| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering it's Justin Bieber, I'm reminded of a line from the school election in Community.
"I actually withdraw my candidacy. I fear a political career will shine a negative light on my drug dealing."
Cruz will probably go full Bieber in 2020.
At no point since 1788 have the elections been delayed. Not even the Civil War got in the way of elections.
Now, if he wins, that begs the giant question of why.
Trump and Clinton seem to be currently polling very closely. Don't dismiss his campaign as presently being unlikely to win...
I do question his ability to get the extreme things done. Heck, I seriously question his ability to get anything done, although currently executive orders can do enough damage as it is.
On the upside, abusing executive orders might finally be what it takes to get Congress off their butts and rescind the power they've let slide to the Oval Office out of fear these past couple of decades or so.
Hopefully, Congress will be chomping at the bit to impeach him at the first stupid act he takes. Party loyalty this go 'round is nowhere nearly as strong as it has been.
Trump could get a Muslim ban passed, if it's up to the Republicans.
Possibly, but only if he can pack the Supreme Court, first, since that's a pretty blatant violation of the First Amendment. And he doesn't control the Supreme Court.
It's not even clear that he can get the Muslim ban passed, if there are enough Democrats in the Senate. I suppose the first order of business might be eliminating filibusters, which would mean he would need "only" a 51/49 majority in the Senate. But given the lack of support that he has among Republican Senators -- how many Republican senators were willing to speak at the convention? And how many of them actually endorsed him? -- I'm not sure I see him putting together enough votes for that.
He doesn't control the Supreme Court. He doesn't control the Senate. He doesn't control the House of Representatives. He couldn't even control his own nominating convention. Who's going to take the Enabling Bill and nursemaid it through committees? [For Hitler, that was Göring, who not only sponsored the act, but pretty blatantly abused parliamentary procedure to make sure the vote could happen at all.] Who's going to defend the Bill against court challenges? (Again, for Hitler, he had a staff of tame judges he had appointed to prevent that, as well as a paramilitary force that he could use to intimidate anyone who might try.)
Well, I suppose if you only count what was televised, and inside the building, it went off without contention.
Canadians, man.
Mmmmm back bacon...
For all my criticism of the US government, it's a pretty resilient system. I think (honestly think, not hyperbole) that if the coup-d'etat-leading-to-state-of-emergancy-leading-to-presidency-as-dictator ship were going to happen, it would have happened with Cheney, the who selected himself for the post of vice president, and then treated the office as a co-presidency.
In spirit, if nothing else. Public perception is a b~!~*.
It's not a false equivalency. Both conventions had their troubles. The fight to prevent Trump from being selected as the nominee seemed to be over quickly, and although Cruz spoke and didn't support him, they gave him the spotlight, and he used it. The Bernie disappointment was seen and felt everyday, first inside, then outside.
Protesters at any kind of Conservative event is kind of a given anymore. It happens in colleges all of the time. They aren't conservatives or Republicans protesting their own, usually. Might have been different this time with #NeverTrump, but, again, it's nothing new or special.
Outside the DNC, those were presumably Democrats protesting against their own party, due to perceived injustice to Bernie Sanders, and a rigged system. That's the difference.
So, I dunno about "smoother".
Well, opinions can differ. I don't think it's practical (i.e., I think it's ridiculous) not because Trump himself would somehow be opposed to becoming dictator-for-life of the United States, but because he doesn't have sufficient control (even) of his own party to take that level of control of the States.
I hope you're right. But keep in mind, if enough of the system and population support him to the point that he can make it into office, then enough support him to damage our democracy. I'm not suggesting he'll pass laws that will do away with elections, but he has a record of declaring elections as "rigged" when the results don't support him. And just looking at the Bill of Rights, he has effectively stated that he will ignore the 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th amendments. Democrats were outraged by what Bush did with signing statements and executive orders. Republicans are outraged by what Obama has done with executive orders. Even if the safety nets of our democracy prevent the worst case scenario, how much damage would he do before being impeached or voted out of office?
Oh, don't misunderstand me: I think Trump is very dangerous, I just think he can completely ruin the US without declaring himself dictator for life. (Not that he wouldn't, given the opportunity.)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, both parties have had movements demanding major change. I think the main difference in the convention disruptions is the fact that the Democrats actually acknowledge the difference. Hilary has reached a hand out to bridge the gap and sat down at the table with Bernie. (Whether you believe its honest or genuine or not is up to you) Trump on the other hand has more or less told his opposition to get in line or else. In fact, trump already said he is going to send millions into the coffers of opponents to run against Kasich and Cruz. (I wouldn't worry about that if I were them, Trump has a habit of saying he is going to toss money around that never materializes. Just ask the veterans...)
...The fight to prevent Trump from being selected as the nominee seemed to be over quickly, and although Cruz spoke and didn't support him, they gave him the spotlight, and he used it....
I dunno. I have been following brief bits of the gritty sausage making from a NeverTrump RNC delegate for over a month, and there was a helluva lot of behind-the-scenes rules lawyering, Xanatos gambits, and 11-dimensional ratf!cking that didn't get covered. I'm really hoping she can be persuaded to get her account published somewhere; it sounds like a horrifying eyeopener.
Like all bureaucracy, it's not easy to change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a sort of disturbing article I read a while back. Regarding the other possibility.
We have the two major tickets in hand. General election thread here. Or not, as you will. :)
Obviously, both parties have had movements demanding major change. I think the main difference in the convention disruptions is the fact that the Democrats actually acknowledge the difference. Hilary has reached a hand out to bridge the gap and sat down at the table with Bernie. (Whether you believe its honest or genuine or not is up to you) Trump on the other hand has more or less told his opposition to get in line or else. In fact, trump already said he is going to send millions into the coffers of opponents to run against Kasich and Cruz. (I wouldn't worry about that if I were them, Trump has a habit of saying he is going to toss money around that never materializes. Just ask the veterans...)
Trump had an understanding with the GOP. If he ran and lost, he would back whoever won, and he expected the same. They even asked him to sign the damn agreement. You could look at him in this instance as being an irrational bully, or the others as being childish in going against the deal. It's real easy to agree to things you don't think will happen (NO WAI TRUMP WINS TEH PRIMARY), but be prepared to pay the piper when it does, and don't be a sore loser.
Trump trying to take on Kasich is just sort of laughable. He needed that guy on his side.
Personally, I'm predicting a Kasich ticket in four years. The guy played it smart.
I hope you're right. But keep in mind, if enough of the system and population support him to the point that he can make it into office, then enough support him to damage our democracy.Well, opinions can differ. I don't think it's practical (i.e., I think it's ridiculous) not because Trump himself would somehow be opposed to becoming dictator-for-life of the United States, but because he doesn't have sufficient control (even) of his own party to take that level of control of the States.
Um,.... I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting here, but the US government was deliberately designed to be what modern cyberneticians and security theorists would describe as "fault-tolerant." Unlike the Weimar constitution (and most others), almost nothing in the US government can't be countermanded by something else in the US government. It's a recipe for gridlock, but also for stability.
For example, any act that he takes must pass constitutional muster, meaning that the Federal Courts get a chance to look at it and possibly nullify it -- including any signing statements or executive orders. Obama just ran into this -- just over a month ago -- with the DREAM act, which died before the SCOTUS.
I'm not suggesting he'll pass laws that will do away with elections, but he has a record of declaring elections as "rigged" when the results don't support him.
Yes, and to what end? He can say what he likes, but this is the kind of bull---- that Federal Courts routinely hear and just as routinely issue orders about.
Even if the safety nets of our democracy prevent the worst case scenario, how much damage would he do before being impeached or voted out of office?
Depends on whether or not he thinks he can simply ignore a Federal court order. If he realizes that Federal Court orders bind the President, too, then not much. If he doesn't realize that, then.... also, not much, since the Court orders have enforcement powers backing them up, and I doubt the Army is willing to fire on Federal marshals coming with subpoenas and arrest warrants.
You could look at him in this instance as being an irrational bully, or the others as being childish in going against the deal.Why not both?
Bullying now includes expecting people to keep their word?
Aight den. Shine on, brother.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly, but only if he can pack the Supreme Court, first, since that's a pretty blatant violation of the First Amendment. And he doesn't control the Supreme Court.
The first day he's in office he gets to nominate someone for the currently empty seat. Then, over 4-8 years, he's likely to be able to nominate at least 3 more.
The next president controls the Supreme Court. No one else in the world gets to choose the nominee. That's a big part of why this is such an important election
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kryzbyn, it's one thing to be rude and condescending, but it's another to be rude and condescending and obtuse.
KingOfAnything's meaning is fairly clear: Trump is a bully, and the others are being childish for breaking their word. It wasn't even a deal with Trump—it was a deal with the GOP—so who Trump is has nothing to do with whether or not their honor is impugned.
Possibly, but only if he can pack the Supreme Court, first, since that's a pretty blatant violation of the First Amendment. And he doesn't control the Supreme Court.The first day he's in office he gets to nominate someone for the currently empty seat.
.... and the Senate needs to decide whether to give it to him or not. And even then, he doesn't "control" the SCOTUS, since the judges are uncontrolled (by construction). Ask Eisenhower how he felt about his SCOTUS nominees (Warren and Brennan).
|
|
You could look at him in this instance as being an irrational bully, or the others as being childish in going against the deal.Why not both?Bullying now includes expecting people to keep their word?
Aight den. Shine on, brother.
Normal people can expect someone to keep their word, and also not be a dick about it.
As the First Lady put it, "When they go low, you go high."
|
The RNC, meanwhile, tried to get Justin Bieber. He agreed only on the condition that he be allowed to perform in front of BLM flags. They didn't get Justin Bieber.
.. do you have any idea how badly you have to mess up for the phrase "Go Justin Beiber" to be a rational response?
The. F+!&. Cleveland.
Here's a sort of disturbing article I read a while back. Regarding the other possibility.Yeah. There's another problem with ramping up the vitriol so much.
If Clinton wins, it's not just the disappointment of your candidate losing, it's the known criminal who everyone hates, who should be locked up or hung, who obviously must have rigged the election since everyone hates her and there's no way she could have won fairly.
It's gonna be ugly out there.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but remember all the threats against Obama when he was elected? It's been ugly before, and we survived the experience.
. . .
Um, just to be clear (and I hope this clarification isn't actually necessary) I'm not endorsing assassination threats as de rigueur in politics.
|
|
Here's a sort of disturbing article I read a while back. Regarding the other possibility.Yeah. There's another problem with ramping up the vitriol so much.
If Clinton wins, it's not just the disappointment of your candidate losing, it's the known criminal who everyone hates, who should be locked up or hung, who obviously must have rigged the election since everyone hates her and there's no way she could have won fairly.
It's gonna be ugly out there.
That's the state of politics right now; Or I should say the political media. Until recently candidates distanced themselves from such strong rhetoric.
Gives the Treasury Dept. something else to do in the coming months, presuming that the director of Homeland Security makes that call, or that the candidates don't decline such protection when assigned. I don't think anyone here is going to consider such threats as de rigueur.
The Gawds help us if someone goes and makes a martyr out of either candidate ...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The. F*~&. Cleveland.
The RNC, meanwhile, tried to get Justin Bieber. He agreed only on the condition that he be allowed to perform in front of BLM flags. They didn't get Justin Bieber.
.. do you have any idea how badly you have to mess up for the phrase "Go Justin Beiber" to be a rational response?
Hmm, they apparently got trolled by Third Eye Blind as well.
Kryzbyn, it's one thing to be rude and condescending, but it's another to be rude and condescending and obtuse.
KingOfAnything's meaning is fairly clear: Trump is a bully, and the others are being childish for breaking their word. It wasn't even a deal with Trump—it was a deal with the GOP—so who Trump is has nothing to do with whether or not their honor is impugned.
Ok for some, but not for all, I guess.
Trump is a bully, but in the posing of the question, that was taken into consideration, and I answered it under the same assumption.
I've always said they should teach Online Communications as a separate course. The burden of understanding is on the communicator, not the listener, and I have no idea what you were trying to say.
Never mind. It's not worth it.
Carry on!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first day he's in office he gets to nominate someone for the currently empty seat. Then, over 4-8 years, he's likely to be able to nominate at least 3 more.
The next president controls the Supreme Court. No one else in the world gets to choose the nominee. That's a big part of why this is such an important election
Sooo... any ideas on a suitable possible phylactery for the Notorious RBG to go full lich?
Hmm, they apparently got trolled by Third Eye Blind as well.
Yes. This bothered me irrationally until I accepted I could like, admire even, TEB without [music snob] changing my dislike for their music. [/music snob]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, they apparently got trolled by Third Eye Blind as well.Yes. This bothered me irrationally until I accepted I could like, admire even, TEB without [music snob] changing my dislike for their music. [/music snob]
You cant argue that it was funny when the TEB vocalist was like "yeah science!!" and the crowd boo'd him :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump disowns involvement in the Cleveland convention: "I didn’t produce our show. I just showed up for final speech"
Apparently doesn't like that the DNC ran so much smoother and got better ratings.
Jumping back a step to emphasize what's the real issue here, since it got dropped in the "No the DNC was bad too" argument.
As a candidate, organizing the convention is part of your job. Whether you do it personally or delegate it, you don't get to ditch the blame.
You're running for President. If you can't even run a convention or find people who can, that's a thing you get judged on. When you're President, it's all ultimately your responsibility. You don't just get to "show up for the speech".
Trump is never held accountable for anything. Why should he start now?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the state of politics right now; Or I should say the political media. Until recently candidates distanced themselves from such strong rhetoric.Here's a sort of disturbing article I read a while back. Regarding the other possibility.Yeah. There's another problem with ramping up the vitriol so much.
If Clinton wins, it's not just the disappointment of your candidate losing, it's the known criminal who everyone hates, who should be locked up or hung, who obviously must have rigged the election since everyone hates her and there's no way she could have won fairly.
It's gonna be ugly out there.
No. It's the state of Republican politics. Even still. Even with Trump being Trump, the rhetoric from the Democratic convention was of a completely different order of magnitude than what came out of the Republican one.
I know you already probably consider this a given, but I'd say a substantial chunk of the blame also falls on the "news" organization for constantly failing to call Trump & the RNC on their fear, bigotry, lies, and bullsh!t. I don't know if it's rationalized as being fair-and-balanced/both-sides-are-equivalent (ugh, NPR coverage), a compulsion to give the impression of a close horse race, or naked greed to advertisers by filling/addicting viewers to constant 24/7 anxiety-inducing coverage.
Pillbug, can I ask which NPR station you listen to? WGBH hasn't been bad, imo.
|
|
Kryzbyn, it's one thing to be rude and condescending, but it's another to be rude and condescending and obtuse.
KingOfAnything's meaning is fairly clear: Trump is a bully, and the others are being childish for breaking their word. It wasn't even a deal with Trump—it was a deal with the GOP—so who Trump is has nothing to do with whether or not their honor is impugned.
Ok for some, but not for all, I guess.
Trump is a bully, but in the posing of the question, that was taken into consideration, and I answered it under the same assumption.
I think that somewhere along the line you or I conflated Trump's motives with his behavior.
Yes, conservatives on either side of the GOP have different perspectives on motivation. NeverTrump sees Trump as a bully. But, Trumpeters see his behavior as justified given their childish behavior. Trump is justified in expecting the party to support their nominee, as promised.
Whether or not Trump is justified, his behavior is nasty and often outright bullying. Thus, from a perspective outside the Republican party, it is both true that Trump is a bully, and NeverTrump is childish. And that in no way implies that expecting others to be true to their word is bullying. Bullying is bullying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kryzbyn, it's one thing to be rude and condescending, but it's another to be rude and condescending and obtuse.
KingOfAnything's meaning is fairly clear: Trump is a bully, and the others are being childish for breaking their word. It wasn't even a deal with Trump—it was a deal with the GOP—so who Trump is has nothing to do with whether or not their honor is impugned.
Ok for some, but not for all, I guess.
Trump is a bully, but in the posing of the question, that was taken into consideration, and I answered it under the same assumption.
I think that somewhere along the line you or I conflated Trump's motives with his behavior.
Yes, conservatives on either side of the GOP have different perspectives on motivation. NeverTrump sees Trump as a bully. But, Trumpeters see his behavior as justified given their childish behavior. Trump is justified in expecting the party to support their nominee, as promised.
Whether or not Trump is justified, his behavior is nasty and often outright bullying. Thus, from a perspective outside the Republican party, it is both true that Trump is a bully, and NeverTrump is childish. And that in no way implies that expecting others to be true to their word is bullying. Bullying is bullying.
I see, and thank you. I apologize for my hasty and snarky response earlier.