2020 US Election (Part One)

[Thorgalaeg]

So half of Trump mandate is already gone. Has he done something worthy of mention apart of the chaos and the comedy?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

He cut taxes for the wealthy while attempting to cut aid to the poor and raised their taxes. He's gutted several federal agencies and rolled back every regulation in the public interest that he can get away with. He's normalized a level of corruption and discord that's so unprecedented you have to go back to the gilded age or the civil war to find parallels. He put an alleged sexual assaulter on the supreme court in addition to another seat he filled that was stolen from his predecessor. He's stuffed the federal courts with sycophants and openly defended and promoted white nationalism. So yeah, he's done quite a lot worth mention.

 

[Tristan_C]

Except of course in the Neoclassical period (if you can extend that to a period rather than art or architecture), Europe was still ruled almost exclusively by monarchs.

What's your point? In 989 and 995 I argued that ideas developed during this period lent themselves better than periods that followed to the development of a republican charter.

Just curious, is "extremes of individuals and their desires being held sacred" a euphemism for "freed the slaves and I'm still annoyed about it"?

In terms of real world events, I was referring to the revolutions of 1848, the liberation of Latin America, and France's post-Napoleonic malaise, which all bear the romantic influence and gave rise to shorter-lived regimes than the US. Stop obsessing over race. Don't be such a hatemonger.

 

[Traitorfish]

Neoclassical. Answered.

"Neoclassical" means a revival of classicism. Literally, "new classicism". So what is classical, or neoclassical, about the US Constitution?

Simply asserting that the Constitution was drafted during a period in which neoclassicism was artistically and intellectually fashionable isn't sufficient to establish the "neoclassical" character of the document. As I said, the actual structure of government it lays out is essentially a replication and refinement of the structure of government in Hanoverian Britain, as the Americans understood it. Most of the individual liberties you cherish were initially articulated one hundred and fifty years earlier, during the Civil Wars, and expressed rights that Englishmen, in the British Isles and the American colonies, believed themselves to have possessed since time immemorial. Jefferson and other intellectuals may have posed these in rationalistic terms, but it doesn't follow that this forms the character of the document, or dictates how it would have been understood by the greater mass of American citizens.

 

[Sommerswerd]

He doesn't have to confess, Meuller has emails that prove it.

Silly hobbs... have you not learned by now that proof is not "evidence", evidence is fake-news and emails don't prove anything unless its Hillary.

And uh, we have ample precedent for Trump openly admitting to crimes he has committed.

Again, where's your evidence of this? And before you waste your time I will just warn you that whatever evidence you think you have isn't proof.

He brags about it, then denies, denies, denies then all of a sudden fesses up and brags about it but claims it doesn't matter.

FTFY

Do you think that the Senate will accept that subordination of perjury is OK, especially when testifying to the Senate?

Define "Senate".

If by "Senate" you mean "Democrats", then no of course not... but if by "Senate" you mean "Republicans", then most assuredly, absolutely, yes.

 

[Lexicus]

If by "Senate" you mean "Democrats", then no of course not... but if by "Senate" you mean "Republicans, then most assuredly, absolutely, yes.

Since Republicans have the majority...

 

[Takhisis]

I wouldn't put anything past a Senate that already has refused and is refusing to do its duty. The judiciary appointments, tax cuts, lack of oversight, etc. are extremely bad signs.

 

[onejayhawk]

I wouldn't put anything past a Senate that already has refused and is refusing to do its duty. The judiciary appointments, tax cuts, lack of oversight, etc. are extremely bad signs.

The Senate lost two of the more stubborn dissenting voices and is now a larger majority.

That said, I don't understand how they failed to do their duty. It is not as if they were not debating the tax cuts, judicial appointments, etc. After the debate there were votes. They defied Trump on repealing ACA. What are they supposed to be doing differently? Voting like Democrats?

I think it's very likely he will win in 2020, though he will most certainly lose the popular vote again.

Hillary had a plurality, not a majority. Gary Johnson will not pull 4.48 million votes. Another 1.15 million write-ins is also unlikely. In 2012, Johnson, Stein, and all others totaled under 2% of the vote. In 2016, Johnson alone was 3.14%. Among the Republican base, Trump is much more popular now than then which will help turnout. Trump could pull 53% in 2020 just by staying his current course.

J

 

[sophie]

They are refusing to call a vote to fund the government.

Pretty much the definition of not doing the job.

 

[Takhisis]

^That, just for starters.

 

[Lexicus]

Trump could pull 53% in 2020 just by staying his current course.

Good luck with that.

 

[onejayhawk]

They are refusing to call a vote to fund the government. Pretty much the definition of not doing the job.

As if they could. That was a cheap shot and not a good one.

Good luck with that.

It's what the numbers indicate. Personally, I think he declines to run in 2020 and Ted Cruz takes office in 2021.

J

 

[Takhisis]

Alternative facts strike again.

 

[Lexicus]

Ted Cruz takes office in 2021.

Good luck with that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's what the numbers indicate. Personally, I think he declines to run in 2020 and Ted Cruz takes office in 2021.

J

The day he leaves office he gets indicted. You seriously think he isn't going to try to stay in office as long as possible?

Oh, wait...it's you. Undoubtedly you are just spewing whatever you think will be an irritant, relationship to reality not withstanding.

 

[sophie]

As if they could. That was a cheap shot and not a good one.

This makes literally no sense. The bill has passed the House. This exact version of the bill has already been passed UNANIMOUSLY by a Senate with fewer Republican senators. There is nothing to send to committee, nothing to deliberate on. Literally the only thing stopping this bill is McConnell refusing to allow it to go to the floor for a vote.

Voting on bills and funding the government are like, literally the two core components of the job of a legislator.

 

[Ajidica]

clause 61:
The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

article 1 section 9, Constitution
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

Really.

My point was that the idea of no freeman could have his life or property forfeit without a lawful judgment of his peers - the basics of legal equality- was present in the 13th century, and, if I bothered to track down the Visigothic Code or Ripuarian Code, I can find similar instances indicative of the idea of legal equality of freemen. Specifically, that the idea of legal equality didn't just spring out of the powder-wigged heads of some self-righteous slaveholders in your beloved "neoclassical" period but rather had a long-established precedent in western Europe.

 

[innonimatu]

Do you think that the Senate will accept that subordination of perjury is OK, especially when testifying to the Senate?

Remember a guy named Clapper? How's he doing after all the lies he told them?

 

[Estebonrober]

Trump could pull 53% in 2020 just by staying his current course.

J

Wow I really would have to consider fleeing America if he won 53% of the vote after all this, I mean the level of stupid that would demonstrate would be stupefying.

 

[Berzerker]

Snowden said Clapper lying to Congress is what motivated him to go public