The Race For 2024

[blastula]

RFK Jr. has a sad over removing Confederate statues.

I feel like perhaps you didn't actually read the entirety of that tweet, and pretty much only saw the first line before you decided it supports your view and ran with it.

Your feeling would be wrong. Pray tell what do you feel I missed, Emily Lake?

 

[Politesse]

I think most adults with varying degrees of pragmatism would agree.

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump, and why did plenty of Republicans oppose the legislative version of what Biden is now resorting to an over-reaching executive order to accomplish? In short, if it is a popular idea, why is it so unpopular? It's almost as though all of that "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

Trying to use an executive order to give yourself unchecked and uncheckable personal authority to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal isn't as pragmatic as you think it is, in any case. Is it practical to issue an order that you know will almost certainly be struck down in court? Yes, but again... only if your "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

 

[Emily Lake]

RFK Jr. has a sad over removing Confederate statues.

I feel like perhaps you didn't actually read the entirety of that tweet, and pretty much only saw the first line before you decided it supports your view and ran with it.

Your feeling would be wrong. Pray tell what do you feel I missed, Emily Lake?

It appeared to me that you were presenting the tweet as if the twatter were taking the position that RFK is busy being a racist bigot. It appeared that you believed the tweet was presenting RFK in a negative light.

But the actual content of the tweet was that what RFK had said was largely taken out of context and intentionally politicized. The tweet had two comments in it that captured the intent:

Do not let legacy media shape this entire narrative and take his statement out of context

and

There are rational perspectives from both people who want to tear down Confederate statues along with people who do not want to tear down Confederate statues.Legacy/Liberal media is trying to represent RFK as being racist for his statements, this is just a reminder to make sure you do your own research and get full context of peoples quotes before making a final opinion on a subject.

It's certainly possible that you support the argument being made by the tweet account "End Tribalism in Politics", and that I misinterpreted your post. But the lead off of "RFK has a sad" led me to my interpretation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump, and why did plenty of Republicans oppose the legislative version of what Biden is now resorting to an over-reaching executive order to accomplish? In short, if it is a popular idea, why is it so unpopular?

Because our entire system of government has been hijacked by two parties - parties that are NOT actually the government - who are increasingly oppositional toward each other, to the great detriment of the citizens.

By and large, it's a popular idea with the people of the US - but it's unpopular in government, because it's being proposed by "that evil party over there" no matter which party is doing the proposing.

Trying to use an executive order to give yourself unchecked and uncheckable personal authority to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal isn't as pragmatic as you think it is, in any case. Is it practical to issue an order that you know will almost certainly be struck down in court? Yes, but again... only if your "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

I'm currently of the opinion that neither party has any interest in actually addressing the immigration problem in a meaningful way - it's far more valuable as a wedge topic to increase partisanship in an election year.

My personal opinion on this (and other topics) is that the parties have failed to grasp that we've crossed the generational divide. Up until this point, the largest single block of voters have been Baby Boomers - and their behavior has been relatively well known for decades. They're not the dominant block any more, and Gen X is rising. I honestly don't think either party is at all prepared for a whole bunch of semi-feral latchkey kids with very low trust in any institution to be driving the vote. I'm really looking forward to some of the post-mortem reporting on how the demographics fall. I suspect we're going to see some material shifts, and I'm very curious how the parties will adapt - if they're even capable of adapting.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump,

Could it be because they weren't the same? Democrats categorically did not support Trump's cruel family separation policy.

 

[Politesse]

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump,

Could it be because they weren't the same? Democrats categorically did not support Trump's cruel family separation policy.

You're mixing apples and oranges, there. An intentional obfuscation, or are you simply unaware of the apples to apples discussion that would make more sense?

 

[ZiprHead]

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump,

Could it be because they weren't the same? Democrats categorically did not support Trump's cruel family separation policy.

You're mixing apples and oranges, there. An intentional obfuscation, or are you simply unaware of the apples to apples discussion that would make more sense?

No, I am not aware of it. Do you have a link.

 

[Politesse]

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump,

Could it be because they weren't the same? Democrats categorically did not support Trump's cruel family separation policy.

You're mixing apples and oranges, there. An intentional obfuscation, or are you simply unaware of the apples to apples discussion that would make more sense?

No, I am not aware of it. Do you have a link.

I already did... we're all responding to the post in which I did so.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I think most adults with varying degrees of pragmatism would agree.

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump, and why did plenty of Republicans oppose the legislative version of what Biden is now resorting to an over-reaching executive order to accomplish? In short, if it is a popular idea, why is it so unpopular? It's almost as though all of that "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

Trying to use an executive order to give yourself unchecked and uncheckable personal authority to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal isn't as pragmatic as you think it is, in any case. Is it practical to issue an order that you know will almost certainly be struck down in court? Yes, but again... only if your "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

It seemed as though a bipartisan immigration bill had a chance earlier this year until one person said no. Politics and more politics. And now still more politics with this executive order.
Did people notice when the immigration bill earlier this year died? Do people notice legislation that does not get passed? Probably not so much. But a single headline stating Biden to limit asylum seekers probably gets a bit more notice. We'll see if it moves the needle. It's five months. Keeping Trump out of office by whatever means is paramount.

 

[Ford]

I think most adults with varying degrees of pragmatism would agree.

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump, and why did plenty of Republicans oppose the legislative version of what Biden is now resorting to an over-reaching executive order to accomplish? In short, if it is a popular idea, why is it so unpopular? It's almost as though all of that "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

Trying to use an executive order to give yourself unchecked and uncheckable personal authority to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal isn't as pragmatic as you think it is, in any case. Is it practical to issue an order that you know will almost certainly be struck down in court? Yes, but again... only if your "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

It seemed as though a bipartisan immigration bill had a chance earlier this year until one person said no. Politics and more politics. And now still more politics with this executive order.
Did people notice when the immigration bill earlier this year died? Do people notice legislation that does not get passed? Probably not so much. But a single headline stating Biden to limit asylum seekers probably gets a bit more notice. We'll see if it moves the needle. It's five months. Keeping Trump out of office by whatever means is paramount.

On my brief drive to get some breakfast this morning, the two headline stories were this executive order on the border, and Hunter Biden's trial getting underway. The White House has to do an executive order because the polling says he's not "tough on the border" enough, though I'd bet dollars to donuts that the right will scream about "executive overreach" even though he's doing more or less exactly what they want him to do.

And on the Hunter Biden front, I listened to hear the cries of "but there's no victim! How is this a crime?!" from the right, but alas...crickets.

The next story was about the far right governor of Montana (previously famous for body-slamming a reporter when he was a Congressman) facing calls from opponents that he's just not conservative enough.

 

[marc]

RFK repeated the bullshit excuse used by pro-confederate assholes about 'erasing our history'. Removing monuments is in no way erasing history. BUT how about this: Every statue of a confederate general is replaced by one of a union general. Grant, Burnside, Sherman, etc.. Any schools named for confederates generals/politicians will be renamed for union generals/politicians. We will even throw in some Lincoln statues as well. You want monuments for the troops, how about ones for southern troops who fought for the union, or the Free State of Jones? Let them show how much they care about history

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think most adults with varying degrees of pragmatism would agree.

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump, and why did plenty of Republicans oppose the legislative version of what Biden is now resorting to an over-reaching executive order to accomplish? In short, if it is a popular idea, why is it so unpopular? It's almost as though all of that "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

Trying to use an executive order to give yourself unchecked and uncheckable personal authority to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal isn't as pragmatic as you think it is, in any case. Is it practical to issue an order that you know will almost certainly be struck down in court? Yes, but again... only if your "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

It seemed as though a bipartisan immigration bill had a chance earlier this year until one person said no. Politics and more politics. And now still more politics with this executive order.
Did people notice when the immigration bill earlier this year died? Do people notice legislation that does not get passed? Probably not so much. But a single headline stating Biden to limit asylum seekers probably gets a bit more notice. We'll see if it moves the needle. It's five months. Keeping Trump out of office by whatever means is paramount.

On my brief drive to get some breakfast this morning, the two headline stories were this executive order on the border, and Hunter Biden's trial getting underway. The White House has to do an executive order because the polling says he's not "tough on the border" enough, though I'd bet dollars to donuts that the right will scream about "executive overreach" even though he's doing more or less exactly what they want him to do.

And on the Hunter Biden front, I listened to hear the cries of "but there's no victim! How is this a crime?!" from the right, but alas...crickets.

The NRA is no where to be seen. in his defense of his 2nd Amendment rights. The parallel with Hunter and Trump is the 'this isn't usually prosecuted' defense. And as you note, you don't hear Trump supporters making it for Hunter Biden. Odd that.

The next story was about the far right governor of Montana (previously famous for body-slamming a reporter when he was a Congressman) facing calls from opponents that he's just not conservative enough.

I was shocked I didn't know that guy was elected Governor. I don't recall even knowing he was in the running. I know Electoral-Vote.com would have mentioned it. Some politician guy physically assaults a reporter, pleads to it, gets elected Governor in a couple years? I remember a time when that would have killed a career. I remember presidential hopeful George Allen being sunk by one word or Howard Dean by a hoarseful yell while coming off a cold into a unidirectional microphone. Today, you can brownshirt your way into a Governor's mansion.

 

[Ford]

The next story was about the far right governor of Montana (previously famous for body-slamming a reporter when he was a Congressman) facing calls from opponents that he's just not conservative enough.

I was shocked I didn't know that guy was elected Governor. I don't recall even knowing he was in the running. I know Electoral-Vote.com would have mentioned it. Some politician guy physically assaults a reporter, pleads to it, gets elected Governor in a couple years? I remember a time when that would have killed a career. I remember presidential hopeful George Allen being sunk by one word or Howard Dean by a hoarseful yell while coming off a cold into a unidirectional microphone. Today, you can brownshirt your way into a Governor's mansion.

As the story pointed out, previously Montana had Democratic governors for 2 decades. Can we call it a "swings wildly" state? Here in Arizona, the campaign signs are starting to pop up, and one guy who has one on every corner is one of the Republicans running for Maricopa County Recorder. Now, the county recorder is basically an administrative role, but very important when it comes to elections. The current officeholder is a Republican who campaigned for Trump in 2016, voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020, and defeated the previous County Recorder, a Democrat who is now Secretary of State.

Yes, he's being primaried from the right. Why? Well because County Recorder Stephen Richer set his politics aside once he won election, fought off challenges to the election results in both 2020 and 2022 (he has the receipts, after all), and as a result of saying - very publicly - that there was no voter fraud, came under attack from the likes of Kari Lake, had to hire security due to death threats, and the usual "they eat their own" shenanigans that was also visited on lifelong Republican Congressman Rusty Bowers after he testified in the January 6th Committee hearings.

In the photo on the local story about the primary race for County Recorder, there is a supporter of the challenger holding up a sign saying "make elections fair again, free again, honest again." Again? Richer - again a Trump-supporting Republican - checked the tape and found the elections were fair, free and honest. He set aside his personal politics and did his job. His challenger said "the politicization of the Recorder’s office must end"

Everything from a county recorder race, to Montana's gubernatorial race, to the presidential race, is right and truly fucked.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The Constitution was built in part to stop people like Trump. As we saw though, it was the adherence to tradition and respect for the Constitution, in general, that kept the democracy alive. McConnell was pretty much the only domino left that was needed to fall to get Trump installed as President in 2020. It isn't easy to steal an election, but apparently having a completely willing party could be enough.

Exactly. It's the law that had prevented someone like Trump, it was norms and the traditional sense of decorum that had kept anyone like him from ever getting anywhere near any significant elected office, let alone the White House.

In law school the Executive branch simply wasn't covered because nothing of real legal interest had happened since Nixon. Even then though, the rules of impeachment and conviction were well known and were in the process of being properly exercised prior to his resignation. Now my understanding is that law schools have been scrambling to tackle these new Trump-inspired issues, but with no precedent and few rulings, there's not a lot to go on.

I tend to see many of these things as First Amendment issues, but those are really difficult questions. Can a politician outright lie without legal repercussion? Well, what's an outright lie? I don't believe there's a definition of that in Black's Legal Dictionary. What would the alleged harm be? Would it be that the nation has been harmed as a whole by Trump's naked lying to the public? How do you show that?

OTOH, incite to riot is pretty well defined, which is why I've always found it odd that Trump was never charged with it.

Under federal law, inciting a riot (18 U.S. Code Section 2101) includes acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging or instigating others to riot.

There's more to it than that e.g. case law, but in relation to January 6th and the events leading up to it, it's clear as day that Trump could have and should have been charged with it. Whether he would've been found guilty is another matter.

Then there's sedition, which.... oh god, fuck it.

 

[bilby]

Keeping Trump out of office by whatever means is paramount futile if it entails becoming Trump.

FTFY.

No political objective is so vital as to justify any and all means to achieve it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump,

Could it be because they weren't the same? Democrats categorically did not support Trump's cruel family separation policy.

You're mixing apples and oranges, there. An intentional obfuscation, or are you simply unaware of the apples to apples discussion that would make more sense?

No, I am not aware of it. Do you have a link.

I already did... we're all responding to the post in which I did so.

Are you speaking about the post about Biden's executive order? No link in that one, nor the following one.

You don't expect me to scour almost 3500 posts to find it, do you?

 

[TSwizzle]

Keeping Trump out of office by whatever means is paramount.

What do you suggest to achieve this? Suspend the November elections and install Brandon as supreme leader? Hold off until there is a candidate that is acceptable to you?


Jeezus, the TDS is strong in this one.

 

[ZiprHead]

What do you suggest to achieve this? Suspend the November elections and install Brandon as supreme leader? Hold off until there is a candidate that is acceptable to you?

Hey! No fair. That was Trump's plan.

 

[TSwizzle]

OTOH, incite to riot is pretty well defined, which is why I've always found it odd that Trump was never charged with it.

January 6th was not a riot, it was a mostly peaceful protest.

 

[Elixir]

January 6th was not a riot, it was a mostly peaceful protest.

Mostly. Until it became a riot.
Before the riot WAS “most of it”, temporally speaking.
Guys in trees with assault rifles while Proud Boys orchestrated a physical assault on the barricades and the cops behind them - that marked the start of the attack, assault, riot, insurrection, coup attempt or whatever other qualifying description you want to use for the various things that then occurred at Trump’s urging. “Peaceful protest” doesn’t apply.

The Felon is dead meat if the DC case ever comes to trial. SCOTUS knows it, which is why they will do whatever is necessary to make sure it never does. Probably same for the Fl case.

I wonder what our Trumpologists think of the FACT that virtually all Trump’s “best people” turned out to be criminals, and the fact that he calls the ones who aren’t, treasonous for speaking the truth about him.