US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Not sure where you got that from any comment I made. I voiced no opinion about the State Justices. I merely observed that the politics weren’t necessarily in Democrats favour

You said this:

"is it just me or is this Colorado banning of Trump's candidacy one of stupidest political mistakes the Dems could make?? Jeez! One of the key Dem arguments is Trump's tendency towards anti-democratic practices. Talk about brand destruction

These people are so busy trying to be right they do really really stupid things"

You said that the mistake was made by the Democrats. The decision was made by the justices. I'm sorry...please clarify what connection I made wrong.

 

[Kieran]

Forgive me if I misquoted you. But please read my above to Federberg, because it covers a lot of what we're discussing. You're assuming that the Colorado Supreme court didn't go through a judicial process and come to an independent conclusion. It's your right to think so, but it's a pretty cynical take on the US Judiciary. You should be able to read that Atlantic article for free. And don't bother to look him up: George Conway is no leftist. He was married to Kelly Anne Conway. (Surely you remember her?) He is avowedly anti-Trump now, but he's still a Republican, and he's a lawyer.

I'm glad there are still Republicans out there that hold up the old GOP standards. We don't agree on a lot of smaller issues, but I think we had the same kind of idealism for this country. It's this new Trumpian wing that I don't recognize, at all.

No I didn’t think they didn’t go through the judicial process - I think they went through it and filed their judgement through the filter of their leftist allegiance. And you’re right - this saves me replying to two posts - I can hardly imagine the Supreme Court is totally unbiased either, no matter what party loads it in their favour, and both try. But I’ll give the Supreme Court credit for not supporting Trump’s deranged attempt to overthrow the election.

The system worked there, but having too much power in courts that are politicised to the extent they are is dangerous. That’s not a criticism of America only, because that can happen everywhere. My initial point was about tribalism. When it reaches the stage where your relying on political appointments to go against type, it’s really not a healthy state for anyone…

 

[Moxie]

No I didn’t think they didn’t go through the judicial process - I think they went through it and filed their judgement through the filter of their leftist allegiance.

I really suggest you read that Atlantic article, which comes from Federberg, not me. You're making a lot of assumptions based on what you already believe.

I can hardly imagine the Supreme Court is totally unbiased either, no matter what party loads it in their favour, and both try. But I’ll give the Supreme Court credit for not supporting Trump’s deranged attempt to overthrow the election.

I don't think they've ruled on that yet. They have declined to rule on immunity from prosecution. That's just declining to rule. Credit for not supporting Trump's deranged attempt to overthrow the election goes to Congress.

The system worked there, but having too much power in courts that are politicised to the extent they are is dangerous. That’s not a criticism of America only, because that can happen everywhere. My initial point was about tribalism. When it reaches the stage where your relying on political appointments to go against type, it’s really not a healthy state for anyone…

Here comes "tribalism" again. You may over-emphasize that. We have a system of appointments to judgeships. That is meant so that they do not have to be elected. Which is seen as making them "apolitical." Obviously, appointments are political, too, but they have to be approved, and they tend to balance out, as we elect in various governors and Presidents of different parties. Governors and Presidents of different parties come and go, but the judges carry on. It may be imperfect, but I'm happy to hear your alternative.

 

[shawnbm]

^ except that in Colorado--as blue a state as there is--there is no balancing out and you get a court full of justices appointed by folks of one main political party.

 

[Federberg]

You said this:

"is it just me or is this Colorado banning of Trump's candidacy one of stupidest political mistakes the Dems could make?? Jeez! One of the key Dem arguments is Trump's tendency towards anti-democratic practices. Talk about brand destruction

These people are so busy trying to be right they do really really stupid things"

You said that the mistake was made by the Democrats. The decision was made by the justices. I'm sorry...please clarify what connection I made wrong.

Democrats put the case before the Justices. If you had asked me I would have assumed the Justices were GOP to be honest

 

[Kieran]

I really suggest you read that Atlantic article, which comes from Federberg, not me. You're making a lot of assumptions based on what you already believe.

I’ll make a deal with you. You watch this, and I’ll read that.

Here comes "tribalism" again. You may over-emphasize that. We have a system of appointments to judgeships. That is meant so that they do not have to be elected. Which is seen as making them "apolitical." Obviously, appointments are political, too, but they have to be approved, and they tend to balance out, as we elect in various governors and Presidents of different parties. Governors and Presidents of different parties come and go, but the judges carry on. It may be imperfect, but I'm happy to hear your alternative.

Tribalism exists, and to be frank, it seems to exist on a bigger scale in America than it does in most countries, mainly because you have a two party system, which according to the wise psychologist Jonathon Haidt, is second only to a one party system on a scale of the what’s worst system. Tribalism means that not only do people not question their allegiance, and not only do they not hold their side to account in the same manner that they hold the other side to account, they can’t do this because it will help their enemy.

In other words, they don’t question the politics of their side because that would be to their political disadvantage, which when you think about it, is both indecent and absurd.

This is an interesting wiki article about how the Brits elect judges.

 

[Moxie]

^ except that in Colorado--as blue a state as there is--there is no balancing out and you get a court full of justices appointed by folks of one main political party.

Do you really think that Colorado is "as blue a state as there is?"

"For instance, until the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the people of Colorado had voted Republican in every U.S. Presidential Election since 1964, with the exception of 1992 when a plurality voted for Bill Clinton, possibly due to the effect of Ross Perot's candidacy. Conversely, Colorado has held a Democratic governor for 24 of the past 32 years since 1991.[3]"

That's Wikipedia. But my mother is from Colorado, and I have a lot of family there. Colorado Springs is about as Red as it gets. It has an army base and air force base, and a lot of evangelical Christians. As do the plains. And, in terms of percentages, it's about the lowest, in terms of "blue states." I know Colorado, and if it weren't for Denver and Boulder, (and Vail? LOL.) and a few enclaves with higher Mexican-American and indigenous population, it would be purple, for sure. At best.

Now, look at that Wikipedia quote: Colorado votes Republican for President, but Democratic for Governor. Weird, or not so weird? NY votes Democratic for President, but we've had a lot of Republican governors. Even NYC has had a lot of recent Republican Mayors. Not dissimilar to California. Go figure!

 

[Moxie]

I’ll make a deal with you. You watch this, and I’ll read that.



Tribalism exists, and to be frank, it seems to exist on a bigger scale in America than it does in most countries, mainly because you have a two party system, which according to the wise psychologist Jonathon Haidt, is second only to a one party system on a scale of the what’s worst system. Tribalism means that not only do people not question their allegiance, and not only do they not hold their side to account in the same manner that they hold the other side to account, they can’t do this because it will help their enemy.

In other words, they don’t question the politics of their side because that would be to their political disadvantage, which when you think about it, is both indecent and absurd.

This is an interesting wiki article about how the Brits elect judges.

I will give it all a look...thanks!

 

[Moxie]

Democrats put the case before the Justices. If you had asked me I would have assumed the Justices were GOP to be honest

Arguably, the Democrats put the case before the justices, in the form of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,) though the plaintiffs were Republicans and non-affiliated. Is that what you mean? And why would you have assumed the justices were GOP? @shawnbm calls Colorado "blue," though I think that's overstating it.

I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire, I'm trying to discuss this. In many ways, I think we're on the same page.

 

[Federberg]

Arguably, the Democrats put the case before the justices, in the form of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,) though the plaintiffs were Republicans and non-affiliated. Is that what you mean? And why would you have assumed the justices were GOP? @shawnbm calls Colorado "blue," though I think that's overstating it.

I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire, I'm trying to discuss this. In many ways, I think we're on the same page.

Because while Dems have been winning recently it used to be red. In most states like that the GOP remains fairly entrenched at other levels. And it’s reasonable to assume the plaintiffs were Dems. Otherwise their case would have been a massive deal

 

[Moxie]

Because while Dems have been winning recently it used to be red. In most states like that the GOP remains fairly entrenched at other levels. And it’s reasonable to assume the plaintiffs were Dems. Otherwise their case would have been a massive deal

Please read back. Colorado didn't "used to be red." It's more complicated than that. And the plaintiffs weren't Democrats.

 

[Federberg]

Please read back. Colorado didn't "used to be red." It's more complicated than that. And the plaintiffs weren't Democrats.

Read what? Pre Obama used to be Republican won in Presidential elections.

I wasn’t referring to the Democratic Party. In any case we’re steering into need to be right territory. My point is my point and I see no useful refutation

 

[Front242]

Murica is so fubar they've even made a film about the imminent civil war...

 

[Kieran]

Murica is so fubar they've even made a film about the imminent civil war...

That looks great!

 

[Moxie]

Read what? Pre Obama used to be Republican won in Presidential elections.

I wasn’t referring to the Democratic Party. In any case we’re steering into need to be right territory. My point is my point and I see no useful refutation

Fine. Anyway, as we were discussing:

* Either the Supreme Court of the US takes up the Colorado case before 5 Jan, or Trump gets excluded from the ballot there. That's a tight turnaround, especially given the holidays. And Trump's lawyers still have to file an appeal to SCOTUS. Merry Christmas to the lawyers. Not a lot of time to figure out a case before the Supreme Court. And, as you point out, George Conway doesn't think they have one.

* I still think SCOTUS will take the case and find for Trump. That's just my $20 bet. Some SCOTUS observers are saying that signs point to Justice Thomas recusing himself from Trump-related decisions re: Jan. 6th, due to his wife's active participation in the "Stop the Steal" movement, and attendance at his Jan. 6th 2021 rally. I've got another $20 on he won't.

And this is weird, from The Washington Post:

'Trump argued in his appeal that the 14th Amendment bars people only from holding office, not running for office. In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court stated that if it accepted Trump’s argument in this case, the state couldn’t keep any ineligible candidates off the ballot.

“It would mean that the state would be powerless to exclude a twenty-eight-year-old, a non-resident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado,” the majority’s decision read.'

Meaning that his position is that he's eligible to run, but not to hold office? I guess you have to think that he/his lawyers figured he'd get on the ballot, and fight the 14th Amendment if/when he won the election, but that seems like skating a pretty thin line. THAT was their best argument?

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

Fine. Anyway, as we were discussing:

* Either the Supreme Court of the US takes up the Colorado case before 5 Jan, or Trump gets excluded from the ballot there. That's a tight turnaround, especially given the holidays. And Trump's lawyers still have to file an appeal to SCOTUS. Merry Christmas to the lawyers. Not a lot of time to figure out a case before the Supreme Court. And, as you point out, George Conway doesn't think they have one.

* I still think SCOTUS will take the case and find for Trump. That's just my $20 bet. Some SCOTUS observers are saying that signs point to Justice Thomas recusing himself from Trump-related decisions re: Jan. 6th, due to his wife's active participation in the "Stop the Steal" movement, and attendance at his Jan. 6th 2021 rally. I've got another $20 on he won't.

And this is weird, from The Washington Post:

'Trump argued in his appeal that the 14th Amendment bars people only from holding office, not running for office. In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court stated that if it accepted Trump’s argument in this case, the state couldn’t keep any ineligible candidates off the ballot.

“It would mean that the state would be powerless to exclude a twenty-eight-year-old, a non-resident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado,” the majority’s decision read.'

Meaning that his position is that he's eligible to run, but not to hold office? I guess you have to think that he/his lawyers figured he'd get on the ballot, and fight the 14th Amendment if/when he won the election, but that seems like skating a pretty thin line. THAT was their best argument?

Crazy right? He needs better lawyers

 

[Moxie]

Crazy right? He needs better lawyers

Not to put too fine a point on it, Giuliani was one of his lawyers.

 

[Moxie]

Crazy right? He needs better lawyers

Actually, after I made the Giuliani crack, I looked into his lawyers. I'd forgotten that several had resigned. He has a reputation for stiffing attorneys, and, if this is true, amongst lawyers, MAGA stands for "making attorney's get attorneys." This is what Vanity Fair has to say about his attorney situation. (Yes, I know that VF hates Trump, so take it for what its worth.)

A Guide to the Lawyers Who Signed Up to Defend Donald TrumpâAnd Where They Are Now

The now twice-indicted former president is having trouble finding attorneys to help him face his mounting legal troubles. Surprise, surprise: His past lawyers’ experiences aren’t a ringing endorsement for the job.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[Federberg]

Actually, after I made the Giuliani crack, I looked into his lawyers. I'd forgotten that several had resigned. He has a reputation for stiffing attorneys, and, if this is true, amongst lawyers, MAGA stands for "making attorney's get attorneys." This is what Vanity Fair has to say about his attorney situation. (Yes, I know that VF hates Trump, so take it for what its worth.)

A Guide to the Lawyers Who Signed Up to Defend Donald TrumpâAnd Where They Are Now

The now twice-indicted former president is having trouble finding attorneys to help him face his mounting legal troubles. Surprise, surprise: His past lawyers’ experiences aren’t a ringing endorsement for the job.

www.vanityfair.com

you would think he would act more correctly if only to get the best lawyers. I guess his behaviour will change if he loses the election