Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 681080 times)

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2750
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7350 on: January 30, 2021, 04:32:56 AM »
Uhh, the Nanjing Massacre. *shudder* I had to do a paper on it. I didn't feel good that whole week I wrote it, I can tell you! It was a worse feeling than standing in a Nazi gas chamber.

I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

Having lived in Hawai'i and learned something of its pre-statehood history, I'm a bit confused here ("violently occupied territory" a la LennStar)
By popular accounts, the presence of the US naval base (Pearl Harbor) was generally welcomed by the nation of Hawai'i, and they were actively (i.e. politically) enguaged in moving towards joining the US even before the attack in 1941. Of course not everyone agreed at the time, but overall it was seen as mutually beneficial at the time. Hawai'ii even designed its flag as a political gesture to both the US and Great Brittan.  The monarchy saw close alliance, if not outright joining these western powers as essential for the prosperity of Hawai'i in the 20th century.
The Queen of Hawaii was arrested in 1893 by US marines based on the wishes of "Banana" Dole, who then became president. And during the Mexican-US war the US government annexed Hawaii (the US government simply declared "it's our's now") because of it's strategic importance.
It may not have been a bloody war, but it still was a coup under weapons, hence "violent" is the correct description. 

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3347
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7351 on: January 31, 2021, 04:08:03 AM »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7704
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7352 on: January 31, 2021, 04:55:06 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5252
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7353 on: January 31, 2021, 05:01:03 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

He won't be convicted either way, and knows it, so he may as well forgo the lawyers and represent himself.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3883
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7354 on: January 31, 2021, 05:58:41 AM »
Recently, DW discovered C-SPAN and has been binging all kinds of content. She found this from the White House Correspondents Dinner. Only 100 days into Trump's term, yet all of these comments could have been made a month ago and we wouldn't have known the difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7oG74nHSTQ

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7355 on: January 31, 2021, 06:14:23 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

He won't be convicted either way, and knows it, so he may as well forgo the lawyers and represent himself.
And if a lawyer loses a license defending him, then he won't have to pay for lawyer services.
  A win-win for him. /s

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump giggle of the day
« Reply #7356 on: January 31, 2021, 06:17:57 AM »
Could we change the name of the thread to giggle of the day?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4785
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7357 on: January 31, 2021, 06:58:40 AM »
If you want a giggle, can have giuliani's twitter quote, where he inadvertently lumps reagan and trump and traitors together. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indy100.com/offbeat/rudy-giuliani-trump-twitter-oxford-comma-b1794124%3famp 

Alfred J Quack

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7358 on: January 31, 2021, 07:03:30 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

He won't be convicted either way, and knows it, so he may as well forgo the lawyers and represent himself.

Well, if he's is own lawyer he must really be the bestest lawyer ever, even if he does have a fool for a client.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7359 on: January 31, 2021, 09:15:24 AM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19783
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7360 on: January 31, 2021, 10:14:06 AM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7361 on: January 31, 2021, 12:30:18 PM »
Is that article really just one sentence long? I got blocked by pop asking me to signup, so i opened in incognito, and it's one sentence long.

Quote
WASHINGTON — As racial justice protests erupted nationwide last year, President Donald J. Trump, struggling to find a winning campaign theme, hit on a message that he stressed over and over: The real domestic threat to the United States emanated from the radical left, even though law enforcement authorities had long since concluded it came from the far right.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8155
  • Age: 44
  • Location: New York City
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7362 on: January 31, 2021, 12:53:15 PM »
Is that article really just one sentence long? I got blocked by pop asking me to signup, so i opened in incognito, and it's one sentence long.

Quote
WASHINGTON — As racial justice protests erupted nationwide last year, President Donald J. Trump, struggling to find a winning campaign theme, hit on a message that he stressed over and over: The real domestic threat to the United States emanated from the radical left, even though law enforcement authorities had long since concluded it came from the far right.

No, that's just the first paragraph. It's a long article. Maybe they figured out a way to beat your paywall avoidance.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7363 on: January 31, 2021, 01:46:16 PM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

I have a strong suspicion the misdirection was intentional.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3883
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7364 on: January 31, 2021, 05:08:18 PM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

I have a strong suspicion the misdirection was intentional.

The current Republican narrative is not to condemn the 6 Jan rioters, but to say "we condemn all violence" or "both sides are responsible for 6 Jan" without naming names.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19783
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7365 on: January 31, 2021, 05:48:00 PM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

I have a strong suspicion the misdirection was intentional.

The current Republican narrative is not to condemn the 6 Jan rioters, but to say "we condemn all violence" or "both sides are responsible for 6 Jan" without naming names.

All lives matter, right?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7366 on: February 01, 2021, 09:04:55 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.


sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2752
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7367 on: February 01, 2021, 09:19:44 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7368 on: February 01, 2021, 09:49:07 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

Hmm, I actually don't 100% agree with this. If the election were actually stolen, then you wouldn't be inciting an insurrection. You would be inviting a militia to take out the real insurrectionists.

Just like if Trump had actually succeeded in performing a coup of the government, I think we would have likely seen several assassination attempts which honestly, in my mind, would have been a valid form of overthrowing an illegitimate regime.

The real problem Trump has here is that he is a known liar, isn't very smart, and has no evidence to back his claims. If this were a regular court instead of a kangaroo senate court, this would be an open and shut case Trump goes to jail with the rest of the insurrectionists.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 09:59:07 AM by FIPurpose »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7369 on: February 01, 2021, 09:52:25 AM »
Indeed the real tragedy isn't that Trump cannot find an attorney to defend him, but that it doesn't matter.

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7370 on: February 01, 2021, 09:52:53 AM »
Maybe Trump will be found not guilty on the grounds of insanity.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2752
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7371 on: February 01, 2021, 09:58:33 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

Hmm, I actually don't 100% agree with this. If the election were actually stolen, then you wouldn't be inciting an insurrection. You would inviting a militia to take out the real insurrectionists.

Just like if Trump had actually succeeded in performing a coup of the government, I think we would have likely seen several assassination attempts and honestly, in my mind, would have been a valid form of overthrowing an illegitimate regime.

The real problem Trump has here is that he is a known liar, isn't very smart, and has no evidence to back his claims. If this were a regular court instead of a kangaroo senate court, this would be an open and shut case Trump goes to jail with the rest of the insurrectionists.

You still do not have a right to do the bolded.  There are processes to redress stolen elections.  You follow the processes.  That's the whole reason we have the Rule of Law in this country, not just so that you can chuck it out the window when you feel like you've given it a fair try.  Rule of Law even admits that sometimes the guilty will go free, sometimes the law won't get the right outcome, but by living in this society, we agree to abide by those results even sometimes when the law gets it wrong.  If Trump and his crazy followers had been right, they still don't have the right, under the law, to go all vigilante and choose their own methods of justice.  Bush v. Gore is a great example of a serious injustice.  But it was the outcome under the law and that's how America works.

Of course, impeachment and conviction is more about politics than a legal proceeding precisely, but it's just as important that we uphold the rule of law here as if someone had gone and murdered a person after they found out that person had stolen money from their mom, or if Harvey Weinstein gets out of jail tomorrow and a group of women descend on him and tear him limb from limb.  Those things may be deserved but it's still not ok.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7372 on: February 01, 2021, 10:05:21 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

Hmm, I actually don't 100% agree with this. If the election were actually stolen, then you wouldn't be inciting an insurrection. You would inviting a militia to take out the real insurrectionists.

Just like if Trump had actually succeeded in performing a coup of the government, I think we would have likely seen several assassination attempts and honestly, in my mind, would have been a valid form of overthrowing an illegitimate regime.

The real problem Trump has here is that he is a known liar, isn't very smart, and has no evidence to back his claims. If this were a regular court instead of a kangaroo senate court, this would be an open and shut case Trump goes to jail with the rest of the insurrectionists.

You still do not have a right to do the bolded.  There are processes to redress stolen elections.  You follow the processes.  That's the whole reason we have the Rule of Law in this country, not just so that you can chuck it out the window when you feel like you've given it a fair try.  Rule of Law even admits that sometimes the guilty will go free, sometimes the law won't get the right outcome, but by living in this society, we agree to abide by those results even sometimes when the law gets it wrong.  If Trump and his crazy followers had been right, they still don't have the right, under the law, to go all vigilante and choose their own methods of justice.  Bush v. Gore is a great example of a serious injustice.  But it was the outcome under the law and that's how America works.

Of course, impeachment and conviction is more about politics than a legal proceeding precisely, but it's just as important that we uphold the rule of law here as if someone had gone and murdered a person after they found out that person had stolen money from their mom, or if Harvey Weinstein gets out of jail tomorrow and a group of women descend on him and tear him limb from limb.  Those things may be deserved but it's still not ok.

The hypothetical of Trump performing a coup and maintaining power precludes that idea that the "Rule of Law" has already been thrown out the window. But here's where the part of Trump is just plain stupid comes in: in order to successfully perform a coup, you'd need the backing of the cabinet, the military leaders, and controlling power over at least 60% of congress. Even if he had succeeded in executing Pence, he still would have failed because no one with any power was backing him except about 20% of the House and 7% of the Senate.

It was a stupid move then, it's a stupid defense now.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3251
  • Age: 92
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7373 on: February 01, 2021, 10:05:42 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7374 on: February 01, 2021, 10:19:17 AM »
Maybe Trump will be found not guilty on the grounds of insanity.

He'll be found not guilty on the grounds of the republican party being a lost cause bag of dog shit.  I kept thinking every time they crossed another line that "surely this the point the GOP will say 'no, no, this is too far, even for us'" but they never do.  I don't believe there is any limit to the depravity.  They will continue in bad faith indefinitely no matter what.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2752
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7375 on: February 01, 2021, 10:21:02 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19783
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7376 on: February 01, 2021, 10:26:56 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous.

I think this depends a lot on the mood of the court.

Charles Manson never committed a murder or directly told anyone to commit time for murders . . . but he went to jail anyway.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17478
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7377 on: February 01, 2021, 10:56:32 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous.

I think this depends a lot on the mood of the court.

Charles Manson never committed a murder or directly told anyone to commit time for murders . . . but he went to jail anyway.

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Is relevant here. 

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2752
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7378 on: February 01, 2021, 11:34:09 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous.

I think this depends a lot on the mood of the court.

Charles Manson never committed a murder or directly told anyone to commit time for murders . . . but he went to jail anyway.

Not impossible, just challenging. And yes, I think the mood of the court always makes it easier to convict dirtbag satanist hippies and whatever other stereotypes people had at the time, than to convict a former president, a successful businessman who wears suits and hugs the flag, even if he is a rapist and a racist and "strong man", which are all in the best traditions of the powerful and admired in our history.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4785
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7379 on: February 01, 2021, 11:51:04 AM »
In case you are curious this is what one of my senators responded with, when I wrote them. Reading between the lines no the GOP rank and file are going to cover Trump's *ss rather than do their constitutional duty under the laws regarding impeachment. Reasons: that he is no longer president and b) we senators shouldn't decide who the people get to vote for or not. FFS

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump.

As you may know, on January 13, 2021, the House voted 232-197 to impeach then-President Trump. The article alleges then-President Trump was responsible for the assault on the Capitol Building that interrupted the joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes. On January 25, 2021, the House impeachment managers delivered the article of impeachment to the Senate. On January 26, 2021, the members of the Senate were sworn-in as jurors, and we swore an oath to “do impartial justice to the Constitution and laws.”

Even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that removing then-President Trump from office was an urgent matter, even giving then-Vice President Mike Pence an ultimatum to invoke the 25th Amendment, she curiously chose not to transmit the articles to the Senate until then-President Trump had already left office.

The Senate is scheduled to begin the impeachment trial on February 9, 2021. During the impeachment trial, the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel will present their respective cases. Senators will then have the opportunity to question the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel.

On January 6, 2021, we faced one of the darkest days of our history as a violent mob attempted to stop Congress’ joint session to certify the Electoral College votes. The criminals who participated in the attack assaulted the very foundations of our constitutional republic. They overran the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), laid waste to the Capitol building, threatened the lives of lawmakers, and left six people dead in their wake. Sadly, this included a USCP officer who was murdered during the assault, and another who tragically took his own life in the days after. Over 50 USCP officers were injured during this vicious attack. Despite failures by some, many brave USCP officers protected lawmakers and prevented even further violence.

Once this insurrection was put down by our brave men and women in uniform, Congress resumed counting of the Electoral College votes into the early hours of the morning. My colleagues and I were determined to not allow the assault on the Capitol and our democratic system to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Following the violent attack, I was glad to fulfill my constitutional obligation as a U.S. Senator to certify the results of the Electoral College. I voted against all objections, or in other words, I voted to certify the electoral votes from all states that were subject to objections. The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that the power to certify elections is reserved to the states, not Congress.

We are learning more details about the extent of this attack with every passing day, and everyone who participated in this disgusting assault on our democracy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Currently, over 150 individuals have been charged in federal court for their actions on the Capitol attack. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation continue the investigation into the attacks and are also looking into the speakers who attended the rally.

When it comes to the current impeachment process, I believe we must balance accountability with avoiding setting precedents that could be abused in the future. I believe impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen is unwise, especially if the primary goal is to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office.

For example, my Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected if Republicans – when they controlled both houses of Congress – used the impeachment power to justify disqualifying former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. The great hallmark of our democratic republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. I do not believe Congress should dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

With that said, as a U.S. Senator, I have a constitutional responsibility to participate fully in the Senate impeachment trial as a juror. I will listen to both sides, consider the evidence, and join my colleagues in rendering a verdict. Any federal official who is subject to the impeachment process deserves fairness and due process. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward.

Again, thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about other important issues.

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7380 on: February 01, 2021, 12:00:47 PM »
That old chestnut.  We don't want to set a dangerous precedent by holding him accountable, so instead we are going to set a different dangerous precedent that this is allowable.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7704
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7381 on: February 01, 2021, 01:01:44 PM »
In case you are curious this is what one of my senators responded with, when I wrote them. Reading between the lines no the GOP rank and file are going to cover Trump's *ss rather than do their constitutional duty under the laws regarding impeachment. Reasons: that he is no longer president and b) we senators shouldn't decide who the people get to vote for or not. FFS

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump.

As you may know, on January 13, 2021, the House voted 232-197 to impeach then-President Trump. The article alleges then-President Trump was responsible for the assault on the Capitol Building that interrupted the joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes. On January 25, 2021, the House impeachment managers delivered the article of impeachment to the Senate. On January 26, 2021, the members of the Senate were sworn-in as jurors, and we swore an oath to “do impartial justice to the Constitution and laws.”

Even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that removing then-President Trump from office was an urgent matter, even giving then-Vice President Mike Pence an ultimatum to invoke the 25th Amendment, she curiously chose not to transmit the articles to the Senate until then-President Trump had already left office.

The Senate is scheduled to begin the impeachment trial on February 9, 2021. During the impeachment trial, the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel will present their respective cases. Senators will then have the opportunity to question the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel.

On January 6, 2021, we faced one of the darkest days of our history as a violent mob attempted to stop Congress’ joint session to certify the Electoral College votes. The criminals who participated in the attack assaulted the very foundations of our constitutional republic. They overran the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), laid waste to the Capitol building, threatened the lives of lawmakers, and left six people dead in their wake. Sadly, this included a USCP officer who was murdered during the assault, and another who tragically took his own life in the days after. Over 50 USCP officers were injured during this vicious attack. Despite failures by some, many brave USCP officers protected lawmakers and prevented even further violence.

Once this insurrection was put down by our brave men and women in uniform, Congress resumed counting of the Electoral College votes into the early hours of the morning. My colleagues and I were determined to not allow the assault on the Capitol and our democratic system to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Following the violent attack, I was glad to fulfill my constitutional obligation as a U.S. Senator to certify the results of the Electoral College. I voted against all objections, or in other words, I voted to certify the electoral votes from all states that were subject to objections. The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that the power to certify elections is reserved to the states, not Congress.

We are learning more details about the extent of this attack with every passing day, and everyone who participated in this disgusting assault on our democracy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Currently, over 150 individuals have been charged in federal court for their actions on the Capitol attack. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation continue the investigation into the attacks and are also looking into the speakers who attended the rally.

When it comes to the current impeachment process, I believe we must balance accountability with avoiding setting precedents that could be abused in the future. I believe impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen is unwise, especially if the primary goal is to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office.

For example, my Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected if Republicans – when they controlled both houses of Congress – used the impeachment power to justify disqualifying former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. The great hallmark of our democratic republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. I do not believe Congress should dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

With that said, as a U.S. Senator, I have a constitutional responsibility to participate fully in the Senate impeachment trial as a juror. I will listen to both sides, consider the evidence, and join my colleagues in rendering a verdict. Any federal official who is subject to the impeachment process deserves fairness and due process. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward.

Again, thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about other important issues.
Paragraph 4: Mitch McConnell, then Senate Majority leader, made it clear that he would prevent recall of the Senate until the day before inauguration.  Given that obstructive behaviour Speaker Pelosi's decision to transmit the articles of impeachment after inauguration created no real delay in dealing with the matter.

Paragraph 9: Trump is not being impeached "as a private citizen", he has already been impeached while still President.  He is being tried by the Senate as a former President, for offences committed while President, in accordance with the obligations of the Constitution.   The reference to Hillary Clinton being impeached is merely an attempt at distraction.  The statement that Congress should not dictate who Americans can vote for is unconstitutional: the Constitution itself provides a disqualification procedure which the Senate cannot abrogate once the House has impeached.

Paragraph 10: Paragraphs 4 and 9 make it clear that the Senator is either ignorant of the Constitution or deliberately misinterpreting it.  In that context their statements about fairness and due process cannot be taken at face value.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 03:24:40 PM by former player »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7382 on: February 01, 2021, 02:01:20 PM »
Indeed I was surprised to receive a message from Sen. Richard Burr, a response to a phone message I had left him about the matter (Frankly, I'd forgotten about the message, Jan. 6 feels like a lifetime ago for so many reasons):

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate hearing from you.
 
On January, 13, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump for the “willful incitement of insurrection.” The Article of Impeachment has been sent to the Senate and the Senate is required to consider the article and its merit. President Trump’s impeachment trial will begin on February 9, 2021. It then takes a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to convict. I will act, as the Constitution requires, as an impartial juror at the upcoming Senate trial, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your views on the subject with me.
 
That being said, the President bears responsibility for the violence that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and refusing to accept the will of American voters. I am pleased that Congress upheld its constitutional duty by certifying the results of the election.
 
Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at http://burr.senate.gov.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3347
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7383 on: February 03, 2021, 12:58:16 PM »
Can someone explain what this means: They will vote to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from committee assignments.

Does that mean she still has a job but doesn't do anything? I don't get it!

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2752
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7384 on: February 03, 2021, 01:07:23 PM »
Can someone explain what this means: They will vote to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from committee assignments.

Does that mean she still has a job but doesn't do anything? I don't get it!

Yeah something like that.  They did it to Steve King before with his "I don't understand why white supremacism has a bad name" (paraphrasing) statement.  They still get to vote on legislation and there are probably other things as well.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15895
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7385 on: February 03, 2021, 02:36:37 PM »
Can someone explain what this means: They will vote to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from committee assignments.

Does that mean she still has a job but doesn't do anything? I don't get it!

I’d removed from committees she would still get to vote in every bill and debate on the floor. But the real power in congress comes from being in the Sub-committes, where legislation is drafted. In particular it allows one to block bills from getting a full vote. That’s what they are trying to take from Greene.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7386 on: February 04, 2021, 06:42:54 AM »
Under business as usual, I see why committee assignments matter.

But there are a whole group of Congressmen (and -women) who seem to be uninterested in creating legislation, and instead merely view being in power as a "performative" act in which they can make outrageous statements in an attempt to day-trade on the news cycle. Would removing one of these from a committee even really hurt them?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7387 on: February 04, 2021, 09:24:16 AM »
I think a lot of them are so old and defeated by the brokenness of government, that they don't try anymore. Even McConnell admitted before the election that basically he felt like working on legislation is pointless whereas the real benefit of the Senate was being able to setup a judicial branch with conservatives for years to come.

Great podcast on this just came in on the Christ Hayes podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/filibusters-sordid-past-present-adam-jentleson/id1382983397?i=1000507416571

Basically, the filibuster was accidentally created in the early 1800's when the senate removed a rule for ending debate by a simple majority vote. It took 30 years for someone to discover that they had accidentally created a loophole allowing a minority rule to talk on the floor for as long as they wanted. Before then, senators didn't try to block the majority rule. In fact, they prided themselves on not blocking the operation of government. The minority party would have their say on the debate floor, but at the end of the day, they didn't stop the work of the senate.

They had a chance to fix this in the early 1900's when they were rewriting the rules, but they only envisioned the filibuster being a literal talking on the senate floor, so they thought "well even the minority party would get tired of debating a topic". So they set the threshold at 60 votes.

Even in the 60's when filibustering was used to block civil rights by the minority Southern Senators, they only used it for that. They didn't block any other agenda with filibustering.

Somewhere in the past 20-30 years, the filibuster has evolved into basically a single staffer of a single senator can email the Majority Leader saying that their senator wants to continue debate and the bill pretty much dies in order to avoid a 60 vote threshold. Despite no one actually debating the bill.

We have come full circle where the Articles of Confederation completely failed because they required a super-majority to pass any legislation, we are seeing in real-time that the de-facto required super majority that has been created in the Senate has once again created an untenable government.

So our senators have completely resigned themselves to this form of the senate where they get to make big long speeches and every senator can claim to have stopped some bill by filibuster despite overwhelming popular support for it. Heck, even Bernie seems to have thought that the filibuster was a power that even he has gotten use out of. I think he's coming around to the idea of ending it though.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15895
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7388 on: February 04, 2021, 10:39:05 AM »
Under business as usual, I see why committee assignments matter.

But there are a whole group of Congressmen (and -women) who seem to be uninterested in creating legislation, and instead merely view being in power as a "performative" act in which they can make outrageous statements in an attempt to day-trade on the news cycle. Would removing one of these from a committee even really hurt them?

Consider which has a bigger impact: One of 435 members of congress interested in grandstanding/performing/making-a-scene, but limited to one vote and 5-10 minutes of 'debate' per House rules set largely by speaker Pelosi, or 1 of 20 to 50 members of a House Committee that are solely responsible for drafting legislation before it goes before the entire House?

Neither is good, but in committee is where the real power lay for most non-leadership members, and where an individual can be most disruptive.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7389 on: February 04, 2021, 11:26:27 AM »
Under business as usual, I see why committee assignments matter.

But there are a whole group of Congressmen (and -women) who seem to be uninterested in creating legislation, and instead merely view being in power as a "performative" act in which they can make outrageous statements in an attempt to day-trade on the news cycle. Would removing one of these from a committee even really hurt them?

Consider which has a bigger impact: One of 435 members of congress interested in grandstanding/performing/making-a-scene, but limited to one vote and 5-10 minutes of 'debate' per House rules set largely by speaker Pelosi, or 1 of 20 to 50 members of a House Committee that are solely responsible for drafting legislation before it goes before the entire House?

Neither is good, but in committee is where the real power lay for most non-leadership members, and where an individual can be most disruptive.

This is true for the house, but apparently less true for the Senate. With bills becoming more and more focused on giant omnibus bills (because it's the only way to overcome the 60 vote margin outside of reconciliation), committees don't really prepare that much legislation anymore. Bills die at the Senate Majority leader's hands. And the Senate rules are so complex, there are really only even a handful of Senators that even fully understand the rules to operate its levers. So most Senators have streamlined their positions by having the Majority Leader tell them when to show up to vote, and in return, they won't have to navigate the confusing world of Senate Parliamentary Procedure.

Because the Senate no longer votes on legislation, the committee positions, as far as legislation is concerned, have been greatly neutered.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15895
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7390 on: February 04, 2021, 05:28:02 PM »
Trump’s latest outrage...

Facing expulsion from the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) over the Jan 6th insurrection at the White House and in sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of journalists, many of whom are SAG-AFTRA members., Trump resigned his membership with a truly Trumpian statement“:

I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares! .. You have done NOTHING for me!!!

SAG responded with two words:  “Thank You


OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5252
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7391 on: February 04, 2021, 06:38:41 PM »
Trump’s latest outrage...

Facing expulsion from the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) over the Jan 6th insurrection at the White House and in sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of journalists, many of whom are SAG-AFTRA members., Trump resigned his membership with a truly Trumpian statement“:

I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares! .. You have done NOTHING for me!!!

SAG responded with two words:  “Thank You

The SAG president is actress Gabrielle Carteris. When I read Trump's bratty letter, my first thought was, "Does this moron know that you don't get on Andrea Zuckerman's bad side?"

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3883
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7392 on: February 04, 2021, 07:39:18 PM »

You have done NOTHING for me!!!


His entire outlook on life in six words.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3883
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7393 on: February 04, 2021, 07:45:58 PM »
Quote
Somewhere in the past 20-30 years, the filibuster has evolved into basically a single staffer of a single senator can email the Majority Leader saying that their senator wants to continue debate and the bill pretty much dies in order to avoid a 60 vote threshold. Despite no one actually debating the bill.

It took me a while to catch on to the fact that filibusters don't actually happen anymore. The promise that it'll happen is enough to derail the process.  If someone feels that an issue needs to be talked to death, make that hero stand there and do the deed.  It's the same with voting. The leadership walks around and does a back of the envelope calculation on whether something will pass. If it doesn't look it will, they won't even put it on the floor.  The Senate Majority Leader sets the schedule for what happens on the Senate floor and in my opinion has always done a shit job of it. Only in American politics does a leader of the legislative branch get called a success for actively obstructing their Constitutional obligations.  If something has absolutely no chance of passing it probably shouldn't take up their time and I get that, but it's such a partisan position (not actually enshrined in the Constitution mind you) it's mostly used to put your party's pet projects first and foremost.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7394 on: February 04, 2021, 08:51:16 PM »
Quote
Somewhere in the past 20-30 years, the filibuster has evolved into basically a single staffer of a single senator can email the Majority Leader saying that their senator wants to continue debate and the bill pretty much dies in order to avoid a 60 vote threshold. Despite no one actually debating the bill.

It took me a while to catch on to the fact that filibusters don't actually happen anymore. The promise that it'll happen is enough to derail the process.  If someone feels that an issue needs to be talked to death, make that hero stand there and do the deed.  It's the same with voting. The leadership walks around and does a back of the envelope calculation on whether something will pass. If it doesn't look it will, they won't even put it on the floor.  The Senate Majority Leader sets the schedule for what happens on the Senate floor and in my opinion has always done a shit job of it. Only in American politics does a leader of the legislative branch get called a success for actively obstructing their Constitutional obligations.  If something has absolutely no chance of passing it probably shouldn't take up their time and I get that, but it's such a partisan position (not actually enshrined in the Constitution mind you) it's mostly used to put your party's pet projects first and foremost.

Well also consider the options of the minority party.

They could let the majority pass their legislation with their input added on as well.
Or they can completely obstruct the whole process.

The trend has to always choose the later.

If the filibuster were removed from the Senate, you would like see that magically a lot of legislation would see 60-70 vote majorities. Why would that be? Because once legislation is seen as a foregone conclusion your options as a minority senator are:

1. pout and vote against it, getting nothing in return.
2. do the best you can to add to the bill in a way that benefits your constituents.

Somewhat ironically, I think removing the 60 vote threshold would lead to more bipartisanship. The prisoners dilemma of the 60-vote threshold causes a bad outcome for everyone.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7395 on: February 04, 2021, 11:50:25 PM »
Quote
Somewhere in the past 20-30 years, the filibuster has evolved into basically a single staffer of a single senator can email the Majority Leader saying that their senator wants to continue debate and the bill pretty much dies in order to avoid a 60 vote threshold. Despite no one actually debating the bill.

It took me a while to catch on to the fact that filibusters don't actually happen anymore. The promise that it'll happen is enough to derail the process.  If someone feels that an issue needs to be talked to death, make that hero stand there and do the deed.  It's the same with voting. The leadership walks around and does a back of the envelope calculation on whether something will pass. If it doesn't look it will, they won't even put it on the floor.  The Senate Majority Leader sets the schedule for what happens on the Senate floor and in my opinion has always done a shit job of it. Only in American politics does a leader of the legislative branch get called a success for actively obstructing their Constitutional obligations.  If something has absolutely no chance of passing it probably shouldn't take up their time and I get that, but it's such a partisan position (not actually enshrined in the Constitution mind you) it's mostly used to put your party's pet projects first and foremost.

I fully support a real filibuster. If the minority party really has a huge problem with a bill then stand up there and put some backbone into it.

But, as you mention it has devolved into a joke. Well, not a joke but something that is in effect a subversion of the constitution. The constitution says a bill passes with a simple majority yet these days it takes a super majority. The senate has not functioned constitutionally
for quite some time.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3347
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7396 on: February 05, 2021, 04:42:08 AM »
Trump’s latest outrage...

Facing expulsion from the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) over the Jan 6th insurrection at the White House and in sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of journalists, many of whom are SAG-AFTRA members., Trump resigned his membership with a truly Trumpian statement“:

I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares! .. You have done NOTHING for me!!!

SAG responded with two words:  “Thank You

The SAG president is actress Gabrielle Carteris. When I read Trump's bratty letter, my first thought was, "Does this moron know that you don't get on Andrea Zuckerman's bad side?"

Hahaha, he forgot to list in his letter to the acting union, the fact that in his incredible acting career he appeared in the movie, The Little Rascals, in 1994! Or did he purposely leave it out! https://www.vulture.com/2016/06/donald-trump-was-in-the-little-rascals.html

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5252
  • Location: Metro Detroit

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2750
  • Location: Germany

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7399 on: February 05, 2021, 11:22:17 AM »
All my Trump-related news now comes from this thread. I do not allow myself to click on any news-site link with the name "Trump" in it. But I'll confirm that what's going on now doesn't seem very different from what was going on at any point in the last twenty-seven months.