US Election 2024: Grumpy Old Men

[Crazedwraith]

Right DNC so it is. Thanks for the links.

[Raw Shark]

Clinton won the primaries because they railroaded Bernie, many of the folks who voted for her in the presidential election only did so because the alternative was Trump. Unlike her husband or Obama she wasn't exactly loved, in fact there was a lot of resentment towards her from others in the Democratic party along with their voters. If you want to put it bluntly, Clinton was the candidate of the DC lobbyist & corporate donor class, lots of people voted for her because she had a shitload of money & power behind her and the alternative was Trump. It's not because they liked her or think she's a great candidate.

aerius and I haven't exactly been twinsies about US politics this year, but speaking as a native I do think he's dead-on here.

[Raw Shark]

Ghetto Edit: I cast my first vote ever for Sanders, when I was 18 years old. I was angry that they didn't give him a chance. Threw away my vote on the Green party one more time for old times' sake. It was in a Blue state, anyway.

[Solauren]

Clinton won the primaries because they railroaded Bernie, many of the folks who voted for her in the presidential election only did so because the alternative was Trump. Unlike her husband or Obama she wasn't exactly loved, in fact there was a lot of resentment towards her from others in the Democratic party along with their voters. If you want to put it bluntly, Clinton was the candidate of the DC lobbyist & corporate donor class, lots of people voted for her because she had a shitload of money & power behind her and the alternative was Trump. It's not because they liked her or think she's a great candidate.

aerius and I haven't exactly been twinsies about US politics this year, but speaking as a native I do think he's dead-on here.

Agree 100%. Clinton was, quite literally, the lesser of two evils in that election.

[bilateralrope]

Conservatives weigh potential show of opposition against Johnson

House Republicans are holding their leadership elections next week, where Mike Johnson is largely expected to earn the speakership nomination.

By Olivia Beavers and Jordain Carney
11/09/2024 03:37 PM EST

Even as Republicans are increasingly optimistic that they’ll keep control of the House, some conservatives remain wary of Mike Johnson — and they’re discussing how to telegraph their concerns in next week’s secret leadership ballot.

With nearly two dozen races still outstanding, Johnson seems close to a major victory: Holding the tiny GOP majority, after a campaign season where he tied himself closely to Donald Trump and campaigned heavily for his at-risk members. Still, some House Republicans are mulling ways to signal their potential opposition to Johnson’s bid on the secret ballot, according to two Republicans familiar with the discussions, who were granted anonymity to talk about private plans.

Johnson is expected to easily clear the majority hurdle needed to become the speaker nominee in that meeting on Wednesday. But conservatives could field a candidate to run against him for the speaker nod, or may try to oppose him or vote present in the secret ballot.

That won’t be enough to derail his nomination, but it’s a warning for Johnson ahead of the real test in January, when he’ll need a majority vote on the House floor to take the gavel. If Republicans only take control of the House by a slim margin, as expected, that means Johnson will need near-unanimous support from his conference since he can’t count on any Democratic votes.

Enter skeptical conservatives, who want concessions from Johnson on the rules governing the chamber and a plan to secure conservative wins in exchange for their votes. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy faced similar demands two years ago, when it took him 15 ballots to get elected speaker on the House floor — he ultimately had to make several changes to the rules that gave conservatives more power and severely weakened his hold on the conference.

“There are a number of members who are still very undecided and withholding judgment,” said one GOP member, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Their hesitations are tied to “past performance,” like how Johnson handled spending fights and Ukraine aid, but also questions about “whether or not we’re going to be able to deliver.”

If another candidate doesn’t challenge Johnson next week, that could allow leadership to call for a voice vote rather than a ballot — that’s how Paul Ryan earned the speaker nod in 2016 — handicapping any conservative attempt to formally vote against Johnson, at least until January. Hardliners largely in the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus backed a symbolic candidate, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), against McCarthy in 2022. But Biggs failed to get a majority in the conference vote.

The Arizona Republican declined to say if he would vote for Johnson next week or if he would mount another symbolic challenge. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), another Freedom Caucus member, said he wasn’t sure yet if he would support Johnson, adding that his focus is on the rules for the next Congress.

“[The] devil is in the details,” Norman said, while joking that the group was not privately “scheming” but instead “we’re discussing, we’re planning.”

Johnson has a few advantages over McCarthy that could help him avoid a drawn-out leadership fight. McCarthy was looking to lead Republicans when Democrats were going to control both the Senate and the White House. Johnson, however, is looking at a Donald Trump presidency and possible control of both chambers of Congress, and many GOP lawmakers are eager to dive into their agenda.

There is a fear that Trump could retaliate against those hamstringing the GOP agenda, and his influence in deep-red districts could be particularly costly if he goes nuclear in ways he previously has, including encouraging primary challengers.

Plus, if Trump bearhugs Johnson, as the GOP leader predicts he will, that would complicate any effort to derail his speakership bid. If Johnson refuses to play ball on conservative demands, they would have to choose between backing down with little to show for it or risking Trump’s wrath. And if the floor fight that begins on Jan. 3 lasts more than three days, it risks delaying the congressional certification of Trump’s election victory.

But Johnson still has stubborn pockets of opposition he’ll have to work on. Eleven Republicans helped advance an ouster effort against Johnson earlier this year, though several have since indicated they would not have actually voted to boot him from office. He has some detractors outside that group as well, who publicly grumbled that they didn’t have faith in Johnson’s leadership but believed a May ouster would have plunged the conference into ill-timed chaos.

Other Johnson critics reside within the Freedom Caucus, and members of the group convened behind closed doors this week with incoming lawmakers to strategize about leadership votes, concessions they want on the rules and the start of the Trump administration.

Multiple conservatives say they are eager to protect the changes they extracted under McCarthy, including the internal rule that allows only one member to trigger a vote to oust a speaker, known as the motion to vacate. But they also have various demands about government spending — and the Dec. 20 government shutdown deadline could be a major test for Johnson ahead of the January floor vote.

But it is not just the conference’s conservatives who are trying to shape the next Congress.

A group of centrists have been crafting their own rule proposals for months. They filed potential amendments to the rules earlier this week, including one that would require a majority of House Republicans to support a motion to vacate in order to trigger a vote to oust a speaker, one member familiar with the effort told POLITICO. Another allows members to be removed from committees if they block the party’s legislative priorities by opposing so-called rule votes on the House floor.

Some Republicans have also called for Johnson to overhaul the House Rules Committee by removing conservative Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Massie and Norman. The three were added to the typically leadership-aligned panel by McCarthy — part of his deal with hardliners two years ago. They’ve used their posts to cause occasional headaches for leadership, preventing bills from getting out of the committee until their demands are met.

Illustrating the tough spot Johnson is in, conservatives are ready to demand that the three members keep those spots.

“I’d like to stay on Rules,” Norman said. “I’m doing a good job.”

The cracks are starting to show.

[Raw Shark]

The cracks are starting to show.

It's been coming. You can't live in Gilead and Neuromancer at the same time. That's just not going to work. Maybe getting full control for a few years will bring that to a head. Possible silver lining, I tell myself.

[Soontir C'boath]

*snip*

The cracks are starting to show.

I don't know about it being cracks, but frankly, if the Democrats had the balls to clear out the dead wood themselves, maybe we'd actually have some competent leadership on our end.

[bilateralrope]

Trump still hasn’t signed ethics agreement required for presidential transition

By Betsy Klein and Alayna Treene, CNN
5 minute read
Published 3:38 PM EST, Sat November 9, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump has not yet submitted a series of transition agreements with the Biden administration, in part because of concerns over the mandatory ethics pledge vowing to avoid conflicts of interest once sworn in to office, CNN has learned.

As president, Trump repeatedly came under fire from ethics groups for potential conflicts of interest relating to his businesses and brands. Both Trump’s and his family’s foreign business ties have also come under intense scrutiny throughout his time in office and on the campaign trail.

Trump and his transition team are already behind in accessing key transition briefings from the Biden administration, as they have failed to sign a pair of agreements to unlock critical information before taking over the federal government in 72 days.

The holdup revolves in part around the mandatory agreement over ethics issues.

A source familiar with the process acknowledged that details are still being worked out with the Biden administration regarding the ethics agreement, which is required by law under the Presidential Transition Act and which applies to all members of the transition team. Updates to that bill requiring the ethics pledge were introduced by Trump ally Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, and signed into law by Trump himself in March 2020.

The source would not expand further on the Trump team’s concerns over the ethics pledge.

Trump’s most recent financial disclosures as a candidate showed that he has continued to make millions off his properties, books and licensing deals. He and his family recently launched a new cryptocurrency business.

A sizable share of his net worth, meanwhile, is tied to the publicly traded parent company of Truth Social, the conservative social media network. Trump is the dominant shareholder and said Friday that he has no intention of selling his 114.75 million shares, worth about $3.7 billion.

The Trump team ignored a pair of key preelection deadlines to unlock transition activities with the Biden administration’s General Services Administration and the White House. Experts are sounding the alarms about impacts to Day 1 national security preparedness.

The GSA agreement, due September 1, gives Trump’s team access to office space and secure communications, among other provisions. And the White House agreement, due October 1, serves as the gatekeeper for access to agencies and information and lays groundwork for Trump’s team to receive security clearances necessary to begin receiving classified information. The ethics agreement was also due by October 1.

The Trump adviser told CNN the president-elect intends to sign the ethics pledge, but said the transition team’s main priority is selecting and vetting candidates for top Cabinet roles. It is unclear when Trump will sign the pledge.

The adviser played down the skipped deadlines, saying it is “not at all a concern,” but nonpartisan watchdogs and Democrats have warned that the failure to sign those agreements could pose a risk to national security.

Trump’s team could have begun receiving briefings from federal agencies as early as Thursday had it signed the agreements, according to Valerie Smith Boyd, director of the Center for Presidential Transition at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. Boyd estimated that “hundreds” of Trump officials involved in the transition will need background checks to receive classified briefings.

Max Stier, the Partnership for Public Service’s president and CEO, warned of “severe” consequences if the Trump transition continues to fail to engage with President Joe Biden’s team.

“Is it possible just to walk past all this? And the answer is that it is possible — and we’re watching it happen. But the consequences are severe. It would not be possible to be ready to govern on Day 1 without engaging” in interactions with agencies about the state of play within the federal government and the world writ large, Stier said.

Transition, he added, is a “point of maximum vulnerability” for US security.

“A new team coming in walks in with the responsibility of taking over the most complex operation on the planet and maybe the world. And in order to do that effectively, they absolutely need to have done a lot of prework,” Stier said.

If Trump is inaugurated in January without having participated in these activities, Stier warned, “He can’t be ready to take over our government in a way that is safe for all of us. It is simply not possible. You will not have the larger team around him that is essential to running our government up to speed and available to enter into leadership positions across our government.”

White House chief of staff Jeff Zients reached out to the heads of the Trump transition effort Wednesday to stress the Biden administration’s commitment to “lead an orderly transition” process and to highlight the necessary agreements needed to move forward, a White House official told CNN.

“Today, Chief of Staff Jeff Zients reached out to Trump-Vance Transition Co-Chairs Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon to make clear our intention to lead an orderly transition and reiterate the role the agreements play in initiating transition activities,” the official said Wednesday.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, warned in a letter to Trump in the weeks before the election that ignoring transition deadlines departs “from well-established norms of federal government and demonstrate a spectacular disregard for the successful continuation of the essential institutions of American democratic government.”

Raskin said that without the memoranda in place, the transfer of power is endangered and could “threaten our national security.”

That has been a problem in the past: In 2000, as the Supreme Court awaited a recount in Florida, neither George W. Bush’s nor Al Gore’s teams were participating in a transition, something the 9/11 Commission Report found was a contributing factor to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

CNN’s Arlette Saenz and Fredreka Schouten contributed to this report.

I'm slightly impressed that Trump managed to show his incompetence, and likely hurt the agenda of his various backers, before his term even starts. All because he won't sign an agreement that nobody expects him to follow.

[Solauren]

Now, let's give Trump a LITTLE credit.

It could just be he forgot about it in his old age.

[Raw Shark]

I'm slightly impressed that Trump managed to show his incompetence, and likely hurt the agenda of his various backers, before his term even starts. All because he won't sign an agreement that nobody expects him to follow.

I mean, he is a spectacular idiot. If those assassination attempts were even real, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out his own backers were behind them, and that the third time's the charm.

...not that President Vance would be an improvement. That fake little weasel and his eye-liner. He looks like a guy who's trying to racially segregate a My Chemical Romance concert.

[Batman]

I'm not sure it would be possible for anybody to be worse than Trump, but Vance certainly wouldn't be an improvement. Vance has already threatened to end US' NATO support if we dare enfore EU laws on Elon Musks's operation in the EU.

[Raw Shark]

I'm not sure it would be possible for anybody to be worse than Trump, but Vance certainly wouldn't be an improvement. Vance has already threatened to end US' NATO support if we dare enfore EU laws on Elon Musks's operation in the EU.

J. D. Vance: Equally shit, but in a Millenial Way!

[bilateralrope]

I'm not sure it would be possible for anybody to be worse than Trump, but Vance certainly wouldn't be an improvement. Vance has already threatened to end US' NATO support if we dare enfore EU laws on Elon Musks's operation in the EU.

The reason I see Trump as less bad is that he's prone to doing his own thing. For example, we have heard plenty about that big pile of executive orders Trump will have ready to be signed on day 1. I expect that the Heritage Foundation, and Trumps other backers, will have them ready to be signed. But I've got questions about how many Trump will get through before getting bored/tired and stopping for the day.

I'm expecting Vance to do as he's told.

[Solauren]

I'm not sure it would be possible for anybody to be worse than Trump, but Vance certainly wouldn't be an improvement. Vance has already threatened to end US' NATO support if we dare enfore EU laws on Elon Musks's operation in the EU.

The reason I see Trump as less bad is that he's prone to doing his own thing. For example, we have heard plenty about that big pile of executive orders Trump will have ready to be signed on day 1. I expect that the Heritage Foundation, and Trumps other backers, will have them ready to be signed. But I've got questions about how many Trump will get through before getting bored/tired and stopping for the day.

I'm expecting Vance to do as he's told.

I'd expect Vance to have had a rubber stamp made for him to do it as quickly as possible.

[Ralin]

I'm not sure it would be possible for anybody to be worse than Trump, but Vance certainly wouldn't be an improvement. Vance has already threatened to end US' NATO support if we dare enfore EU laws on Elon Musks's operation in the EU.

Trump's policies coupled with the ability to shut up, listen and follow simple instructions when needed.

[bilateralrope]

I'd expect Vance to have had a rubber stamp made for him to do it as quickly as possible.

Allowing Trump to claim "I never signed that, someone stole the stamp" if he ever has second thoughts about any of the executive orders people claim he signed. Figuring out if Trump is lying, telling the truth or doesn't remember signing it will be a mess.

[Tribble]

Allowing Trump to claim "I never signed that, someone stole the stamp" if he ever has second thoughts about any of the executive orders people claim he signed. Figuring out if Trump is lying, telling the truth or doesn't remember signing it will be a mess.

I mean, if Trump, the Republicans and the Heritage foundation manage to do everything they set out to do, Trump won’t need to lie about it since the Democrats will never be able to take power again. Assuming the Democrats aren’t in jail or executed, of course.

Sad that the “ vote for me and I’ll make sure you’ll never have to vote again” candidate ended up winning, but people reap what they sow.

[bilateralrope]

I mean, if Trump, the Republicans and the Heritage foundation manage to do everything they set out to do, Trump won’t need to lie about it since the Democrats will never be able to take power again. Assuming the Democrats aren’t in jail or executed, of course.

I can see Trump caring if it hits him in the wallet or angers one of his allies who aren't part of the Heritage Foundation. For example, if their efforts to ban porn lead to them trying to pressure Musk to do something about porn on Twitter by going after it, his other businesses or even Musk personally.

Or worse, if the executive order hurts Trump's businesses/grifts.

[aerius]

You know you've fucked up good when a Hitler parody channel has a better understanding of what went wrong than the Democrat leadership, most of their supporters, and the US news media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpCdX2g31ww

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I mean, if Trump, the Republicans and the Heritage foundation manage to do everything they set out to do, Trump won’t need to lie about it since the Democrats will never be able to take power again. Assuming the Democrats aren’t in jail or executed, of course.

I can see Trump caring if it hits him in the wallet or angers one of his allies who aren't part of the Heritage Foundation. For example, if their efforts to ban porn lead to them trying to pressure Musk to do something about porn on Twitter by going after it, his other businesses or even Musk personally.

Or worse, if the executive order hurts Trump's businesses/grifts.

That's one thing I've been wondering about myself. Trump has some wealthy and powerful people and factions backing him, but how well do their wants align?

I ask because of what happened with Brexit over in the UK. Some Brexiters were free-market fanatics who wanted a neoliberal state, while others (notably Theresa May) wanted a Hobbesian 'protective state'; and both saw the EU and its rules as an obstacle. But once Brexit was over the line, their alliance disintegrated fairly quickly; because they couldn't both have what they wanted.

One wonders what will happen if/when the factions backing him start having similar disagreements.

[bilateralrope]

That's one thing I've been wondering about myself. Trump has some wealthy and powerful people and factions backing him, but how well do their wants align?

I can see three areas for such conflict. All involving Elon Musk.

Elon Musk built his wealth on EVs. So any attempt to weaken the regulations that are pushing a transition to EVs are a hit to his wealth. Even the people claiming that hydrogen vehicles are environmentally friendly.

When it comes to building a wall with Mexico, I want you to remember when Cards Against Humanity purchased a parcel of land to block that wall. SpaceX is currently trespassing on it. So any attempt to build that wall is going to need to confiscate SpaceX land.

Then there is the Project 2025 plan to ban porn. When CSAM on Twitter got worse after Musk took over, even if you ignore the time that tried to defend unbanning an account that was banned for posting it.

[Elfdart]

The Duce's first round of cabinet picks is quite remarkable: About the only one not accused of kidnapping, child trafficking, rape or pedophilia is Tulsi Gabbard!

I get the impression that this merry band was selected not just to troll the media and D.C. but as a way of testing how much dogshit he can make other Republicans lick off his shoes.

[Raw Shark]

The Duce's first round of cabinet picks is quite remarkable: About the only one not accused of kidnapping, child trafficking, rape or pedophilia is Tulsi Gabbard!

I get the impression that this merry band was selected not just to troll the media and D.C. but as a way of testing how much dogshit he can make other Republicans lick off his shoes.

That was my take, though let's also not forget Buffy the Puppy Slayer. Throw every shitbird you can find at the wall and see what sticks is the strategy here. When Tulsi Gabbard looks like a model of integrity next to you, you've fucked up, son.

[Batman]

Is there something Biden can legally do to prevent a second Trump presidency (assuming Harris can't win on recounts and proving Republican cheating (which we all know happened, as republican voter fraud is the ONLY kind ever verified?)
Because if Trump DOES get a second turn, THE US as a functional country or useful member of the world community are OVER.

[Batman]

Is there something Biden can legally do to prevent a second Trump presidency (assuming Harris can't win on recounts and proving Republican cheating (which we all know happened, as republican voter fraud is the ONLY kind ever verified?)
Because if Trump DOES get a second turn, THE US as a functional country or useful member of the world community are OVER.