Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DShomshak said:

The Constitution guarantees the right to vote. It does not guaranteed that votes matter.

 

I actually find a rather charming naivete in Republican attempts to "fix" the 2024 election. They don't realize how easy it is. With their atempts to block voters (other than their own), rig the counting, and overturn results "in case of fraud," they are still trying to preserve an illusion of democracy. And they don't need to! Article II says that state legislatures choose the manner of appointing electors; and it and Amendment XII go into some detail about the rigmarole of the electors' voting. Nowhere is the voting public mentioned. There would thus seem to be no Constitutional impediment to a state legislature arrogating to itself the power to appoint electors directly, without need for any votes cast by the public. (The  public already voted, in a sense, by electing the legislature, right?) Or even just say, "The electoral votes go to the Republican candidate."

 

Any sane court would overturn such laws in a heartbeat, saying that the right to vote implies that the votes matter. But a strict constructionist could argue that unless the Constitution specifically enjoins or forbids something, government can do whatever it wants. And a sufficiently partisan court can say the Constitution means anything at all.

 

Well, that's terrifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

Well, that's terrifying.

 

The states have always been allowed to decide on their own.  That's why it's so scary;  unless a state is PARTICULARLY stupid in how they write the laws, it WILL pass muster.  At least with this Supreme Court.

 

Heck, His Orangeness was demanding the states ignore the popular vote...since it was so clearly WRONG...in several states last time around.

 

We'll have a lot better idea in 10 months.  If the Dems lose both Senate and House, which seems all too likely, then the only difference your voite might make is the degree to which the Trump arm has to coerce the result to their benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

Well, that's terrifying.

Think the unthinkable before your enemies do. It's your only hope to forestall them.

 

I  don't see how, in this case, but other people are smarter than me. I just hope some of those smarter people are in the Biden administration and in Congress.

 

Dean ShomshK

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Think the unthinkable before your enemies do. It's your only hope to forestall them.

 

I  don't see how, in this case, but other people are smarter than me. I just hope some of those smarter people are in the Biden administration and in Congress.

 

Dean ShomshK

 

 

Almost certainly impossible to do anything through Congress...and even harder, if possible, to do something before the fact.  Interesting, short article here:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/contested_elections/election_laws.htm

 

It's plausible that some states will write their laws to rise to these levels, but I really doubt they will.  Most of what I've heard is more subtle;  they're not targeting groups of people per se, they're trying to lower the turnout indirectly.  They can argue "it affects everyone equally so it's not discriminatory."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just STFU. You're embarrassing yourself. 

 

Capitol rioter compares attacks on her to treatment of ‘Jews in Germany’

 

You're not the victim here, Ms. Ryan. You committed a crime, livestreamed on social media, and that's why you're going to jail. Grow up and take some responsibility. And for the love of all that is good and holy, stop trying to turn your 'persecution' into profit.

 

Jackass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Just STFU. You're embarrassing yourself. 

 

Capitol rioter compares attacks on her to treatment of ‘Jews in Germany’

 

You're not the victim here, Ms. Ryan. You committed a crime, livestreamed on social media, and that's why you're going to jail. Grow up and take some responsibility. And for the love of all that is good and holy, stop trying to turn your 'persecution' into profit.

 

Jackass.

 

Given how little of my ancestry survived Germany, I quite dislike these people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pariah said:

Just STFU. You're embarrassing yourself. 

 

Capitol rioter compares attacks on her to treatment of ‘Jews in Germany’

 

You're not the victim here, Ms. Ryan. You committed a crime, livestreamed on social media, and that's why you're going to jail. Grow up and take some responsibility. And for the love of all that is good and holy, stop trying to turn your 'persecution' into profit.

 

Jackass.

 

It is better to seem foolish by remaining silent than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

It's a given, tho, that she's just pushing the usual buttons her side loves to push.  Truth and reality are...fluid to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BarretWallace said:

To paraphrase one of my favorite TV characters, the only fluid I see is a puddle of p*ss trying to be relevant.

 

I was thinking this exact thing. Well played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A problem Beau didn't mention:  the major differences in the approaches to health care.  How would Americans access the Canadian health care system?  it's publicly funded, not privately funded.  Largely by definition, any Canadian treatment would be considered "out of network" and thus, if covered at all by American insurance companies, coverage would be far more limited.

 

Also, securing the border?  The US-Canadian border is WIDE open from the Great Lakes to the Pacific, perhaps with some natural challenges from the Coast Range and the Rockies.  There are no natural obstacles whatsoever, for most of it.  And it's over 1000 miles long, from the eastern edge of the Rockies, to the Lakes.  The resources would most likely go into the eastern part...Ontario and Quebec.  The St. Lawrence can help form that line...you can build up first-stage processing facilities on Canadian soil, south of the St. Lawrence, but north of the tip of upstate New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  Not sure you could handle *that* large of an influx, tho, in that small an area.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mere five years ago, if anyone even dreamed of a scenario like this, it would have been as a joke.

 

Because most of us who come to this website grew up in a time and place of unprecedented stability, we tend to think of that as the natural order of things. But that stability was always a house built on sand, waiting for an earthquake. Now we all have to be the grains of sand, and work together to hold our collective house in place. Sadly, that prospect seems increasingly unlikely before it collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

If this comes to pass, here's to hoping a new "Allied invasion" will aid in the restoration of our nation's sanity and decency.

 

The prospect of invading the fourth largest country with the third highest population, the most powerful military, and the second-biggest nuclear arsenal, in the world, is beyond daunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

The prospect of invading the fourth largest country with the third highest population, the most powerful military, and the second-biggest nuclear arsenal, in the world, is beyond daunting.

 

Well, at that point, it wouldn't be a united front. The theoretical scenario concerns a house divided; some of the then-new divisions would be sympathetic to these allies. I would also add that when something becomes an absolute necessity, the daunting nature of such a task becomes less of a hurdle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mounting an invasion against a country at war with itself is highly likely to ensure it remains divided.  It is a no-win option, IMO.  I'd also point out:  define the circumstances under which such an intervention would be considered "necessary" from the perspective of, say, Canada or western Europe.

 

If anyone intervenes, it would most likely be, IMO, to establish and protect refugee safe zones.  I don't see even Russia or China moving against US soil;  I could see both of them supporting as many factions as possible, in order to maximize fragmentation, and while that's happening, move to grow their sphere, closer to home.  The breakaway republics for Russia;  for China, solidifying the hold on Taiwan and Hong Kong, and moving on the Philippines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a strange dichotomy: the US could potentially experience a disastrous collapse (we're talking "end of an empire" era, here) yet it will forever be strong enough to resist any invasion? Which is it?

 

  

16 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I'd also point out:  define the circumstances under which such an intervention would be considered "necessary" from the perspective of, say, Canada or western Europe.

 

For starters, when the global economy is threatened. Nothing motivates altruism like self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...