SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Elfdart]

When he became President, Trump took an oath of office. He has not only broken it, he has routinely and willfully done so. If he has so little regard for the duties of his office, why should we recognize his right to it?

That's roughly what the English Parliament said about Charles I. The end result of their "solution" was a decade of war, followed by Oliver Cromwell. The French said something similar about Louis XVI. Their "solution" caused over twenty years of war and Napoleon Bonaparte. There are plenty of other examples with the common theme that, regardless of how much of a twerp the incumbent is, overthrowing the lawful head of state rarely has a positive outcome.

Trump had no qualms about overthrowing the elected government in Bolivia in favor of neo-Nazis, and he's currently trying to install a band of serial arsonists as the government of Venezuela, so if a general strike were to drive him from office, I'd call it poetic justice.

Now given that unlike France, where general strikes are a popular weapon of the masses, America has very low union membership (and American unions are mostly weaksauce anyway) there's probably a better chance of an Emerson, Lake & Palmer concert tour than there is of a general strike being called, let alone actually happening -let alone working to run Cheeto Mussolini out of town.

For the present, I am willing to grit my teeth and wait until the election, and see if Trump can be checked in that way. If he cannot, either because he has conned enough of the American people and suppressed the votes of enough of the rest to win "legitimately", or because he outright rigs the race or refuses to peacefully leave... then I will support a General Strike, as the most disruptive and powerful action that can be taken short of being the aggressors in an armed conflict.

You're still talking in terms of overthrowing the lawful head of state by extralegal means. If your lot lose in November (assuming the election doesn't get Covided off) then grit your teeth and wait until the next election. The alternative is to declare that you - not Trump, you - are not prepared to abide by the rules, and the current US constitutional framework is therefore null and void. Once that toothpaste is out of the tube you'll have a devil of a job getting it back in, and it won't be Trump who gets the blame for pulling it out.

In a country where the reaction of one of the two main parties to losing an election is to buy firearms at higher rates, I find the pearl-clutching over a general strike that will never happen rather silly. And since when are strikes "extralegal"?

[Elfdart]

Trump will never leaving willingly, in my view. The goal would be more to hobble the country to the point that those around him would feel compelled to force his resignation for their own good.

Okay. Is there a constitutional mechanism for forcing a President to step down other than impeachment and the 25th?

The threat of impeachment/removal or sending for the men in white coats to take him away.

[loomer]

It's not so much the strike itself that's extralegal as potentially what follows on. If you use the strike to create a state where the lawfully elected head of state is deposed on questionable legal premises, it's not a great precedent even when it's the right single-instance action to take.

Trump will never leaving willingly, in my view. The goal would be more to hobble the country to the point that those around him would feel compelled to force his resignation for their own good.

Okay. Is there a constitutional mechanism for forcing a President to step down other than impeachment and the 25th?

The threat of impeachment/removal or sending for the men in white coats to take him away.

Right. But first you'd need an impeachable offence or for him to be actually, genuinely psychologically unable to perform his duties, right?

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump will never leaving willingly, in my view. The goal would be more to hobble the country to the point that those around him would feel compelled to force his resignation for their own good.

Okay. Is there a constitutional mechanism for forcing a President to step down other than impeachment and the 25th?

Other than those, no, but the Cabinet could force him out under the 25th if they deemed him unfit to hold office.

There are also informal ways that those around the President could put pressure on him to resign (short of actually removing him at gun point). Withdrawl of political and economic support, etc.

[loomer]

Trump will never leaving willingly, in my view. The goal would be more to hobble the country to the point that those around him would feel compelled to force his resignation for their own good.

Okay. Is there a constitutional mechanism for forcing a President to step down other than impeachment and the 25th?

Other than those, no, but the Cabinet could force him out under the 25th if they deemed him unfit to hold office.

There are also informal ways that those around the President could put pressure on him to resign (short of actually removing him at gun point). Withdrawl of political and economic support, etc.

Right. But the 25th is only meant to be invoked for genuine incapacity, not civil unrest - so using it to get rid of Trump isn't exactly kosher. As for those informal ways, what if he refuses and instead insists on staying in his democratically elected office?

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay. Is there a constitutional mechanism for forcing a President to step down other than impeachment and the 25th?

Other than those, no, but the Cabinet could force him out under the 25th if they deemed him unfit to hold office.

There are also informal ways that those around the President could put pressure on him to resign (short of actually removing him at gun point). Withdrawl of political and economic support, etc.

Right. But the 25th is only meant to be invoked for genuine incapacity, not civil unrest - so using it to get rid of Trump isn't exactly kosher. As for those informal ways, what if he refuses and instead insists on staying in his democratically elected office?

The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the President "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,"

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... ndment-xxv

Which seems open to interpretation as hell.

In any case, there are already ample grounds to question Trump's mental fitness to hold office. There were even discussions around the time of the Comey firing, before all internal resistance was stamped out, about invoking the 25th. So it would simply be putting pressure on the Cabinet to do what they arguably should have done three years ago.

[Elfdart]

An impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is, and the Senate decides on whether he gets removed. If it ever got to the point where Trump's own lackeys started turning on him, the Senate wouldn't need to vote since even a dumbass like Trump could see Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin on the walls like Nixon did. Ditto for his cabinet trying to put a straitjacket on him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Quite.

And for anyone who wants to say I'm overreacting or being alarmist, here is a recent article about an expert on genocide warning that the US under Trump shows many signs of a society heading toward a genocide:

https://newsweek.com/us-showing-many-ge ... ed-1483817

A defense analyst and genocide expert has published a warning about the direction of American society and politics in the age of President Donald Trump, identifying characteristics that may one day facilitate atrocities against minority groups.

Brynn Tannehill—a former naval aviator who is now an academic and trans rights activist—posted a Twitter thread on Thursday setting out the early genocide warning signs, noting that the U.S. was still some way from catastrophe but that the nation's direction is deeply concerning.

"I am very, very worried," Tannehill wrote. "I am not saying it will definitely happen, but the necessary conditions are there, and many of the precursor events are in motion... My spouse and our kids are Canadian. We're laying the groundwork to go back there in 2021, even if I don't have a job waiting."

There are "common themes and patterns" in genocidal societies, Tannehill said, many of which are not generally prevalent in the U.S. She noted that for the most part such atrocities occur in economically struggling nations where living standards are falling.

Politically though, Tannehill noted the U.S. trend towards divisive rhetoric and policies under President Donald Trump, who has been repeatedly accused of various forms of racism and has pursued a nativist agenda.

"The politicians enacting it are populists who benefit from stirring Us vs. Them narratives, placing blame for the woes of the nation on others who are somehow less worthy," she wrote. "They yearn for a mythological past [without] these people. It's a highly viable tactic for shoring up support."

The undesirables are smeared in a variety of ways, whether labeled criminals, sex offenders, threats to women and children or "generally unworthy of empathy," Tannehill continued. Anyone who defends such groups is then demonized.

Propaganda further vilifies a target group, dehumanizing them and enabling "public safety measures" such as removing them from government jobs and revoking security clearances, Tannehill said.

So, the question we're essentially debating is: do we resist before the genocide begins, or do we, for the sake of political norms or legal niceties, wait until its happening and its too late to stop it? (This is assuming you don't regard what's happening on the border as ongoing ethnic cleansing)

To be blunt, we've already waited too long to avoid mass deaths as a direct result of Trump policy (see the COVID-19 response, and climate change, though the link there is less direct, immediate, and obvious).

[loomer]

Other than those, no, but the Cabinet could force him out under the 25th if they deemed him unfit to hold office.

There are also informal ways that those around the President could put pressure on him to resign (short of actually removing him at gun point). Withdrawl of political and economic support, etc.

Right. But the 25th is only meant to be invoked for genuine incapacity, not civil unrest - so using it to get rid of Trump isn't exactly kosher. As for those informal ways, what if he refuses and instead insists on staying in his democratically elected office?

The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the President "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,"

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... ndment-xxv

Which seems open to interpretation as hell.

In any case, there are already ample grounds to question Trump's mental fitness to hold office. There were even discussions around the time of the Comey firing, before all internal resistance was stamped out, about invoking the 25th. So it would simply be putting pressure on the Cabinet to do what they arguably should have done three years ago.

Every precedent involving it has been limited to cases of clear incapacity. Invoking it where it's absent would be a huge divergence, and we need to be very clear on that before we go advocating for it even in situations where it may be a worthwhile sacrifice to avoid a disaster since the potential ramifications for democratic process and the rule of law will long outlast the situation.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know. There is no safe, zero-cost, zero-risk answer here. There is only a choice as to which outcome we consider the least catastrophic, and we may very well get it horribly wrong. Between the alternatives of "do nothing" and "start a civil war", I've settled on mass disruption and civil disobedience as the least evil, if the electoral process fails to remove Trump. I would, of course, much rather that he be removed by the electoral process.

Much like the old debates around the Prime Directive on this board, though, I don't feel that the risk of action having unintended consequences justifies doing nothing forever even when millions of lives are clearly at stake.

I would, however, ask you to consider what the consequences to the democratic process and rule of law will be if Trump is in office for five more years (or for life, if I'm right about his ultimate ambitions).

[loomer]

I know. There is no safe, zero-cost, zero-risk answer here. There is only a choice as to which outcome we consider the least catastrophic, and we may very well get it horribly wrong.

Much like the old debates around the Prime Directive on this board, though, I don't feel that the risk of action having unintended consequences justifies doing nothing forever even when millions of lives are clearly at stake.

I would, however, ask you to consider what the consequences to the democratic process and rule of law will be if Trump is in office for five more years (or for life, if I'm right about his ultimate ambitions).

Oh, I've considered it plenty. Schmitt's work and the theory of the state of exception are part of my broader area of focus, and it's the potential ramifications that keep me from saying 'you must not do this'. But if it's to be done, it has to be very clear that what is being discussed isn't business as usual, but the specific overriding of a democratically elected government either through repurposed legal means or outright extralegal ones. With that as the end goal, we cannot glibly write off questions about legality, constitutionality, and ethicality with 'well, general strikes aren't illegal' because the strike is specifically geared towards the establishment of the following precedent: An unpopular president can be forced to resign or be otherwise forcibly removed from office despite being validly elected. If the 25th is invoked for the purpose in the absence of clear evidence of actual incapacity, it's even worse - at that point, cabinet has the authority to remove the democratically elected head of state for the convenience of government. Once established, there is no barrier to it being deployed against other presidencies.

Trump is a singularity of awfulness, and these sacrifices may be worth making to depose him. But we must be clear in what we're discussing and saying should be done, and not try to obfuscate or hide it behind niceties and glib remarks about general strikes being lawful and vagueness about how the actual deposing is to be done.

[Elfdart]

Right. But the 25th is only meant to be invoked for genuine incapacity, not civil unrest - so using it to get rid of Trump isn't exactly kosher. As for those informal ways, what if he refuses and instead insists on staying in his democratically elected office?

Like the hypothetical general strike, this won't happen. However, I always thought the 25th was a polite way of easing a senile, insane or physically ill chief executive out without the stain of impeachment -especially since several presidents fit the bill. It was also a way to make sure that the person making decisions in the Oval Office was somehow elected, after Edith Wilson and her husband's doctors more or less took over for the last 18 months of Woodrow Wilson's term.

[loomer]

Right. But the 25th is only meant to be invoked for genuine incapacity, not civil unrest - so using it to get rid of Trump isn't exactly kosher. As for those informal ways, what if he refuses and instead insists on staying in his democratically elected office?

Like the hypothetical general strike, this won't happen. However, I always thought the 25th was a polite way of easing a senile, insane or physically ill chief executive out without the stain of impeachment -especially since several presidents fit the bill. It was also a way to make sure that the person making decisions in the Oval Office was somehow elected, after Edith Wilson and her husband's doctors more or less took over for the last 18 months of Woodrow Wilson's term.

That's the point, yes - to ensure the transition of power whenever a president becomes incapacitated by illness, physical or mental, to the extent they are unable to perform the duties of the president, either by their own admission or by the judgment of the VP and other main figures. The thing about this, however, is that it's understood to be for that purpose only - even if, hypothetically, the US elected the literal devil himself, it would remain an abuse of the 25th as currently understood and interpreted to use it to depose him without strong evidence of actual and untreatable incapacity. Trump, though increasingly senile, still seems to possess his capacity for judgment at roughly the same shit-arse level he had when he was first installed.

This is why I say that it needs to be clear that when we say there should be a general strike that will force the rest of the executive to 'use the 25th to force him from office', we aren't talking about a conventional application of the 25th. We're talking about expanding the meaning of an inability to perform the duties of the office to include mass revolt against a democratically elected president and not just a physical or psychological ailment.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know. There is no safe, zero-cost, zero-risk answer here. There is only a choice as to which outcome we consider the least catastrophic, and we may very well get it horribly wrong.

Much like the old debates around the Prime Directive on this board, though, I don't feel that the risk of action having unintended consequences justifies doing nothing forever even when millions of lives are clearly at stake.

I would, however, ask you to consider what the consequences to the democratic process and rule of law will be if Trump is in office for five more years (or for life, if I'm right about his ultimate ambitions).

Oh, I've considered it plenty. Schmitt's work and the theory of the state of exception are part of my broader area of focus, and it's the potential ramifications that keep me from saying 'you must not do this'. But if it's to be done, it has to be very clear that what is being discussed isn't business as usual, but the specific overriding of a democratically elected government either through repurposed legal means or outright extralegal ones. With that as the end goal, we cannot glibly write off questions about legality, constitutionality, and ethicality with 'well, general strikes aren't illegal' because the strike is specifically geared towards the establishment of the following precedent: An unpopular president can be forced to resign or be otherwise forcibly removed from office despite being validly elected. If the 25th is invoked for the purpose in the absence of clear evidence of actual incapacity, it's even worse - at that point, cabinet has the authority to remove the democratically elected head of state for the convenience of government. Once established, there is no barrier to it being deployed against other presidencies.

The last in particular is a fair concern.

However, I object to your characterizing my position as wanting to override a democratic election simply because Trump is unpopular. This is a straw man that both you and Captain "I'm down with massacring peaceful protesters" Seafort have used, which basically portrays my motives as those of a sore loser who wants to overturn the election if my guy doesn't win. That's not what this is about.

An extraordinary action like this would absolutely not be justified merely because the President is unpopular, or because voters had buyers' remorse, or because he's not our candidate. That's what elections are for. It is, however, arguably justified to remove a President who has routinely attacked the Constitution, who is engaging in a campaign of ethnic cleansing on his Southern border, and who's negligence and outright sabotage during a pandemic has likely doomed thousands if not millions of his citizens to death, once all less drastic means of meaningfully checking him have been exhausted.

As to precedent, the United States was literally formed based on the notion that the people have a right to depose a "lawful" but tyrannical government. Granted, King George wasn't elected, and the colonists lacked Parliamentary representation. But a lot of Americans today likewise lack representation, thanks in large part to Republican Party policies. I'm increasingly wondering how meaningful a "lawful" election in the US is when we have massive voter suppression, and the popular vote has nothing to do with who actually wins (and yes, I'm aware that wide-spread disenfranchisement has been the norm throughout American history, but in modern times, until recently, we could at least make the claim, as a society, that we were headed in the right direction).

Trump is a singularity of awfulness, and these sacrifices may be worth making to depose him. But we must be clear in what we're discussing and saying should be done, and not try to obfuscate or hide it behind niceties and glib remarks about general strikes being lawful and vagueness about how the actual deposing is to be done.

It is simply a fact to state that there is nothing illegal about striking (certain professions, like the armed forces, aside), or about demanding a President's resignation. As for the method, a couple of different ones have been discussed in this thread (either put sufficient pressure on the cabinet to invoke the 25th, or sufficient pressure on the Senate to remove Trump via impeachment trial). Although you are correct that more thought needs to be given to how this would proceed.

Would this be an extraordinary action? Yes. Could it escalate into widespread violence? Yes. Could it set dangerous precedents? Yes. Could it fail outright? Yes. But it does not have to follow that because one extraordinarily corrupt, despotic, and dangerous President was forced from office, that this will become the new norm for all future Presidents. Nor is the risk of action an excuse for perpetual inaction, no matter how bad the situation becomes. One might argue, for example, that mandatory self-isolation during a pandemic poses a risk of setting a precedent that undermines the right to freedom of movement (as well as freedom of assembly, the right to vote, and the right to a fair trial). And you'd be right. But it doesn't have to do that. These restrictions do not have to become a permanent state of affairs. And we implement them now because the cost of not doing so would be millions of dead and potentially the total breakdown of society.

And at worst we'd simply be choosing between two outcomes which undermine the democratic and legal process (Trump's ouster or Trump's continued rule). That's what I keep coming back to. You say "forcing Trump out, even by non-violent means, would undermine democracy and the rule of law". I reply "Five more years of Trump will definitely undermine democracy and the rule of law." So all you are telling me is that the worst case scenario for doing something looks a lot like the best case scenario for doing nothing.

[Ralin]

Rom, you do realize you could have parred all that down to "Yes, trying to use mass strikes to strong-arm the president into stepping down against his will by crippling the country until he does is playing with fire and sets some scary precedents but it's the least bad option considering" and loomer probably would have accepted it, right? He's not actually arguing against you. He's pointing out that the implications may go a lot further than you've considered.

[loomer]

I know. There is no safe, zero-cost, zero-risk answer here. There is only a choice as to which outcome we consider the least catastrophic, and we may very well get it horribly wrong.

Much like the old debates around the Prime Directive on this board, though, I don't feel that the risk of action having unintended consequences justifies doing nothing forever even when millions of lives are clearly at stake.

I would, however, ask you to consider what the consequences to the democratic process and rule of law will be if Trump is in office for five more years (or for life, if I'm right about his ultimate ambitions).

Oh, I've considered it plenty. Schmitt's work and the theory of the state of exception are part of my broader area of focus, and it's the potential ramifications that keep me from saying 'you must not do this'. But if it's to be done, it has to be very clear that what is being discussed isn't business as usual, but the specific overriding of a democratically elected government either through repurposed legal means or outright extralegal ones. With that as the end goal, we cannot glibly write off questions about legality, constitutionality, and ethicality with 'well, general strikes aren't illegal' because the strike is specifically geared towards the establishment of the following precedent: An unpopular president can be forced to resign or be otherwise forcibly removed from office despite being validly elected. If the 25th is invoked for the purpose in the absence of clear evidence of actual incapacity, it's even worse - at that point, cabinet has the authority to remove the democratically elected head of state for the convenience of government. Once established, there is no barrier to it being deployed against other presidencies.

The last in particular is a fair concern.

However, I object to your characterizing my position as wanting to override a democratic election simply because Trump is unpopular. This is a straw man that both you and Captain "I'm down with massacring peaceful protesters" Seafort have used, which basically portrays my motives as those of a sore loser who wants to overturn the election if my guy doesn't win. That's not what this is about.

You need to pay attention to what people write. I didn't say you want him removed just because you're a sore loser or simply because he's unpopular and not morally wrong. I said it establishes a precedent that an unpopular president can be forcibly removed - which it does.

The specific mechanism you're calling for is a general strike, which you want to see map directly into a possibly extra-legal forced removal from office of a democratically elected head of state. If it is accepted that a general strike is sufficient grounds to remove a president, that can happen to any subsequent presidency. You aren't calling for his removal through formalized processes that would establish strict guidelines for when a general strike can be grounds to remove a president - you're calling, quite literally, for an informal removal process based on the unpopularity of a president. For the strike to have sufficient backing, he must be unpopular by definition - it is the fact that the majority of people are calling for his removal that you argue should be sufficient to have him forcibly removed from office.

It is the definition of an unpopular president, and without suitable checks, there is nothing to prevent such a precedent being freely applied to subsequent presidencies that are unpopular but not morally illegitimate or criminally negligent.

As to precedent, the United States was literally formed based on the notion that the people have a right to depose a "lawful" but tyrannical government. Granted, King George wasn't elected, and the colonists lacked Parliamentary representation. But a lot of Americans today likewise lack representation, thanks in large part to Republican Party policies. I'm increasingly wondering how meaningful a "lawful" election in the US is when we have massive voter suppression, and the popular vote has nothing to do with who actually wins (and yes, I'm aware that wide-spread disenfranchisement has been the norm throughout American history, but in modern times, until recently, we could at least make the claim, as a society, that we were headed in the right direction).

This is not a precedent for forcing the removal of a legitimately elected head of state in the United States, in the same way it was not a precedent for the legality of secession. This is in part because such revolutionary actions are fundamentally outside of law. They are unlawful by the regime they were directed against, but not legalized by the regimes that follow. They are an originating moment of violence that establishes a legal normative regime but are, as a consequence of this act of creation, outside and beyond that regime.

Trump is a singularity of awfulness, and these sacrifices may be worth making to depose him. But we must be clear in what we're discussing and saying should be done, and not try to obfuscate or hide it behind niceties and glib remarks about general strikes being lawful and vagueness about how the actual deposing is to be done.

It is simply a fact to state that there is nothing illegal about striking (certain professions, like the armed forces, aside), or about demanding a President's resignation. As for the method, a couple of different ones have been discussed in this thread (either put sufficient pressure on the cabinet to invoke the 25th, or sufficient pressure on the Senate to remove Trump via impeachment trial). Although you are correct that more thought needs to be given to how this would proceed.

It is simply a fact in the same way that it is simply a fact that if I pull the trigger on a gun and kill somebody, the gun itself did not kill them but the bullet's passage through their body did. To ignore the larger question because 'well, it's just a fact that it's not illegal to have a strike (to force the dismissal of a democratically elected government on constitutionally dubious grounds)' is to ignore what it is you are actually seeking. It's disingenuous and dishonest, and cannot act as a shield against the suggestion that your ultimate goal is in fact extralegal.

Would this be an extraordinary action? Yes. Could it escalate into widespread violence? Yes. Could it set dangerous precedents? Yes. Could it fail outright? Yes. But it does not have to follow that because one extraordinarily corrupt, despotic, and dangerous President was forced from office, that this will become the new norm for all future Presidents.

Correct. But you are, again, advocating for the introduction of a precedent of unregulated forced dismissals on the basis of public opposition. Such a prospect must be openly confronted, not hidden away.

Nor is the risk of action an excuse for perpetual inaction, no matter how bad the situation becomes. One might argue, for example, that mandatory self-isolation during a pandemic poses a risk of setting a precedent that undermines the right to freedom of movement (as well as freedom of assembly, the right to vote, and the right to a fair trial). And you'd be right. But it doesn't have to do that. These restrictions do not have to become a permanent state of affairs. And we implement them now because the cost of not doing so would be millions of dead and potentially the total breakdown of society.

Yes. However, I don't believe I've stated that it is.

And at worst we'd simply be choosing between two outcomes which undermine the democratic and legal process (Trump's ouster or Trump's continued rule). That's what I keep coming back to. You say "forcing Trump out, even by non-violent means, would undermine democracy and the rule of law". I reply "Five more years of Trump will definitely undermine democracy and the rule of law." So all you are telling me is that the worst case scenario for doing something looks a lot like the best case scenario for doing nothing.

What I'm telling you is that if you're going to take a course of action that will undermine the democratic process and the rule of law, you need to openly consider that from the first step or the last to minimize unintended consequences. I'm not telling you you shouldn't do it - shit, I'm the guy who thinks the entire existence of the US is fundamentally illegitimate, remember? - but those of us who would defend democracy must be ready and willing to consider, debate, and justify when we act in ways that are contrary to it's free and unfettered operation - even (perhaps especially even) when those ways are necessary for its long-term survival or integrity.

[loomer]

Rom, you do realize you could have parred all that down to "Yes, trying to use mass strikes to strong-arm the president into stepping down against his will by crippling the country until he does is playing with fire and sets some scary precedents but it's the least bad option considering" and loomer probably would have accepted it, right? He's not actually arguing against you. He's pointing out that the implications may go a lot further than you've considered.

Bingo. I'm all for it on a personal level, but the issue of political and legal legitimacy is also my bread and butter (like... literally. I'm a legal academic and my main area of focus is on the legitimacy and validity of legal systems (and all political systems are legal systems).) and just felt a need to point out that this is a potentially very significant departure from business as usual with some serious risks and long term dangers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough.

Rom, you do realize you could have parred all that down to "Yes, trying to use mass strikes to strong-arm the president into stepping down against his will by crippling the country until he does is playing with fire and sets some scary precedents but it's the least bad option considering" and loomer probably would have accepted it, right? He's not actually arguing against you. He's pointing out that the implications may go a lot further than you've considered.

Who says I haven't considered them? Just because I didn't feel the need to list every possible counterargument to my position in advance doesn't mean that I've given zero thought to them. But since that appears to be the assumption, I thought it best to explain my position in greater detail.

But yeah, a basic summary of my position would be "Acting is risky, will have a high cost, and could end catastrophically. Doing nothing indefinitely is at least as risky, and carries at least as great a cost. Therefore, in the event that the election cannot remove Trump (the methods of impeachment and the 25th Amendment having already been tried and failed), I support what I believe is the only option short of immediate armed revolt which is drastic enough to actually have a hope of accomplishing anything."

[Ralin]

The specific mechanism you're calling for is a general strike, which you want to see map directly into a possibly extra-legal forced removal from office of a democratically elected head of state. If it is accepted that a general strike is sufficient grounds to remove a president, that can happen to any subsequent presidency. You aren't calling for his removal through formalized processes that would establish strict guidelines for when a general strike can be grounds to remove a president - you're calling, quite literally, for an informal removal process based on the unpopularity of a president. For the strike to have sufficient backing, he must be unpopular by definition - it is the fact that the majority of people are calling for his removal that you argue should be sufficient to have him forcibly removed from office.

It is the definition of an unpopular president, and without suitable checks, there is nothing to prevent such a precedent being freely applied to subsequent presidencies that are unpopular but not morally illegitimate or criminally negligent.

Just going to point out here, we all know that for the foreseeable future the main danger from the precedent is it being used by Republicans/right-wingers against Democratic administrations. Which kinda reminds me of the 'You can't impeach Trump because that will open up the floodgates to the Republicans impeaching every future Democrat president!' arguments some people were making not so long ago. Like...they would do that if they could. Precedent or no, justification or no. Not seeing how liberals doing it first would make it easier.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

General strikes aren't really the Right's style, in any case. Its a tactic that relies on organized labour to succeed, and historically and today is primarily associated with the radical Left. Shootings and bombings and lynchings and marches of thugs with Tiki torches are the preferred tactics of the Right.

Or for the more sophisticated ones, "winning" rigged elections by exploiting flaws in the system, and then using political power to strip rights from people they don't like.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://usatoday.com/story/news/politic ... 936124001/

If former Vice President Joe BIden secures the Democratic presidential nomination, 15% of Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters will vote for President Donald Trump's re-election, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

If accurate, that would represent a slightly larger defection than occurred after the bitter battle between Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016, when 12% of Sanders voters broke for Trump in the general election.

The good news for Biden is that in spring 2016, an ABC News poll found 20% of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Trump over Clinton, and far fewer ended up doing so. And 80 percent of Sanders' supporters said they would back Biden over Trump, according to the poll.

The 15% who said they plan to vote for Trump represents just 6% of Democrats and voters who lean Democratic, according to ABC News. Trump won 8% of Democrats in 2016.

Biden holds a more than 300-delegate lead over Sanders, who has said he intends to continue his fight for the nomination despite the tough odds of overcoming Biden's lead. The ABC/Post poll found Biden with a 16-percentage-point advantage (55%-39%) over Sanders among registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic.

In a hypothetical general election matchup, Biden narrowly topped Trump by 2 points (49%-47%), which is well within the poll's 3.5-percentage-point margin of error. That signals a dramatic tightening of the race from October, when an ABC/Post poll found the former vice president with a 17-point lead over Trump among registered voters.

Trump held a solid advantage over Biden in voter enthusiasm. Fifty-three percent of Trump's backers said they would be "very enthusiastic" to cast their votes for him, while 24% of Biden's supporters said the same for their candidate. That is the lowest for any Democratic presidential candidate in 20 years in an ABC/Post poll. Among Sanders supporters who said they back Biden in November, just 9% said they were very enthusiastic about doing so.

The president also held an edge over Biden when it came to the economy, where 57% said they approved of Trump's performance. When asked who they would trust more to handle economic matters, 50% said Trump and 42% said Biden.

Biden has been highly critical of Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak, but Trump narrowly bested Biden on that issue in the poll as well. Forty-five percent of Americans said they trusted Trump more to deal with the crisis, while 43% said they had more faith in Biden.

When it came to health care, however, Biden was more trusted by a wide margin of Americans (52%-39%) over Trump.

On Friday, an earlier portion of the poll was released that showed for the first time more voters approve of Trump's job performance than disapprove (49%-47%). Other polls have also shown a rise in Trump's approval rating amid the battle against the coronavirus and the RealClearPolitics average of his approval numbers is at its highest since he took office.

The poll was conducted from March 22-25 by telephone from a sample of 1,003 adults.

Well, the vast majority plan to go for Biden, as expected, though that 15% is marginally higher than the 12% who went for Trump in 2016. However, some of those might change their minds between now and the general election- tempers are still running high during the primary.

Much more concerning is the lower enthusiasm for Biden overall, and the fact that Trump's approval rating is higher than his disapproval rating for the first time after he just said he'd feed us to coronavirus for Wall Street's profits.

I guess a certain portion of the electorate just have something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/202 ... ign-update

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are in a tight race for the White House, as Americans focus on the response to the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Sunday.

Trump has closed a 7-point deficit from February and is in a statistical tie with the former vice president, 47% to 49%, among registered voters. Among all adults, Trump trails Biden 44% to 50%. But Trump’s voters are far more enthusiastic about turning out.

Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, is more trusted by voters on health care and Trump more trusted on the economy, according to the poll. When registered voters are asked whom they trust most to confront the coronavirus, there was no statistical difference between the two.

The poll of 1,003 adults, including 845 registered voters, was conducted March 22-25. The margin of error was 3.5 percentage points.

B-b-b-b-but Biden's more electable! We have to pick him because he's the only one who can beat Trump!

Its like we can see the brick wall we're speeding toward, and there's still time to turn or hit the breaks, but the Democratic leadership is stepping on the gas.

Granted, we've got a ways to go, and no election is over until its over. I really hope Biden can pull it off. I really want to believe that the American republic isn't going to end like this. But all the evidence right now says otherwise. And at the very least, we're not seeing any evidence that Biden is an exceptionally electable candidate.

And if he's not more electable, to be blunt... what the fuck does he have to offer?

[The Romulan Republic]

Finally, some good election news:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ne ... he-senate/

The topsy-turvy Democratic primary for president dominated political news for the first two-and-a-half months of 2020 — and rightfully so, it was bonkers — but now that it’s settled down, it’s time for us to check in once again on the other major political battle of 2020: the fight for the U.S. Senate.

Republicans started the cycle with the advantage, but Democrats have had reason for optimism of late. New polls have shown Democratic challengers ahead of GOP incumbents, the party is recruiting strong candidates, and, perhaps most importantly given the tight correlation between presidential and Senate voting, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrat who has polled the best against President Trump, has become the party’s likely presidential nominee.

The most likely outcome is still that Republicans maintain control of the Senate, though perhaps with a reduced majority: The status quo favors them, and most of the states where the Senate will be decided lean red. (As a refresher, Republicans currently have 53 Senate seats to Democrats’ 47,1 meaning Democrats need to flip four seats, on net, to take control — or three if they also win the vice presidency.) But Democrats have expanded the map to the point where they have a lot more pick-up opportunities than Republicans do, so they have a lot of upside.

Democrats have pick-up opportunities in the Senate
Competitive U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2020, as rated by three major election handicappers

STATE INCUMBENT INCUMBENT PARTY RATING
Minnesota Tina Smith D Likely D
New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen D Likely D
New Mexico OPEN D Likely D
Michigan Gary Peters D Lean D
Arizona* Martha McSally R Toss-up
Colorado Cory Gardner R Toss-up
North Carolina Thom Tillis R Toss-up
Maine Susan Collins R Toss-up/Lean R
Alabama Doug Jones D Lean R
Georgia* Kelly Loeffler R Lean R
Iowa Joni Ernst R Lean R
Kansas OPEN R Lean R
Montana Steve Daines R Lean R
Georgia David Perdue R Likely R
Kentucky Mitch McConnell R Likely R
Texas John Cornyn R Likely R
Rating is the race’s median rating among the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Races with a median rating of Solid D or Solid R are excluded.

*Special election.

SOURCES: COOK POLITICAL REPORT, INSIDE ELECTIONS, SABATO’S CRYSTAL BALL

The most competitive Senate races remain unchanged from late last year — there haven’t been any significant developments in Colorado or Maine, for example, that have dislodged them from their too-close-to-call status. Instead, the biggest Senate news of the last couple months came in the longer-shot Democratic pick-up opportunity of Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock’s entry has shaken up the race. Bullock was considered to be the only Democrat who could put this red state in play, and his announcement caused nonpartisan handicappers to move the race from “Solid Republican” to “Lean Republican.”

According to Morning Consult, Bullock has a +21 net approval rating (approval rating minus disapproval rating) and at least 83 percent of Montanans are able to form an opinion of him (approval rating plus disapproval rating). This gives him a leg up against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines (who has just a +16 net approval rating and at least 78 percent name recognition, according to the same poll). Indeed, Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling put out a survey shortly after Bullock entered the race that found Bullock and Daines deadlocked at 47 percent support. However, the poll was sponsored by liberal group End Citizens United, which has endorsed Bullock, so you should take it with a grain of salt.

The special election in Georgia has also seen a flurry of new candidates. After now-Sen. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to the vacant seat instead of Republican Rep. Doug Collins, Collins announced in late January that he would challenge her in November’s jungle primary. (Unlike a normal Georgia election, all candidates in the special election, regardless of party, will run on the same ballot in November; then, if no one gets a majority, the top two finishers advance to a runoff.) But Collins isn’t the only one entering the fray. Democrat Matt Lieberman, the son of former Sen. Joe Lieberman, has been running since last year, and fellow Democrat Raphael Warnock, the senior pastor at Atlanta’s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, announced in late January that he would run. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly endorsed Warnock. Then, in February, former U.S. Attorney Ed Tarver became the third prominent Democrat to join the race.

With both the Republican and Democratic vote splintered among several candidates, it now seems extremely likely that the race will advance to a runoff election in January. And unfortunately for Democrats, there’s a chance they get locked out of a runoff completely: Several early polls of the race (granted, only one of which was nonpartisan) showed Collins and Loeffler finishing first and second in the jungle primary. However, if a Democrat does make it through to the runoff, he might find Collins or Loeffler to be a relatively soft target. Collins’s hardline conservative views may make him a poor fit for an increasingly moderate state like Georgia, while Loeffler has faced a firestorm of criticism since it was revealed she sold millions of dollars in stocks after she received a briefing on the dangers of the coronavirus.2 In fact, one GOP pollster has shown her losing ground in the last few weeks — although, as always, we shouldn’t read too much into just one poll.

Meanwhile, handicappers still rate Arizona as a toss-up, but there’s an increasingly strong argument that Democrats are actually favored despite the state’s Republican lean. Five polls of Arizona’s U.S. Senate race have been conducted so far in March, and Democrat Mark Kelly led Republican Sen. Martha McSally in all five. His average lead was 7 percentage points.

Democrat Mark Kelly leads in recent Arizona polls
Public polls of Arizona’s U.S. Senate race conducted in March 2020

RESULTS
DATES POLLSTER SAMPLE KELLY (D) MCSALLY (R) MARGIN
March 2-3 Public Policy Polling 666 V 47% 42% D+5
March 3-4 OH Predictive Insights 600 LV 49 42 D+7
March 6-11 Latino Decisions 1036 RV 48 36 D+12
March 10-15 Marist College 2523 RV 48 45 D+3
March 11-14 Monmouth University 847 RV 50 44 D+6
Average 48 42 D+7
SOURCE: POLLS

Of course, contrarians need only recall the fate of former Tallahassee, Florida, Mayor Andrew Gillum in 2018: He led almost every poll of the Florida governor’s race yet still went down to defeat. Even a small systematic polling error in Arizona could mean that McSally is actually ahead (most of those Kelly leads are within the margin of error). However, Kelly also has the advantage of being a monster fundraiser — he took in more than $20.2 million in 2019. McSally raised only $12.6 million.

Finally, the first few Senate battlegrounds have now held their primaries, which means we have a clearer picture of who will face off in the fall. In North Carolina, former state Sen. Cal Cunningham, who had the support of the DSCC, won the Democratic primary with 57 percent of the vote. That sets up a close general election with Republican Sen. Thom Tillis: A survey by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling claims Cunningham is ahead, while Tillis’s pollster gave the incumbent the lead.

And in Texas, Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s Democratic opponent will be either DSCC-endorsed veteran MJ Hegar or state Sen. Royce West. After finishing first and second, in the March 3 primary, the two Democrats will face off in a July 14 runoff that was delayed two months by the coronavirus pandemic. (This could be a problem for Democrats, as their eventual nominee will be forced to spend time and money on an extended intraparty fight rather than stockpiling enough cash to compete with Cornyn in this very expensive state.)

Also on July 14 (and also months later than originally scheduled), Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama will find out if his Republican opponent will be former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville or former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Tuberville and Sessions finished neck and neck in the first round of the GOP primary on March 3, but Tuberville may have the advantage in the runoff: He leads in multiple polls, and Trump, still nursing a grudge against Sessions for not protecting him from the Mueller probe, formally endorsed Tuberville a couple weeks ago.

No matter who wins, though, things look dire for Jones. In a Mason-Dixon poll from early February, Tuberville led the Democrat by 8 percentage points, and Sessions led him by 13 points. Democrats’ best chance at holding onto this seat likely went out the window after former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — whose profound flaws as a candidate allowed Jones to first win this seat back in 2017 — failed in his comeback bid; he finished fourth with just 7 percent in the GOP primary earlier this month.

With seven months to go until Election Day, though, there is still a lot that can change — in these races and others. The overall race for the Senate could still go either way, and we’ll of course keep you updated.

Also on fivethirtyeight, Trump's average disapproval rating has inched back up to fifty percent, with his approval rating at 45.6. This is vitally important, as no Presidential incumbent in recent history has ever won reelection with an approval rating below 50%, or lost it with an approval rating over 50%, on election day.

The generic House ballot has Democrats' at 48.7 to Republicans' 41.3. But that's no cause for complacency, as voter suppression and gerrymanding means we need to be polling well ahead to win the House.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders campaign office in Florida vandalized with swastikas, and the words "Voting didn't stop us last time."

People immediately claimed that it was "fake", or that it was put there by a Sanders staff, with no evidence.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/442653 ... swastikas/

(JTA) — A Florida campaign office for Bernie Sanders was vandalized with swastikas.

A tweet Saturday from the Florida for Bernie account showed two large swastikas painted in black and the words “voting didn’t stop us last time.” It did not say where in Florida the office is located.

“Didn’t know if we should share, but one of our grassroots Bernie offices in Florida was vandalized with swastikas. Sheriff sent a team to clean it up. But Bernie is just another old white man, right?” it said.

Several replies called the vandalism “fake.” Others accused a Sanders staffer of drawing the graffiti.

Earlier this month a protester identified as a known white supremacist unfurled a Nazi flag at a Sanders rally in Phoenix.

Sanders has been more open about his Jewish identity during the current Democratic primary contest, but he trails former Vice President Joe Biden in the race.

Didn’t know if we should share, but one of our grassroots Bernie offices in Florida was vandalized with swastikas. Sheriff sent a team to clean it up. But Bernie is just another old white man, right? pic.twitter.com/zRFxdTBKKQ— Florida for Bernie (@FL4Bernie2020) March 28, 2020
The post Bernie Sanders’ Florida campaign office vandalized with swastikas appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Bernie Sanders’ Florida office vandalized with swastika

[Gandalf]

I recall a bunch people after Charlottesville who said that they prefer their Nazis out in the open as opposed to hiding away. Is that what they had in mind?