald Trump is not Al Gore. As someone said, Donald Trump will go to his grave not accepting the verdict.
MJohnston wrote: » Anyone know any good tweeters who are covering the lawsuits closely? I wish Arizona would hurry up and count their ****ing votes - the sooner there’s an insurmountable Electoral College gap between the two candidates the better.
Just on the point in regards the National Guard, am I mistaken or can they be 'Federalized' by Executive Order (or whenever the president so desires?) - I seem to have vague recollections of that happening at some point during the Civil Rights Era, as a means of undercutting one of the states ability to cause a fuss. Adjunct to this, National Guard and active service Army are different kettles of fish I presume; this may be outside your wheelhouse but is there much in the way of distinctions between the two in terms of political affiliation or demographic makeup? Again, I recall hearing the term weekend-warrior somewhere and I'm left with the enduring view of it being something for suburban householders to do in their spare time - but then I'm near certain a few of those units were deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan so I don't want to commit to an ill-informed pisstake without getting the facts straight.
CrabRevolution wrote: » https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html# Been following this for the latest counts. Gets frustrating when you see there's been an update and think it could be a decisive move in one of the remaining states, but when you check it out it shows something like 1 vote being tallied in Georgia. Bit of a letdown!
prawnsambo wrote: » South Dakota now certified. That makes five. Tick tock.
Manic Moran wrote: » You are correct, the National Guard (Not the State Guard, but they're smaller and less well armed. Normally if one says "The Guard" it means National Guard) can be federalised into Title 10 Status, at which point they become in effect members of the Regular Army subject to all the laws of the regular force, and removed from the State chain of command. But it also means that there are limits as to what they can do. In the case of 1957 (the Civil rights era instance to which you refer), yes, it was conducted under the Insurrection Act, however, the Act requires "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." In 1957, there was a Supreme Court ruling being ignored by the State authorities. In this Trump case, there is no particular reason for it to apply so although he can 'invoke' the act, there's little saying that an order under it is not clearly unlawful in most circumstances. (Thats' the trigger. It has to be obviously unlawful to be refused, not just questionable) I guess there was one big loophole I missed. The prohibition on using the Federal Army in domestic law enforcement actually does not apply to Marines in the law. It does in practice because of regulations, but regulations can be changed. The end result, though, would be absolutely the same as for the DC Guard. On 20 January, the Marines go home. And, of course, there's the question of "If they're enforcing the law, what laws are they enforcing?" Being ordered to do something blatantly illegal (eg seize a vote counting center) is going to be refused, there has to be some legitimate purpose to do it. In terms of demographic makeup, yes, there would be a difference as the Guard is locally recruited. Some 90%+ of the PA Guard, for example, would be from PA. Most Guard units would have deployed, the concept is "The Total Army Force". Unlike the Irish or British reserves, we all go to the same schools and have the same equipment. My Basic Training unit in Fort Knox was about split Army/Guard/Reserve:40/40/20. I'm currently assigned to the HQ of 1st Armored Division, a regular army unit, and I go whenever they go.
Blowfish wrote: » It's possible alright that they'd be uncomfortable with it, but from everything I've seen (even as someone who often disagrees majorly with how the US military is used), the US military would be extremely unwilling to involve themselves and would always defer to the courts as the ones responsible for resolving any disputes or issues with elections. Now, the one caveat is that the military will obey all legal orders from the president and while I'd agree with Manic that they'd quite happily down tools on Jan 20th if instructed to, there are still plenty of 'legal' orders that would cause havok before then. Hypothetically (though I'm no lawyer so could be way off), Trump could state that the 'election fraud' is depriving people of their constitutionally protected rights, hence under the Insurrection Act (third bullet point here) he is mobilising the National Guard and ordering them to 'secure' the counting locations. I don't envy the situation that'd stick the top end of the US military in were that to happen.
Itssoeasy wrote: » I have to laugh and also shake my head at the progressive wing of the Democratic Party scrolling through Twitter. They are highlighting measures passed in several states on Election Day which should be welcomed, but how did the progressive wing do in house and senate races ? They struck out when you compare it to the pre election predictions. I’m someone who would be in favour of most of what they stand for, but their messaging is awful at times. If they ever want to bring about the change they want at a national level they need to be willing to adapt their message to fit the electorate they are trying to get votes from. They are too easy for the conservative media and GOP to lump together. And it would seem that “centrist” is a term of derision amongst them. Nothing wrong with being a centrist imo. They criticise the GOP and rightly so on many issues but they need to look in the mirror and realise not being the GOP isn’t a good policy position. So, this post and my last few shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of the democrats as a whole or any one part of it, but more annoyance at the fact that America as a whole seems to be moving towards the left but that can’t lead to complacency from the left. And for Christ sake can they stop the purity test they do. As was pointed out the GOP while having a shrinking base, will vote for a brick if it’s got an R next to it’s name. The democrats don’t do that and they need to do it more.
listermint wrote: » They won all but 1 seat. They are better at reaching out to their base than any other group in the dem party.
Itssoeasy wrote: » So I’m completely wrong then.
listermint wrote: » Pretty much. The statistics don't back up the claim unfortunately. These will be a very powerful force in getting the numbers for Georgia. Tactically they've been excellent. Getting people energised at the doors etc
Itssoeasy wrote: » Well then I’ll stop making posts on them. No point in being wrong. Well it’s clear we disagree not on what they do but how they do it. I will say that the democrats as a whole didn’t have a good night and lost seats in the house and may take control of the senate but as a whole(which is where we have confusion over the all bar one line) which includes the progressive wing didn’t perform like they wanted to or needed to.
