[RD] The threat to American Democracy

I somehow don't think Harris will end up being the auto-nominee in 2028, even if Biden serves out two full terms.

She's certainly been underwhelming in the role. I'll acknowledge that it's not an easy role from out of which to whelm. But she hasn't.
 
Tbh I can't actually think of anything she's done as Veep.
 
I somehow don't think Harris will end up being the auto-nominee in 2028, even if Biden serves out two full terms.
She would still have to campaign for the nomination, as always, but I think as the sitting Veep, she would coast to victory, per the norm. The strongest candidates would mostly respect her position as Veep and stay out of the primary race. I don't see Bootyjudge, Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Klobuchar, Castro, or Bernie Sanders running against her, for example. Tulsi Gabbard might have, but she self-immolated by leaving the party to go be a FOX News host, so she's out, same for Kirsten Sinema.

Harris's opponents will be people like Marianne Williamson, Bloomberg, DiBlasio, Hickenlooper, maybe Yang.
 
She's certainly been underwhelming in the role. I'll acknowledge that it's not an easy role from out of which to whelm. But she hasn't.
They will start showcasing her when/if and only after Biden wins re-election. Until then, they are probably trying to keep her from doing anything that can be used as ammunition against her later, especially with a Republican House gearing up for their newest Benghazi part-deaux, the remix hearings. The less press she gets the better, especially with Biden's approvals rising.
 
I actually thought something pretty much like that in the time after I posted, and came back to say as much, so you've saved me the trouble.*

Hillary went down in part because right-wing media had demonized her for decades. The left has taken note, and if there's no reason to assert yourself, don't.

And I think it's working; all I've seen the right go after Harris for is her laugh.

Generally speaking, it's better in a lot of ways to be a blank slate. Two of the last three three successful presidential candidates have had that going for them.

Harris's opponents will be people like Marianne Williamson, Bloomberg, DiBlasio, Hickenlooper, maybe Yang.
I'm starting to sneak Katie Porter's name into these lists, when they come up. Where's your Newsom?

*That's why I relish the occasional opportunity to debate with you; cuz we generally see eye-to-eye on most things.
 
Last edited:
I actually thought something pretty much like that in the time after I posted, and came back to say as much, so you've saved me the trouble.*

Hillary went down in part because right-wing media had demonized her for decades. The left has taken note, and if there's no reason to assert yourself, don't.

And I think it's working; all I've seen the right go after Harris for is her laugh.

Generally speaking, it's better in a lot of ways to be a blank slate. Two of the last three three successful presidential candidates have had that going for them.


I'm starting to sneak Katie Porter's name into these lists, when they come up. Where's your Newsom?

*That's why I relish the occasional opportunity to debate with you; cuz we generally see eye-to-eye on most things.
I think I'd put Newsom in the "won't run against an incumbent Democrat category". It seemed in 2016, all the serious Democratic candidates, were effectively treating Hillary as the stand-in incumbent, in Biden's place, when Biden declined to run.

Now Newsom had no such obstacle in 2020, unless you wanted to treat Biden as a sort of delayed incumbent, having previously served as POTUS and skipped the election when it really was "his turn" to run. I suspect that in addition to grief over his recently deceased son, Biden was also deferring to Hillary, basically giving her another shot. But no one else gave Biden any such deference in 2020, until it became clear that they had to rally behind Biden to prevent Bernie from winning by stubborn plurality, the way Trump had done in 2016. So its unclear to me why Newsom hasn't run yet, particularly in 2020. Maybe he's got some scandal that he doesn't want dredged up? He was formerly married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, so she certainly has dirt on him, and she is famously now engaged to Donald Trump Jr., so they won't hesitate to use whatever she has against Newsom.

If you'd care to put on your Pym particle suit and step into the Multiverse with me, I've been considering some "What-If" questions I'd like to ponder with you...

What if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would 911 have still happened? Afghanistan war? Iraq war? Assuming baby Bush was nominated again in 2004, would Gore have been re-elected? Would the 2008 financial meltdown have still happened?

What if Hillary had run in 2004? Would she have won? Assuming she won, would the 2008 meltdown still have happened? If it did, would she have been re-elected?

What if Hillary had won in 2016? Would the COVID years have been much different? Would there have as much unrest and social upheaval, lockdowns, and all that death and misery in the US? If there was, would she have been re elected?

I have more, but even the ones I've posed contain many permutations and variations so I'll stop now before I travel any further into the weeds.
 
What if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would 911 have still happened? Afghanistan war? Iraq war? Assuming baby Bush was nominated again in 2004, would Gore have been re-elected? Would the 2008 financial meltdown have still happened?
9/11 yes. The wars no. The financial meltdown yes.
What if Hillary had run in 2004? Would she have won? Assuming she won, would the 2008 meltdown still have happened? If it did, would she have been re-elected?
Don't have any good feel for this one
What if Hillary had won in 2016? Would the COVID years have been much different? Would there have as much unrest and social upheaval, lockdowns, and all that death and misery in the US? If there was, would she have been re elected?
Fewer Covid deaths, b/c Covid just treated like a health emergency, not a political litmus test.
 
9/11 yes. The wars no. The financial meltdown yes.
So then Gore gets painted as weak on terrorism, failing to protect America, and so on... and thus loses in 2004, to baby Bush or someone similar, who promptly takes us to a war against terror anyway. If Gore somehow gets re-elected, then he gets blamed for the 2008 meltdown, and the Democrats lose in 2008, either to Bush or McCain.
Don't have any good feel for this one
I've always felt that 2004 was Hillary's year. That was when the country needed her, to undo some of Bush's mess. However, as hawkish as Hillary was, I don't know for sure how different the "war on terror" would have been handled. Even Obama never closed Gitmo.
Fewer Covid deaths, b/c Covid just treated like a health emergency, not a political litmus test.
I've said that I think any POTUS candidate other than Trump would have had a better COVID response, and the situation in the US would have not turned into such a nightmare, which would have in turn, dramatically improved the global COVID situation. Trump was truly the worst man for the worst moment . What I wonder is whether we would still have had 2 lost years and whether Hillary would have been blamed and voted out of office.
 
What if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would 911 have still happened? Afghanistan war? Iraq war? Assuming baby Bush was nominated again in 2004, would Gore have been re-elected? Would the 2008 financial meltdown have still happened?
Hard to say. I'm inclined to think Gore would've taken the intel inherited from his boss more seriously, but whether that would have made the difference is hard to say. he definitely wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but the extent of his response to the Taliban in Afghanistan sheltering Bin Laden is a hard question. Gore probably wouldn't rock the boat on the Neoliberal consensus, but wouldn't be as aggressively Laissez-faire as Bush. Ehhhh......
What if Hillary had run in 2004? Would she have won? Assuming she won, would the 2008 meltdown still have happened? If it did, would she have been re-elected?
I'm skeptical anybody who unseated Bush and came in in 2005 could've stopped it in time, let alone survive the political fallout.
What if Hillary had won in 2016? Would the COVID years have been much different? Would there have as much unrest and social upheaval, lockdowns, and all that death and misery in the US? If there was, would she have been re elected?
Nothing different from Gori's response.
 
So then Gore gets painted as weak on terrorism, failing to protect America, and so on... and thus loses in 2004, to baby Bush or someone similar, who promptly takes us to a war against terror anyway.
I don't think this follows. Everyone knew at the time that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was just Bush and cronies' little pet war. Bush was able to pursue it out of the presidency (b/c presidents can basically declare war and then go to Congress and say "we should go to war, no?"), but that doesn't mean a republican running in 2004 could have run on such a proposal, as a way of appearing tougher on terrorism.

On your other point, yeah, still two years lost to Covid. The world lost two years to Covid. There wasn't some country's leader who managed Covid so well that his or her country didn't lose two years to Covid. And thus I don't think it follows that she gets voted out. I can't imagine some Republican running on some better Covid policy.

He was formerly married to Kimberly Guilfoyle,
I didn't know this. That's a disqualification in its own right, separate from any dirt.
 
Last edited:
Well, well, Donny J. has been ordered to pay ONE MILLION DOLLARS for his frivolous March '22 lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.
 
Well, well, Donny J. has been ordered to pay ONE MILLION DOLLARS for his frivolous March '22 lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.



"Ahem... Don't you think we should ask, for... more than a million dollars? I mean a million dollars is not really a lot of money these days..."
 


"Ahem... Don't you think we should ask, for... more than a million dollars? I mean a million dollars is not really a lot of money these days..."

I may be wrong, but it is rather high for the circumstances, right? I mean, most awards for frivolous lawsuits are a lot lower than this, no?
 
"Ahem... Don't you think we should ask, for... more than a million dollars? I mean a million dollars is not really a lot of money these days..."
Do you really expect them to pay?
 
It's a good question. We don't know how liquid they are. That said, there have been a lot of efforts to create a dark money pool, and that will likely still be liquid. It would be really funny if they had to borrow against assets in a period of dropping asset prices and rising interest rates.
 
I may be wrong, but it is rather high for the circumstances, right? I mean, most awards for frivolous lawsuits are a lot lower than this, no?
Eh... its about the damages. If you file a frivolous lawsuit that costs the other side $5,000 in legal fees and the Court finds that the appropriate sanction is to give them back the fees paid, then the award would be $5,000.

In this case the Court found that the appropriate sanction was to give the Clinton side the legal fees they paid to defend Trump's frivolous lawsuit. The Clinton's claim was for $1,058,283.50 in fees and costs and the Court's memorandum of opinion went through all the legal fees and essentially audited them in a 46 page decision, concluding that Trump and his lead attorneys, Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates were jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39.
 
Eh... its about the damages. If you file a frivolous lawsuit that costs the other side $5,000 in legal fees and the Court finds that the appropriate sanction is to give them back the fees paid, then the award would be $5,000.

In this case the Court found that the appropriate sanction was to give the Clinton side the legal fees they paid to defend Trump's frivolous lawsuit. The Clinton's claim was for $1,058,283.50 in fees and costs and the Court's memorandum of opinion went through all the legal fees and essentially audited them in a 46 page decision, concluding that Trump and his lead attorneys, Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates were jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39.

I understand that, but what I'm saying is usually it doesn't cost nearly a million dollars to defend against a frivolous lawsuit. My sense is that these things are usually smaller. I could envision a corporation frivolously suing another corporation and having to pay much higher damages than this, but it feels like lawyers for large corporate clients would be competent enough not to file a frivolous lawsuit in the first place.
 
This is Trump's legal team we're talking about. Can't expect too much.
 
I understand that, but what I'm saying is usually it doesn't cost nearly a million dollars to defend against a frivolous lawsuit. My sense is that these things are usually smaller. I could envision a corporation frivolously suing another corporation and having to pay much higher damages than this, but it feels like lawyers for large corporate clients would be competent enough not to file a frivolous lawsuit in the first place.
Yes, your run-of-the mill lawsuit between two average Joes or small businesses or median value insurance claim isn't going to be a million dollars.

A lawsuit with this much legal fees/costs is typically against/between entities with unlimited resources over tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Think EPA suing Dow chemical... stuff like that.

But as you correctly point out, the EPA isn't going to bring a frivolous lawsuit against Dow Chemical or vice-versa. Just highlights once again how truly uniquely unscrupulous, and incompetent team Trump is.

He should never be allowed to be POTUS again.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom