2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Farm Boy]

Averting the avoidable. That sounds legit.

 

[Patine]

I ignored the non-Presidential victories you mentioned because they aren't good examples of how voters behave in Presidential elections.

Your question said, "U.S. Elections," not specifically "U.S. Presidential Election." Please don't be self-righteously disingenuous.

Look do you want on this joint or what

I would imagine your home State has a law against advocating or promoting the use and sale of cannabis products online.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Averting the avoidable. That sounds legit.

Sometimes mitigation is all you can do.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't think it's likely that all the red states would move on this, but remember that 2016 was decided by 70,000 votes in just three states. I absolutely can see 3-5 red states deciding to put their thumb on the scale in places where the race is tight by forcing their electors to vote for Trump regardless of the state's popular vote and even getting away with it. That may be all it takes to put him over 270 EC votes, as well.

As is stated in the article, some of the governors involved are Democrats and they might interfere.

 

[Estebonrober]

Not all White Supremacists are Nazis. A Nazi, ideologically, is much more specific than just a White Supremacist, or just a right-wing authoritarian Nationalist. This is a big part of the problem with your fast-and-loose, clumsy, and inappropriate terminology. Soon you'll be as slipshod as Glen Beck - who called Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, of all people, full-out COMMUNISTS - in your political labelling and terminology, if you aren't already that bad.



And, again, as above, you seem to show a sense of entitlement that your jokes are to be automatically appreciated and appreciated as much by all, always considered "funny," or at least "amusing," and immune to bombing horribly. Well, that's not the way it works.

Ok daaadddd.

authoritarian white supremacist with an economic outlook identical to the third reich

 

[AmazonQueen]

Your question said, "U.S. Elections," not specifically "U.S. Presidential Election." Please don't be self-righteously disingenuous.

I forgot to mention that I meant US presidential Elections in a thread that is specifically about US Presidential Elections.
Not sure that I'm the one being self-righteously disingenuous.

 

[Estebonrober]

Sold Red State Governors and Legislators aside, are Purple State Republican Governors and Legislators - all the bad stereotypes of the modern, toxic, and divisive socio-political zeitgeist aside - REALLY willing to commit political suicide in their home States for Donald Trump?

Prattling Patine
He’s a spinning machine
No matter how hard you try
He will prattle on until you cry

@Gori the Grey

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I would imagine your home State has a law against advocating or promoting the use and sale of cannabis products online.

What are you trying to say? I always find you so cryptic, say what you mean!

 

[Patine]

Ok daaadddd.

authoritarian white supremacist with an economic outlook identical to the third reich

Free market capitalism with large mega-corporations stomping small businesses mercilessly with all powerful plutocrats who freely and rampantly bribe government to do their bidden was NOT the Third Reich's economic outlook, at all. I don't know who told you it was. Of course, both the U.S. Republican Party and Nazi Party's economic outlooks were horribly vile, repugnant, and frankly criminal on massive scale - but they were still VERY different from each other. Also, there have been a lot of Authoritarian White Supremacist groups through history - going back to the early Colonial Age - but the Nazis are a very specific thing, and very different in most other meaningful and specific ways from all the rest.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

As is stated in the article, some of the governors involved are Democrats and they might interfere.

Yeah and I noted in my longer post that this is a potential hurdle for the strategy.

Still, it only took 3 states to win 2016 and there are certainly more than 3 states with one-party control by the GOP. They don't need every red state to do this to win, just enough to put him over 270, which could be as few as one.

 

[Estebonrober]

Very close doesn't really matter in a winner takes all system so for presidential races you are going back to 1860.
It should be noted that the Republicans were only able to win in 1860 because the democrats had split and were running multiple candidates then. Neither major party has split this time around. It wasn't a genuine multiple horse race because some of the horses were only running against 1 other horse, bit like if Bernie had stood as an independent he would have only hurt Biden.

edit: Basically the lesson is that in FPTP systems you have to choose a moment of crisis for a 3rd party to come through. Thats how Labour replaced the Liberals in British politics after WW1 and how the Social Democrats came close to replacing Labour in the 80s. Both made use of existing political structures to help them, they weren't created overnight.

I’ve pointed this out to Patine before. We do have a sub set of democrats called Justice Democrats whose first off premise is they accept no corporate PAC money. They are our best hope moving forward. They all happen to scare the shut out of the GOP which is a good tell at their effectiveness.

 

[Zardnaar]

What are you trying to say? I always find you so cryptic, say what you mean!

Don't worry about it. He's just salty he's not in the pot and booze alliance.

 

[Estebonrober]

Free market capitalism with large mega-corporations stomping small businesses mercilessly with all powerful plutocrats who freely and rampantly bribe government to do their bidden was NOT the Third Reich's economic outlook, at all. I don't know who told you it was. Of course, both the U.S. Republican Party and Nazi Party's economic outlooks were horribly vile, repugnant, and frankly criminal on massive scale - but they were still VERY different from each other. Also, there have been a lot of Authoritarian White Supremacist groups through history - going back to the early Colonial Age - but the Nazis are a very specific thing, and very different in most other meaningful and specific ways from all the rest.

A national benefactor government that picks corporate winners that please them to meet their goals seems to be hook line and sinker both third reich and GOP positions. I leave myself open to being wrong, but I won’t take your lecturing as a counter argument.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I’ve pointed this out to Patine before. We do have a sub set of democrats called Justice Democrats whose first off premise is they accept no corporate PAC money. They are our best hope moving forward. They all happen to scare the shut out of the GOP which is a good tell at their effectiveness.

And maybe this is a moment of crisis in the US system. Too late to affect this election bit if you beat Trump hopefully the Democrats will be scared enough to enact some meaningful reforms.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And maybe this is a moment of crisis in the US system. Too late to affect this election bit if you beat Trump hopefully the Democrats will be scared enough to enact some meaningful reforms.

I think we're past the point where meaningful reforms will be enough. I don't consider packing the court a reform, it's a radical reversal of a power grab. I don't like it, but it's insufficient to just codify changes to the appointment regulations to stop the GOP from gaming the process going forward. And the biggest, most durable reforms need to be constitutional amendments which will also not happen due to Republican minority control of government manifested across a majority of states.

So the only thing left to arrest this backsliding of the rule of law is to do pretty radical stuff like court packing.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think we're past the point where meaningful reforms will be enough. I don't consider packing the court a reform, it's a radical reversal of a power grab. I don't like it, but it's insufficient to just codify changes to the appointment regulations to stop the GOP from gaming the process going forward. And the biggest, most durable reforms need to be constitutional amendments which will also not happen due to Republican minority control of government manifested across a majority of states.

So the only thing left to arrest this backsliding of the rule of law is to do pretty radical stuff like court packing.

We really need to destroy the ragged vestiges of slavery and reconstruction laws. I say make the GOP choose. You can keep the senate or the electoral college. Never both, never again. Oh and senate rules for court appointments have to change.

 

[Patine]

A national benefactor government that picks corporate winners that please them to meet their goals seems to be hook line and sinker both third reich and GOP positions. I leave myself open to being wrong, but I won’t take your lecturing as a counter argument.

A "Corporatist," (to use the term as SPECIIFCALLY coined by Mussolini, which was, more or less adopted by Hitler), system is different than a rampantly corrupt plutocracy and keptocracy. In the Nazi system, the Government firmly calls the shots and makes the real decisions as opposed to the Corporations. It's actually reversed in roles in the Republican system, but many Republican politicians (and a LOT of Democratic ones, too, feeding from the same trough), get their palms greased and their nest gilded regularly to make up for that position. But, again, despite being very different, both are still utterly repugnant and horrid.

 

[Patine]

And maybe this is a moment of crisis in the US system. Too late to affect this election bit if you beat Trump hopefully the Democrats will be scared enough to enact some meaningful reforms.

I think we're past the point where meaningful reforms will be enough. I don't consider packing the court a reform, it's a radical reversal of a power grab. I don't like it, but it's insufficient to just codify changes to the appointment regulations to stop the GOP from gaming the process going forward. And the biggest, most durable reforms need to be constitutional amendments which will also not happen due to Republican minority control of government manifested across a majority of states.

So the only thing left to arrest this backsliding of the rule of law is to do pretty radical stuff like court packing.

We really need to destroy the ragged vestiges of slavery and reconstruction laws. I say make the GOP choose. You can keep the senate or the electoral college. Never both, never again. Oh and senate rules for court appointments have to change.

I think the U.S. needs a whole new Constitution, made for modern-day governance and ways of doing things, and more difficult to easily abuse due to gaps and omissions in areas the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen. Mere Amendments I think are insufficient at this point.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think we're past the point where meaningful reforms will be enough. I don't consider packing the court a reform, it's a radical reversal of a power grab. I don't like it, but it's insufficient to just codify changes to the appointment regulations to stop the GOP from gaming the process going forward. And the biggest, most durable reforms need to be constitutional amendments which will also not happen due to Republican minority control of government manifested across a majority of states.

So the only thing left to arrest this backsliding of the rule of law is to do pretty radical stuff like court packing.

You might have to take the example of 1 of your more extreme Presidents, I think Roosevelt did some court packing

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Estebonrober I mean unfortunately there's not much we can do to reform the senate or the EC. The EC can be stepped around, but only if we can get enough states to sign up for the Interstate Compact that equal at least 270 EC votes. That's been impossible so far and won't change in the immediate future. The Senate also can't be changed to elminate GOP minority rule without consent of every state or the addition of more states.

I don't see the Democrats carrying through with making DC and PR states even if they had the votes. And then if they did, the new SCOTUS would find ways to reverse statehood, as crazy as that would be. And to stop that, I don't see the Democrats packing SCOTUS.

Basically I feel everything is horrible and wrong and can't be fixed. We're at a checkmate, democracy point and have been since the Dems failed to take the Senate in 2018. It was a long shot then but it was basically the last point to effectively roll back minority rule without really radical action that the party just isn't capable of, temperamentally.

And while I appreciate and support the BLM protestors, they need to start more generally protesting the GOP and minority government and be less focused specifically on racial justice because they won't ever have racial justice so long as the GOP runs the country. Without protesting the GOP itself, they will never get the Democrats to change their tactics and approach.

You might have to take the example of 1 of your more extreme Presidents, I think Roosevelt did some court packing

He thought about it and made some overtures but was rebuffed. The last time the court makeup was changed was like 1869. But yeah, it can be changed and Roosevelt did talk about it and that was enough to get the SCOTUS to back down from some of their opposition to the new deal but it's still a radical move to pull off right now.

I don't think the threat of court packing will itself be enough to get Boofin' Brett to back down from eliminating Roe V Wade. He was pretty clear he was prepared to reap the whirlwind, after all.