2020 US Election (Part Two)

[EnglishEdward]

I‘m wondering whether a weaker presidency shouldn‘t be the goal of the more radical left here. The US executive branch and all federal level politics seem so broken and with so many roadblocks to reforms everywhere that the real possibility of change lies lower. Increase state rights, push trough good policies that then can serve as an example - and screw the people in the red states in the process?

It‘s an argument, that‘s clear. And it rests on the assumption that the US elections are all or nothing. If the Democrats get the Presidency AND the senate (and keep the house and maybe add two judges to the supreme court then), then they can enact the change they want (during the first two years at least). If they don‘t win across the board, then all the energy was wasted to get Biden elected as then he can only rebuild the executive branch and maybe try to repair the international reputation of the US.

I entirely agree. The USA needs to look at states rights for the 21st century, without its unhelpful antiquated 19th context of slavery.

I can see Biden getting one or two more radical voices in his boat and leave them rather alone in trying to build their reform project - it will be up to them how successfull these can be then to be implemented. So I‘d still go with supporting Biden - or else just forget about the presidency and support some local races. And here‘s the question, what can lead to a weaker executive branch, a second Trump Term or a Biden presidency with Republicans again trying to obstruct any- and everything?

I am myself at this moment quite uncertain on this point.

It is very complicated looking at possible scenarios and assigning them probabilities of
occurring and of outcomes; and in assigning risk weightings, I do not have a US psyche.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The context of states rights and discrimination is unavoidable in America when historically both concepts have gone hand in hand.

I mean come on man, we had a literal civil war over whether we should still allow certain states to continue with slavery

 

[Arwon]

A weaker presidency wouldn't mean "states rights", it means a more parliamentary federal system ie an executive role for the leader in congress, and a president with fewer powers.

It would be entirely possible to have a more, or less, centralised federation regardless of the division of powers between the congress and president. President vs congress and states vs federal are two different axes of power. Many configurations are possible.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The context of states rights and discrimination is unavoidable in America when historically both concepts have gone hand in hand.

I mean come on man, we had a literal civil war over whether we should still allow certain states to continue with slavery

If you want to be an intellectual prisoner of your country's history, that is your decision.

A weaker presidency wouldn't mean "states rights", it means a more parliamentary federal system ie an executive role for the leader in congress, and a president with fewer powers.

It would be entirely possible to have a more, or less, centralised federation regardless of the division of powers between the congress and president. President vs congress and states vs federal are two different axes of power. Many configurations are possible.

Quite so. And there is also the public sector/private sector axis to further complicate things.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's all a parade of stupidity.

But it is always worth noting that even this group of clowns can defeat Biden/Kamala.
There simply couldn't have been a less inspiring ticket for the dem party.
And I say this, again, as someone who wants Trump to leave this November. But where is the strategy in how you defeat him? Is it by doing nothing and hoping it will be enough? Cause I don't see anything else from Biden.

I hope Bernie's message will push progressive voters to help elect Biden, so that then they may try to change something with Biden as potus. But it is terrible that we can just say "I hope" all the time, instead of "it is logical to expect a Biden win".

Or it tells you how far up Poop Creek America is, where that many people are doing some variation of "Biden is underwhelming with a neo-liberal history, Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy and the planet; both are equally bad."

I am not saying "they are equally bad". Trump is worse. But he has a following. Biden doesn't inspire anyone.
Not that I think it is good there are people who are inspired by Trump, but that is the sad reality of things.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's all a parade of stupidity.

But it is always worth noting that even this group of clowns can defeat Biden/Kamala.
There simply couldn't have been a less inspiring ticket for the dem party.
And I say this, again, as someone who wants Trump to leave this November. But where is the strategy in how you defeat him? Is it by doing nothing and hoping it will be enough? Cause I don't see anything else from Biden.

I hope Bernie's message will push progressive voters to help elect Biden, so that then they may try to change something with Biden as potus. But it is terrible that we can just say "I hope" all the time, instead of "it is logical to expect a Biden win".



I am not saying "they are equally bad". Trump is worse. But he has a following. Biden doesn't inspire anyone.
Not that I think it is good there are people who are inspired by Trump, but that is the sad reality of things.

You keep pushing Bernie.

He couldn't win the Democratic primary. That's his best case possible audience.

Even when he was in the lead he never had a majority.

Other evidence was the centrist Democrats outperformed the progressives in 2018 midterms.

Americas society is conservative or at least more conservative than progressive.

So how the F does a progressive win the mud west or Florida/Ohio/Texas?

If Trump wins RBG probably won't last much longer.

The people you want to help you can't if you lose the election.

 

[Kyriakos]

You keep pushing Bernie.

He couldn't win the Democratic primary. That's his best case possible audience.

Even when he was in the lead he never had a majority.

Other evidence was the centrist Democrats outperformed the progressives in 2018 midterms.

Americas society is conservative or at least more conservative than progressive.

So how the F does a progressive win the mud west or Florida/Ohio/Texas?

I thought Obama won as a progressive, certainly in his first election.

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought Obama won as a progressive, certainly in his first election.

Obama is more of a centrist.

He's not progressive in terms of AoC but overall is left of center. Biden doesn't need to write the law just sign whatever the party writes.

 

[Kyriakos]

Obama is more of a centrist.

He's not progressive in terms of AoC but overall is left of center.

That's not how he run in his first election. But sure, as if it matters if we argue on this now

 

[Zardnaar]

That's not how he run in his first election. But sure, as if it matters if we argue on this now

He ran in hope and change. Let's you project whatever you want onto him.

He tried and got Obamacare across the line. There's only so much a president can do.

Even if a progressive got elected the center ones in red leaning districts can just join the GoP and refuse to sign any law. It's not like the progressives can vote them out.

Until progressives can compete and win in places that matter it won't change drastically.

Most Democrats agree on things like some form of better healthcare. Broadly speaking there's 4 main factions in the party.

 

[Lexicus]

My view is that Biden is the "accelerationist" choice, and a bad one strategically, in that the rot will continue under his administration. A Biden administration will be disastrous because he will have no organized opposition demanding and end to oligarchic rule. The party that was supposed to play that role (going through the motions only) will be in power! Given the already baked-in continued fall in living standards in the US, It'll be either violent revolution or resentment channeled by a right-wink populist in the next election. Then what you now fear from Trump will happen: a right-wing dictatorship, east european style.

Want to take a bet on successful popular revolution against a Democratic Party administration, without any large organization behind it? Because the republicans won't be doing it, the "left wing" of the democrats will be neuter itself rather that fight against the party administration in power, and the political landscape in the US has nothing else with a national scale. So I wouldn't take that bet.
Or bet on a successful change led from within the Democratic Party while it sits comfortably in power? Again, I don't - they will be wither bribed or remain silent because of the "team" and fear of the big bad republicans waiting (and rising on the polls).

We'll see. Or not. I believe the democrats have already managed to lose the election with the team they selected, so probably not. If so, focus on cleaning up the Democratic Party from the Clinton/Obama clique and making it a real opposition party. It's the best shot you have at averting disaster.

I'm not denying that it's very bad. The threat of an even further-right movement or backlash after a Biden presidency full of neoliberal destruction of the social fabric combined with hyperwoke appeals to the highly-educated is very real.

A weaker presidency wouldn't mean "states rights", it means a more parliamentary federal system ie an executive role for the leader in congress, and a president with fewer powers.

It would be entirely possible to have a more, or less, centralised federation regardless of the division of powers between the congress and president. President vs congress and states vs federal are two different axes of power. Many configurations are possible.

It's obvious that we need at least one Constitutional Amendment to drastrically weaken the Presidency with respect to Congress. It needs to be an Amendment and not a law because a law will be subject to destruction by the Republican-controlled courts.

A Constitutional Amendment is also susceptible to such destruction (see the history of the 14th) but it's harder.

 

[Commodore]

It's obvious that we need at least one Constitutional Amendment to drastrically weaken the Presidency with respect to Congress. It needs to be an Amendment and not a law because a law will be subject to destruction by the Republican-controlled courts

Even though there is no legal precedent for it, there is actually a legal argument that the Supreme Court would have the authority to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional if it is determined to contradict some other core part of the Constitution.

 

[Lexicus]

Even though there is no legal precedent for it, there is actually a legal argument that the Supreme Court would have the authority to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional if it is determined to contradict some other core part of the Constitution.

Are you trolling or something? Why post such obvious nonsense?

 

[Commodore]

Are you trolling or something? Why post such obvious nonsense?

Because it's something that could be attempted and have a reasonable chance at succeeding. The idea of the "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" is a real legal concept that has actually been adopted by some countries. And like I said, there is no legal precedent for such a thing in the US, and our Supreme Court is not unknown to look at foreign legal precedent for an issue that has no precedent in US law.

 

[Zardnaar]

Are you trolling or something? Why post such obvious nonsense?

He might be right say they removed the second amendment but worded it in a way to violate the 5th.

Lawmakers probably smarter but you never know.

 

[Lexicus]

Because it's something that could be attempted and have a reasonable chance at succeeding. The idea of the "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" is a real legal concept that has actually been adopted by some countries. And like I said, there is no legal precedent for such a thing in the US, and our Supreme Court is not unknown to look at foreign legal precedent for an issue that has no precedent in US law.

Any text that contradicts a later amendment is inoperative. There is no basis in US jurisprudence to call part of the Constitution unconstitutional.

 

[EnglishEdward]

He ran in hope and change.

So did Donald Trump and he beat Hillary Clinton's carry on with normal.

And Joe Biden seems to be running on a back to normal.

 

[Farm Boy]

Though looking at it practically, good luck finding a country to which you can currently travel as an American. The exit strategy assumes some change in circumstance which currently appears unlikely.

(I note that for me, it is literally a criminal offence to leave Australia at the moment without a government issued exemption).

There's always practicality. But the US doesn't make you ask to go. You can take up the walls with the builders of them, since you can come after us rightfully for immigration, let the rest of the countries wear their own pants on that one!

 

[Zardnaar]

So did Donald Trump and he beat Hillary Clinton's carry on with normal.

And Joe Biden seems to be running on a back to normal.

Difference is Donald hasn't delivered.

 

[IglooDame]

Even though there is no legal precedent for it, there is actually a legal argument that the Supreme Court would have the authority to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional if it is determined to contradict some other core part of the Constitution.

Are you not familiar with the term "amendment"? To amend is to "alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure".
(bolding mine)

The legal argument that the "core part of the Constitution" is inviolate and cannot be amended is just plain stupid on the face of it, given Article V's providing for amendments. It explicitly states what cannot be amended, implying that everything else is fair game: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."