|
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 July 28 2024 23:46 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 05:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
It seems the best way to shut down the “diversity hire” talk would be to stop going around bragging about how you’re going to hire people for their diversity. Just a thought. Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality. This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. As surprising as it may be, some people disagree with X and Y. That is, we shouldn't limit a pool of applicants for a job on the basis of skin color, even if the eventual hire of the "chosen skin color" is qualified for the job. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now. The real reason she is a central leader in the Democratic party is because she is the VP. A large reason she is the VP is because Biden wanted a running mate that checked certain boxes. Disagree with "X" and "Y" in what way? . That we shouldn't hire/exclude on the basis of skin color. Sorry I can't put it anymore plainly than that. You're just decontextualizing what I said, and repeating what you said at the start. You're being willfully ignorant at this point. A shame. You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist. You keep saying DEI doesn’t make sense to you, and make statements like this, so it leads me to believe you genuinely don’t understand the underpinnings behind it. It’s not that ethically-minded people want to hire minority groups because they just like minority groups better or hate whites or something. It’s because minority groups are disadvantaged in society in a way that is not fair when compared to whites. The only reason race is picked as an attribute to focus on in this way is because it’s one of the most well-known attributes that has a ton of historical and empirical evidence demonstrating the disparity. Same with women, and to a lesser extent LGBTQIA+. It’s the exact same reasoning for giving people with health conditions or impairments like blindness extra support; because empirical and anecdotal evidence shows they struggle way more than the majority and it’s only fair they get help to give them as equal an opportunity for a fulfilling life as we can give them. If the struggle of left-handed people vs right-handed in modern society became more studied and backed by solid evidence we could make them DEI hires too. Or the Sneetches without stars on their bellies. To reiterate; the attribute itself isn’t important, the disparity of quality of life between the groups that differ on the attribute is.Now obviously that doesn’t apply to everyone supporting DEI; I’m sure there’s some in the minority groups that don’t seek equitable justice but instead to become the dominant majority. Perhaps they can be seen as working the system to usurp power from the current majority and disenfranchise them. I’ll say to that, they have a loooong way to go. Because aside from the obvious current hostility to minority groups, if one ever DID find themselves in this hypothetical position, the ethically-minded person would then turn around and rightfully stop giving them preferential treatment. Because it would no longer be fair. You’re also right that it’s technically discriminating against whites/the majority. But as previously stated, it’s not specifically because they’re white, it’s because they’re demonstrated to have an unfair advantage. In addition, the people who clamor against DEI, presumably because “they don’t pay attention to race”, are still perpetuating a system that discriminates against minorities while actively sabotaging a potential solution to make things more fair. Now I personally would agree that it’s not your fault that you were born into the system, and if you don’t actively discriminate against minorities in your life then I wouldn’t call you a racist. But I wouldn’t call you ethically-minded either. If not having that label bothers you, your vitriol towards DEI itself is misplaced. It should instead be directed towards disproving the mountains of evidence demonstrating the unfair disparities between groups that differ on attributes targeted by DEI. Addendum: In the same way it’s not your fault that you were born with an unfair advantage and that doesn’t make you a bad person for having it, it’s not an ethically-minded person’s fault that they notice the unfair advantage and that doesn’t make them a bad person for seeking to take something from you to correct it. Wanting what’s fair vs. wanting what’s yours. A tale as old as time.
Frankly I don't know why people keep making posts like this directed at me. Do you really think that I don't know that disparities exist between blacks and whites? This is not theoretical physics. I assure you it's not a difficult concept you're presenting.
Let me propose a hypothetical to you. One thing we saw from the Harvard admissions case is that Asian students were discriminated against. Asians with elite academic resumes were admitted less frequently than black/latino students. I suppose the "ethical people" decided there were just too many god damn Asians already.
I assume you're not a racist. I assume you don't think Asians are just inherently superior because of their race to excel in academics, correct? So there's nothing to guarantee that they will always outpace the other races on test scores or Ivy league admissions, etc.
So the hypothetical is, let's assume that after decades of correcting for the too many asian not enough black/latino problem we finally lead to a place where the races are flipped and now Asians perform poorly in academics...
Are you going to tell your grandkids how their granddaddy helped make that happen by supporting policies that discriminated against Asians in academics?
Or are you going to deny any involvement and tell them how terrible it is that Asians were discriminated against for decades?
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
So then, what? Unlike many who oppose affirmative action policies, at least from what I’m reading, you don’t deny that they’re an attempt to solve a core, existent problem. So you just innately oppose that method of redress entirely, or how it’s implemented, or do you find the status quo undesirable but preferable to such alternatives? Or do you have some third way solution?
I also believe as a tangential point we somewhat crudely categorise everything together on this topic. Loosely I’d lump them into socio-economic correction, and some kind of cultural correction at an internal level.
I think the college admissions example is a very clear example of the former, and perhaps leads to more discriminatory corrective mechanisms. You’re effectively trying to fix complex, long-standing socio-economic problems via a racial solution in terms of quotas, or de facto different admission standard.
In the second category, in a crude sense it’s altering institutions so their composition isn’t self-perpetuating. Be it in a corporation or a political party, or environments such as those. It’s not that there’s not qualified people trying to join the club, but that club’s dominated by a particular demographic tend to actively favour their own demographics in terms of who they let in. So by altering that actively you start to form bridgeheads of initial diversity that start to perpetuate a more organic form of it.
Which as an aside I think are two quite different manifestations spawning from the same base context.
|
On July 29 2024 05:27 WombaT wrote:
So then, what? Unlike many who oppose affirmative action policies, at least from what I’m reading, you don’t deny that they’re an attempt to solve a core, existent problem. So you just innately oppose that method of redress entirely, or how it’s implemented, or do you find the status quo undesirable but preferable to such alternatives? Or do you have some third way solution?
I also believe as a tangential point we somewhat crudely categorise everything together on this topic. Loosely I’d lump them into socio-economic correction, and some kind of cultural correction at an internal level.
I think the college admissions example is a very clear example of the former, and perhaps leads to more discriminatory corrective mechanisms. You’re effectively trying to fix complex, long-standing socio-economic problems via a racial solution in terms of quotas, or de facto different admission standard.
In the second category, in a crude sense it’s altering institutions so their composition isn’t self-perpetuating. Be it in a corporation or a political party, or environments such as those. It’s not that there’s not qualified people trying to join the club, but that club’s dominated by a particular demographic tend to actively favour their own demographics in terms of who they let in. So by altering that actively you start to form bridgeheads of initial diversity that start to perpetuate a more organic form of it.
Which as an aside I think are two quite different manifestations spawning from the same base context.
There’s already cleaner solutions. E.g. policies that benefit people of lower socioeconomic status. Because blacks and Latinos are overrepresented among the low-income you get the added bonus of disproportionately benefiting blacks/latinos with those policies. Another added benefit is they are timeless. The poor will always be the poor, whereas you don’t know if X race will always be underrepresented in Y field. Granted I know it’s not as fun as discriminating on the basis of skin color but I think it’s more ethical.
|
|
|
The SC has already resolved this by declaring the President immune.
You declare martial law, send in the army and put the Republican Caucus up against the wall and start shooting people.
And no, that isn't being hyperbolic. When your in the middle of a fascist takeover of the government you don't play nice.
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
I feel it would be a bad move, aside from the obvious I think it would bring ruination upon the GOP in the longer run as well.
If they tried to pull so egregious an un-democratic move, well these things have their breaking point. There’d probably be one hell of a constitutional crisis, a government shutdown the likes we’ve never seen and almost certainly some reforms to prevent it ever occurring again. Reforms to things the GOP benefit from and like to play with.
To take one example, it’s a pretty damn potent reason to just switch to a popular vote if people are actively abusing the current system.
Especially one cycle after Jan 6th, I just can’t see such a display of fuckery being allowed to pass. Perhaps not legally, but through wider civic response.
|
On July 29 2024 21:43 WombaT wrote:I feel it would be a bad move, aside from the obvious I think it would bring ruination upon the GOP in the longer run as well. If they tried to pull so egregious an un-democratic move, well these things have their breaking point. There’d probably be one hell of a constitutional crisis, a government shutdown the likes we’ve never seen and almost certainly some reforms to prevent it ever occurring again. Reforms to things the GOP benefit from and like to play with. To take one example, it’s a pretty damn potent reason to just switch to a popular vote if people are actively abusing the current system. Especially one cycle after Jan 6th, I just can’t see such a display of fuckery being allowed to pass. Perhaps not legally, but through wider civic response.
The slates of fake electors, absurd lawsuits, January 6th riot, and various other attempts at stealing the 2020 presidential election haven't resulted in a "breaking point" or even a significant loss in Republican/Trump support... neither have the criminal convictions, rape, or fraud... so I can't imagine that anything would seriously lead to a "breaking point" for them, as long as they think they're legally/morally justified in stealing the 2024 election. Unfortunately 
|
On July 29 2024 17:28 Gorsameth wrote:The SC has already resolved this by declaring the President immune. You declare martial law, send in the army and put the Republican Caucus up against the wall and start shooting people. And no, that isn't being hyperbolic. When your in the middle of a fascist takeover of the government you don't play nice.
I still have good faith. Even during Trump's last term, he faced problems with some civil servants simply refusing to do as he demanded. Building up a system which is sufficiently loyal to do absolutely anything takes time, and I doubt it is in place. That the US is fractured into so many states with their own autonomy makes a true facsist takeover of the whole country very complicated. Unlike Russia, the US has no tradition of central dictatorships to lean on either.
|
DEI from sphincter-mouth is just the same slur as CRT, BLM or SJW.
Easy enough to remeber and make them stick! Just find 1-2 controversial facts about the acronym or one of the attached personalities, and invalidate the whole idea behind it!
Magats hung up on Kamala being a DEI-Hire..saying that she got the job because of gender or race 'joe said so himself!'... not qualification.. yet they champion a guy who's entire personality rests on inherited hundreds of millions of dollars.
Forbes estimated DJT's net worth in 1978 to about 100 Million Dollars. Had he just invested that in diversified stocks, he'd actually have been a 6 time billionaire in 2016.. and since then, the S&P 500 trippled..
So if he wasn't such a loser in the real estate business, he'd be worth 18 billion dollars and could have posted his own bail.
But he isn't, so a russia affiliated business bought his bail...and in fact him.
I'd say Harris is far more qualified... and even Magats said he "Isn't qualified, that's why we want him".
But the whole "DEI" Stuff is just shit-flinging... and a nothing burger.
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On July 29 2024 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2024 21:43 WombaT wrote:I feel it would be a bad move, aside from the obvious I think it would bring ruination upon the GOP in the longer run as well. If they tried to pull so egregious an un-democratic move, well these things have their breaking point. There’d probably be one hell of a constitutional crisis, a government shutdown the likes we’ve never seen and almost certainly some reforms to prevent it ever occurring again. Reforms to things the GOP benefit from and like to play with. To take one example, it’s a pretty damn potent reason to just switch to a popular vote if people are actively abusing the current system. Especially one cycle after Jan 6th, I just can’t see such a display of fuckery being allowed to pass. Perhaps not legally, but through wider civic response. The slates of fake electors, absurd lawsuits, January 6th riot, and various other attempts at stealing the 2020 presidential election haven't resulted in a "breaking point" or even a significant loss in Republican/Trump support... neither have the criminal convictions, rape, or fraud... so I can't imagine that anything would seriously lead to a "breaking point" for them, as long as they think they're legally/morally justified in stealing the 2024 election. Unfortunately
Well I don’t really expect much else from swathes of that lot.
But in a wider sense I think you’d see something quite different if mechanisms were abused to enable a successful coup versus an attempt that was ultimately thwarted by certain mechanisms.
As I’ve said I don’t think enough soul-searching was done last time, instead it appears many doubled-down.
But it’s one thing having a captive audience who’ll handwave such things, it’s quite another to go ‘I am President despite not winning the election so do what I say’ to the whole country.
Although he’s often, rightly IMO contrasted with the Erdogan’s and Orban (and much more accurately than say, Hitler), there are quite clear differences too. They’re strongmen populists with general majority support, Trump on the other hand is only the former.
In the modern telecommunications era, the path to pseudo-despotism is either come in with overwhelming support and use that as a remit to scourge opposition, the potential of opposition and thus make your power self-perpetuating, or have the military seize control.
You can’t do what say, the Bolsheviks did in taking power by just doing it and consolidating while the rest of the country catches up.
I generally don’t tend to optimism, hence why I’m even taking Thom Hartman’s hypothetical even vaguely seriously as a possibility. Something that would have been genuinely unthinkable within my own adult life has moved to the ‘possible but exceedingly unlikely’ category.
But I do think there’d be enough of a huge backlash that this plan would fall on its arse, one way or another.
One way, and I think it’s rather underused as a political weapon would just be mass strikes for example. Economic precariousness and the lack of a suitable trigger to move the levers usually sees this as off the table. Trump seizing power in such a manner would strike me as a suitable threat to move that lever.
Of course there is also the almost as depressing possibility that he just wins the election fair and square, so that’s certainly the first hurdle to clear!
|
Since You brought Hitler up. His party got 43,9% of votes in March 1933 elections (less than Trump). By June, he had total control of the country and was a de facto dictator.
So no. History tells us You don't need an absolute or even a significant majority to assume total control.
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On July 30 2024 00:13 Silvanel wrote:
Since You brought Hitler up. His party got 43,9% of votes in March 1933 elections (less than Trump). By June, he had total control of the country and was a de facto dictator.
So no. History tells us You don't need an absolute or even a significant majority to assume total control.
Hitler wasn’t operating within a de facto two party system, there are certainly lessons to be learned there but I don’t think they’re especially transmissible to the current US context.
One such lesson being that it’s exceptionally dangerous for centrist parties to hand over the keys to Fascists because they think they can control them, and they’re ultimately preferable to socialism.
One can draw parallels internally, in that the broad conservative coalition has handed the keys to Trump rather than temper him. It’s certainly a criticism I’ve made myself many times.
But equally there’s no Paul von Hindenburg equivalent to hand the reins over to Trump.
|
On July 29 2024 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2024 21:43 WombaT wrote:I feel it would be a bad move, aside from the obvious I think it would bring ruination upon the GOP in the longer run as well. If they tried to pull so egregious an un-democratic move, well these things have their breaking point. There’d probably be one hell of a constitutional crisis, a government shutdown the likes we’ve never seen and almost certainly some reforms to prevent it ever occurring again. Reforms to things the GOP benefit from and like to play with. To take one example, it’s a pretty damn potent reason to just switch to a popular vote if people are actively abusing the current system. Especially one cycle after Jan 6th, I just can’t see such a display of fuckery being allowed to pass. Perhaps not legally, but through wider civic response. The slates of fake electors, absurd lawsuits, January 6th riot, and various other attempts at stealing the 2020 presidential election haven't resulted in a "breaking point" or even a significant loss in Republican/Trump support... neither have the criminal convictions, rape, or fraud... so I can't imagine that anything would seriously lead to a "breaking point" for them, as long as they think they're legally/morally justified in stealing the 2024 election. Unfortunately
The fallout from Jan 6 is not being felt by republicans, that's fine. However, it seems like it was felt in the midterms with a drop in support from "independent" voters, and a backlash to MAGA candidates. So while Republicans might look at their voter base and say "yeah, that's a good idea", that misses the fact that for a majority of the population it's a bridge too far. I'd expect months of unrest "at best", and civil war at worst if something like that was actually pushed through successfully.
|
On July 30 2024 01:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2024 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 29 2024 21:43 WombaT wrote:I feel it would be a bad move, aside from the obvious I think it would bring ruination upon the GOP in the longer run as well. If they tried to pull so egregious an un-democratic move, well these things have their breaking point. There’d probably be one hell of a constitutional crisis, a government shutdown the likes we’ve never seen and almost certainly some reforms to prevent it ever occurring again. Reforms to things the GOP benefit from and like to play with. To take one example, it’s a pretty damn potent reason to just switch to a popular vote if people are actively abusing the current system. Especially one cycle after Jan 6th, I just can’t see such a display of fuckery being allowed to pass. Perhaps not legally, but through wider civic response. The slates of fake electors, absurd lawsuits, January 6th riot, and various other attempts at stealing the 2020 presidential election haven't resulted in a "breaking point" or even a significant loss in Republican/Trump support... neither have the criminal convictions, rape, or fraud... so I can't imagine that anything would seriously lead to a "breaking point" for them, as long as they think they're legally/morally justified in stealing the 2024 election. Unfortunately The fallout from Jan 6 is not being felt by republicans, that's fine. However, it seems like it was felt in the midterms with a drop in support from "independent" voters, and a backlash to MAGA candidates. So while Republicans might look at their voter base and say "yeah, that's a good idea", that misses the fact that for a majority of the population it's a bridge too far. I'd expect months of unrest "at best", and civil war at worst if something like that was actually pushed through successfully.
I would expect that majority to unite against Trump if they truly felt that the Republicans were going too far. The general election polls don't seem to reflect that, but I hope the November results do.
|
An interesting idea for picking vice president. Ignore entire setup of famous democratic politicians and just pick somebody for name recognition.
https://today.yougov.com/ratings/entertainment/popularity/people/all Sorting by popularity and disregarding people over 60 years old while still being a US citizen I end up with suggestions such as Robert Downey Jr. and Julia Roberts. (I didn't check for political affinity.)
|
On July 30 2024 02:35 Yurie wrote:An interesting idea for picking vice president. Ignore entire setup of famous democratic politicians and just pick somebody for name recognition. https://today.yougov.com/ratings/entertainment/popularity/people/all Sorting by popularity and disregarding people over 60 years old while still being a US citizen I end up with suggestions such as Robert Downey Jr. and Julia Roberts. (I didn't check for political affinity.)
Why over 60? Taylor Swift is old enough to legally be the VP candidate.
|
On July 30 2024 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 02:35 Yurie wrote:An interesting idea for picking vice president. Ignore entire setup of famous democratic politicians and just pick somebody for name recognition. https://today.yougov.com/ratings/entertainment/popularity/people/all Sorting by popularity and disregarding people over 60 years old while still being a US citizen I end up with suggestions such as Robert Downey Jr. and Julia Roberts. (I didn't check for political affinity.) Why over 60? Taylor Swift is old enough to legally be the VP candidate.
Under 60 includes Taylor Swift, so she would be considered with this approach.
|
On July 30 2024 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 01:06 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2024 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 29 2024 21:43 WombaT wrote:I feel it would be a bad move, aside from the obvious I think it would bring ruination upon the GOP in the longer run as well. If they tried to pull so egregious an un-democratic move, well these things have their breaking point. There’d probably be one hell of a constitutional crisis, a government shutdown the likes we’ve never seen and almost certainly some reforms to prevent it ever occurring again. Reforms to things the GOP benefit from and like to play with. To take one example, it’s a pretty damn potent reason to just switch to a popular vote if people are actively abusing the current system. Especially one cycle after Jan 6th, I just can’t see such a display of fuckery being allowed to pass. Perhaps not legally, but through wider civic response. The slates of fake electors, absurd lawsuits, January 6th riot, and various other attempts at stealing the 2020 presidential election haven't resulted in a "breaking point" or even a significant loss in Republican/Trump support... neither have the criminal convictions, rape, or fraud... so I can't imagine that anything would seriously lead to a "breaking point" for them, as long as they think they're legally/morally justified in stealing the 2024 election. Unfortunately The fallout from Jan 6 is not being felt by republicans, that's fine. However, it seems like it was felt in the midterms with a drop in support from "independent" voters, and a backlash to MAGA candidates. So while Republicans might look at their voter base and say "yeah, that's a good idea", that misses the fact that for a majority of the population it's a bridge too far. I'd expect months of unrest "at best", and civil war at worst if something like that was actually pushed through successfully. I would expect that majority to unite against Trump if they truly felt that the Republicans were going too far. The general election polls don't seem to reflect that, but I hope the November results do.
Well, they haven't successfully orchestrated a coup yet, have they?
|
On July 30 2024 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 02:35 Yurie wrote:An interesting idea for picking vice president. Ignore entire setup of famous democratic politicians and just pick somebody for name recognition. https://today.yougov.com/ratings/entertainment/popularity/people/all Sorting by popularity and disregarding people over 60 years old while still being a US citizen I end up with suggestions such as Robert Downey Jr. and Julia Roberts. (I didn't check for political affinity.) Why over 60? Taylor Swift is old enough to legally be the VP candidate.
I disregard older people since that was the major argument against Biden, that his mental health is declining with age. Taylor Swift was rank 368 on the random site I picked and linked above. Very famous but perhaps not as universally acceptable. I am not sure that the methodology that ends with her in that rank is correct, I honestly don't know what US people think about various celebrities.
|
Firstly, remember this was posted in February when the trend from Democrats to attempt to keep their opponents off the ballot entirely seemed more tenable (the rough gist of what Massie said being, don't de-list candidates or we'll de-list your sham election). Also please don't go overboard in believing schizoid blogs by people going "MAGA Moscow Mike Johnson."
Secondly, the "strategy" is called the Constitution, it's always been the case that without an electoral majority, the House chooses the president. What might not be clear to you is how you can get to a lack of electoral majority, which is 270 votes. Either nobody gets the votes to begin with due to a 50/50 split or 3 way race or votes disappeared like a state not submitting or votes getting thrown out after objections. Now, by the Electoral Count Reform Act, there are only 2 things Congress can object to:
“(I) The electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors according to section 5(a)(1).
“(II) The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
Meaning the electors were appointed and confirmed correctly under state law and they voted correctly (i.e. a long video of smug Hollywood has-beens directly telling faithless electors to vote their "conscience" no longer has any effect). It takes a fifth of both chambers just to get an objection to be heard, and then you need a majority to rule on it. In the past it just took one person to cosign from each chamber, and still objections never got through. The case now, if Congress follows its own law, if you get an objection, hear it, rule in its favor, and then choose as your action to throw out the vote, it also reduces the total number of votes (the denominator 538) seemingly leaving it only possible to rig a tie in some convoluted arithmetic way.
In order to do that, theorycraftingly, a party would have to:
1) have a majority in the Senate and House
2) have a majority among the 50 state delegations in the House
3) have, being nonetheless so popular, also lost the presidential election
4) unanimously want to commit political suicide by throwing out votes from probably both sides willy-nilly in order to cause a tie... they could throw out every state but then face a divide by zero error, which isn't in the Constitution.
Even though this is Congress's constitutional job, that law carries the force of law and wasn't an amendment and so could presumably be more easily challenged in court if someone found standing.
On July 29 2024 17:28 Gorsameth wrote:The SC has already resolved this by declaring the President immune. You declare martial law, send in the army and put the Republican Caucus up against the wall and start shooting people. And no, that isn't being hyperbolic. When your in the middle of a fascist takeover of the government you don't play nice.
You'd have to prove before SCOTUS (just guessing they'd hear the case over a lower court) that massacring the opposition is an official act, which would only protect the president, and also you'd have to undo murder statutes for anybody you actually got to follow those orders. More deranged talk of shooting people is not what US politics needs but thank you for providing a living example of the necessity of the 2nd amendment. Anyone who purports to want to shoot people on the assumption they're fascists is in fact harboring a suicide wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
