Pelosi is worried Trump won't step down voluntarily if 2020 is a close race.

[Gandalf]

What I find annoying is that you can't go to his official website without be blasted with JOIN! JOIN! SIGN UP! DONATE!. Fuck that noise, I want a website less slick and more with what the candidates policies/plans are for tackling various issues.

On the other hand, having positions this early on just leaves one open for attack, and allows opponents to position themselves relatively. This phase is about building supporters and coin to get past the first few primaries.

It's a great 2016 lesson; policies are for suckers. Mobilising the base is how to win, because noncompulsory voting means convincing people to make the effort.

[The Romulan Republic]

I reiterate: vote Democrat in the general, but in the primaries, you first consideration should now be: which candidates do I trust most to lead us in a civil war against Trumpism?

I haven't given the question enough thought to say for sure, yet, but right now I'm leaning toward Pete Buttigieg in the Presidential race. He's a Christian and from a red state, and doesn't have a lot of baggage in the public record, so he might have some broad appeal, but he's also fairly progressive in policy and surged in the primary polls, so some appeal to the base. He's not got a lot of political experience, but he's extremely well-educated and intelligent, willing to give in-depth answers on policy, and though not the strongest on impeachment, is not the most resistant to it either. He also has former military and intelligence experience.

Hi there, Indiana organizer for the past 5 years and navy veteran here. Don't vote Buttigieg.

His record in South Bend is one of refusing action and battling the Democratic base while letting Notre Dame pump a ton of money into the local economy and taking credit for that. He is staunchly opposed to progressive policy, his general attitude is that he is always rhe smartest and leftist guy in the room (daddy issues hooray) and won't budge. His intelligence is largely performative, he isn't dumb but he is no more an expert on anything than anyone else in the race, he is just playing to class biases. He has no policies, and he is flat out misrepresenting his "military and intelligence experience " - he was a reserve office, meaning he sat at Kabul International airport where weapons were unloaded and spent his time supervising working parties, remedial PT, and urinalysis.

On topic the core issue is that the Dem leadership is committed to not leading. They want the titles and fat contracts but don't want to build and wield power.

Like look, you don't want to impeach and Trump is openly defying the law refusing to cooperate with congressional subpoenas. The courts probably won't hold him to account. So start issuing subpoenas to the groups bribing Trump instead. Those the courts will uphold. Fairly straightforward, right? Gotta wonder why they aren't doing it, almost like the leading Dems are up to their eyeballs with the same crooks, hmm?

I'll take your comments regarding Buttigieg into consideration. I like what I've seen of him, but he's new enough that its hard to have a fully-fleshed out impression of him yet.

I will say that I have zero patience for "Both Sides" narratives suggesting that the Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt. No organization created by humans is perfect, but one wants to destroy the American republic and replace it with a fascist autocracy, and the other does not. The Democrats' flaws are to the Republicans what a stiff breeze is to a hurricane.

I do think the current conflict over subpoenas is heading toward impeachment, but time will tell. They're trying to weigh Trump down under endless investigations, while using the situation to build public opposition to Trump/support for impeachment. There are some in the leadership (Pelosi especially) who I don't trust not to drag their feet too much, but if public approval for impeachment ticks over 50% and stays there, they won't have a leg to stand on if they want to keep the base behind them.

[Aether]

I would quote, but essentially this "thought experiment" gets under my skin because it is the "Mirror, Mirror" version of the same trash, goatee included, that I see on my FB posted by family.

"Obama is a secret Muslim hellbent on destroying the US from the inside!"
"Obama will ignore the Constitution and be elected for a third term!"
"Obama is going to force socialism on us all!"

Just stop, mang.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would quote, but essentially this "thought experiment" gets under my skin because it is the "Mirror, Mirror" version of the same trash, goatee included, that I see on my FB posted by family.

"Obama is a secret Muslim hellbent on destroying the US from the inside!"
"Obama will ignore the Constitution and be elected for a third term!"
"Obama is going to force socialism on us all!"

Just stop, mang.

Except that Trump actually behaves like a fascist despot and openly emulates them, whereas fear-mongering about Obama was generally based on "He's black".

"Both Sides" crap fails as usual, because both sides are objectively not equal in their actions.

[Jub]

Except that Trump actually behaves like a fascist despot and openly emulates them, whereas fear-mongering about Obama was generally based on "He's black".

"Both Sides" crap fails as usual, because both sides are objectively not equal in their actions.

Ignoring that Obama basically made the so-called 'signature strike' into his signature move, but I guess the fact that Obama's destruction only fell on 3rd world countries and didn't impact your life makes that acceptable behavior. You can't just evaluate a President or political party based on what it does at home, you need to equally factor in foreign policy which often drags Democrats down to the Republicans level when you look events happening in periods where they control such things.

[The Romulan Republic]

Obama's drone tactics were despicable, but they are not an example of him trying to make himself a dictator.

Suggesting that I think they were "acceptable behaviour because they were in a third world country" is not what I said, it is libel, and I will report you for it if you persist.

[Jub]

Obama's drone tactics were despicable, but they are not an example of him trying to make himself a dictator.

What, beyond your own fears and Pelosi's fears makes you think that Trump is trying to make himself a dictator? I'm going to demand hard evidence and citations for this claim. No, ICE doesn't count, because as horrid as they are they have shown no signs of being anything more than a very aggressive illegal immigration taskforce with repulsive policies.

Suggesting that I think they were "acceptable behaviour because they were in a third world country" is not what I said, it is libel, and I will report you for it if you persist.

It clearly didn't impact you to the same degree or we'd have seen you making as much noise about the drone strikes as you do about literally anything Trump does. That you did not demonstrates that you found it more acceptable for Obama to carry out drone strikes than you found Trump trying to build a wall. Given that the defense against libel is the truth and that I can call on your posting history to prove my words are correct you can fuck off with any threats of calling libel on me.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's despotism is not limited to his border wall, and the drone strikes, while deplorable, were not a case of Obama trying to become dictator. You are using false equivalencies and selective evidence to paint me as a racist. Go fuck yourself.

[Jub]

Trump's despotism is not limited to his border wall, and the drone strikes, while deplorable, were not a case of Obama trying to become dictator. You are using false equivalencies and selective evidence to paint me as a racist. Go fuck yourself.

Prove that Trump is trying to become a dictator.

Also, show where I called you a racist or even implied it? My intention was to show that you were relatively quite about the abuses of power conducted by the Dems under Obama in a way that very clearly contrasts with how vocally you've been against Trump from the very start of his term. You're a hypocrite for sure but I've seen no evidence that you're anything but a simple-minded political zealot.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's despotism is not limited to his border wall, and the drone strikes, while deplorable, were not a case of Obama trying to become dictator. You are using false equivalencies and selective evidence to paint me as a racist. Go fuck yourself.

Prove that Trump is trying to become a dictator.

His every action is that of a man trying to be dictator. Are you fucking blind? He's even talking about extending term limits, now.

Also, show where I called you a racist or even implied it? My intention was to show that you were relatively quite about the abuses of power conducted by the Dems under Obama in a way that very clearly contrasts with how vocally you've been against Trump from the very start of his term. You're a hypocrite for sure but I've seen no evidence that you're anything but a simple-minded political zealot.

Its true that drone strikes could be easier to overlook because they were far away, didn't get much press (not as much as they should have, really), and its the sort of thing people just accept as a part of war. But I've called them out before, and I'm not a supporter of them, or of any killing of civilians either deliberately or by negligence. I just don't think they fit the same picture as Trump's actions- that of someone trying to make himself dictator.

Your entire argument that I am a hypocrite depends on Obama being just as bad as Trump. Its just more of the "Both Sides" crap that Bernie or Busters used to justify handing the country to Trump while patting themselves on the back and calling it principle.

[Jub]

His every action is that of a man trying to be dictator.

Prove this. Cite actions and credible non-partisan sources that agree with you.

He's even talking about extending term limits, now.

Term limits have been changed before and the current limits are a relatively modern thing. I don't support the change but as long as any such changes are done above board they're pretty normal US politics.

Its true that drone strikes could be easier to overlook because they were far away, didn't get much press (not as much as they should have, really), and its the sort of thing people just accept as a part of war. But I've called them out before, and I'm not a supporter of them, or of any killing of civilians either deliberately or by negligence. I just don't think they fit the same picture as Trump's actions- that of someone trying to make himself dictator.

So you weren't outspoken against them in the same way you are about literally everything Trump does? That literally proves that they bothered you less than Trump being a bag of dicks.

Your entire argument that I am a hypocrite depends on Obama being just as bad as Trump. Its just more of the "Both Sides" crap that Bernie or Busters used to justify handing the country to Trump while patting themselves on the back and calling it principle.

Yeah, me a Canadian, am a Bernie or Buster... Swing and a fucking miss there. If anything I'm simply less invested in US politics than you are and can more easily spot the bullshit inherent to US politics than somebody entrenched in them can.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Term limits have been changed before and the current limits are a relatively modern thing. I don't support the change but as long as any such changes are done above board they're pretty normal US politics.

This just isn't accurate. It is absolutely not "normal US politics". While the amendment codifying presidential term limits is comparatively modern (ratified in 1951), it was an unspoken convention of US politics literally since George Washington set the precedent. FDR was the only president to exceed that term limit, and if you really don't understand why FDR is a special case I'm not going to bother trying to explain it. There has only been a single deviation from the term limit precedent, and the entire reason the amendment was passed was to prevent there from being another deviation.

Not only would an additional change not be "pretty normal US politics", but there's also the fact that one of the universal signals of a democracy sliding towards despotism is a manipulation of term limits like this.

You're just completely wrong on this point.

[Jub]

This just isn't accurate. It is absolutely not "normal US politics". While the amendment codifying presidential term limits is comparatively modern (ratified in 1951), it was an unspoken convention of US politics literally since George Washington set the precedent. FDR was the only president to exceed that term limit, and if you really don't understand why FDR is a special case I'm not going to bother trying to explain it. There has only been a single deviation from the term limit precedent, and the entire reason the amendment was passed was to prevent there from being another deviation.

Not only would an additional change not be "pretty normal US politics", but there's also the fact that one of the universal signals of a democracy sliding towards despotism is a manipulation of term limits like this.

You're just completely wrong on this point.

I was changed in '51 which means that it's been changed within living memory. It might not be normal, but it's not without precedent either. The same would go for any other amendment of a similar nature. Possibly worrying and a bit out of the ordinary but not some unprecedented curveball.

There is zero chance that any term limit change passes through either the House or the Senate. If by some calamity it does and does so without being blatantly forced through via questionable means, it means the US is already fucked past the point of no return.

So call it in the air; is the US fucked to the point where this even gets put to a vote or is this a lot of fear about nothing? If you called down on the side where the US is fucked what exactly do you suggest people do about it?

[houser2112]

I'm not sure where the notion that Trump wants to change term limits is coming from, because I've honestly not heard of it being mentioned recently. However, there was that bullshit about his term being lengthened by 2 years because the first 2 were "stollen" [sic] by investigations. That's troubling on its own.

Add to it all the evidence in the Mueller report about obstruction, Trump's comments about not honoring the 2016 results if he lost, and all of his demands for the Executive branch being personally loyal to him, it becomes very understandable how people would be worried about his intentions.

[Gandalf]

This just isn't accurate. It is absolutely not "normal US politics". While the amendment codifying presidential term limits is comparatively modern (ratified in 1951), it was an unspoken convention of US politics literally since George Washington set the precedent. FDR was the only president to exceed that term limit, and if you really don't understand why FDR is a special case I'm not going to bother trying to explain it. There has only been a single deviation from the term limit precedent, and the entire reason the amendment was passed was to prevent there from being another deviation.

Not only would an additional change not be "pretty normal US politics", but there's also the fact that one of the universal signals of a democracy sliding towards despotism is a manipulation of term limits like this.

You're just completely wrong on this point.

Why should anyone care about "unspoken conventions" based on the actions of god emperor George Washington?

[Broomstick]

Calling George Washington "god emperor" just makes you look stupid.

Washington decided to limit himself to two terms of his own accord. That's hardly the action of a "god emperor". Most other people for the next century plus thought that was a good idea, including those holding the office of president.

[Jub]

Calling George Washington "god emperor" just makes you look stupid.

Washington decided to limit himself to two terms of his own accord. That's hardly the action of a "god emperor". Most other people for the next century plus thought that was a good idea, including those holding the office of president.

It seems clear to me that he was using "god emperor" to emphasize the importance present day America places on him and the other founding fathers. Canada could care less about a precedent set by Sir. John A. MacDonald and certainly don't idolize him the way you do with Washington, Franklin, etc.

I don't know how aware of this you are as an American, but you guys are very atypical in that regard compared to most other western nations. To us it seems strange that anybody would go nearly 200 years before codifying something as important as term limits for your top elected official. The way you elevate your constitution is also fairly unique compared to how, for example, Canada views our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Gandalf]

Cheers, Jub.

[Gandalf]

Also, as a good example of the weird deification of Washington, look up his posthumous promotion by Gerald Ford.

[Broomstick]

I don't know how aware of this you are as an American, but you guys are very atypical in that regard compared to most other western nations. To us it seems strange that anybody would go nearly 200 years before codifying something as important as term limits for your top elected official. The way you elevate your constitution is also fairly unique compared to how, for example, Canada views our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In part we venerate our constitution (although I agree it is often to an unhealthy degree) because it has been one of things protecting us from our own worst tendencies. Personally, I don't get the Washington worship, either. Sure, he was very important, but not worthy of worship (and would probably be appalled at the notion).

I think in part we didn't codify the term limits thing because until FDR custom was strong enough to limit presidential terms. It was codified because it wasn't seen as needed until then, and it didn't actually get passed until the 1950's because of the lag between proposing an amendment and actually getting it ratified. It was seen as important but not an emergency.

And yeah, I know I live in a weird country.

[The Romulan Republic]

Prove this. Cite actions and credible non-partisan sources that agree with you.

What would you consider a non-partisan source? But for a start:

-Ordering subordinates to ignore all Congressional subpoenas, blocking Congress's lawful role as a coequal branch of government charged by the Constitution with exercising oversight on the Executive.

-Declaring a state of emergency to do an end run around Congress's Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

-Accusing those who investigated him of being traitors, implicitly equating loyalty to America with personal loyalty to him.

-Promising pardons to subordinates who break the law on his command.

-Firing James Comey for investigating his administration, and not giving personal loyalty to him.* AKA Obstruction of Justice.

-Attempting to have Mueller fired. Also Obstruction of Justice.

-Suggesting his term limits should be expanded.

-Attempting to incite mob violence against his political opponents (and, if the uptick in Trump-aligned Right-wing/white supremacist violence is any indication, succeeding).

Most of these are common knowledge to anyone who's paid attention to the news the last couple years.

Term limits have been changed before and the current limits are a relatively modern thing. I don't support the change but as long as any such changes are done above board they're pretty normal US politics.

What Ziggy said.

So you weren't outspoken against them in the same way you are about literally everything Trump does? That literally proves that they bothered you less than Trump being a bag of dicks.

Trump is a bag of dicks, yes. He's also a fascist, a misogynist, a rapist, a racist, an inciter of mob violence, a corrupt plutocrat, a climate denier, a colluder, and obstructor of justice, and guilty of crimes against humanity (his immigration policy). And yes, the aggregate of those things bothers me more than the drone strikes. Maybe that's partly because of bias, but its also because those things together will do more harm to the world than Obama's drone strikes ever could.

His climate denialist policies alone (or trying to strip health care and wellfare from millions of Americans) have the potential to kill more people indirectly than all the drone strikes ever launched.

Yeah, me a Canadian, am a Bernie or Buster... Swing and a fucking miss there. If anything I'm simply less invested in US politics than you are and can more easily spot the bullshit inherent to US politics than somebody entrenched in them can.

I know you're a Canadian, dumb ass. You're still using their rhetoric.

*You want non-partisan sources for Trump being an authoritarian shit who thinks he should be above the law? Just read the fucking Mueller Report.

[Gandalf]

In part we venerate our constitution (although I agree it is often to an unhealthy degree) because it has been one of things protecting us from our own worst tendencies.

It has? Based on slavery and genocidal westward expansion, I would argue that its effectiveness is questionable.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why should anyone care about "unspoken conventions" based on the actions of god emperor George Washington?

Stop being obtuse. Your bizarre game of bringing up how evil the Founding Fathers were every time American history is even vaguely mentioned in passing is getting incredibly tiresome. It's literally irrelevant to what I'm talking about. If you could just for one second use those oft-neglected brain cells of yours, you could probably understand the fact that historical precedent is an important component of determining the constitutionality/legality of a law or measure. Maybe, then, your little weasel-brain would acknowledge that I was talking about the FACT that George Washington resigning after two terms was considered a de facto term limit for the vast majority of American history, and this tradition was so strong that the one time it was broken we amended the constitution to make it explicit. Bumbling in here with your self-congratulatory "DUR HUR GEORGE WASHINGTON BAD" shtick is just a pointless distraction. I'm not even trying to venerate him or say that we should listen to him, you fucking miserable little toad, or even appeal to any of the reasons why it was considered precedent for so long, I'm just pointing out the HISTORICAL FACT THAT IT HAPPENED.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? I know you aren't dumb enough to have not understood my post. Why do you feel the insane need to derail this thread with mentions of slavery and westward expansion? Is your head just so far up your ass that you think it's in any way relevant? Were you deliberately ignoring all possible meaning and context behind my post just so you could derail this thread, or are you just so thin-skinned that the mere mention of any historical American figure just triggers you so much that you can't control spewing your nonsense all over the place?

[The Romulan Republic]

He's not wrong that slave-owner Native-killing Washington was a piece of shit by any decent modern standards, even if the average American doesn't like to hear it. But yeah, its not really relevant to this discussion.

[Broomstick]

In part we venerate our constitution (although I agree it is often to an unhealthy degree) because it has been one of things protecting us from our own worst tendencies.

It has? Based on slavery and genocidal westward expansion, I would argue that its effectiveness is questionable.

I didn't say it did the job perfectly.

Yes, slavery was written into the original document, which is shameful. The westward expansion was not - there is absolutely nothing in that document about increasing the size of the nation or how it should be done.

On the other hand - I am convinced that if we did not have the bill of rights we would have had a surveillance/police state long ago.