US President Donald Trump calls to delay 2020 election, citing possible mail-in voting fraud despite little evidence
.
The BBC is a major news outlet.
Part of me wants to ask "What mechanism does the President have to delay the election?" But another very grim part of me knows that our mechanisms for protecting the election are based on good faith, and worthless.
I fear that, just because he tweeted it, it's now reality because the GOP will tirelessly and endlessly defend it, even without any evidence.
None. Congress sets the date. Trump literally cannot delay the election just because he wants to. It would require the entire political world, including all states, the entirety of Congress and the courts to look the other way and not hold their elections.
I mean, he also didn't have the authority to send federal troops to suppress protesters, and the SCOTUS told him to get fucked on DACA, but that shit still happened. We've seen that the GOP consider his tweets law, so I'm wondering what this is going to trigger.
We've crossed the "That's never going to happen" bridge so many times in the last three years, I really don't think it's unreasonable to consider we'll cross it again.
Okay but he literally can't do anything here
We have a decentralized election apparatus in this country. The states are just going to hold the election regardless of what he says.
What I think we are all worried about, is that many states won't.
The only States that would conceivably try would be Republican dominated States. Meaning a blowout win for Biden on election night.
+3
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
US President Donald Trump calls to delay 2020 election, citing possible mail-in voting fraud despite little evidence
.
The BBC is a major news outlet.
Part of me wants to ask "What mechanism does the President have to delay the election?" But another very grim part of me knows that our mechanisms for protecting the election are based on good faith, and worthless.
I fear that, just because he tweeted it, it's now reality because the GOP will tirelessly and endlessly defend it, even without any evidence.
None. Congress sets the date. Trump literally cannot delay the election just because he wants to. It would require the entire political world, including all states, the entirety of Congress and the courts to look the other way and not hold their elections.
I mean, he also didn't have the authority to send federal troops to suppress protesters, and the SCOTUS told him to get fucked on DACA, but that shit still happened. We've seen that the GOP consider his tweets law, so I'm wondering what this is going to trigger.
We've crossed the "That's never going to happen" bridge so many times in the last three years, I really don't think it's unreasonable to consider we'll cross it again.
Okay but he literally can't do anything here
We have a decentralized election apparatus in this country. The states are just going to hold the election regardless of what he says.
What I think we are all worried about, is that many states won't.
The only States that would conceivably try would be Republican dominated States. Meaning a blowout win for Biden on election night.
It seems pretty fantastical to think this would be meaningful, though. In a scenario where only some states voted, even if Biden got 270 electoral votes, half of the country would declare it an illegitimate election and ignore the results. Mao was right, all political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and unless (even if?) the election goes perfectly smoothly, then the only thing that matters it the support of enough political apparatuses to actually change who's in charge.
US President Donald Trump calls to delay 2020 election, citing possible mail-in voting fraud despite little evidence
.
The BBC is a major news outlet.
Part of me wants to ask "What mechanism does the President have to delay the election?" But another very grim part of me knows that our mechanisms for protecting the election are based on good faith, and worthless.
I fear that, just because he tweeted it, it's now reality because the GOP will tirelessly and endlessly defend it, even without any evidence.
None. Congress sets the date. Trump literally cannot delay the election just because he wants to. It would require the entire political world, including all states, the entirety of Congress and the courts to look the other way and not hold their elections.
I mean, he also didn't have the authority to send federal troops to suppress protesters, and the SCOTUS told him to get fucked on DACA, but that shit still happened. We've seen that the GOP consider his tweets law, so I'm wondering what this is going to trigger.
We've crossed the "That's never going to happen" bridge so many times in the last three years, I really don't think it's unreasonable to consider we'll cross it again.
Okay but he literally can't do anything here
We have a decentralized election apparatus in this country. The states are just going to hold the election regardless of what he says.
What I think we are all worried about, is that many states won't.
The only States that would conceivably try would be Republican dominated States. Meaning a blowout win for Biden on election night.
It seems pretty fantastical to think this would be meaningful, though. In a scenario where only some states voted, even if Biden got 270 electoral votes, half of the country would declare it an illegitimate election and ignore the results. Mao was right, all political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and unless (even if?) the election goes perfectly smoothly, then the only thing that matters it the support of enough political apparatuses to actually change who's in charge.
I went through the actual numbers in the election thread, but Republican states sitting out this election, along with even a small drop in GOP turnout in the remaining states, basically means that
1) Biden is guaranteed to get 270 electoral votes
2) The House is guaranteed to stay blue, regardless of what happens when/if red states hold elections
3) Dems are guaranteed to pick up the Senate, regardless of what happens when/if red states hold elections
If Republican governors throw a temper tantrum, it might benefit them for a few months, but you're going to see lawsuits. You're going to see laws passed that will hold even after the crisis is over. Politicians will be held in contempt, they'll get big fines or even thrown in jail. The uncertainty will fuck with the economy, so if nothing else they and their donors will be making less money.
I don't get what the benefit to actually trying to delay elections would be, unless they also got Dems on board. And Dems aren't going to be on board.
Part of me wonders if a campaign could be started to convince Republicans to not vote on election day because Trump doesn't want the election to happen that day. The other part of me feels dirty for thinking that.
BREAKING: ultra-conservative founder of the Federalist Society Steven Calabresi calls for Trump’s immediate re-impeachment in response to Trump’s tweets about delaying the election.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
BREAKING: ultra-conservative founder of the Federalist Society Steven Calabresi calls for Trump’s immediate re-impeachment in response to Trump’s tweets about delaying the election.
BREAKING: ultra-conservative founder of the Federalist Society Steven Calabresi calls for Trump’s immediate re-impeachment in response to Trump’s tweets about delaying the election.
wtf this year I can't
You know, that would be a power move by Pelosi.
In the middle of all of this, have another trial. Just over this threat. Really put it to McConnell right now and force him to defend not removing Trump the first time.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I vaguely recall Sanders being against abolishing the filibuster, though possibly no more against it than every other Senator. I think the conversation might be starting to turn a bit.
I still think that instead of removing the filibuster, you should instead make people actually, you know, filibuster instead of this "we're gonna filibuster this, so don't even bother" bullshit that's happens now.
Let Pubs yak for 24 hours at a time to hold up legislation. Make them work for their obstructionism.
I still think that instead of removing the filibuster, you should instead make people actually, you know, filibuster instead of this "we're gonna filibuster this, so don't even bother" bullshit that's happens now.
Let Pubs yak for 24 hours at a time to hold up legislation. Make them work for their obstructionism.
Eh. It's not as meaningful these days. What I would prefer is if the minority party was able to request further investigation. Like if you want to "fillibuster" a spending bill, all you can do is request an additional (more indepth) analysis by the CBO, that has to be completed before the vote. This provides you whatever amount of delay, plus you have a new talking point about why you think the bill is bad before the vote.
There should be a limited amount of further investigation things you can request, after which the vote proceeds based on majority. The minority party gets some time to drum up opposition to the bill, they get some extra details in case the majority party was trying to hide something shady, but at the end of the day business proceeds and congress fucking does something.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I still think that instead of removing the filibuster, you should instead make people actually, you know, filibuster instead of this "we're gonna filibuster this, so don't even bother" bullshit that's happens now.
Let Pubs yak for 24 hours at a time to hold up legislation. Make them work for their obstructionism.
It took 60 days to pass the Civil Rights Act because of that. I'd rather we just voted for racists to shut up.
When something says a person is a "founder," I wonder if it means that the person is not currently in charge of said organization.
Co-chair!
The Co-Chairman of the Federalist Society just called for the impeachment and removal of a republican president three months before an election.
Wow.
Edit:
Wow
I mean, they hate his guts. None of them wanted him in power. His only hold on them was that he won and they believed their fortunes were tied to his. If he's gonna lose badly for fucking everything up and it would benefit them to jettison him, they wouldn't have a second thought about it. People like this dipshit are just in a position where they've got less to lose.
2017-2018 won't be the last time the Republicans hold a tifecta and it scares the utter shit out of me what they would pass if they just needed 50+1 votes on everything.
I guess I'm still confused because isn't this exactly what they've been working towards for the past forty years?!
What's the point of getting Trump sycophants appointed as judges if they aren't there to do Trump's bidding??
This is getting far afield of the topic, so I'll be quick. They like Trump as a rubber stamp for their agenda, they don't like that Trump makes things 10 times more difficult, saying the quiet parts out loud and generally forcing them to defend his idiotic ramblings over and over and over again.
If Trump could behave like an adult while inacting the same agenda, they'd be endlessly fawning over him as the next Reagan.
Sure they'd love to steal the eleciton and crown themselves the Kings of America, but they don't want to be caught saying that. That is why they don't like Trump.
2017-2018 won't be the last time the Republicans hold a tifecta and it scares the utter shit out of me what they would pass if they just needed 50+1 votes on everything.
But I don't have a better alternative here.
This is the correct thing to have happen in a democracy. It sucks, but it's true. Hopefully it will allow people to better connect parties with outcomes and will force some moderation from the GOP.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
2017-2018 won't be the last time the Republicans hold a tifecta and it scares the utter shit out of me what they would pass if they just needed 50+1 votes on everything.
But I don't have a better alternative here.
This is the correct thing to have happen in a democracy. It sucks, but it's true. Hopefully it will allow people to better connect parties with outcomes and will force some moderation from the GOP.
Also, we can win elections and then undo all the bad shit, but keep any good things that managed to slip through. Temporal bipartisanship.
2017-2018 won't be the last time the Republicans hold a tifecta and it scares the utter shit out of me what they would pass if they just needed 50+1 votes on everything.
But I don't have a better alternative here.
This is the correct thing to have happen in a democracy. It sucks, but it's true. Hopefully it will allow people to better connect parties with outcomes and will force some moderation from the GOP.
Also, we can win elections and then undo all the bad shit, but keep any good things that managed to slip through. Temporal bipartisanship.
And as we saw in the ACA repeal debacle, it's much harder to get rid of legislation that helps people.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There's a reason republicans used reconciliation to make an attempt on ACA and to pass their bullshit handout to the rich in their tax reform instead of killing the filibuster. Hell, ACA repeal attempt bit them in the ass too. The GOP doesn't benefit from a filibuster termination because even they know that half their shit policies won't go over well if they ever implement them. What they do know, is that they champion those shit ideas to get report of their rube base that has been brainwashed to believe said things are good. Then count on the democrats to prevent said shit from happening and get the bonus of scoring more points by attacking the democrats. Finally, when they are the minority party, even if they don't get to set the agenda, they get to prevent the democratic agenda from happening.
Under a democratic with the filibuster, a new voting rights act won't happen. Same deal with court reform. Kill the filibuster and those things and many other items can happen, while republican sit in the corner pissing and moaning about.
I guess I'm still confused because isn't this exactly what they've been working towards for the past forty years?!
What's the point of getting Trump sycophants appointed as judges if they aren't there to do Trump's bidding??
Cessation of democracy is understandably still a bridge too far for people just trying to return to a time when only rich white men could vote.
It is, perhaps, even more troubling for one in their position, because forcing a second revolution risks permanently cedeing all the legal ground they've gained.
There's a reason republicans used reconciliation to make an attempt on ACA and to pass their bullshit handout to the rich in their tax reform instead of killing the filibuster. Hell, ACA repeal attempt bit them in the ass too. The GOP doesn't benefit from a filibuster termination because even they know that half their shit policies won't go over well if they ever implement them. What they do know, is that they champion those shit ideas to get report of their rube base that has been brainwashed to believe said things are good. Then count on the democrats to prevent said shit from happening and get the bonus of scoring more points by attacking the democrats. Finally, when they are the minority party, even if they don't get to set the agenda, they get to prevent the democratic agenda from happening.
Under a democratic with the filibuster, a new voting rights act won't happen. Same deal with court reform. Kill the filibuster and those things and many other items can happen, while republican sit in the corner pissing and moaning about.
Yup. A lot of what Republicans do when they're in power is performative, because they know Democrats will filibuster to prevent.
And a lot of what Republicans filibuster to prevent, is not performative.
If they're not able to stop Democratic agendas, AND have to live with the consequences of performative bullshit, I think we'll see a significant change in either Republican politicians, or the voting positions of the electorate.
There'll still be some significant damage in the interim, because the current partisanship is so extreme, but it's the only way back to some semblance of rationality.
Or, it just wildly swings from center-left to far right, back and forth, back and forth, and everything is fucked. But at least there'll be periods of semi-progressive lawmaking in there occasionally, unlike now.
There's a reason republicans used reconciliation to make an attempt on ACA and to pass their bullshit handout to the rich in their tax reform instead of killing the filibuster. Hell, ACA repeal attempt bit them in the ass too. The GOP doesn't benefit from a filibuster termination because even they know that half their shit policies won't go over well if they ever implement them. What they do know, is that they champion those shit ideas to get report of their rube base that has been brainwashed to believe said things are good. Then count on the democrats to prevent said shit from happening and get the bonus of scoring more points by attacking the democrats. Finally, when they are the minority party, even if they don't get to set the agenda, they get to prevent the democratic agenda from happening.
Under a democratic with the filibuster, a new voting rights act won't happen. Same deal with court reform. Kill the filibuster and those things and many other items can happen, while republican sit in the corner pissing and moaning about.
Yup. A lot of what Republicans do when they're in power is performative, because they know Democrats will filibuster to prevent.
And a lot of what Republicans filibuster to prevent, is not performative.
If they're not able to stop Democratic agendas, AND have to live with the consequences of performative bullshit, I think we'll see a significant change in either Republican politicians, or the voting positions of the electorate.
There'll still be some significant damage in the interim, because the current partisanship is so extreme, but it's the only way back to some semblance of rationality.
Or, it just wildly swings from center-left to far right, back and forth, back and forth, and everything is fucked. But at least there'll be periods of semi-progressive lawmaking in there occasionally, unlike now.
Here's hoping we don't get whatever the US equivalent of a horrid Brexit decision is when the Republicans start catching the cars.
Still think getting rid of the filibuster is the right thing to do though, yeah.
2017-2018 won't be the last time the Republicans hold a tifecta and it scares the utter shit out of me what they would pass if they just needed 50+1 votes on everything.
But I don't have a better alternative here.
I would rather deal with them trying desperately to push unpopular bullshit than this. Inaction is winning for them.
Census bureau is deciding to call the census done early despite the pandemic. This is horrendous for a few reasons. First, because we have ridiculously low response rate due to the pandemic. Second, because it's very obviously undercounting immigrants and hard-to-reach populations, particularly the poor ones in urban areas. Third, because instead of the final approval/verification of the numbers happening at the end of January after the new administration takes over, it would put that in Trump's hands.
Remember when Trump and pals said that they had to delay things so they could get the citizenship question in? Oops.
Census bureau is deciding to call the census done early despite the pandemic. This is horrendous for a few reasons. First, because we have ridiculously low response rate due to the pandemic. Second, because it's very obviously undercounting immigrants and hard-to-reach populations, particularly the poor ones in urban areas. Third, because instead of the final approval/verification of the numbers happening at the end of January after the new administration takes over, it would put that in Trump's hands.
Remember when Trump and pals said that they had to delay things so they could get the citizenship question in? Oops.
And... they just gave every state AG standing to challenge the result in court, didn't they?
Or we could just run a new census next year, with the virus being a decent nonpartisan (...ish... sigh) excuse.
They don't *have* to be every 10 years, just at least every 10 years.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Actually reading a little further into it, the places that seem to be most heavily influenced/affected by this are places with Republican leadership who's been dragging their feet and not taking the census seriously, and large immigrant populations. New York pretty heavily undercounting too, but they have the pandemic as their excuse for why their stuff fell apart a couple months ago. Basically, places that they probably always were going to half-ass, but now it's in stark relief because they're calling themselves finished early right after saying "Uh, pandemic is making this impossible to get a count on this stuff, please give us more time."
In other words though, it's mostly places that are already gerrymandered to fuck like Texas, really seemingly looking to do some more of that.
Actually reading a little further into it, the places that seem to be most heavily influenced/affected by this are places with Republican leadership who's been dragging their feet and not taking the census seriously, and large immigrant populations. New York pretty heavily undercounting too, but they have the pandemic as their excuse for why their stuff fell apart a couple months ago. Basically, places that they probably always were going to half-ass, but now it's in stark relief because they're calling themselves finished early right after saying "Uh, pandemic is making this impossible to get a count on this stuff, please give us more time."
In other words though, it's mostly places that are already gerrymandered to fuck like Texas, really seemingly looking to do some more of that.
Undercounting in GOP-heavy areas won't help them gerrymander. It'll just lose them seats entirely.
I don't think it's about that. They know they're doomed in the demographics department, that their numbers aren't going to ever be made up with any amount of redistricting or gerrymandering; it's why they've been working so hard to straight up suppress and restrict.
I think it was called right earlier. This seems to be entirely about getting the census through the Trump White House before a new government is seated, and having Trump follow through on the already threatened EO removing non-citizens from the census. Yes, it'll be challenged, but by the time it's resolved the numbers will be so unreliable that there will basically be no choice but to re-do the census, and Republicans will simply use that as "proof" that Democrats are trying to rig elections and all that nonsense. I also have a sneaking suspicion that someone will decide, after the EO, that they're justified in straight up destroying the numbers on non citizens to further complicate things. EDIT: this is assuming Democrats manage to take either or both the White House or the Senate. But they're going to move forward on it regardless, because why wouldn't they?
If we should have learned anything in the last 4 years, it should be that any actions made that seem to be counterproductive to the people doing them by anyone in, or complicit with, this administration, is probably fully aware of that fact and is doing it for reasons that are more undermining of every aspect of the government.
Hopefully the rest of the media treat it like the BBC did.
"US President Donald Trump calls to delay 2020 election, citing possible mail-in voting fraud despite little evidence"
If they drop the bolded in the headlines and reporting, as I kinda expect them to do, they can go and get completely fucked, and I hope they all go bankrupt.
Have had it up to here *gestures at forehead* with them normalizing this fuckstain. We're in this position because politicians and the media have not held him to account, and not laid bare in stark fucking detail that This. Is. Not. Acceptable.
"despite little evidence" suggests there is evidence and he is not just pulling it all out of his ass.
That whole last bit infuriates me more than Trump's statements itself. Despite all of Trump's fascism and incompetence, despite seeing the press finally push back against him in even the most token ways. They STILL maintain that veneer of the possibility that Trump's statements could be valid and give him legitimacy. People latch onto that "little evidence" and use that as an excuse to believe that it must be true. They take that .00000001 percent instance of actual voter fraud as prop it up as if it's happening all the time. The press continues to give stuff like that oxygen.
The media may not be false or fake, but it does still, even after all this, sensationalize, and it's still also culpable for Trump's rise in the first place after all the free press they gave him to feed the controversy. When the dust settles and we're finally done with the Trump era, this shit still needs to be addressed.
Hopefully the rest of the media treat it like the BBC did.
"US President Donald Trump calls to delay 2020 election, citing possible mail-in voting fraud despite little evidence"
If they drop the bolded in the headlines and reporting, as I kinda expect them to do, they can go and get completely fucked, and I hope they all go bankrupt.
Have had it up to here *gestures at forehead* with them normalizing this fuckstain. We're in this position because politicians and the media have not held him to account, and not laid bare in stark fucking detail that This. Is. Not. Acceptable.
"despite little evidence" suggests there is evidence and he is not just pulling it all out of his ass.
The evidence is always some corrupt party leaders in Bumfuck, Nowhere committing voter fraud to control the local comptroller seat or whatever. Or that postal worker who was caught messing with eight ballots.
It's never widespread corruption but Republicans insist it necessitates widespread disenfranchisement.
Hopefully the rest of the media treat it like the BBC did.
"US President Donald Trump calls to delay 2020 election, citing possible mail-in voting fraud despite little evidence"
If they drop the bolded in the headlines and reporting, as I kinda expect them to do, they can go and get completely fucked, and I hope they all go bankrupt.
Have had it up to here *gestures at forehead* with them normalizing this fuckstain. We're in this position because politicians and the media have not held him to account, and not laid bare in stark fucking detail that This. Is. Not. Acceptable.
"despite little evidence" suggests there is evidence and he is not just pulling it all out of his ass.
The evidence is always some corrupt party leaders in Bumfuck, Nowhere committing voter fraud to control the local comptroller seat or whatever. Or that postal worker who was caught messing with eight ballots.
It's never widespread corruption but Republicans insist it necessitates widespread disenfranchisement.
Yeah, if we're going to massively legislate draconian measures, based on the malfeasance of a statistical minority fucking about, I can think of other areas where it should be done first.
Hold on. Give me a Second. Let me Amend that. Screw it, you know what I Ment.
Actually reading a little further into it, the places that seem to be most heavily influenced/affected by this are places with Republican leadership who's been dragging their feet and not taking the census seriously, and large immigrant populations. New York pretty heavily undercounting too, but they have the pandemic as their excuse for why their stuff fell apart a couple months ago. Basically, places that they probably always were going to half-ass, but now it's in stark relief because they're calling themselves finished early right after saying "Uh, pandemic is making this impossible to get a count on this stuff, please give us more time."
In other words though, it's mostly places that are already gerrymandered to fuck like Texas, really seemingly looking to do some more of that.
Undercounting in GOP-heavy areas won't help them gerrymander. It'll just lose them seats entirely.
I doubt they're undercounting in GOP-heavy areas. They're undercounting blue cities in places with GOP governors.
Posts
The only States that would conceivably try would be Republican dominated States. Meaning a blowout win for Biden on election night.
It seems pretty fantastical to think this would be meaningful, though. In a scenario where only some states voted, even if Biden got 270 electoral votes, half of the country would declare it an illegitimate election and ignore the results. Mao was right, all political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and unless (even if?) the election goes perfectly smoothly, then the only thing that matters it the support of enough political apparatuses to actually change who's in charge.
I went through the actual numbers in the election thread, but Republican states sitting out this election, along with even a small drop in GOP turnout in the remaining states, basically means that
1) Biden is guaranteed to get 270 electoral votes
2) The House is guaranteed to stay blue, regardless of what happens when/if red states hold elections
3) Dems are guaranteed to pick up the Senate, regardless of what happens when/if red states hold elections
If Republican governors throw a temper tantrum, it might benefit them for a few months, but you're going to see lawsuits. You're going to see laws passed that will hold even after the crisis is over. Politicians will be held in contempt, they'll get big fines or even thrown in jail. The uncertainty will fuck with the economy, so if nothing else they and their donors will be making less money.
I don't get what the benefit to actually trying to delay elections would be, unless they also got Dems on board. And Dems aren't going to be on board.
wtf this year I can't
You know, that would be a power move by Pelosi.
In the middle of all of this, have another trial. Just over this threat. Really put it to McConnell right now and force him to defend not removing Trump the first time.
Capital Hill reporter for the WSJ
Co-chair!
The Co-Chairman of the Federalist Society just called for the impeachment and removal of a republican president three months before an election.
Wow.
Edit:
Wow
I vaguely recall Sanders being against abolishing the filibuster, though possibly no more against it than every other Senator. I think the conversation might be starting to turn a bit.
Let Pubs yak for 24 hours at a time to hold up legislation. Make them work for their obstructionism.
Eh. It's not as meaningful these days. What I would prefer is if the minority party was able to request further investigation. Like if you want to "fillibuster" a spending bill, all you can do is request an additional (more indepth) analysis by the CBO, that has to be completed before the vote. This provides you whatever amount of delay, plus you have a new talking point about why you think the bill is bad before the vote.
There should be a limited amount of further investigation things you can request, after which the vote proceeds based on majority. The minority party gets some time to drum up opposition to the bill, they get some extra details in case the majority party was trying to hide something shady, but at the end of the day business proceeds and congress fucking does something.
It took 60 days to pass the Civil Rights Act because of that. I'd rather we just voted for racists to shut up.
I mean, they hate his guts. None of them wanted him in power. His only hold on them was that he won and they believed their fortunes were tied to his. If he's gonna lose badly for fucking everything up and it would benefit them to jettison him, they wouldn't have a second thought about it. People like this dipshit are just in a position where they've got less to lose.
But I don't have a better alternative here.
What's the point of getting Trump sycophants appointed as judges if they aren't there to do Trump's bidding??
Oh, wait, those were all nominated off a list that The Federalist Society provided...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This is getting far afield of the topic, so I'll be quick. They like Trump as a rubber stamp for their agenda, they don't like that Trump makes things 10 times more difficult, saying the quiet parts out loud and generally forcing them to defend his idiotic ramblings over and over and over again.
If Trump could behave like an adult while inacting the same agenda, they'd be endlessly fawning over him as the next Reagan.
Sure they'd love to steal the eleciton and crown themselves the Kings of America, but they don't want to be caught saying that. That is why they don't like Trump.
Taking from the Coronavirus thread as it also applies:
This is the correct thing to have happen in a democracy. It sucks, but it's true. Hopefully it will allow people to better connect parties with outcomes and will force some moderation from the GOP.
Also, we can win elections and then undo all the bad shit, but keep any good things that managed to slip through. Temporal bipartisanship.
And as we saw in the ACA repeal debacle, it's much harder to get rid of legislation that helps people.
Under a democratic with the filibuster, a new voting rights act won't happen. Same deal with court reform. Kill the filibuster and those things and many other items can happen, while republican sit in the corner pissing and moaning about.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Cessation of democracy is understandably still a bridge too far for people just trying to return to a time when only rich white men could vote.
It is, perhaps, even more troubling for one in their position, because forcing a second revolution risks permanently cedeing all the legal ground they've gained.
Yup. A lot of what Republicans do when they're in power is performative, because they know Democrats will filibuster to prevent.
And a lot of what Republicans filibuster to prevent, is not performative.
If they're not able to stop Democratic agendas, AND have to live with the consequences of performative bullshit, I think we'll see a significant change in either Republican politicians, or the voting positions of the electorate.
There'll still be some significant damage in the interim, because the current partisanship is so extreme, but it's the only way back to some semblance of rationality.
Or, it just wildly swings from center-left to far right, back and forth, back and forth, and everything is fucked. But at least there'll be periods of semi-progressive lawmaking in there occasionally, unlike now.
Here's hoping we don't get whatever the US equivalent of a horrid Brexit decision is when the Republicans start catching the cars.
Still think getting rid of the filibuster is the right thing to do though, yeah.
I would rather deal with them trying desperately to push unpopular bullshit than this. Inaction is winning for them.
Census bureau is deciding to call the census done early despite the pandemic. This is horrendous for a few reasons. First, because we have ridiculously low response rate due to the pandemic. Second, because it's very obviously undercounting immigrants and hard-to-reach populations, particularly the poor ones in urban areas. Third, because instead of the final approval/verification of the numbers happening at the end of January after the new administration takes over, it would put that in Trump's hands.
Remember when Trump and pals said that they had to delay things so they could get the citizenship question in? Oops.
And... they just gave every state AG standing to challenge the result in court, didn't they?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
They don't *have* to be every 10 years, just at least every 10 years.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
In other words though, it's mostly places that are already gerrymandered to fuck like Texas, really seemingly looking to do some more of that.
Undercounting in GOP-heavy areas won't help them gerrymander. It'll just lose them seats entirely.
I think it was called right earlier. This seems to be entirely about getting the census through the Trump White House before a new government is seated, and having Trump follow through on the already threatened EO removing non-citizens from the census. Yes, it'll be challenged, but by the time it's resolved the numbers will be so unreliable that there will basically be no choice but to re-do the census, and Republicans will simply use that as "proof" that Democrats are trying to rig elections and all that nonsense. I also have a sneaking suspicion that someone will decide, after the EO, that they're justified in straight up destroying the numbers on non citizens to further complicate things. EDIT: this is assuming Democrats manage to take either or both the White House or the Senate. But they're going to move forward on it regardless, because why wouldn't they?
If we should have learned anything in the last 4 years, it should be that any actions made that seem to be counterproductive to the people doing them by anyone in, or complicit with, this administration, is probably fully aware of that fact and is doing it for reasons that are more undermining of every aspect of the government.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
That whole last bit infuriates me more than Trump's statements itself. Despite all of Trump's fascism and incompetence, despite seeing the press finally push back against him in even the most token ways. They STILL maintain that veneer of the possibility that Trump's statements could be valid and give him legitimacy. People latch onto that "little evidence" and use that as an excuse to believe that it must be true. They take that .00000001 percent instance of actual voter fraud as prop it up as if it's happening all the time. The press continues to give stuff like that oxygen.
The media may not be false or fake, but it does still, even after all this, sensationalize, and it's still also culpable for Trump's rise in the first place after all the free press they gave him to feed the controversy. When the dust settles and we're finally done with the Trump era, this shit still needs to be addressed.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
The evidence is always some corrupt party leaders in Bumfuck, Nowhere committing voter fraud to control the local comptroller seat or whatever. Or that postal worker who was caught messing with eight ballots.
It's never widespread corruption but Republicans insist it necessitates widespread disenfranchisement.
Yeah, if we're going to massively legislate draconian measures, based on the malfeasance of a statistical minority fucking about, I can think of other areas where it should be done first.
Hold on. Give me a Second. Let me Amend that. Screw it, you know what I Ment.
I doubt they're undercounting in GOP-heavy areas. They're undercounting blue cities in places with GOP governors.