US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Infini · 13-11-2020 03:30AM

Honestly regardless of what Trump does now, he's done and he knows it, the chances of him being able to engineer an outcome favorable to himself is remote at worst and impossible at best, he's unlikely to get any serious support to keep him in the white house, republicans as thick as they can be aren't fools expecially McConnell they're in it for the long game and the minute Trump lost the election he became a liability. They'll play nice because he still was able to get supporters out and they won't want to split the party but he'll either be leaving come January or he goes down in acrimony.

One way or another he's a dead man walking politically right now and that's why he's probably acting the way he is, the walls are closing in, he's the emperor with no clothes and there's nothing he can do to stop it now as his powers are essentially gone.

Zak Flaps · 13-11-2020 03:59AM

Do you think it's possible that the longer Trump continues with his current antics, more Republicans will become p1ssed off with him and more will come out against him in public? Or are they all too scared?

TomOnBoard · 13-11-2020 04:01AM

uncleoswald wrote: »

A bit harsh on Obama as his hands were tied massively when they lost the congress after two years. And even then, the control was something of a mirage and they were dealing with a massive recession in that time.

Obama's 1st term was a nightmare in terms of being able to do much of anything that would cost money. The fight to put out the horrendous fire that was the post-Bush recession was the greatest domestic priority while the morass that was the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions and subsequent chaos in the Middle East were all-consuming foreign policy infernos. When he lost the Congress, he was largely neutered in terms of any meaningful legislative agenda.

What's particularly relevant here is the similarity between these aspects of Obama's Presidency and the situation Biden will inherit in January. A raging Covid pandemic with 1,500 deaths a day and an economy in the toilet will haunt his Presidency's first 6 months at least, along with a Senate that will be in control of much of his legislative actions.

The longer this current interregnum continues without an orderly transition, the worse it will be. This makes the failure of the Congressional GOP to stand up to Trump and tell him its over even more inexcusable. If Biden is to have any chance of success on behalf of the US and its People in these horrific times, he needs to be given the means to prepare for it. A properly funded, organised and informed transition is needed immediately.

The election is over. i simply cannot understand how the GOP, who claim to be bastions of patriotism cannot see the damage that is being done. Surely, enough of them must see enough of that damage to do the right thing now? Where the **** are they?

uncleoswald wrote: »

Back on this election I seem to sway hourly between thinking it's all going to be ok in the end because the system has enough safeguards, and panic that the system just wasn't built to withstand someone as brazen as Trump and as blindingly devoted as his followers.

My thoughts exactly!

TomOnBoard · 13-11-2020 04:39AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Or, as an alternative, we can go back to remembering that the Tenth Amendment is a thing, and go back to letting States sort out their own problems to their own satisfaction. It’s how the country was designed to operate in the first place. What progressive policies cannot be enacted at the State level? (To counter that, what conservative ones cannot, but I can think of fewer at the national level)

For example, some states, famously Massachusetts, but not only, had their own broad healthcare plans before ACA came along. Why does Congress need to get involved? As mentioned, California alone has the, what, 9th largest economy in the world? Does it really need Congress and the federal budget to create a healthcare system to satisfy California voters? If there are impediments to such a thing (there are some), Congress can remove them. California or New York can do Single Payer, a more swing state can do something closer to ACA, and Utah or whatever can go pure capitalist.

As mentioned, Florida just put in a new minimum wage. $15/hr may do all right in Florida, it may be insufficient in California, it’s probably overkill in Wyoming. Why does the federal government need to get involved? The States have show that they can do things if they want to.If you are in a Cleveland suburb and you don’t like progressive policies in your State, you can vote against the Democrats in Congress. If you are in Cleveland and you do want progressive policies in Ohio, you can vote for a progressive in Columbus to pass those policies without risk of pushback from someone in neighboring Kentucky.

I think these are very fair questions. Indeed, as politics become ever more partisan, net-payer States will question paying into the Federal pot more and more. Will Democrats in California continue to be happy net-payers into a pot that Kentucky is very happy be a net-recipient of, given that Kentucky's Congressional members stand against every Federal progressive initiative that might help California's poorest? Why should Democrats in New York pay such high taxes to be so heavily supportive of South Carolina, a State that produces such Republican negativity to socially progressive policy that would impact New Yorkers?

As these questions get asked increasingly, more wealthy States will become more self-reliant and self-sufficient and poorer States will lose out. Federal rules and regulations will become less relevant as States take more local regulatory control. Why should climate- change denying politicians from one State dictate environmental policy on Federal lands in a State with Green environmental goals?

So, where does that all end? Less and less Federal Government control? Possibly. A Republican dream! But it would be accompanied by destruction of many States' economies if the Federal tap dried up. How would the strongly Republican South Carolina fare with no net Federal inflow? Real socialism might just become a lot more palatable there at that point! California and New York would do just fine, thank you very much! Kentucky, not so much!

everlast75 · 13-11-2020 06:27AM

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1327105993910722560?s=19

At every single turn, there is real hypocrisy.

It's an international embarrassment for the U.S. and only serves to highlight the difference between the childishness and ineptitude of 45 and the next administration.

At every press conference for the next year regarding any issue, 46 should point out what Trump's response had been to that issue, who supported it, and then follow it with 46's response. It'll be devastating

everlast75 · 13-11-2020 06:52AM

It's not surprising that Trump keeps losing his cases, when these are the witnesses they are rolling out..

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1327038586819145732?s=19

Windmill100000 · 13-11-2020 07:50AM

Infini wrote: »

Honestly regardless of what Trump does now, he's done and he knows it, the chances of him being able to engineer an outcome favorable to himself is remote at worst and impossible at best, he's unlikely to get any serious support to keep him in the white house, republicans as thick as they can be aren't fools expecially McConnell they're in it for the long game and the minute Trump lost the election he became a liability. They'll play nice because he still was able to get supporters out and they won't want to split the party but he'll either be leaving come January or he goes down in acrimony.

One way or another he's a dead man walking politically right now and that's why he's probably acting the way he is, the walls are closing in, he's the emperor with no clothes and there's nothing he can do to stop it now as his powers are essentially gone.

Let's watch his 'friends' and allies fall by the wayside. People stuck to Trump because of what he could do for them. As his inevitable demise gains further traction he is going to feel the pinch. It's not that he will miss his sidekicks, but he will miss having everyone agree with him and making him feel the Big Man.

The only saving grace is the longer he stays on and fights the more ridiculous his legacy becomes, which is no bad thing.

Delighted to see Biden pushing on through paying him no heed.

13-11-2020 08:52AM

I see Warren is suggesting cancelling billions in student loans along with all the other day 1 changes for the Biden administration.

While cancelling the debt solves a small part of a larger problem it would allow more financial freedom to those who are currently drowning in debt. It could be the kind of gesture to win across some Republicans, even possibly Trump voters and to ease tensions.

Sure there are always going to be the hardcore base but the Trump supporters who are supporting him because they believe he'll relieve financial and economic stresses might warm to the idea of a party willing to make things more livable for the majority of the middle class.

robinph · 13-11-2020 09:02AM

everlast75 wrote: »

It's not surprising that Trump keeps losing his cases, when these are the witnesses they are rolling out..

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1327038586819145732?s=19

I had the phone on mute and providing automated subtitles when I first watched that. Thought that the subtitles were broken with all the confusion over if 6am was 6pm was 6am the next day until 6pm the day before... And then the clincher of a van arrived and they took things out of the back of it, not the side.

spacecoyote · 13-11-2020 09:40AM

I think I read talk of the Trump campaign looking at courting faithless electors, 20 of them, to try flip them from the states declared winner.

If Biden is at 306, that 20 votes still wouldn't be enough either way presumably, it drops him to 286.

Is it just about not losing by the same amount that he beat Hillary at this point?

Christy42 · 13-11-2020 09:50AM

circadian wrote: »

I see Warren is suggesting cancelling billions in student loans along with all the other day 1 changes for the Biden administration.

While cancelling the debt solves a small part of a larger problem it would allow more financial freedom to those who are currently drowning in debt. It could be the kind of gesture to win across some Republicans, even possibly Trump voters and to ease tensions.

Sure there are always going to be the hardcore base but the Trump supporters who are supporting him because they believe he'll relieve financial and economic stresses might warm to the idea of a party willing to make things more livable for the majority of the middle class.

Many hate the universities a socialist training camps. Maybe it will help win over those who have degrees but I can see the Republic ans being against such a cost. Especially with a democrat in the White House.

I agree with the measure but many will see it as proof that the US is being turned socialist overnight.

Blowfish · 13-11-2020 10:46AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Who is going to be fired from homeland security for this statement? Krebs or someone else?

And there it goes, 2 fired from DHS, including the assistant director for cybersecurity:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/12/politics/dhs-officials-forced-resign-white-house/index.html

It's no surprise really when they have a site up like this, not exactly going to make Trump happy:

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

Brussels Sprout · 13-11-2020 11:25AM

They waited until his margin was equal to the number of votes remaining:

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1327104512730034176

BluePlanet · 13-11-2020 02:13PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Or, as an alternative, we can go back to remembering that the Tenth Amendment is a thing, and go back to letting States sort out their own problems to their own satisfaction. It’s how the country was designed to operate in the first place. What progressive policies cannot be enacted at the State level? (To counter that, what conservative ones cannot, but I can think of fewer at the national level)

That died a death in the aftermath of the Civil War.
The southern states pleaded 'states rights' to keep blacks as property.

prawnsambo · 13-11-2020 02:24PM

The law firm representing Trump in PA has withdrawn. Co Counsel Ms. Linda Kerns is remaining on board. Look her up, she seems nice.

TomOnBoard · 13-11-2020 03:19PM

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1327105993910722560?s=19

At every single turn, there is real hypocrisy.

It's an international embarrassment for the U.S. and only serves to highlight the difference between the childishness and ineptitude of 45 and the next administration.

At every press conference for the next year regarding any issue, 46 should point out what Trump's response had been to that issue, who supported it, and then follow it with 46's response. It'll be devastating

The international embarrassment is coupled with fear. Fear for the People! Its not often comparisons could be made between the US and countries like Belarus. But now they can: Both countries with failed leaders, beholden to Putin and clinging to power on the back of ignoring election results.

Lukashenko and Trump - Comrades in Arms! Sad!

demfad · 13-11-2020 03:43PM

Just an example about how seriously this Coup attempt is being taken:

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military yesterday: "We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual."

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1327043123667562497?s=20

Manic Moran · 13-11-2020 04:00PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

That died a death in the aftermath of the Civil War.
The southern states pleaded 'states rights' to keep blacks as property.

They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose.

But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that".

So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.

mayordenis · 13-11-2020 04:22PM

I struggle with some aspects of this state rights vs federal over-reach or whatever. Like the civil war was in the 1860s, the beginning of the supreme court imposed federal over-reach took over around 1935 as you say, so it's this ****-show of a 70~ years that should be held as a standard of state self-sufficiency? A time not in any way similar to now.

And then there's the fact that state lines are pretty ****ing arbitrary, like why stop at state lines? Why not go further? Why not divide states up more? Obviously we'll be giving statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in this scenario? Does my idea of 'basic rights' match yours?

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2020 04:59PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose.

But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that".

So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.

I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole?

Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security?

I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.

Foxtrol · 13-11-2020 05:08PM

For all their complaining about voter fraud, it looks like the GOP have found a new way to disenfranchise voters - running fake candidates to pull votes away from democrats. Examples of it happening in 2 states so far and presumably what they were hoping for with Kanye before he ruined his 'campaign' on day 1.

https://twitter.com/stuffie1977/status/1326950969662451712?s=20

Itssoeasy · 13-11-2020 05:14PM

I see the remaining networks have called Arizona for Biden. It’s done whether trump and his inner circle want to admit it or not. Start getting the boxes ready and pack up the stuff. At least trump tower will be clean seeing as no one has lived in that part for over two years.

Foxtrol · 13-11-2020 05:15PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights.

Well how deep red states litter the bottom of the league tables for the likes of education, healthcare, economy etc provides plenty of evidence that states can not govern many aspects fundamental to those that live there.

Irish Praetorian · 13-11-2020 05:17PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose.

But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that".

So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.

Why the predilection for 50-States as the natural and most timeless manner of organising and governing a people? The story of humanity's advancement has been its ability to transcend the smaller and more isolated groupings for larger ones; from the hunter-gathering family-clan to the rural village to the market town to the city to the grand metropolis; or put another way, from 'me and mine' to 'those who I share a country with'. Conversely, the horrors which can arise from people relapsing into smaller and more restrictive ideals, be it ideological purity, racial group or religious belief, are plain to behold.

As the US modernises and undergoes the same rapid evolution (technologically, culturally and demographically) as the rest of the world, it is not unlikely that some people living in the present system are going to look around, see what others have and ask why they cant have it. In this case, it may be that a system designed in the 18th Century to foster political immobilisme may not be the same system capable of delivering country-wide healthcare or more accurate political representation.

BluePlanet · 13-11-2020 05:17PM

The whole States rights thing is just another messy and unresolved problem in the US.
It's just a cherry picking exercise.
One side wants States Rights to restrict access to abortion, or not recognize same sex marriages.
The other wants States Rights to legalize marijuana.

TomOnBoard · 13-11-2020 05:19PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole?

Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security?

I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.

There's a certain inevitability about it if an over-bearing USA Federal machine is serviced by a process that undermines the wishes of the majority of people by continuing a minority- stacked over-arching Government. A democracy must represent the will of the people, expressed through regular free and fair elections. If the so-called democratic process usually or mostly or always results in Governments that are created by the minority, then its not a true democracy. If most of that minority's Government is funded by taxes paid by the majority, then the very basis for the War of Independence, i.e. taxation without representation becomes true again, and the whole 'great experiment' fails.

Concerns around how this post-election process is playing out, with constant frivolous efforts to undermine the will of the People, openly endorsed or tacitly supported by the ruling minority Republican party will anger the People whose will is being bent. That cannot last! People will just not put up with being bullied.

Infini · 13-11-2020 05:25PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

For all their complaining about voter fraud, it looks like the GOP have found a new way to disenfranchise voters - running fake candidates to pull votes away from democrats. Examples of it happening in 2 states so far and presumably what they were hoping for with Kanye before he ruined his 'campaign' on day 1.

https://twitter.com/stuffie1977/status/1326950969662451712?s=20

That's pretty interesting, if the 3rd party candidate is a fake candidate would that not be illegal or something as they're there purely to manipulate the vote and are not a legitimate candidate?

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2020 05:39PM

Infini wrote: »

That's pretty interesting, if the 3rd party candidate is a fake candidate would that not be illegal or something as they're there purely to manipulate the vote and are not a legitimate candidate?

If the 3rd candidate was acting completely independently I don't think it's a crime, but coordination between 2 candidates with a view to impacting a 3rd absolutely would be.

Manic Moran · 13-11-2020 05:46PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well how deep red states litter the bottom of the league tables for the likes of education, healthcare, economy etc provides plenty of evidence that states can not govern many aspects fundamental to those that live there.

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.

I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole?

Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security?

I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.

The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC.

Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.

MadYaker · 13-11-2020 06:00PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.

The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC.

Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.

I always enjoy your posts. I know this question isn't quite related but do you think Trumps antics have shown any potential weak points in the checks and balances that need to be addressed?

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Comments