TUFKAK Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 57 minutes ago, Nokra said: I'm with @Reputator on this. I'm not trying to call you (TUFKAK) or anybody out in particular on this; I've just noticed a lot of cynicism, both here and online in general. I think it's far easier to just say "oh we're fucked" because then we don't have to do anything. If things are already decided, what's the point in struggling against something we don't like? But nothing is decided yet and, whether anyone wants to call me naive or an eternal optimist or a fool, I don't think it is ever too late to do what's right. Even if it doesn't fix things entirely, if it makes things better, it's worth it. They’ve spent years disenfranchising voters in districts across the nation, and in particular swing states. They don’t need to make up 7 million votes, they need to make up 80k votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 10 hours ago, Jason said: It's good and correct to say that people who lead a violent insurrection to overthrow the government shouldn't be listed on the ballot. And the ability to do so could be easily abused with little to no recourse. You want to give Republicans that kind of power? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 7 hours ago, Reputator said: Well it's getting old. Well, my birthday was recently, so so am I! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 2 hours ago, Chris- said: And the ability to do so could be easily abused with little to no recourse. You want to give Republicans that kind of power? Imagine still thinking this ruling will stop Republicans from kicking Democrats off ballots for made up reasons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 33 minutes ago, Jason said: Imagine still thinking this ruling will stop Republicans from kicking Democrats off ballots for made up reasons. And ruling to the contrary would do nothing to meaningfully prevent Trump from potentially winning, so how is making it easier for the GOP a worthwhile give and take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 47 minutes ago, Jason said: Imagine still thinking this ruling will stop Republicans from kicking Democrats off ballots for made up reasons. Yes, actually. Their entire playbook is “dems do one thing, then republicans do a similar action but in bad faith, turned up to 11, then blame the dems for why they did the thing” in order to “work the refs” (the “both sides” media and public opinion). Without something to point to in order to muddy the waters, their ideas fall flat outside of the right wing echo chamber. but while the ruling is correct politically, it is dead wrong on the history and legality. It’s also another apparent case of Chief Justice “Balls and Strikes” doing some Horse trading in order to secure unanimity. In exchange for what I don’t know. I would hope it was this in exchange for an immunity ruling that closes the door on what Trump is asking for (but was purchased with a delay to placate Alito and Thomas on trumps behalf) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 44 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Yes, actually. Their entire playbook is “dems do one thing, then republicans do a similar action but in bad faith, turned up to 11, then blame the dems for why they did the thing” in order to “work the refs” (the “both sides” media and public opinion). Without something to point to in order to muddy the waters, their ideas fall flat outside of the right wing echo chamber. but while the ruling is correct politically, it is dead wrong on the history and legality. It’s also another apparent case of Chief Justice “Balls and Strikes” doing some Horse trading in order to secure unanimity. In exchange for what I don’t know. I would hope it was this in exchange for an immunity ruling that closes the door on what Trump is asking for (but was purchased with a delay to placate Alito and Thomas on trumps behalf) Even if you somehow think Republicans will only try stuff after Democrats have been allowed to do it, I don't see why you'd think the Republicans won't take the attempt, even though shot down, as permission for why they now have to do it in retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 24 minutes ago, Jason said: Even if you somehow think Republicans will only try stuff after Democrats have been allowed to do it, I don't see why you'd think the Republicans won't take the attempt, even though shot down, as permission for why they now have to do it in retaliation. Because now the question is resolved with regard to the insurrection clause: states can’t do it, only congress can give enabling legislation in order to allow states to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Because now the question is resolved with regard to the insurrection clause: states can’t do it, only congress can give enabling legislation in order to allow states to do so. "Weird literally every single one of your submitted signatures are valid, better luck next time." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 minutes ago, Jason said: "Weird literally every single one of your submitted signatures are valid, better luck next time." Do you honestly think a ruling in favor of Colorado would benefit Democrats in the long run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 7 minutes ago, Chris- said: Do you honestly think a ruling in favor of Colorado would benefit Democrats in the long run? I'm not sure how much it would have ultimately helped, but I think it's pretty obviously naive to think the ruling against Colorado will prevent Republicans from pursuing in-kind retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 Plus Republican states have already flouted Supreme Court rulings so it's pretty silly to think they wouldn't do so again. Doesn't even matter if they ultimately get smacked down for it since the smackdown wouldn't come before this November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 minute ago, Jason said: I'm not sure how much it would have ultimately helped, but I think it's pretty obviously naive to think the ruling against Colorado will prevent Republicans from pursuing in-kind retaliation. No one said it would be preventative, and I think it is far more naive to give bad faith actors even more leverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 Just now, Chris- said: No one said it would be preventative, and I think it is far more naive to give bad faith actors even more leverage. We already know that the Republicans will just make shit up if you don't give them anything substantive. It's supreme naivete to think Democrats playing by the rules will have any salient impact whatsoever on what Republicans do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Ultimately there’s nothing going to stop them if that’s the kind of scorched earth bad faith acting that you’re supposing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Maddening New Poll: Voters Are Unaware of Trump “Dictator” Threats NEWREPUBLIC.COM A small percentage of voters surveyed are familiar with Trump’s most overt authoritarian outbursts. That’s frightening. But it’s also an opportunity. Seems to be a good place to start for the Dems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Vic20 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Sigh, no it isn't an opportunity. By all means try to get that message out there as hard as you can dems, but right wing media does a fine job pointing their morons exactly where they want them to look. "Our guy" would never do that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Jason said: We already know that the Republicans will just make shit up if you don't give them anything substantive. It's supreme naivete to think Democrats playing by the rules will have any salient impact whatsoever on what Republicans do. You can't even articulate if a ruling for Colorado would have been good for Democrats, so how can you say its naive to point out that it's bad to give them an even easier path? Again, no one said Democrats 'playing by the rules' will prevent Republicans from doing what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Jason said: Even if you somehow think Republicans will only try stuff after Democrats have been allowed to do it, I don't see why you'd think the Republicans won't take the attempt, even though shot down, as permission for why they now have to do it in retaliation. And how does making it even easier for them to do so help in any way whatsoever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblfilms Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 One of the things I sometimes think people miss is that the level of crazy in politics is multiplied each level down you go from the top. If you think federal congressional Republican Party members are dangerous, the average used-car-lot-owning state rep is significantly worse in every way. SCOTUS reserving the power to determine ballot access on these particular grounds to the federal legislature and away from state level decision makers is a good thing, even if you think in this particular case that the candidate should be barred from the ballot. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 12 minutes ago, sblfilms said: One of the things I sometimes think people miss is that the level of crazy in politics is multiplied each level down you go from the top. If you think federal congressional Republican Party members are dangerous, the average used-car-lot-owning state rep is significantly worse in every way. SCOTUS reserving the power to determine ballot access on these particular grounds to the federal legislature and away from state level decision makers is a good thing, even if you think in this particular case that the candidate should be barred from the ballot. Ideally, the running of federal elections should be done by the federal government, and states should have no place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signifyin(g)Monkey Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 I think the case against the realpolitik "They're gonna do it to us anyway so we might as well do it to them" argument rests less on the idea that 'playing by the rules' will prevent Republicans from trying to pull 'dirty tricks' than on the idea that it will radicalize the party (and thence its 'dirty tricks) a bit less. Or at least a bit slower. (IMO, in the current news environment, it's going to continue to radicalize regardless, the question is how quickly and at what scale) The problem is you're playing a game of escalation against an opponent who has way less scruples than you. Trying to out-escalate them won't work when there are lines they are willing to cross that you aren't. You can't win a shouting match with your crazy schizophrenic uncle--you have to try and just pacify him instead, so that he'll still be insane, but not insane enough to fly into a blind rage and beat you to death. And I just feel like this quickly gets us into batshit crazy territory like every red state passing laws that bar anyone who supports a women's choice to have an abortion from being on their primary ballot, making it functionally impossible for the Dems to win an election, or something along those lines. Stuff that risks pushing us into some kind of Bosnian War-type situation. (To be clear, though, yes, I'd say he's probably guilty of insurrection) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.