The Race For 2024

[Derec]

"Uncommitted" did surprisingly well.

Not really. In 2012 "Uncommitted" got 10.7%, . All the anti-Israel campaigning by Tlaib et al increased its share by mere 2.5 percentage points. The organizers try spin it into this success, but it really is not. And Biden would be a fool to listen to them.

That was a protest vote of the Biden Admin's continuing support of the Netanyahu regime's actions,

Regime? Unlike "Palestine", Israel is a democracy. It is the Netanuyahy government, not "regime".
And US should support Israel. Israel did not start this war, Palestinians did. They brutally mascaraed >1000 Israelis and abducted hundreds more.
The anti-Biden Michigan campaign wants a "permanent ceasefire". What does that mean? No conditions on Hamas, including immediate release of ALL hostages? Also, there was a ceasefire in effect on 10/6. As long as Hamas is in power, "permanent ceasefire" just means a ceasefire until Hamas decides to violate it and attack Israel again. As they have vowed to do.
These Michigan Arabs are full of shit!

and a way of reminding him that unlike Harry Truman, he has hundreds of thousands of Arabs among his constituents.

Yes, it was a colossal mistake for the West to import so many Arabs and Muslims. A mistake that we will rue, no doubt.

The notorious antisemite George Galloway just won a byelection in a heavily Muslim constituency in the UK for example.
George Galloway, Leftist Firebrand, Wins U.K. Seat in Blow to Labour Party
UK is much farther along in the process of Islamization than the US.

It also shows why single member FPTP election systems are ass. Galloway won with <40% of the vote, which means that >60% of voters preferred someone else.

 

[Derec]

But I am not convinced that you do.

"Fascism" comes from "fasces", the bundle of sticks that was the symbol of authority in the Roman Republic. The symbol was adopted by the United States and later by Italian fascists (hence the name).

 

[Politesse]

But I am not convinced that you do.

"Fascism" comes from "fasces", the bundle of sticks that was the symbol of authority in the Roman Republic. The symbol was adopted by the United States and later by Italian fascists (hence the name).

I know what the fasces is. But what is fascism, and how does executing a law written and adopted by a democratic Congress rather than unilaterally overturning it represent it?

 

[Derec]

I know what the fasces is. But what is fascism, and how does executing a law written and adopted by a democratic Congress rather than unilaterally overturning it represent it?

I was just making a joke ("ideology based on a bundle of sticks").
But to answer your question, the Illinois decision is a decision by a rather low-level judge, not a law passed by Congress. Congress has made no law defining what Trump allegedly did as "insurrection". There is a federal crime of insurrection, but Trump has not even been charged with that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I know what the fasces is. But what is fascism, and how does executing a law written and adopted by a democratic Congress rather than unilaterally overturning it represent it?

I was just making a joke ("ideology based on a bundle of sticks").
But to answer your question, the Illinois decision is a decision by a rather low-level judge, not a law passed by Congress. Congress has made no law defining what Trump allegedly did as "insurrection". There is a federal crime of insurrection, but Trump has not even been charged with that.

A “low level judge” is still a judge. The decision can be appealed.

A constitutional amendment is indeed passed by Congress and in fact is stronger than a law because it requires a high Congressional threshold and also ratification by the States.

And the 14th amendment does not specify a criminal charge of insurrection.

We will just have to wait and see what SCOTUS says is the right process, but it’s quite the stretch to use the term “fascism” for the process used so far just because you disagree with it.

 

[Derec]

A “low level judge” is still a judge. The decision can be appealed.

I just don't think county judges should be the ones deciding what constitutes "insurrection" under US Consitition.
There is already a case on it in front of SCOTUS. I can't imagine they vote to allow local and state officials and judges to randomly declare candidates guilty of insurrection. As such, the decision is pure grandstanding.

A constitutional amendment is indeed passed by Congress and in fact is stronger than a law because it requires a high Congressional threshold and also ratification by the States.

A constitutional amendment that does not define "insurrection", nor does it, in fact, empower random county judges to define it.

And the 14th amendment does not specify a criminal charge of insurrection.

No, but it specifies, in Section 5, that Congress has the authority to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

We will just have to wait and see what SCOTUS says is the right process, but it’s quite the stretch to use the term “fascism” for the process used so far just because you disagree with it.

For the record, I did not use the word "fascism" for the decision. It is grandstanding and showboating though.

 

[bilby]

I just don't think county judges should be the ones deciding

Surely you don't imagine that your opinion should be held in equal, much less higher, regard than that of an actual judge, "low level" or otherwise?

County judges decide on matters within their jurisdictions. If people don't like their decisions, they appeal to higher courts, not to random Internet dudes like you or I.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know what the fasces is. But what is fascism, and how does executing a law written and adopted by a democratic Congress rather than unilaterally overturning it represent it?

I was just making a joke ("ideology based on a bundle of sticks").
But to answer your question, the Illinois decision is a decision by a rather low-level judge, not a law passed by Congress. Congress has made no law defining what Trump allegedly did as "insurrection". There is a federal crime of insurrection, but Trump has not even been charged with that.

Indeed. We know he is guilty as all fuck though. Congress failed its job, and you are here complaining about a county judge.

 

[Politesse]

I know what the fasces is. But what is fascism, and how does executing a law written and adopted by a democratic Congress rather than unilaterally overturning it represent it?

I was just making a joke ("ideology based on a bundle of sticks").
But to answer your question, the Illinois decision is a decision by a rather low-level judge, not a law passed by Congress. Congress has made no law defining what Trump allegedly did as "insurrection". There is a federal crime of insurrection, but Trump has not even been charged with that.

So if we eliminate or ignore the role of local governance and bump all legal matters up the the centralized Congress or Supreme Court of the whole country, that will make us less fascist? Tell me, are fascist states known for decentralization of authority?

 

[Shadowy Man]

A “low level judge” is still a judge. The decision can be appealed.

I just don't think county judges should be the ones deciding what constitutes "insurrection" under US Consitition.

Yes, we understand that.

There is already a case on it in front of SCOTUS. I can't imagine they vote to allow local and state officials and judges to randomly declare candidates guilty of insurrection. As such, the decision is pure grandstanding.

Well, it will be Interesting indeed to see how they rule.

A constitutional amendment is indeed passed by Congress and in fact is stronger than a law because it requires a high Congressional threshold and also ratification by the States.

A constitutional amendment that does not define "insurrection", nor does it, in fact, empower random county judges to define it.

It doesn’t seem to not empower random country judges to define it either.

And the 14th amendment does not specify a criminal charge of insurrection.

No, but it specifies, in Section 5, that Congress has the authority to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

And we will see if scotus determines that that language means that it isn’t in effect unless Congress enforces it. In the absence of Congress enforcing it it would seem that the states are left on their own.

We will just have to wait and see what SCOTUS says is the right process, but it’s quite the stretch to use the term “fascism” for the process used so far just because you disagree with it.

For the record, I did not use the word "fascism" for the decision. It is grandstanding and showboating though.

Fair enough. I may have jumped into the fray late enough to not know how fascism got introduced to the discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just don't think county judges should be the ones deciding what constitutes "insurrection" under US Consitition.

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"

His followers did exactly as they were told.

 

[ZiprHead]

A constitutional amendment that does not define "insurrection", nor does it, in fact, empower random county judges to define it.

We've been through this before.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, but it specifies, in Section 5, that Congress has the authority to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

No, it doesn't. Congress can only overrule the disability.

 

[Elixir]

Every entity that has taken the question head on of whether trump is an insurrectionist, has so far concluded in the affirmative, including courts and the US Senate.

That he has not been charged under 2383 is trivial to the fact that he HAS been charged with four federal crimes related to his insurrectionist activities.

SCOTUS is now in a tough spot, unable to confront the issue and unable to avoid it. So they’re sandbagging, pretending it’s a tough call whether Trump is immune to prosecution every goddam heinous crime he commits, when the inconvenient FACT is that it’s a ridiculous proposition on the face of it.

But being in the bag for Trump means making sure he isn’t convicted before November NO MATTER WHAT.

So they’ll sit on it and sit on it, and the timing of their eventual ruling (not immune) will depend largely on who wins (or can steal) the election.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Every entity that has taken the question head on of whether trump is an insurrectionist, has so far concluded in the affirmative, including courts and the US Senate.

That he has not been charged under 2383 is trivial to the fact that he HAS been charged with four federal crimes related to his insurrectionist activities.

As SCOTUS said in oral arguments, a conviction under the insurrection law may make it easier to establish his disqualification, nowhere did they say (yet) that it was required.

And it would seem that in the absence of a law passed by Congress defining insurrection for the purposes of Presidential disqualifications and the outlining the rules for how States must handle their elections vis a vis this requirement the states are left on their own to handle their own elections, as they have been doing.

Clearly, we wait in anticipation of the logic that that the SCOTUS will use to resolve the 14th amendment case.

 

[Elixir]

Every entity that has taken the question head on of whether trump is an insurrectionist, has so far concluded in the affirmative, including courts and the US Senate.

That he has not been charged under 2383 is trivial to the fact that he HAS been charged with four federal crimes related to his insurrectionist activities.

As SCOTUS said in oral arguments, a conviction under the insurrection law may make it easier to establish his disqualification, nowhere did they say (yet) that it was required.

Zackly.

And it would seem that in the absence of a law passed by Congress defining insurrection for the purposes of Presidential disqualifications and the outlining the rules for how States must handle their elections vis a vis this requirement the states are left on their own to handle their own elections, as they have been doing.

For decades on end. But suddenly now that the extreme right’s sacred ox is about to get gored, States’ determinations aren’t good enough.

Clearly, we wait in anticipation of the logic that that the SCOTUS will use to resolve the 14th amendment case.

Any “reasoning” that yields the result they crave, will be devoid of logic, other than that of the twisted variety.
They don’t care. They are immune.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Clearly, we wait in anticipation of the logic that that the SCOTUS will use to resolve the 14th amendment case.

Any “reasoning” that yields the result they crave, will be devoid of logic, other than that of the twisted variety.
They don’t care. They are immune.

I was debating using quotes around the word "logic" or prefacing it with "so-called", but I was feeling generous today.

But it is clear that given the cases in Maine and now in Illinois, that they will have to produce a real solution and not just hem and haw their way through this. What's scary is what the all the legal ramifications of their solution will be...

 

[Politesse]

For the record, I did not use the word "fascism" for the decision. It is grandstanding and showboating though.

Indeed, you did not. That was Tswizzle, who is customarily incapable of depending his own points, once challenged, with anything more rigorous than a rolleyes smiley. However, leaping to his defense with a supposed definition of the term would imply to any reasonable person that you were sympathetic to his views.

 

[TSwizzle]

{snip}but it’s quite the stretch to use the term “fascism” for the process used so far just because you disagree with it.

"It's not fascism when we do it"

 

[Elixir]

"It's not fascism when we do it"

“We” don’t try to use violence to retain office and prevent the peaceful transfer of power after LOSING an election “in a landslide” (Trump’s description of the electoral margin by which he LOST, given in 2016 when it was in his favor, even though he lost the popular vote by >3m).

No, only “you” do that, but it would be just as fascist if “we” ever did any such thing.
Even in Santa Monica.