EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2854
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 26 2020 01:51 Sermokala wrote: Its pretty crazy when the Dems that were conservative in their messaging were the ones that got defeated. People don't have an appetite for the left-leaning party to lean right. Really unhappy that peterson lost his seat in Minnesota. Dems couldn't hold onto a seat that chaired the agriculture committee in a massively agricultural district. If you needed any more evidence that the dems have stopped given a shit about the farm and labor vote they should be going after its that. Now the farm bill will be benefiting the coasties and the midwest will get even worse for dems. I just have no idea where this ends. They want an Obama coalition of major turnout of minorities together with middle and upper class suburbanites and “coasties” as you put it. And I’d prefer a competitive Democratic message in places like MN-7. The “conservative Democrat” or “rural Democrat” voice is an important moderating influence on the party. A higher percentage of deep blue district Dems compared to swing district Dems isn’t good. They also won’t keep Republicans honest if the coasts dictate Democratic policy and Republicans start to take these seats for granted. (Ironic that I’m a coastie in this scenario ... but whose district swung D to R in an incumbent defeat not seen since the 90s in my state) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46484 Posts
On November 26 2020 01:35 brian wrote: this has been happening for MUCH longer than three weeks. Trump has been priming his followers (may as well say believers at this point for those remaining in his camp) for this since before July, with all the claims of how bad mail in voting is. That's a good point. He's been dogwhistling, priming, and gaslighting them for years now, although he's never been held accountable for it before; I suppose he won't be held accountable even during his lame duck session. On November 26 2020 01:46 Nevuk wrote: No. Treason has an extremely specific legal definition in the US. It only applies to a country we have declared war with. Now, there is a good question as to whether it applies to those who have declared war on the US which is slightly applicable - apparently Putin said something to this effect in 2015 or 2016 in one of the redacted parts of the Mueller report. The answer is likely to be no, however. Treason has a crazy limited definition because it was wildly misused in contemporary England when the constitution was written. Sedition is closer to what you're looking for, with one exception - it probably requires intent to "delay execution" "by force". It is a little unclear. Here's the statute (emphasis mine). 18-usc-sect-2384 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 It's a very high burden to prove that Trump is trying to incite violence to prevent Biden from becoming president. If there were smoking gun proof (ie, a leaked recording stating that he is doing that, with all of his lawyers contributing to the strategy in a way that makes it clear that it's not a joke), this is the statue he'd get charged with. Trump's legal strategies are all perfectly fine (though moronic) within the law. It's only his speech that could get him in trouble. I appreciate that clarification; thank you! Sedition does seem like a possibly-relevant situation. Is election fraud relevant to this yet, too, or might that only stick if/when Trump tries paying off some electors to make them faithless against Biden? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22630 Posts
On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster.I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote: The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote: Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On November 26 2020 03:06 Starlightsun wrote: Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks. Decision hasn't come down yet, but oral argument observers noted that the questions asked indicated that there was very little SCOTUS interest in overturning the law. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 26 2020 03:06 Starlightsun wrote: Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks. It is going before the supreme court because it was considered too risky to overturn through other means. Republicans would have greatly suffered in the senate if they let the effects of abolishing the ACA be felt by their constituents. The modern day republican party only exists because it is willing to fan the flames of anger by blaming systemic problems on immigrants and liberals. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On November 26 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote: It is going before the supreme court because it was considered too risky to overturn through other means. Republicans would have greatly suffered in the senate if they let the effects of abolishing the ACA be felt by their constituents. The modern day republican party only exists because it is willing to fan the flames of anger by blaming systemic problems on immigrants and liberals. That's right, it is no coincidence that the aspect of government prioritized most by Republicans also happens to be the least democratic. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22630 Posts
On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote: The only reason the ACA still exists because the GOP is to afraid to remove it without anything better in its place, and can't make something better because of "socialism".Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. And I'm not talking 50 years either. I'm more talking about things like the DACA which had people covered under it basically living the last 4 years under the threat of it ending because of a pen stroke from Trump, only being allowed to remain in the US because Trump is incompetent and couldn't come up with a real reason for ending it infront of the courts. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
But sure, let's focus on making sure we understand Republicans' intentions. That's all that matters, really. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22630 Posts
On November 26 2020 04:10 Danglars wrote: And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it?The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so. I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches? Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 26 2020 04:44 Gorsameth wrote: And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it? How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches? Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse... They were on the floor late whipping votes because most people thought they finally had a package with majority support. It was literally covered in this thread at the time. McCain was a surprise. So let’s not rewrite history just because it would be nice to pretend nobody really tried to repeal instead of a narrow failure late in the game to repeal. Feel free to hold your opinion on what repeal would’ve meant to the country, I’ve spent enough time on the subject and won’t recapitulate those arguments. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Fortunately, this is easy given that this is 1) a documented lie and 2) pretty much no one should trust the GOP leadership when it comes to crafting policy-they're mind-bogglingly bad at it, their tax bill being a shining example of half-baked terrible ideas cobbled together at the 11th hour and only narrowly averted from being completely disastrous, complete with line edits in margins on the floor. Remember when Paul Ryan was their policy wunderkind? The man inspired to go into politics by an author who considered politicians the scum of the earth? What a joke. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
I feel terrible about that, I assure you. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On November 26 2020 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: Remember when Paul Ryan was their policy wunderkind? The man inspired to go into politics by an author who considered politicians the scum of the earth? What a joke. Paul Ryan's fading from political power has been one of the few bits of solace I've found these past couple years lol | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
It just goes back to a bizarre game where the obvious backlash to a step forward on healthcare is also defeated by the anemic step it was in the first place. Paul Ryan was so big beacuse like the tea party it made the establishment think they'd get the libertarians back. But they aren't done being irrelevant yet so they wanted to punt for another generation. | ||
| ||
