|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 25 2020 19:18 Taelshin wrote:
@Wombat Yeah for sure I'm interested in and want to understand the ethical/social aspects of it. I never followed the Taylor case that closely. They touch on that for sure( not a lot but a little ). I hope you watch it and look forward to your opinion.
As for re Trump I just feel like I haven't been shown any proof that trump's going to not accept the election. I've seen what he has said, It get's posted on this forum constantly. But if anyone here as learned anything from Trump, It's that Trump says a lot of things. Also, Not to get into the weeds, but Conservative's would argue that Hillary and many in the D camp never accepted the results of the last election (or other elections see Stacy Abrams). So it seems to me not something to focus on so strongly. The media is pushing this narrative and I am not happy to see anyone here or anywhere bogged down by it.
Isn't there a pretty giant difference between a presidential candidate not really agreeing with an election result and a President who says he won't leave office if he loses?
|
@jock No, But if you do please lay it out ill be happy to give it a read.
|
A presidential candidate has no executive power to change the results to fit his narrative.
|
On September 25 2020 20:26 Taelshin wrote:
@jock No, But if you do please lay it out ill be happy to give it a read.
...I could say that I don't accept the election result, but its not the same as the president saying it because i can't do anything about it. The president is in a position to be able to cause serious problems by refusing the leave office.
Can I ask what serious problems were caused by Hilary not agreeing with the election result? A few protests that everyone forgot about a week after they happened? There was no crisis of democracy based on Hilary's words post election. Trump refusing to leave office would be the ultimate crisis of democracy.
You're comparing two situations that can't really be compared without noting the massive difference in their ability to make problems out of their refusal to accept a result.
|
@Erasme I just do not believe there is grave concern. Without elaboration I can't possibly speak to your fears about "executive power" tipping the scales here. One could argue that other potential's have had more political power and or institutional power. I'm not making those arguments though, I'm just saying the potential that trump won't accept the results of the election is being blown way(and I mean WAYYY!!) out of proportions, I don't see it and It's also being pushed by the media heavily.
|
The media is reporting on this because Trump literally refused to commit to a peaceful transition were he to lose twice in a matter of days. But here we are again with a Trump fan telling everyone to ignore the President's own words, surprise surprise.
|
On September 25 2020 20:42 Taelshin wrote:
@Erasme I just do not believe there is grave concern. Without elaboration I can't possibly speak to your fears about "executive power" tipping the scales here. One could argue that other potential's have had more political power and or institutional power. I'm not making those arguments though, I'm just saying the potential that trump won't accept the results of the election is being blown way(and I mean WAYYY!!) out of proportions, I don't see it and It's also being pushed by the media heavily.
Personally I think reporting and analyzing the things that the President of the USA says he intends to do is one of the most important jobs of the press.
Why should we hold Trump to different standards than every other president ever?
We could look at all the stuff Trump has done as president, and see how much of that were things that he had previously said he was going to do. I think we could find plenty of examples, even ones where his supporters say he won't do it and then he does it anyway. Why would this be different? Why would a guy who gasses people so he can have a photo shoot not refuse to leave office?
|
On September 25 2020 20:26 Taelshin wrote:
@jock No, But if you do please lay it out ill be happy to give it a read.
You don't see how a president saying they might not accept the results of an election is a bit of threat to how the political system operates?
On September 25 2020 20:50 farvacola wrote:
The media is reporting on this because Trump literally refused to commit to a peaceful transition were he to lose twice in a matter of days. But here we are again with a Trump fan telling everyone to ignore the President's own words, surprise surprise.
In fairness, for all Trump's smoke-blowing I don't know if he'll have the ability to follow through. I can't see the Republicans backing him on a plan to actually corrupt the election. Something like that will come out eventually, and that would hurt them immensely in the long run. I can't see even many people in the base saying its okay to pervert the entire political system.
|
There are people well versed in the US law and court practices in this thread and I'd like to hear from them about usage of the grand jury process in the Breonna Taylor case as opposed to it being trialled in court? Why did it not go to court and more generally why US criminal cases do not go to court more often? I've read some recent news articles reporting that the less and less criminal cases go to courts and are instead resolved instead via plea bargains or some other negotiations(at the discretion of the prosecutor?)
I'm very confused about a case like this not going to trial primarily because of the public significance its gained. Surely proper proceedings in a court trial which is open to the public and media to the appropriate degree would be necessary to make sure public trust to the authorities is not further eroded, is there some reason to not go for it? Furthermore, the video Taelshin linked, as well as some of the discussion here was questioning the methods of the police going into the apartment and the wider process of that search into the house, and surely again for the public interest examining these in a court trial would serve the public better than what on the surface seems very hush-hush-ey grand jury process?
|
On September 25 2020 21:05 Oukka wrote:
There are people well versed in the US law and court practices in this thread and I'd like to hear from them about usage of the grand jury process in the Breonna Taylor case as opposed to it being trialled in court? Why did it not go to court and more generally why US criminal cases do not go to court more often? I've read some recent news articles reporting that the less and less criminal cases go to courts and are instead resolved instead via plea bargains or some other negotiations(at the discretion of the prosecutor?)
I'm very confused about a case like this not going to trial primarily because of the public significance its gained. Surely proper proceedings in a court trial which is open to the public and media to the appropriate degree would be necessary to make sure public trust to the authorities is not further eroded, is there some reason to not go for it? Furthermore, the video Taelshin linked, as well as some of the discussion here was questioning the methods of the police going into the apartment and the wider process of that search into the house, and surely again for the public interest examining these in a court trial would serve the public better than what on the surface seems very hush-hush-ey grand jury process?
Depending on the state, a grand jury must issue indictments for capital crimes like murder, indictments that then go to trial in the more typical fashion. Some states allow prosecutors to issue indictments totally on their own, some allow both, and others require the grand jury involvement before trial. In Michigan, as point of contrast, the pre-trial phase is conducted as a mini-trial in the lower court where the judge does what the grand jury did here, look at the evidence presented and decide if its enough to bind over a defendant for trial in the trial court. Kentucky is much more grand jury centric than Michigan, I think it requires grand jury involvement in most felony situations.
|
On September 25 2020 20:51 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 20:26 Taelshin wrote:
@jock No, But if you do please lay it out ill be happy to give it a read. You don't see how a president saying they might not accept the results of an election is a bit of threat to how the political system operates? Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 20:50 farvacola wrote:
The media is reporting on this because Trump literally refused to commit to a peaceful transition were he to lose twice in a matter of days. But here we are again with a Trump fan telling everyone to ignore the President's own words, surprise surprise. In fairness, for all Trump's smoke-blowing I don't know if he'll have the ability to follow through. I can't see the Republicans backing him on a plan to actually corrupt the election. Something like that will come out eventually, and that would hurt them immensely in the long run. I can't see even many people in the base saying its okay to pervert the entire political system.
It doesn't hurt them in the long run if the transition to right-wing autocracy is successful.
We all know what Trump will do. We knew he would do it the entire time. The question is whether anyone can stop him, especially when the republicans and their hand-picked supreme court inevitably roll over.
I still think the reichstag is on fire as we speak.
|
Wow I thoght USA has far better institutions for prevent autocracy. I can tell from the 1st hand it ain't pretty.
Also, Trump only got 1 more possible mandate left so I don't think he has time to set it up.
But man, he has best opponent to beat ever, after Hillary of course. Democrats really can mess up inner elections.
|
On September 25 2020 22:56 followZeRoX wrote:
Wow I thoght USA has far better institutions for prevent autocracy. I can tell from the 1st hand it ain't pretty.
Also, Trump only got 1 more possible mandate left so I don't think he has time to set it up.
But man, he has best opponent to beat ever, after Hillary of course. Democrats really can mess up inner elections.
The problem is that institutions preventing autocracy stop working very well when half of the population is totally okay with autocracy as long as they get to tell the other half how to live their lives.
The main requirement to prevent a democracy turning bad is that the majority of the population is strongly opposed to autocracy. If you no longer have that, even the best of institutions can only save you for a short period of time.
|
The Atlantic had a pretty good writeup on the Trump plan, and it's pretty terrifyingly plausible.
According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.
Basically, short of a Biden landslide on election day, it's going to be a nightmare.
We aren't saying Trump said he will violently resist: what he means is that he is never going to concede or voluntarily turn over power.
|
Right, Trumps plan isn’t to refuse to concede if he loses, it’s to muddy the waters of the popular vote by discrediting mail-in ballots to the point where a winner or loser can’t be definitively called in the first place. I’ll repost my post from earlier since the conversation seems to be steering that direction.
On September 25 2020 01:29 Ryzel wrote:Very fascinating and informative article about the particulars of the post-election process and how things can go wrong. Even if you don’t believe Trump will do these things; it does a good job of showing what may happen and what’s been happening already. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/TLDR, it’ll be a legal shitshow. Trumps plan: 1. Cast mail-in ballots in doubt as much as possible. Plan legal action tearing apart the validity of mail-in ballots (Repub lawyers have already been observing mail-in vote counts in county elections to find flaws to use in their legal arguments). 2. Repubs more likely to win with votes counted at Election Night (in part due to voter suppression techniques that will be easier to enact than previous elections), however “blue shift” of overtime/mail-in votes likely to bring it to Biden. Discredit overtime/mail-in voting legally and culturally. 3. With the popular vote bogged down and inconclusive, and limited time until inauguration, state legislatures begin having to choose electors. Repubs control legislative branches in most battleground states and choose electors to back Trump regardless of public vote. These states that have democrat governors create an alternative slate of rival electors to send to Congress. 4. President of the Senate (Pence) has authority to preside over voting electors, will construe things to only choose the republican ones. Law requires that House be present for the count though, Pelosi moves to shut down proceedings until January 21st, where she’ll be acting President if no others are decided yet. Pence creates an impromptu meeting outside of Capitol Hill and invites House Repubs to complete the count in favor of Trump.
|
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa.
I don't see how iowa and this are related. this seemed like a thing trump would have gone for no matter what and with louder and louder screams of socialism invading the states, it would have made a trump re-election even easier. but continue on.
|
On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa.
Time to move all voting to a hastily designed app produced by the White House at the last minute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
