2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
there are two poles with "elections results are the cornerstone of our functioning democracy" and "election was rigged!" i think people make a mistake interpreting this absolute terms, automatically taking either pole depending which they're closer to.
and i feel like when someone takes either side they're either saying "elections are integrous and reflect the will of the people and i like that" versus "there's election fraud/cheating going on"... but neither is provable (esp to the other pole's
For sure. I'm not saying things are rigged one way or the other. I imagine it's both ways to some degree. Crowds will bend whatever truths they can to support their cause, but we also have to be reasonable when it comes to setting up political systems, and even though there are reasons to criticize public opinion, it doesn't mean that votes shouldn't be counted accurately or that they're insignificant.
I think the plurality and cacophony allowed by current technology makes it harder than ever to swing public opinion decisively toward any specific point.
It makes it easier to push us to the fringes and divide us. Who says we all need to be on the same page in order to be controlled or serve a "greater" purpose?
It makes it easier to push us to the fringes and divide us. Who says we all need to be on the same page in order to be controlled or serve a "greater" purpose?
Very violent autocrats say that and try to achieve that (see China and elsewhere) which makes me think that when the opposite happens that's actually a positive.
Polarization isn't inherently bad, especially when it limits government action it can be inherently good if like me you believe that most of what government does or can do is a lot worst than doing nothing.
It doesn't look like very violent divisions inside a polity require current day communication technology to happen, there are countless historical examples and the american civil war is probably the biggest of them all.
Doesn't look to me like today technology is what causes them either or you would see the same everywhere, and Japan isn't particularly divided nor are many other countries.
Yes America is more polarized than in the last 80-90 years but not necessarily more than at other times in it's history.
The Telegraph: Why crypto high rollers are betting millions that the polls are wrong on Trump
Despite some polls that give Harris leads of five points or more, the cryptocurrency gamblers say Trump’s chances are being underestimated, suggesting the race is a toss-up.
More than $160m has been bet on a Trump victory on Polymarket, with one high roller betting $2.5m. The site has consistently given the former president a better chance than opinion polls suggest.
Election forecasts have been around for decades, but the billions being wagered, the tight race and decreasing trust in opinion polls mean so-called prediction markets, of which Polymarket has become the biggest, are being watched more closely than ever.
Source:
I hope Vance’s handlers have written something for him to say about the pet eating. His behavior and “I’ll create stories” excuse are indefensible, but he’ll probably be asked about it in the debate. Hopefully he won’t cause bomb threats.
Both candidates to replace the turtle as GOP leaders in the Senate promised what I was hoping for: they basically let it be clear they wouldn't even have a vote for any Harris SCOTUS nominee, and they won't nuke the filibuster further for anything if Trump wins.
Kamala Harris... Manufacturing Consent.
Both candidates to replace the turtle as GOP leaders in the Senate promised what I was hoping for: they basically let it be clear they wouldn't even have a vote for any Harris SCOTUS nominee, and they won't nuke the filibuster further for anything if Trump wins.
So in your mind obstructing the presidential duty of appointing a SCOTUS nominee or any other judicial nominee for that matter so one side can pack the court when they’re in power is something ‘I was hoping for’?
And I’m supposed to take your views seriously because…..?
arent you hoping the Dems do the same? I sure would hope they do everything in their power to block all Repub nominees and pack the courts. after, all womens health and lgbtq rights and climate change and [strike]immigrant rights[/strike] are on the ballot and all that really matters. I thought Dems were going to do everything in their power to achieve those goals.
So in your mind obstructing the presidential duty of appointing a SCOTUS nominee or any other judicial nominee for that matter so one side can pack the court when they’re in power is something ‘I was hoping for’?
And I’m supposed to take your views seriously because…..?
Presidential duty is to nominate the judge, and the Senate has the role to decide if he is worthy of the seat.
Being leftist inherently makes you unworthy of sitting in SCOTUS in a very clear way.
Leftism judicial ideology these days is constitutional rape often enough.
Anything legal that helps the court staying normal (IE respectful of the constitution, IE rightwing) is a moral imperative and a moral good.
SCOTUS is the last defense against the horrors that the left can unleash when in power. We already saw it recently, disastrous, absurd attempts to rape the fundamental tapestry of the nation like trying to gift your political clientes hundreds of billions abusing executive powers (student debt forgiveness, blatantly unconstitutional in most of its parts).
The left has 0 regards for limits to state power and that's the biggest threat any advanced nation faces, and a rightwing SCOTUS is the best defense against it, and doing literally anything which the laws doesn't forbid to try to keep it that way is an utmost priority.
Ofc if Trump wins avoiding the horror of the dictatorship of the majority, the 51% deciding everything, is equally important, and keeping the sacred legislative filibuster allows to keep the worst instincts of republicans in check as well.
arent you hoping the Dems do the same? I sure would hope they do everything in their power to block all Repub nominees and pack the courts. after, all womens health and lgbtq rights and climate change and [strike]immigrant rights[/strike] are on the ballot and all that really matters. I thought Dems were going to do everything in their power to achieve those goals.
Republicans don't intend to pack the court, that requires removing the filibuster which they explicitly told you yet again they don't intend to do.
Democrats are the only ones who want to pack the court as they already did in the past. They can't accept any limit to power. They are inherently totalitarian.
Presidential duty is to nominate the judge, and the Senate has the role to decide if he is worthy of the seat.
Being leftist inherently makes you unworthy of sitting in SCOTUS in a very clear way.
Leftism judicial ideology these days is constitutional rape often enough.
Anything legal that helps the court staying normal (IE respectful of the constitution, IE rightwing) is a moral imperative and a moral good.
SCOTUS is the last defense against the horrors that the left can unleash when in power. We
They didn’t deem it unconstitutional because it was too left wing, they deemed it unconstitutional because it wasn’t allowed to do from the executive branch. I don’t see how your analysis tracks to why they overturned it.
Secondly, you have railed before against democratic norms. You realize the filibuster is not actually a law but a norm, right? I thought you said norms are worthless.
Btw POTUS exclusive power is to NOMINATE, the appointment is with the CONSENT of the Senate.
Art 2 sec 2 clause 2
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for
So POTUS says "I'd like this person for that job" and the Senate in it's wisdom e decides if the person is worthy of it.
If the president is considered a terrible person by the Senate, him liking someone is an inherent disqualification for any important job, and it's a constitutional duty of the Senate to express it's consent based on that kind of considerations
They didn’t deem it unconstitutional because it was too left wing, they deemed it unconstitutional because it wasn’t allowed to do from the executive branch. I don’t see how your analysis tracks to why they overturned it.
Secondly, you have railed before against democratic norms. You realize the filibuster is not actually a law but a norm, right? I thought you said norms are worthless.
Yes, I wrote abuses of executive power. ABUSES. Unconstitutional ABUSES.
The kind of stuff that "ends democracy".
Which are the horrors by which you get totalitarianism.
Congress can give free stuff to people on taxpayers expenses (unfortunately).
Yes, I wrote abuses of executive power. ABUSES. Unconstitutional ABUSES.
The kind of stuff that "ends democracy".
Which are the horrors by which you get totalitarianism.
Congress can give free stuff to people on taxpayers expenses (unfortunately).
Your whole argument though rests on it being a “rape” and “client gift”, why would it matter that it was done through the executive instead of the legislature? If the executive did have the power to do it, would you suddenly be in favor of it?
I’m trying to understand because I could get wanting to have a process to pass laws, but I don’t understand saying that the Supreme Court should be “right wing” to “stop leftist evils” while also wanting to politicize things like the justice department, the supreme court, senate and congressional procedures, etc. The best defense against abuse of power is a robust bipartisanship where people feel like things are done in a certain way. There’s a tension within your political ideology wherein on the one hand, you encourage and justify horrible moves by Donald Trump by saying that certain parts of the executive branch should be repoliticized, and on the other hand when it suits you, you blast democrats for not following norms.
Of course when faced with ideologies like your own which hold Democrats and Republicans to different standards, Democrats are just going to do everything in their power to make sure the other side isn’t able to stop them, including testing the boundaries of the executive branch’s power when it comes to forwarding social issues.
Note that pretty much every president since Bush except for Biden has not respected congress’s ultimate power to fund/approve of wars. Biden has made sure that all his military spending and operations get approved by congress, and that has made his presidency a lot more bipartisan when it comes to military policy. Even where it has been personally and politically detrimental to him, like the Afghanistan withdrawal which if you know anything about Biden he was probably personally against.
Also you didn’t respond to the filabuster. Why is this norm “sacred” when in the past you have criticized all norms as being bad because everything should be politicized. If it’s a norm, why is it so bad for someone to violate it?
Btw POTUS exclusive power is to NOMINATE, the appointment is with the CONSENT of the Senate.
Art 2 sec 2 clause 2
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for
So POTUS says "I'd like this person for that job" and the Senate in it's wisdom e decides if the person is worthy of i
That is not how it has been interpreted in the past. Again, convenient for you to just selectively choose which norms outrage you and which norms don’t. I honestly don’t care about any of these objections because you have shown that they are all done out of convenience and not out of principles.
That is not how it has been interpreted in the past. Again, convenient for you to just selectively choose which norms outrage you and which norms don’t. I honestly don’t care about any of these objections because you have shown that they are all done out of convenience and not out of principles.
In the (recent) past parties didn't internalize positions incompatible with the idea of America the other party had.
They do today: republicans and democrats fundamentally disagree on core value issues in ways that make it impossible to believe the other party is anything but your actual, direct enemy.
So the Senate correctly consented to appointments. At some times it did so too routinely without a fight, which isn't good at all. Democrats opposing Kavanaugh had good reasons to do so, I will never consider that undemocratic, they were using they constitutional powers in the Senate.
But in the "far" (for a country with no history) past , a seat opened in 1846 took more than 800 days to be filled (Baldwin died, Grier eventually got the seat).
I dislike all "normies" if you mean by them unwritten unenforceable behavioral rules people "should" commit to, but aren't actually forced to.
I repeatedly stated rules should presume moral monsters occupy seats and take that I to consideration when writing ANY procedural rule.
I am Italian, "fatta la legge trovato l' inganno" (the Moment you write a law we find the exploit) , if you don't presume the most bad faith possible by all actors at all stages you aren't writing rules correctly.
Your whole argument though rests on it being a “rape” and “client gift”, why would it matter that it was done through the executive instead of the legislature? If the executive did have the power to do it, would you suddenly be in favor of it?
I’m trying to understand because I could get wanting to have a process to pass laws, but I don’t understand saying that the Supreme Court should be “right wing” to “stop leftist evils” while also wanting to politicize things like the justice department, the
If it is done with the legislature as the constitution allows, it's still a disgusting gift to your clientes but it isn't a rape of the constitution.
It's a monstrosity (for me) which is fully legal, like state vaccine mandates are, or federal conscription is.
Something you fight at the voting booth not in tribunals.
Which means you can do it and still be part of the same society. We will disagree but the common rules we decided apply to our polity are being followed.
I can only hope rules will make it impossible in the future to do that, to that extent, but until they don't elected representatives have a right if not a duty to exploit rules to their advantage.
But not to attempt to rape the constitution, no.
Executive power should he diminished a lot BUT being fully partisan and political so you can VOTE IT OUT if you dislike it.
The "bipartisan" things you think of, you want stuff to be fully unmodifiable, you want a lot of things to be out of the control of the people.
I don't because the American people are the best (IE the most libertarian leaning) of all
Republicans don't intend to pack the court, that requires removing the filibuster which they explicitly told you yet again they don't intend to do.
Democrats are the only ones who want to pack the court as they already did in the past. They can't accept any limit to power. They are inherently totalitarian.
Dems absolutely dont want o pack the courts or really do anything. I am saying their supporters should demand it.
Dems absolutely dont want o pack the courts or really do anything. I am saying their supporters should demand it.
You are wrong, Dems desperately want to do that, but they never had 51 actual democrats in the Senate (not in the last decades), and the few normal people they had in the caucus refused to bend to the violent totalitarian request
Super delegates... lol, Democrats are so many sheep
In the (recent) past parties didn't internalize positions incompatible with the idea of America the other party had.
They do today: republicans and democrats fundamentally disagree on core value issues in ways that make it impossible to believe the other party is anything but your actual, direct enemy.
So the Senate correctly consented to appointments. At some times it did so too routinely without a fight, which isn't good at all. Democrats opposing Kavanaugh had good reasons to do so, I will neve
Wait that's a completely, completely different situation. The reason why they wouldn't accept his nominations is because he was the first VP to ascend into the presidency after the president he succeeded died less than 40 days into his term. In addition, Henry Clay was working behind the scenes to cause Tyler as many problems as possible due to huge disagreements within the whig party, which was barely holding it together at the time (they famously didn't even run on a platform in the Harrison/Tyler ticket). Furthermore, he selected controversial appointments as well. He actually was able to get a nomination onto the court towards the end of his presidency by choosing someone very uncontroversial, sort of like what Obama tried to do when he nominated Garland for Supreme Court.
I'm not saying the Senate should have no say over Supreme Court picks, but the reasons for disqualification should be obvious. I even understand why Kavanaugh and Thomas were ultimately pushed through even if I think they should have been caught in vetting, because the allegations against them weren't clearly substantiated, and ultimately their judicial bonafides were enough to say that they were a good enough nomination.
Personally I agree that we need a constitutional amendment in order to change the nomination process. Every president should be given one appointment every 2 years or so with a 16 year term per justice. That way it's not some sword hanging over everyone's head. The original design was to make sure that the Supreme Court was not political, so that's why we had lifetime appointments, but it seems like it has actually had the opposite effect.
I dislike all "normies" if you mean by them unwritten unenforceable behavioral rules people "should" commit to, but aren't actually forced to.
I repeatedly stated rules should presume moral monsters occupy seats and take that I to consideration when writing ANY procedural rule.
I am Italian, "fatta la legge trovato l' inganno" (the Moment you write a law we find the exploit) , if you don't presume the most bad faith possible by all actors at all stages you aren't writing rules correctly.
I don't know why you won't address your support of the "sacred" filibuster despite being asked directly multiple times, but I will put it to you again: if you think this way, why do you support the filibuster as "sacred" even though it is a norm?
You are wrong, Dems desperately want to do that, but they never had 51 actual democrats in the Senate (not in the last decades), and the few normal people they had in the caucus refused to bend to the violent totalitarian request
How would it be violent and totalitarian to pack the court? That's just stupid.
