2020 US Election (Part One)

[hobbsyoyo]

I think today's news, confirms that Trump won't be on the ticket in 2020. He may not be in jail, but he won't be running. So who's up for the republicans? Romney? Pence?

I think this is a fair take. I don't think any of these new revelations will see him impeached or forced to resign but I think you are correct in that the events of this week spell the end of his political career by 2020 at the latest.

Pence may run but he's a non-starter. He's caught up in all of this and there's a non-zero chance we'll be finding out he's similarly corrupt soon enough. He may mount an attempt but I cannot see him making it on the ticket.

I don't think Romney could take the nomination a second time but he's one of the more palatable options. I expect Cruz to run if things get bad enough for Trump as he seems like a pure opportunist but I don't think he'll make the cut. I think John Kasich would have a great shot at the spot.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, maybe John Kasich. I don't see any others on the horizon at the moment.

 

[Berzerker]

what a mess for the Repubs, their nominee for the general cant be close to Trump's trail of slime but that makes it harder to win the nomination

 

[Tristan_C]

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation

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.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

what a mess for the Repubs, their nominee for the general cant be close to Trump's trail of slime but that makes it harder to win the nomination

Well now that we know that election polls can and will be rigged, we may do a better job of working to prevent that in the future as a society. But probably not.

He didn't win the popular vote and he may not have won the primaries had his rigged polls not convinced the Fox News propaganda machine to go into overdrive on his behalf.At this point there are even questions as to whether the polls Fox itself used and promulgated on their programming were legit or so grossly manipulated as to have been fabricated. Those polls leant him an air of inevitability that gained real support in the primaries. Plus, all networks were guilty of giving him an enormous amount of free publicity that was unfair to his opponents.

Our media is as guilty of putting him in the white house as anyone because the ratings help them enrich themselves.

Our whole socioeconomic system needs a flipping rethink as it seems incompatible with democracy over the long run. I hope we have learned a lesson but I fear not.

 

[Traitorfish]

You are probably aware the period in which it was written is called the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment; one of the products of this era was a new prescription for the relation between the individual and the state, based on equality rather than nobility, or social contracts rather than divine right. The American colonials combined the Brits' theories with extensive hands-on experience in representative government. That's about as condensed as I can make it for you. It's not about using Roman words.

Okay. But what's supposed to be Classical about the US Constitution? You haven't clarified that.

The neoclassical seems to me to be a sweet spot, where before this time we had monarchies, and there was no concept there of legal equality

I'd beg you to consider what "no concept of legal equality" meant in 1789, particularly for women, black people, and Native Americans.

 

[Tristan_C]

Classical

Neoclassical. Answered.

I'd beg you to consider what "no concept of legal equality" meant in 1789, particularly for women, black people, and Native Americans.

Okay.

 

[Arakhor]

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.

 

[Lexicus]

The neoclassical seems to me to be a sweet spot, where before this time we had monarchies, and there was no concept there of legal equality, and afterwards you had extremes of individuals and their desires being held sacred (the romantic) or, with religion out of the picture, human beings becoming literal fuel for the state to digest, deus ex fascis (the modern).

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"?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think today's news, confirms that Trump won't be on the ticket in 2020. He may not be in jail, but he won't be running. So who's up for the republicans? Romney? Pence?

You mean the Marist poll? I don't think that's going to be enough to keep Trump from running. Last election taught him that polls aren't to be believed, and can be rigged at his pleasure... so I doubt he resigns based on some unfavourable polls.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You mean the Marist poll? I don't think that's going to be enough to keep Trump from running. Last election taught him that polls aren't to be believed, and can be rigged at his pleasure... so I doubt he resigns based on some unfavourable polls.

No, subordination of perjury.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No, subordination of perjury.

Which both Lindsay Graham and William Barr agreed was a crime just days ago. And let's not forget how Graham and 13 other current GOP Senators voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and that this was the same crime that took down Nixon.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think today's news, confirms that Trump won't be on the ticket in 2020. He may not be in jail, but he won't be running. So who's up for the republicans? Romney? Pence?

Maybe Mueller can tag Pence in what is come. Yummy!!

Which news is that? There have been so many that might fit this description. If, as has been proposed, it is the allegation of suborning perjury, throw it on the pile.

If Trump does not run, there is only Cruz who wins strolling.

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.

That's common. For example Baroque architecture and music. It was a significant period in military/world history and science. It also overlaps the Rococo and Neoclassic period, though generally in different countries. Yes, Europe was ruled by monarchies, though the seeds of the French Revolution were planted

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

No, subordination of perjury.

Ah, I heard about that on the way into work. I'm skeptical that it sticks. You think he is going to confess and resign because Joaquin Castro demands it?

Which both Lindsay Graham and William Barr agreed was a crime just days ago. And let's not forget how Graham and 13 other current GOP Senators voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and that this was the same crime that took down Nixon.

If you're looking for consistency of standards and/or intellectual honesty and/or ethics to override partisan loyalties... I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ah, I heard about that on the way into work. I'm skeptical that it sticks. You think he is going to confess and resign because Joaquin Castro demands it?

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

And uh, we have ample precedent for Trump openly admitting to crimes he has committed. He denies, denies, denies then all of a sudden fesses up and brags about it. I don't think any of it will matter though. Nothing seems to matter to the GOP except tax cuts and screwing over poor people.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do you think that the Senate will accept that subordination of perjury is OK, especially when testifying to the Senate? The charge apparently has supporting evidence and is not just "he said she said". We'll see, but in any case I think it sinks any chance of Trump running in 2020.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Do you think that the Senate will accept that subordination of perjury is OK, especially when testifying to the Senate? The charge apparently has supporting evidence and is not just "he said she said". We'll see, but in any case I think it sinks any chance of Trump running in 2020.

I'm with Lexicus in that the GOP senators will wring their hands and say they are 'gravely concerned' and do nothing. I'm with you that Trump will not be allowed to run in 2020. He may mount an attempt* but I don't think the party will stand for it because they know they will lose - and that's the only thing they care about. Similarly, if they remove Trump now they will have lost and that cannot be tolerated.

Elections only have consequences for Democrats and crimes are only crimes if committed by a Democrat. The rest is fake news.

*I know that technically he's mounting an attempt now (already!) but I think that has as much to do with his ability to use the campaign funds as a slush fund for his personal enrichment as it does with him actually running for President.

 

[Lexicus]

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

Yes, absolutely.

He may mount an attempt but I don't think the party will stand for it because they know they will lose -

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

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nah, I think that goose is cooked. He won in 2016 because we didn't turn out and he just barely squeaked out wins in a handful of states. I don't see that happening again, though the concern that he will attempt to nullify elections or otherwise interfere is still hanging over our collective heads. But I don't think he'll make it on the GOP ticket this round.

 

[Lexicus]

We'll see I guess. I think almost the exact opposite of what you think: the impulse to try to keep Trump off the ticket may be strong but Republicans will look at the numbers and realize running anyone else is sure suicide.