The Tipping Point

[Timsup2nothin]

So the FBI warned about Russian/foregin interference with these voting machines months ago and he sat on it. But now the pre-warned hacking happened and he immediately begins an investigation of the Democrats? How much more transparent do power grabs get?

Oh yeah, Kavanaugh and Garland. That's how naked they get.

This is what I mean by saying that they have reached the point of diminishing returns.

The gerrymandering has been done. Voter suppression has been maxed out. There is no subtlety left available. But the tide against them keeps rising so it comes to this, which might be another stopgap that works for a while.

But right now, top of your head, what is the one issue that would most likely get uniform support from all democrats?

Obama ran on health care reform, all the democrats were united that it had to be done (despite disagreements about how) so when they had their two year window they got something done.

If a two year window opens in, say, 2020, what would democrats be so in agreement about that they would actually get it done? Bernie's pies in the sky? Probably not. Revolutionize foreign relations and turn Republican warmongers over to international courts...yeah, I'm guessing the neo-con Democrats wouldn't go for that. Reactivate the main street wall street divide and blow themselves up in a fit of economic wrangling? Yeah, that seems like a waste of a window.

Oh, hey, how about reinforcing the voting rights act and securing the future of free elections? Do you think, maybe, the next time such a window of availability opens the democrats could get united behind that? Hey, what a concept.

 

[HoloDoc]

This is what I mean by saying that they have reached the point of diminishing returns.

The gerrymandering has been done. Voter suppression has been maxed out. There is no subtlety left available. But the tide against them keeps rising so it comes to this, which might be another stopgap that works for a while.

But right now, top of your head, what is the one issue that would most likely get uniform support from all democrats?

Obama ran on health care reform, all the democrats were united that it had to be done (despite disagreements about how) so when they had their two year window they got something done.

If a two year window opens in, say, 2020, what would democrats be so in agreement about that they would actually get it done? Bernie's pies in the sky? Probably not. Revolutionize foreign relations and turn Republican warmongers over to international courts...yeah, I'm guessing the neo-con Democrats wouldn't go for that. Reactivate the main street wall street divide and blow themselves up in a fit of economic wrangling? Yeah, that seems like a waste of a window.

Oh, hey, how about reinforcing the voting rights act and securing the future of free elections? Do you think, maybe, the next time such a window of availability opens the democrats could get united behind that? Hey, what a concept.

Considering the stacking of SCOTUS and the penchant of many "moderate" Democrats to be virtual Republicans, I have little confidence in them to actually get those biting tights reinforced, unfortunately. And ths is assuming they ever get that window of opportunity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Considering the stacking of SCOTUS and the penchant of many "moderate" Democrats to be virtual Republicans, I have little confidence in them to actually get those biting tights reinforced, unfortunately. And ths is assuming they ever get that window of opportunity.

The current round of naked offenses against free elections has the tide rising faster than ever against the Republicans, so I'm pretty sure that window will happen...and it probably won't take much longer. While everyone is talking about the great "Republican victory" they expect in holding the senate, truth is that the score in the senate elections is probably doing to be 25 to 10, Democrats. The huge tilt in the field of having so few Republican held seats up for election is blunting the impact of how far the GOP has fallen as far as the senate goes...but the 2020 slate tilts the other way, and so does the 2022 slate. Unless the tide reverses their chances of holding the senate beyond the next two years are basically zero. Heck, even Texas is apparently competitive, even with Uncle Karl's gerrymandering having sewn up the Texas legislature as tight as a drum. When the GOP is trying to defend twenty to twenty-five seats that are all sliding away, and the D'umpists are exerting their control over the party by nominating the most generally unacceptable candidates they can find, do you really think they can manipulate the vote enough to pull it off?

By the way, many moderate Democrats ARE Republicans...me for example. That's what happens when a party goes off the rails and buries itself in the weeds...refugees join the other party.

The only window of opportunity that is short lived is the November 7th window. If Trump doesn't declare the election results of this election invalid and lock the current congress in place the GOP will likely never get another chance.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, hey, how about reinforcing the voting rights act and securing the future of free elections? Do you think, maybe, the next time such a window of availability opens the democrats could get united behind that? Hey, what a concept.

Enforcing the voting rights act has been rendered impossible by the Supreme Court decision gutting it in 2013.

I believe it will require a Constitutional amendment to take elections out of the hands of state governments. And uh...good luck with that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Enforcing the voting rights act has been rendered impossible by the Supreme Court decision gutting it in 2013.

I believe it will require a Constitutional amendment to take elections out of the hands of state governments. And uh...good luck with that.

Reinforcing is not the same as enforcing. Enforcement can't happen in regards to aspects of previous legislation that have been ruled inconsistent with the "higher law" of the constitution, but reinforcement, through well crafted new legislation is certainly possible.

There used to be a discussion that is no longer fashionable to have that shifted the focus off of what aspects of Roe v Wade were "good or bad" and what aspects were "logical or forced" and onto why did the supreme court have to rule in the first place? How did abortion wind up being parsed out through a privacy issue, of all things? And the answer is legislative irresponsibility, not judicial over reach. Congress had ample opportunity to legislate the question, and opted not to do so. As the cases made their way towards the supreme court congress was asked, and eventually outright begged to legislate some sort of position, and refused. And here we are.

The same thing can be said of all these voting rights, voter suppression, citizens united, etc etc etc decisions. They are, to a great extent, legislative applications handed down from the court that are warped by the necessity to conform them to legal decision format. Some aspects of the voting rights act have been ruled unconstitutional. Fine. So repeal it in favor of a more carefully crafted law. That's the job.

 

[Lexicus]

The problem is that I'm not convinced any law that allows federal oversight of the Republicans creating little state-level dictatorships will be allowed by the Trump-picked federal courts or Supreme Court.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem is that I'm not convinced any law that allows federal oversight of the Republicans creating little state-level dictatorships will be allowed by the Trump-picked federal courts or Supreme Court.

Probably not. That's where 'well crafted' comes into play, and the call for learning the Obama lesson does as well. The ACA was well crafted law. Unwieldy as hell, because it dealt with so many cats and kittens bolting in different directions, but it did deal with them rather than just being an unworkable simplification of the "problem, meet solution, we'll sort it out later" variety. The lesson to be taken is that no matter how complex or unwieldy, the legislation has to be sold. There was a common ground available. We all know that the people most at risk for lack of health care were poor rural Republicans. But the GOP was allowed to sell it as death panels riding a tax grab. It isn't that the buyers were stupid, it's just that that was the only pitch that was actually made to them.

So, again we have common ground. NOBODY wants their vote suppressed. NOBODY wants elections determined through foreign meddling. NOBODY wants the electoral process to fail. Well, the deplorables do, but they will NEVER admit it. They are telling themselves right now that the only reason the far more numerous than anyone else Trumpists don't have total control of house and senate is because of the rigged system, so they really can't refuse a deal to unrig the system. Only after it's done will they run face first into the fact that they are a minority and dwindling.

So, carefully crafted legislation, sold as unrigging the system. That ends the GOP as we know it, because without the rigged system of gerrymandering and suppression the height the tide has already reached will swamp them. And that solves that problem. The Democratic party collapses into two rival parties and bickers about how to solve all the OTHER problems, the deplorables have to start from scratch trying to take over one of them, and life goes on.

 

[Lexicus]

NOBODY wants their vote suppressed.

See I don't think this is really true. There are millions of Americans who are willing to give up the right to vote if it means they can own the libs, and/or if black/brown people get an even worse deal.

so they really can't refuse a deal to unrig the system.

Of course they can. You'll see. Just look at, say, Farm Boy's arguments about the Senate and Electoral college. They're perfectly capable of arguing that the system needs to be rigged in certain ways to make it "fair" (ie, to favor them) without any trace of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See I don't think this is really true. There are millions of Americans who are willing to give up the right to vote if it means they can own the libs, and/or if black/brown people get an even worse deal.

Of course they can. You'll see. Just look at, say, Farm Boy's arguments about the Senate and Electoral college. They're perfectly capable of arguing that the system needs to be rigged in certain ways to make it "fair" (ie, to favor them) without any trace of cognitive dissonance.

Has to be sold. If you just craft the legislation and send the GOP representatives home they will sure enough tell their constituents that the system is not being unrigged, but is being rigged against them. And all you'll have is the rallying cry for the next election, just like the ACA. But just because nobody bothered to try selling the ACA doesn't mean it wouldn't have been bought.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I had a conversation today with an old white guy who supports Trump. In order to keep it civil we did not talk about Trump. He did tell me how he sees the SCOTUS going forward. They have 5 now and when Trump wins in 2020 at least 2 libs will have to retire and they will get 7, then, the oldest Nazis conservatives on the court will retire and Trump will replace them with 40 year olds and they will have 7 on the court for the next 30 years.

 

[El_Machinae]

I hope you're driving fellow liberals to the polls.

Even in a gerrymandered district, their vote matters. It's how we prove that gerrymandering exists.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I had a conversation today with an old white guy who supports Trump. In order to keep it civil we did not talk about Trump. He did tell me how he sees the SCOTUS going forward. They have 5 now and when Trump wins in 2020 at least 2 libs will have to retire and they will get 7, then, the oldest Nazis conservatives on the court will retire and Trump will replace them with 40 year olds and they will have 7 on the court for the next 30 years.

Did you point out to him that the way things are going for the GOP their chances of controlling the senate and being able to confirm D'ump's picks post 2020 are basically slim and nil? Or was "keep it civil don't talk about D'ump" extended to prevent that too?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I hope you're driving fellow liberals to the polls.

Even in a gerrymandered district, their vote matters. It's how we prove that gerrymandering exists.

Heck, I live in a totally gerrymandered district that the Democrat is probably going to win anyway. I'm pushing for every vote I can get to be cast.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I hope you're driving fellow liberals to the polls.

Even in a gerrymandered district, their vote matters. It's how we prove that gerrymandering exists.

New Mexico is going to go dem big time. [crosses fingers]

Did you point out to him that the way things are going for the GOP their chances of controlling the senate and being able to confirm D'ump's picks post 2020 are basically slim and nil? Or was "keep it civil don't talk about D'ump" extended to prevent that too?

I told him that I didn't think Trump would run in 2020 and that he would rather take the hundreds of millions of campaign funds he collects and just put it in his pocket and walk. We were having lunch and work together on projects, so I do not want to get aggressive. I'd rather just let him talk about his views. He is an ex Sandia labs scientist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I told him that I didn't think Trump would run in 2020 and that he would rather take the hundreds of millions of campaign funds he collects and just put it in his pocket and walk. We were having lunch and work together on projects, so I do not want to get aggressive. I'd rather just let him talk about his views. He is an ex Sandia labs scientist.

I love stuff like that! Because D'ump, they have to accept that a brilliant lining of the pocket, no matter how immoral, is distinctly possible, and how once again because D'ump, if it happens they will be obligated to respect it despite the grotesque immorality. I've considered returning to the GOP so that I can go to events wearing a pin that says "Hi, I'm Tim, I rob banks." In the current environment what could anyone say but "oh, that's smart."

 

[Broken_Erika]

I've considered returning to the GOP so that I can go to events wearing a pin that says "Hi, I'm Tim, I rob banks." In the current environment what could anyone say but "oh, that's smart."

You could say you're a "Wealth Generator".

 

[HoloDoc]

I love stuff like that! Because D'ump, they have to accept that a brilliant lining of the pocket, no matter how immoral, is distinctly possible, and how once again because D'ump, if it happens they will be obligated to respect it despite the grotesque immorality. I've considered returning to the GOP so that I can go to events wearing a pin that says "Hi, I'm Tim, I rob banks." In the current environment what could anyone say but "oh, that's smart."

Trickle down, mutha*****!

Numerous people have reported that Trump was legitimately surprised he won the 2016 election, and he was obviously attempting to set up a right wing media company (Trump TV) in the last few months of the campaign. They even filed for trademarks and began purchasing real estate and equipment for a streaming media service, and both Bannon and Ailes were put in charge of setting it up, alongside Donald Jr. Trump seems to have regarded running for President as a way to make money from the beginning, and had no contingency plan for actually winning the damn thing. I would not be shocked if he did this in 2020, especially if he's going to lose. "You can't fire me, I quit!"

Funny story; my autocorrect just changed "Trump" to "trauma." Seems apt.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Enforcing the voting rights act has been rendered impossible by the Supreme Court decision gutting it in 2013.

I believe it will require a Constitutional amendment to take elections out of the hands of state governments. And uh...good luck with that.

A packed court and a new case would be sufficient. I think this needs to be on the table should the Democrats take the Presidency and Senate in 2020. Clearly the previous SCOTUS was living in a fantasy land when it came to their mistaken, childish claim that race-based voting discrimination was no longer a problem that required federal intervention.

Recently there was a SCOTUS scholar on NPR's Fresh Air and he believes even a credible threat of court packing would be sufficient to flip Roberts into a more moderate position as he claimed happened when Roosevelt threatened the same. He spent a lot of time talking about how much Robert's allegedly cares about the Court as an institution with his primary evidence being the Obamacare decision. I find this evidence dubious as you could just as easily argue that Robert came to the correct ruling out of careful studying of the arguments in spite of his right wing tendencies.

Moreover, we have one middling-Obamacare decision (he struck down parts of the law which ultimately made it susceptible to the right wing sabotage now underway) stacked against all the reactionary rulings he's supported. Sure, maybe he cares on some abstract level about the legitimacy of the court but I don't see strong evidence of this belief in his voting record.

Therefore court packing should be on the table post-2020 should things go the Democrat's way.

 

[Hrothbern]

With all the gerrymandering discussion on districts within a state....

Isn't the rule that every state has two senators the biggest gerrymandering of all ?

How can it be that North Dakota with 0.75 Mio inhabitants delivers the same amount of senators as California with 39.5 Mio inhabitants ?
How can it be that a voter in North Dakota has a voting power more than 50 times as big ?
Is that not massively in violation with political equality for citizens ?

And yes... most rural low population states are red. Likely a good synergy with evangelicals as well.
And cheaper per capita to nurture your base support with some special arrangements from wheeling and dealing to get the senator vote in some senate decisions.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is a series of compromises acknowledging that it's a republic. In theory, it is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

As well, when you look at total land size, especially usable land, the differences in senatorial power aren't as imbalanced.