As if the political stakes embedded in this election weren’t already high enough: nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/r … e=Homepage
And those fuckers got another conservative already lined up and ready to put in there.
Y’all know what this means: with the loss of Notorious RBG, all gays are going back to hell and all women back to the kitchen.
What about Pandora’s box , whatever taken out cannot be put back?
(come hell or high water)
Does it?
Again, a work in progress, hopefully somewhat clarified come this November
Now this from and an inside the beltway conservative, Joe Scarborough, at the Washington Post:
[b]'Masha Gessen observed in “Surviving Autocracy” that Americans have always granted incoming presidents a presumption of good faith because, until Trump, “no political actor sought to destroy American government and political systems.” If that conclusion seems as overwrought as the claims cited above against Obama, Bush and Clinton, consider what Trump has offered up publicly: that Article II of the Constitution gives him unlimited power; that he trusts Vladimir Putin’s word more than that of the U.S. intelligence community; that the transcript of his call to a foreign leader was “perfect” even though it proved he was blackmailing a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival; and, of course, that U.S. military leaders were “losers” and “pussies.”
'Americans should heed poet Maya Angelou’s warning that when someone tells you who they are, you should believe them the first time. Over the past four years, Trump has told the world that he loathes constitutional limits and will do anything to maintain power — whether that means accepting political help from foreign countries or attacking America’s democratic process as “rigged.”
‘We know the storm is coming. The question is whether we will be prepared for America’s next cataclysmic event.’[/b]
There’s still a big chunk of me convinced that, one way or another, “the center will hold”. It’s just getting smaller everyday.
A reminder of what is at stake in this election for both liberals and conservatives. So, sure, if rigging the election is what it takes to pivot the country left or right, a nihilist such as myself might say, “go for it”.
nytimes.com/2020/09/20/opin … e=Homepage
‘The death of the iconic Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has shocked the political world, altered the contours of the upcoming election and induced an overwhelming dread among liberals who fear some basic rights could now be in jeopardy.’
And this…
[b]'This is all about power for a group of people who feel their grip on power slipping away.
'They are trying to reshape the courts for a generation, if not longer, so that as their numerical advantage slips away, their power imbalance will have already been enshrined. As America becomes less religious and less white, more galvanized to fight climate change, more open to legalizing marijuana and more aware of systemic racism, the religious conservative spine of the Republican Party is desperate for a way to save a way of life that may soon be rendered a relic.
'According to the Pew Research Center, 78 percent of white evangelical voters are Republicans or lean Republican. So are 62 percent of white men without a college degree, 60 percent of rural southerners and 57 percent of people who attend religious services weekly.
'Many of those demographics are under threat. The United States will be majority-minority by 2045 and by 2060 there will be nearly as many Hispanic children in the country as white ones.
‘At the same time, the percentage of Americans who are not affiliated with a religion keeps rising — up 9 percentage points since 2009, to 26 percent in 2019 — and the percentage of people identifying as Christians keeps falling — down 12 percentage points, to 65 percent over the same decade, according to another report from Pew.’[/b]
“One of us” versus “one of them” may well be construed as an existential contraption rooted in dasein, but that doesn’t change the actual reality of political economy and the role it plays in the lives of all of us.
The name of the game is power. And the Republicans seem clearly more aware of that when it comes to “rigging” things.
How about this: to pack or not to pack?
washingtonpost.com/opinions … reject-it/
‘Democrats are understandably furious and fearful over the likelihood that President Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate will replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative. That does not justify packing the Supreme Court with progressives in retaliation.’
On the contrary, some will insist, if it’s all about power in the end, and packing it enables you to pursue your own policy goals through the courts, then this particular end justifies this particular means.
Only you have to be willing to admit that it can work for the other side too.
Then this part:
‘The judicial branch’s primary virtue, and the reason it is a separate branch of government, is that it’s nonpolitical. The separation of powers preserves liberty because it prevents those who make the laws from applying them. Independence of the judiciary is perhaps the single most crucial innovation of modern liberal democracies. Virtually all tyrannies insist that judicial power be subject to the will of the government because they know that tyrannical power ultimately rests on force, and that means killing, suppressing or imprisoning their enemies.’
Again, for some, this is straight out of a hopelessly idealistic high school civics text. As though it’s just purely a coincidence that conservative Supreme Court Justices interpret the law in sync with their political prejudices while liberal justices do the same. As though we actually could choose the equivalent of philosopher-kings here.
So, sure, if your own political prejudices are liberal and Trump gets his 6 to 3 conservative Supreme Court, then, if, in turn, Biden wins the White House and Democrats take the Senate, pack the damn thing.
Well, providing we escape “the coup”.
Pick the scenario most to your liking:
1]
politico.com/news/2020/09/2 … fer-421025
[b]'Congressional Republicans say that if President Donald Trump loses the election there will be a peaceful transition. But they’re not explaining how, even as the president threatens to upend the constitutional order.
'While Republicans gently pushed back Thursday against Trump’s refusal this week to commit to a peaceful transition of power, most declined to say what they would do if the president refuses to leave office, dismissing it as a hypothetical situation.
'But Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a vocal critic of the president, said he has faith his Republican colleagues will step up if they need to.
'"There’s no question … that all the people who had sworn to support the Constitution would assure that there would be a peaceful transition of power, including the president,” Romney said.
‘Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) added that his party would not stand idly by if Trump tried to stay in office after losing: “Republicans believe in the rule of law and we believe in the Constitution. And that’s what dictates our election process.”’[/b] **
** But the GOP isn’t saying what they’ll do if the president resists leaving office.
2]
nytimes.com/live/2020/09/24 … e=Homepage
[b]'A day after President Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power drew rebukes from Democrats, nervous distancing from Republicans and attempts at reassurance from the White House, Mr. Trump weighed in again Thursday and said that he was not sure the November election could be “honest” because mail-in ballots are “a whole big scam.”
'“We want to make sure that the election is honest and I’m not sure that it can be,” Mr. Trump told reporters before leaving the White House for North Carolina.
'Mr. Trump was responding to a reporter’s question about whether he would consider the November election results legitimate only if he wins.
'Instead of repeating his press secretary’s assurance earlier in the day that he would accept the results of a “free and fair” election, Mr. Trump instead launched into his latest complaint about mail-in ballots, which he has repeatedly asserted without evidence are likely to be tainted by widespread fraud, and suggested that the election will not, in fact, be fairly decided.
'“So, we have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots — you know, that’s a whole big scam,” Mr. Trump said, citing what he said were news reports about ballots found “in a river” and a trash can.[/b]
For me though the bottom line is still this: If Trump loses the election and refuses to leave office, who in the government is charged with removing him anyway? And what if they refuse to?
Will it now even make a difference, to you’re current political climes?
If it doesn’t or can’t, then what will? free money and diet sodas…?
MagsJsaid, :
“Will it now even make a difference, to you’re current political climes?”
Most or nearly all of it has been factored in, what’s left is the unpredictability of Trump, of a genius that on the last. call , may become unmanageable.
The first Trump/Biden debate is Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 9:00 PM EDT
Does anyone doubt that Chris Wallace will bring up the question of a “rigged election” in November?
And will or will not Trump be confronted with his threat to stay in the White House unless and until he is satisfied with the election results?
Finally, will the question of who in the government is responsible for removing him from office should he lose the election but refuse to leave on January 20th, be broached and put to rest?
I’ll try remember to watch the debate on the 29th…
Paul Krugman in the NYT
[b]'So now we have a deeply indebted business owner with every incentive to engage in malfeasance — except that in addition to running his business, he’s running the United States of America.
'But he may be about to lose that special position, and whatever financial defense it may provide.
‘Think about that. Also think about the fact that Trump constantly complains about almost nonexistent voter fraud — he has never accepted the fact that he lost the popular vote four years ago — and that he has repeatedly refused to say that he will accept election results if he loses. And tell me that you aren’t terrified about what the next few weeks may hold.’[/b]
Terrified? Is that still the wrong word?
On the other hand, all the more reason for Chris Wallace to confront Trump if he tries to wiggle around responding to this concern in tonight’s debate.
And how about Biden? Where would he draw the line if things don’t go his way in November?
Veronica Quaife: “Be afraid. Be very afraid”.
Or, to put it another way:
nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/p … e=Homepage
Wow, this may well become a “real thing”.
Too bad I’m still basically too “fractured and fragmented” to take sides.
Objectively as it were.
Still, what isn’t clear to me is how those in the government responsible for assuring a smooth transition from one president to another will react to something like this from Trump. For me, it’s not what he does so much as what he can get away with.
Unless, and think twice about this, unless there is more to this than the theatrics of a failed comedian trying to wield a straight poker face!
The most surreal rigged election of them all?
nytimes.com/2020/10/02/opin … e=Homepage
[b]'It’s a measure of the cynicism that has infected American politics — and, yes, me — that among my initial reactions to the news that President Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus was: Are we sure? Can we trust that? A man who so frequently and flamboyantly plays the victim, and who has been prophylactically compiling ways to explain away or dispute a projected loss to Joe Biden, is now being forced off the campaign trail, which will be a monster of an excuse.
'I couldn’t help thinking that, and I soon realized that I was in robust company. On Twitter, on television and everywhere else I turned, doubters noted that Trump had once already suggested that the election be postponed: Was this a fresh tactic along those lines? He had just turned in a repellent performance in the first presidential debate: Was he wriggling out of the second and third debates?
‘At another time, under a different president, these questions would be callous. At this time, under this president, they were sadly and perfectly understandable.’[/b]
With Trump, absolutely nothing can be ruled out.
Right?
I’m going to raise 4 bullet points that makes it credible that trump is faking it:
-
he doesn’t have to debate joe anymore (even though it can be done on zoom)
-
hypothetical sympathy for a psychopath
-
he’ll emerge in perfect health to prove that coronavirus is a hoax
-
for the evangelicals (and anarchists and white supremacists) it will be obvious to them that he is gods chosen one
Let’s be optimistic:
nytimes.com/2020/10/10/opin … e=Homepage
‘Three weeks from now, we will reach an end to speculation about what Donald Trump will do if he faces political defeat, whether he will leave power like a normal president or attempt some wild resistance. Reality will intrude, substantially if not definitively, into the argument over whether the president is a corrupt incompetent who postures as a strongman on Twitter or a threat to the Republic to whom words like “authoritarian” and even “autocrat” can be reasonably applied.’
Just 25 days to go!
[b]'Across the last four years, the Trump administration has indeed displayed hallmarks of authoritarianism. It features egregious internal sycophancy and hacks in high positions, abusive presidential rhetoric and mendacity on an unusual scale. The president’s attempts to delegitimize the 2020 vote aren’t novel; they’re an extension of the way he’s talked since his birther days, paranoid and demagogic.
'These are all very bad things, and good reasons to favor his defeat. But it’s also important to recognize all the elements of authoritarianism he lacks. He lacks popularity and political skill, unlike most of the global strongmen who are supposed to be his peers. He lacks power over the media: Outside of Fox’s prime time, he faces an unremittingly hostile press whose major outlets have thrived throughout his presidency. He is plainly despised by his own military leadership, and notwithstanding his courtship of Mark Zuckerberg, Silicon Valley is more likely to censor him than to support him in a constitutional crisis.
‘His own Supreme Court appointees have already ruled against him; his attempts to turn his voter-fraud hype into litigation have been repeatedly defeated in the courts; he has been constantly at war with his own C.I.A. and F.B.I. And there is no mass movement behind him: The threat of far-right violence is certainly real, but America’s streets belong to the anti-Trump left.’[/b]
So, how comforting is this?