06-21-2022, 09:41 PM
Sorry, I answer bottom to top for a change, I feel it gives my reply some clearer theme.
OK, good. It was this part I was focused on in the first place. I might just as well have called this thread "Does the US constitution effectively protect against an usurpor" and my answer has to be a resounding no at this point. The alternate elector trope might just work, for example, or loyal state secretaries; when there's clear intention, there's a way, and Trump has clear intentions. In short, get rid of those elections, rule as patron saint.
So nope, I did not talk about the filibuster or whether Dems or GOP talked more extensively about this or other measures and who scores higher on the misconduct scale. I get why in the end such debates always end up being a comparison of two parties and their real or alleged bad intentions; and of course I do it too, eg by believing that only one party has the potential to be supportive of a quasi dictatorship in a one-party system and it's the GOP. Dems, not so much.
Yeah. I hope this is not offensive to every American, but I find it extremely odd how this argument of the framer's intention gets so overused. These people did a marvellous job, no doubt about it, but they set their frameworks over 200 years ago, clearly not even thinking about 50 states or any situation that resembles today's circumstances. What they intended is not all that relevant any more, can't be, at least it holds no particular value to me. Which is no offense to Jefferson or anyone else.
And looking at the constitution as is, and your whole system of democracy that stems from it, imho there are clear and severe mistakes in there. A two-party system - as an inevitable result of the election system - is inherently toxic and lays the groundwork for an everlasting battle that either can go on for all vile eternity or has to end in the destruction of the enemy party (or a civil war, it's not like that never happened). And I wager this is how many people feel now.
And secondly and maybe even more importantly, the framework of your constitution is far from a fail-proof protection of democracy. Trump was and is testing these waters and the test results are frightening, imho. Now while I do not believe that Trump will actually become dictator - he is too old and honestly too moronic to pull it off - the path to me is clear. One loyal party, that's it, than you can do anything as president and there's no remedy - aside of civil war, of course. The necessary majorities are just a matter of time, your party comes into power regularly no matter what. I just look at the bunch of morons (not all of them, but so very many) that run for the GOP this fall, and yet victory is a certainty. And then one can pull the lever, alternate electors or any other shenanigans. And if the SC makes problems, just expand it (no filibuster needed, but even if) and put Judge Jeanine and other minions in, maybe the Pillow guy, all perfectly fine legally and only breaking "norms", the real basis for your system, norms and customs Trump just doesn't care about. And neither do his voters, and so in the end neither does his party. These things are what my thread was about.
And the filibuster and these instruments being essential, that seems to me to be a faulty fix for a bad initial system. If a simple majority can get rid of it, it can not really be a cornerstone for the opposite idea. It can be under one premise, that all actors are decent people who reliably decide to do the right thing. Then all falls in place maybe, two parties balancing each other out, filibusters as protection, a senate that lets tea cool, presidents that put their country over own ambitions and all that. This imho is another fault of your constitution, its big reliance on good faith actors; and/or on an electorate that will reject all undemocratic ambitions at the voting booth.
I just figure that it is utterly unimportant what potentially sinister motives move the Democrats on this issue, and you mentioning it so prominently time and again bewilders me a bit. The point you make could always be made anyways, I could also speculate that the GOP would just most likely mirror that bad Democratic behaviour in the end, but all partisanship debates are such a non-factor really. This is just about what's right and fair and in alignment with the most basic democratic values.
Absolutely nothing indeed...! That was my initial question. Only that this is also true if the Dems don't do it first.
And I get your point, but I also get that if you get punched and don't punch back, american voters will perceive you as weak and punish you for it. Something I see as a bit of an US specialty. You think the optics were bad on Garland, I say on the contrary the optics for the GOP were excellent. Imho they lost no vote over it, and they were perceived as the punchers, as strong, as imposing their will, as doers and leaders and whatnot, while Obama looked powerless, like the lame duck he was. I feel McConnell knew exactly what he was doing and why, admittedly also because I think this man is too smart to make miscalculations.
That's why I said I would have had sympathies for a savvy countermove. Not saying it is the right thing to do. In the end it's yet another example of how poor the constitution is suited for these days, the way your SC gets filled that is. It's just a huge mess.
I think it is even more sinister than that really, but I gladly take it as written from you.
I feel if this sentence alone doesn't make all alarm bells ring, one imho needs new alarm bells.
That might be true, and for reason stated I have to hope that. But at a certain point, there's an end to that imho. And the house exemplifies it, if Trump wants loyalists and starts badmouthing those that don't do his will - eg getting rid of the filibuster, accepting fake electors etc - and he has the necessary slice of the electorate behind him, these senators will eventually be replaced or pull a dirty weasel Graham move. And Trump had years of work now and hence is possibly way further in that regard then he was when he became president.
Or not, maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm certain Trump would test it he were president again, more vehemently than last time even. 100% loyalty, that's what he would need from the GOP and that's what he demands at every turn or he will eat you. If he gets it, nothing short of a civil war could stop him to become a quasi dictator. The way I see it.
(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well yes, but I didn't think we were including that in this discussion as the thread is about expanding the SCOTUS. Election integrity, and accepting the results, is of paramount importance. So, if we're including that then simply shift my previously stated order of importance down by one to accommodate it.
OK, good. It was this part I was focused on in the first place. I might just as well have called this thread "Does the US constitution effectively protect against an usurpor" and my answer has to be a resounding no at this point. The alternate elector trope might just work, for example, or loyal state secretaries; when there's clear intention, there's a way, and Trump has clear intentions. In short, get rid of those elections, rule as patron saint.
So nope, I did not talk about the filibuster or whether Dems or GOP talked more extensively about this or other measures and who scores higher on the misconduct scale. I get why in the end such debates always end up being a comparison of two parties and their real or alleged bad intentions; and of course I do it too, eg by believing that only one party has the potential to be supportive of a quasi dictatorship in a one-party system and it's the GOP. Dems, not so much.
(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The House is straight majority rule and the Senate is not by design Yes, there have been some changes and tweaks to that, but that is how the Framers saw the Senate. As Jefferson said, it's the saucer on which the tea can cool, to paraphrase.
Yeah. I hope this is not offensive to every American, but I find it extremely odd how this argument of the framer's intention gets so overused. These people did a marvellous job, no doubt about it, but they set their frameworks over 200 years ago, clearly not even thinking about 50 states or any situation that resembles today's circumstances. What they intended is not all that relevant any more, can't be, at least it holds no particular value to me. Which is no offense to Jefferson or anyone else.
And looking at the constitution as is, and your whole system of democracy that stems from it, imho there are clear and severe mistakes in there. A two-party system - as an inevitable result of the election system - is inherently toxic and lays the groundwork for an everlasting battle that either can go on for all vile eternity or has to end in the destruction of the enemy party (or a civil war, it's not like that never happened). And I wager this is how many people feel now.
And secondly and maybe even more importantly, the framework of your constitution is far from a fail-proof protection of democracy. Trump was and is testing these waters and the test results are frightening, imho. Now while I do not believe that Trump will actually become dictator - he is too old and honestly too moronic to pull it off - the path to me is clear. One loyal party, that's it, than you can do anything as president and there's no remedy - aside of civil war, of course. The necessary majorities are just a matter of time, your party comes into power regularly no matter what. I just look at the bunch of morons (not all of them, but so very many) that run for the GOP this fall, and yet victory is a certainty. And then one can pull the lever, alternate electors or any other shenanigans. And if the SC makes problems, just expand it (no filibuster needed, but even if) and put Judge Jeanine and other minions in, maybe the Pillow guy, all perfectly fine legally and only breaking "norms", the real basis for your system, norms and customs Trump just doesn't care about. And neither do his voters, and so in the end neither does his party. These things are what my thread was about.
And the filibuster and these instruments being essential, that seems to me to be a faulty fix for a bad initial system. If a simple majority can get rid of it, it can not really be a cornerstone for the opposite idea. It can be under one premise, that all actors are decent people who reliably decide to do the right thing. Then all falls in place maybe, two parties balancing each other out, filibusters as protection, a senate that lets tea cool, presidents that put their country over own ambitions and all that. This imho is another fault of your constitution, its big reliance on good faith actors; and/or on an electorate that will reject all undemocratic ambitions at the voting booth.
(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're misinterpreting my position. I'm not opposed to Puerto Rican statehood, nor do I think it's the automatic two Dem Senators that many believe. What I don't like is the obvious motivation and timing behind the push for it. It's a blatant attempt to get more, perceived Dem votes and congress people. Believe that the same people clamoring for it would be howling against it if PR was perceived as heavily GOP.
I just figure that it is utterly unimportant what potentially sinister motives move the Democrats on this issue, and you mentioning it so prominently time and again bewilders me a bit. The point you make could always be made anyways, I could also speculate that the GOP would just most likely mirror that bad Democratic behaviour in the end, but all partisanship debates are such a non-factor really. This is just about what's right and fair and in alignment with the most basic democratic values.
(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but even operating within the rules there are degrees of extreme. Not giving Garland a hearing (which as I've stated was a poor move if for no other reason than the optics. If he really wanted to stall he should have had the hearings and dragged them out until after the election. They could then have voted no on Garland and sat on their thumbs until Trump was inaugurated) potentially flipped one seat. I say potentially because almost everyone thought Clinton was going to win. Packing the court gives you three seats, automatically with no possibility of rejection or failure. That's a light years worth of difference. And, as has been stated previously, what's to stop the GOP from coming in the next time and adding eight more justices of their own? Absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing indeed...! That was my initial question. Only that this is also true if the Dems don't do it first.
And I get your point, but I also get that if you get punched and don't punch back, american voters will perceive you as weak and punish you for it. Something I see as a bit of an US specialty. You think the optics were bad on Garland, I say on the contrary the optics for the GOP were excellent. Imho they lost no vote over it, and they were perceived as the punchers, as strong, as imposing their will, as doers and leaders and whatnot, while Obama looked powerless, like the lame duck he was. I feel McConnell knew exactly what he was doing and why, admittedly also because I think this man is too smart to make miscalculations.
That's why I said I would have had sympathies for a savvy countermove. Not saying it is the right thing to do. In the end it's yet another example of how poor the constitution is suited for these days, the way your SC gets filled that is. It's just a huge mess.
(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I agree that Trump is less than concerned with democratic norms and would probably view himself as the benevolent dictator the country needs.
I think it is even more sinister than that really, but I gladly take it as written from you.
I feel if this sentence alone doesn't make all alarm bells ring, one imho needs new alarm bells.
(06-21-2022, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think there are still plenty of GOP senators who would be against eliminating the filibuster for the exact reason we've been discussing.
That might be true, and for reason stated I have to hope that. But at a certain point, there's an end to that imho. And the house exemplifies it, if Trump wants loyalists and starts badmouthing those that don't do his will - eg getting rid of the filibuster, accepting fake electors etc - and he has the necessary slice of the electorate behind him, these senators will eventually be replaced or pull a dirty weasel Graham move. And Trump had years of work now and hence is possibly way further in that regard then he was when he became president.
Or not, maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm certain Trump would test it he were president again, more vehemently than last time even. 100% loyalty, that's what he would need from the GOP and that's what he demands at every turn or he will eat you. If he gets it, nothing short of a civil war could stop him to become a quasi dictator. The way I see it.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
