United States Politics Thread 47

[jcb]

I'm now seeing talk that Trump's plan is to have Maduro, as part of a plea deal, "confess" to having manipulated the 2020 elections, use that to justify declaring a state of emergency, and use that to justify taking over the elections and making sure the GOP "wins". Not that I want to sound like malloc, but I'd really like to know how to stop this.

Why not just be simpler about it, and suggest that Trump could go to Congress tomorrow, shoot machine guns until everyone is dead, and appoint himself Dictator for Life? That would be bad. Can anyone prove that he won't do that?

For what it's worth, on the day that Trump won the 2024 election, I thought that it's going to come down to whether the military will support him when he inevitably tries to stay in power past his term (as he did the first time), and I still believe so.

[Richard W]

*US Voter Rolls and Records *
I am confused as to how what China has obtained (c. 220 million records) and what various Democratic-controlled states have refused to hand to the Department of Justice (DoJ). On the one hand, people are saying that the data is publicly available (sometimes at a price), and on the other, the DoJ seems to be requesting the data rather than obtaining it like anyone else.

Some of the data alleged to be included seems to be email addresses, which does surprise me; perhaps the spam filter industry needs support.

One possibility is that some individual entries are withheld, which for example can be done in the UK if one can make the case that one's address should not be published, e.g. lest one be attacked in one's home by one's enemies. Now, in the UK, voter registration is (or was) mandatory for adult non-foreigners (possibly excluding peers of the realm) and EEA citizens, so this example might not be at all relevant.

(In UK law, Commonwealth and Irish citizens are not foreigners.)

[Torco]

For what it's worth, on the day that Trump won the 2024 election, I thought that it's going to come down to whether the military will support him when he inevitably tries to stay in power past his term (as he did the first time), and I still believe so.

i think you're right on the second account. the first is in a way always true [biden couldn't have ruled either if the military had been gone "nope"], but i dont think it's certain that it'll come to shots. though not definitely going to happen, it also seems possible that the entire state apparatus will just fold and accept it. in this scenario, sure, the military supported him in the sense of didn't stop it, but only in the same sense any politician rules with the officer's sayso.

[Travis B.]

Of cpurse a much more likely scenario here is that Trump will adopt a Medvedev-like strategy and have someone else (e.g. Vance) run who he can control, to maintain power while avoiding the likelihood of the Supreme Court ruling that he can't run a third time.

[jcb]

For what it's worth, on the day that Trump won the 2024 election, I thought that it's going to come down to whether the military will support him when he inevitably tries to stay in power past his term (as he did the first time), and I still believe so.

i think you're right on the second account. the first is in a way always true [biden couldn't have ruled either if the military had been gone "nope"], but i dont think it's certain that it'll come to shots. though not definitely going to happen, it also seems possible that the entire state apparatus will just fold and accept it. in this scenario, sure, the military supported him in the sense of didn't stop it, but only in the same sense any politician rules with the officer's sayso.

Yes, but the difference in this scenario is that the military would have to decide to not intervene while the constitution is blatantly broken. (Although, some people might say that has already happened after the shenanigans of "Bush v. Gore" in 2000.)

Of cpurse a much more likely scenario here is that Trump will adopt a Medvedev-like strategy and have someone else (e.g. Vance) run who he can control, to maintain power while avoiding the likelihood of the Supreme Court ruling that he can't run a third time.

Trump has too big of an ego to willingly be #2.

[Torco]

Yes, but the difference in this scenario is that the military would have to decide to not intervene while the constitution is blatantly broken. (Although, some people might say that has already happened after the shenanigans of "Bush v. Gore" in 2000.)

sure, but deciding not to do a coup is what militaries do all day every day. not overthrowing the government is a very very very easy decision to make... indeed it makes itself, whereas overthrowing the government (regardless of whether it is legitimate or not) is something that requires jumping through a lot of hoops: you need co-conspirators, people in the media willing to sing your tune, your men actually willing to shoot other soldiers in following your orders, etcetera.

I don't know a lot about high ranking us officers, granted, but they don't seem like the sort of people who will rise up against a right wing government. i'm not adamant on this prediction, and i could be convinced otherwise, but my money is on them sooner joining a right winger than doing a coup against him. don't get me wrong, throughout histories soldiers have often been very involved in anti-establishment politics, but not lately.

[lëtzeshark]

I am confused as to how what China has obtained (c. 220 million records) and what various Democratic-controlled states have refused to hand to the Department of Justice (DoJ). On the one hand, people are saying that the data is publicly available (sometimes at a price), and on the other, the DoJ seems to be requesting the data rather than obtaining it like anyone else.

Some of the data alleged to be included seems to be email addresses, which does surprise me; perhaps the spam filter industry needs support.

One possibility is that some individual entries are withheld, which for example can be done in the UK if one can make the case that one's address should not be published, e.g. lest one be attacked in one's home by one's enemies. Now, in the UK, voter registration is (or was) mandatory for adult non-foreigners (possibly excluding peers of the realm) and EEA citizens, so this example might not be at all relevant.

(In UK law, Commonwealth and Irish citizens are not foreigners.)

I'm not sure what all is exactly on the voter rolls and it may vary from state to state, but in terms of what's publicly available, in my state (North Carolina), the rolls are publicly open: you can search a person's name and get a lot of details (in the case of NC, voting address, ethnicity, date of registration, the history of which elections you've voted in...). Registering on the voter rolls is not compulsory in the US, though some places have semi-automatic procedures for registration when you get a driver's license in that state and if you're eligible to vote (aside: you have to get a new driver's license if you change your state of residence, normally within 30-90 days of the move, and that also means changing your voter registration; normally this doesn't require tests, or at least many of them).

I don't know a lot about high ranking us officers, granted, but they don't seem like the sort of people who will rise up against a right wing government. i'm not adamant on this prediction, and i could be convinced otherwise, but my money is on them sooner joining a right winger than doing a coup against him. don't get me wrong, throughout histories soldiers have often been very involved in anti-establishment politics, but not lately.

My experience as the child of a former US soldier is that most US servicemembers tend to lean right (Republicans were at least traditionally seen as being pro-military and pro-funding the military), but, at least in my father's day, the training they receive is quite extensive in emphasizing that their loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States (and not to any one person) and that they are, in fact, obliged to disobey illegal orders. Now whether or not people are willing to disobey them is a different story... and the current situation with the people in charge of the US also shifts the calculus of whether or not to disobey. (Because if the wind blows a different way...)

The other thing is that if military funding is on the line, then the wind might blow a different direction. And I'm not just talking about pay: the military apparatus and things associated with the Department of Defense are quite expansive in the US.

Trump has too big of an ego to willingly be #2.

Indeed, plus that the Medvedev/Putin situation "worked" because Putin still had a formal role in the government (prime minister). There's some ambiguity about the interaction of the 12^th and 22^nd Amendments, but I would argue that it basically says a president who is term-limited is ineligible to be vice president*, and that means that a term-limited president wouldn't even be able to be elected in a number 2 role: the best would be in the Cabinet. But the issue there is that it's the states who would judge if a candidate is eligible to appear on the ballot, and a disqualification would mean litigation, so...

*Notably, the 22^nd Amendment does not set a term limit on number of years served, but simply a limit on the number of times one can be elected to the office. In theory, a person could serve an unlimited amount of time as president by succeeding to the office from the vice-presidency as long as they are never elected as president.

[Torco]

My experience as the child of a former US soldier is that most US servicemembers tend to lean right (Republicans were at least traditionally seen as being pro-military and pro-funding the military), but, at least in my father's day, the training they receive is quite extensive in emphasizing that their loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States (and not to any one person) and that they are, in fact, obliged to disobey illegal orders. Now whether or not people are willing to disobey them is a different story... and the current situation with the people in charge of the US also shifts the calculus of whether or not to disobey. (Because if the wind blows a different way...)

The other thing is that if military funding is on the line, then the wind might blow a different direction. And I'm not just talking about pay: the military apparatus and things associated with the Department of Defense are quite expansive in the US.

sure, but polarization comes in here. democratoids and republicoids, so to speak, the left and right side of the overton window, tend to inhabit different informational spheres these days, each seeing the other as brainwashed [and they're both probably right]. if you're republican leaning, it's fair to say you'll get a bunch of propaganda about how it is actually the democrats not letting trump run again that are destroying the constitution, or that the constitution doesn't actually say what they say it does, or whatever else. he might get the supreme court's sayso that it is in fact not unconstitutional, because of the threat of communism or whatever else they come up with. and if you're a brainwashed soldier who do you believe? the supreme, or your pinko commie far left stalinist muslim terrorist neighbour?

[malloc]

Horrible news. It looks like the GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act by bundling it with other policies in a new bill. Will people finally acknowledge that I was right this time? Everyone dismissed them as incompetent buffoons and then when we weren't looking, they found a way to checkmate democracy.

[zompist]

Horrible news. It looks like the GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act by bundling it with other policies in a new bill. Will people finally acknowledge that I was right this time? Everyone dismissed them as incompetent buffoons and then when we weren't looking, they found a way to checkmate democracy.

Please cite a reputable news source that the "GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act".

Actual news articles say that the House passed a budget resolution, with the hopes that it can pass the Senate as a reconciliation bill. When you forget an entire half of Congress and don't know what a budget resolution is, stop patting yourself on the back in order to build up your God-Emperor.

[Raphael]

I recently saw a campaign video by Jon Ossoff where, in a section talking about political corruption in the USA, there are three photos of Donald Trump with three different men, presumably sleazy cronies of his. I wonder who these men are. I think I might vaguely remember the second one, though I don't know from where.

First man:

man-number-1.jpg (186.23 KiB) Viewed 7338 times

Second man:

man-number-2.jpg (91.21 KiB) Viewed 7338 times

Third man:

man-number-3.jpg (195.5 KiB) Viewed 7338 times

[Raphael]

Later in the same video, there's talk of other countries paying less for medication than the USA, because they're less in the grip of corrupt pharma interests. This is illustrated by showing flags. But I wonder which flags. The only one I recognize is the Brazilian flag. I don't think I've ever seen any of the others. Are they, perhaps, flags of Brazilian states?

flegs.jpg (225.47 KiB) Viewed 7337 times

[bradrn]

They do appear to be Brazilian states. The one on the left with NEGO is Paraíba, then Rio Grande do Sul, Sergipe, an unclear one (Pernambuco?), Maranhão, another unclear one, Brazil itself and São Paulo.

[Raphael]

They do appear to be Brazilian states. The one on the left with NEGO is Paraíba, then Rio Grande do Sul, Sergipe, an unclear one (Pernambuco?), Maranhão, another unclear one, Brazil itself and São Paulo.

Thank you!

[malloc]

Horrible news. It looks like the GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act by bundling it with other policies in a new bill. Will people finally acknowledge that I was right this time? Everyone dismissed them as incompetent buffoons and then when we weren't looking, they found a way to checkmate democracy.

Please cite a reputable news source that the "GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act".

Actual news articles say that the House passed a budget resolution, with the hopes that it can pass the Senate as a reconciliation bill. When you forget an entire half of Congress and don't know what a budget resolution is, stop patting yourself on the back in order to build up your God-Emperor.

Except that this bill does not have the filibuster standing in its way, which was the only thing impeding the previous bill. That clears the way for it to pass the senate without needing to get rid of the filibuster. It would take a miracle for the bill to fail at this point, like multiple senators suddenly resigning or changing their entire political ideology.

[lëtzeshark]

I recently saw a campaign video by Jon Ossoff where, in a section talking about political corruption in the USA, there are three photos of Donald Trump with three different men, presumably sleazy cronies of his. I wonder who these men are. I think I might vaguely remember the second one, though I don't know from where.

Person #1 (without the necktie) is Nayib Bukele Ortez, president of El Salvador and self-proclaimed "cool dictator".
Person #2 is Javier Milei, president of Argentina and one of the many BFF's of Trump and co.
Person #3 is (I think) Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce.

[Raphael]

I recently saw a campaign video by Jon Ossoff where, in a section talking about political corruption in the USA, there are three photos of Donald Trump with three different men, presumably sleazy cronies of his. I wonder who these men are. I think I might vaguely remember the second one, though I don't know from where.

Person #1 (without the necktie) is Nayib Bukele Ortez, president of El Salvador and self-proclaimed "cool dictator".
Person #2 is Javier Milei, president of Argentina and one of the many BFF's of Trump and co.
Person #3 is (I think) Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce.

Ah, thank you!

[alice]

Horrible news. It looks like the GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act by bundling it with other policies in a new bill. Will people finally acknowledge that I was right this time? Everyone dismissed them as incompetent buffoons and then when we weren't looking, they found a way to checkmate democracy.

Please cite a reputable news source that the "GOP found a way to pass the SAVE act".

Actual news articles say that the House passed a budget resolution, with the hopes that it can pass the Senate as a reconciliation bill. When you forget an entire half of Congress and don't know what a budget resolution is, stop patting yourself on the back in order to build up your God-Emperor.

Except that this bill does not have the filibuster standing in its way, which was the only thing impeding the previous bill. That clears the way for it to pass the senate without needing to get rid of the filibuster. It would take a miracle for the bill to fail at this point, like multiple senators suddenly resigning or changing their entire political ideology.

And then Trump will use his SPESHUL PREZIDENSHUL SOUP-A-POWAHZ to hypnotize the entire electorate into voting Republican so he doesn't have to invoke emergency laws to suspend the midterms. Amirite?

[zompist]

It would take a miracle for the bill to fail at this point,

Fine, that's your opinion, based on pulling it out of your ass.

Here's what Politico is saying, based on reporting on the Senate:

Getting a $95 billion budget blueprint through the House took weeks of arm twisting. Getting it through the Senate may very well be impossible.

[...]Complicating things even further is that, with Sen. Mitch McConnell absent indefinitely for health reasons, Thune can only lose two of his members and still secure the budget blueprint’s adoption, given unified opposition from Democrats. This reality left several Republicans questioning whether the whole effort was DOA before the measure could formally reach the Senate.

Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), in an interview, pointed to McConnell’s absence and the pushback from corners of the conference, adding, “I don’t know whether the votes are [there] for a reconciliation bill in the Senate.”

[malloc]

Here's what Politico is saying, based on reporting on the Senate:

Cornyn does not deny that the bill could pass the senate by any means. He merely says that he doesn't know whether it can pass. That said, I strongly suspect that the GOP senators will pretend to have doubts about the bill initially only to fall in line and vote for it. You cannot assume that they have any principled opposition to restricting voting or rigging elections.

If the Democrats have any sense, they will ignore your brand of optimism and develop countermeasures for when the bill inevitably passes. Presumably they could launch a massive campaign to help married women update their birth certificates or something.

And then Trump will use his SPESHUL PREZIDENSHUL SOUP-A-POWAHZ to hypnotize the entire electorate into voting Republican so he doesn't have to invoke emergency laws to suspend the midterms. Amirite?

Everyone laughs at me for emphasizing the strength and cunning of the MAGA movement, but you cannot deny that they control every branch of government, most state governments, and have democracy in check. It seems difficult to explain that without ascribing some remarkable skill to them.