MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
Indeed, it's a humiliation ritual. Again, I cannot even name one statue of Stalin or Lenin that suffered the same fate.
Neither Stalin nor Lenin betrayed their country. This kind of ritual humiliation was SOP for traitors, which Lee was - or at least an unsuccessful rebel, which counts as a traitor under the traditional rules. You can argue that Lenin was a traitor to the Kerensky government, but he was a successful rebel so it doesn't count.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4mo ago
This seems so blatantly inbounds ethically that it amazes me that this is what they're going after him for.
As with the lawsuits, the Trump-Raffensberger phone call is improper (both as a matter of ethics and as a matter of criminal law) if and only if the factual claims Trump made were knowingly false. The Georgia indictment indicts the call as "False Statements and Writings" and "Solicitation of Felony Violation of Oath of Office" (in that Raffensberger knew there was no fraud, and would therefore have violated his oath of office by launching the investigation Trump requested). The Federal indictment doesn't charge individual bad acts, but it describes the phonecall as "the defendant lied to the Georgia Secretary of State".
Filing a false police report is not protected speech.
As a separate matter, Trump threatened Raffensberger with criminal liability for aiding and abetting the (non-existent) fraud. That probably should be a crime, but it doesn't appear to be given that it isn't charged in either the Federal or the Georgia indictment.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4mo ago
There is a big difference between using recount laws for the purpose for which they were intended (even if those recount laws later turn out to be unconstitutional) and filing lies with the court. Neither Bush nor Gore was ever accused of filing briefs containing false factual claims - the key facts of Bush v Gore (that recounting punch card ballots accurately was sufficiently difficult that there wasn't time for an accurate statewide recount before the electoral College deadline, and that the margin of error of the original count exceeded Bush's margin of victory) were never disputed.
Trump's State court challenges to the 2020 election are criminal if and only if they were based on knowingly false factual claims. Both the Federal and Georgia indictments promise to bring evidence that they were.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
6mo ago
The white South didn't accept their defeat and try to live an honourable peace. They launched an insurgency (the 1st Klan), and when that failed they waited out the presence of federal troops in the South and then staged a series of coups against the Reconstruction-era State governments (elected by multi-racial electorates) in order to introduce Jim Crow. The North, to their shame, tolerated this due to exhaustion during the Gilded Age, and enthusiastically embraced it due to political corruption in the New Deal era.
Jim Crow was a dishonourable peace, and the Civil Rights movement was right to seek to overturn it.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
6mo ago
No. I am applying the morals of his own time. Lee knew that slavery was evil, and fought to defend it anyway out of a misguided sense of patriotism. Given the many positive aspects of his character, I hope he gets to spend eternity slightly further away from the Fire than, say, Jeffrey Epstein.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
6mo ago
Didn't a bunch of states create mail-in-ballot rules that undermine ballot secrecy just for that election in particular before some of them got taken out by courts due to their irregularity?
Before 2020, nobody thought that mail-in ballots were per se fraudulent. In 2016, three states including one swing state had all-postal elections (Washington, Oregon and Colorado), and most other states had no-excuse postal voting for anyone who applied. 23.7% of all votes were cast by post (see pp 9/10 here). And nobody on either side of the aisle thought that this was a problem that would justify overturning a close election.
Trump made specific allegations of fraud which were not true. He could have made the purely legal argument that slightly easier postal voting introduced in an irregular way was grounds for tossing the election on a technicality (as of 2016, it was a colourable legal argument based on the independent state legislature theory, which wouldn't be rejected by SCOTUS until Moore vs Harper in 2022) and allowing Republican State legislatures to choose electors, but that wasn't the argument he made. He said that he won by a landslide, that there was "massive fraud", that Dominion and Smartmatic voting machines meant that the in person votes were invalid, and that rogue election officials had added large numbers of fake ballots to Biden's tally.
Wasn't the whole Covid psy-ops leading to these rule changes in the first place?
You mean the pandemic with an impact visible at the macro-demographic level? Or are you telling me that governments outside the US faked 6 million deaths (by official count) or 25 million deaths (based on demographic statistics) in order to allow slightly easier postal voting in a US election?
If there was evidence of a massive conspiracy showing all level of governments and media building up the Covid scare with the ultimate goal to undermine the integrity of the elections, wouldn't that be some kind of coup, or at least conspiracy to commit a coup?
Yes, which is why it is good that there is no such evidence. The pre-2020 conventional wisdom was that easier postal voting helps Republicans (because of the military vote), so if there had been a large-scale conspiracy to steal the election for Democrats, the main goal of the conspiracy would not have been slightly easier postal voting.
Well yes, of course the average rich and powerful American is a honest guy.
I didn't say that. I said that by the (low) standards of rich and powerful Americans, Trump is unusually dishonest. Heck, even by the (even lower) standards of greater-NYC real estate operators, Trump was unusually dishonest, this was common knowledge on Wall Street, and was in fact sufficiently common knowledge that a joke about it got into Sex and the City.
and not Epstein's buddies
Epstein's buddies like one Donald Trump, who allowed Ghislaine Maxwell to recruit girls at Mar-a-Lago, who was a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express, and who promoted the corrupt prosecutor who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal the first time he got caught? Even by the (very, very low) ethical standards of Epstein's social circle, Donald Trump went above and beyond.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
7mo ago
At some point more and more individuals will be caught up in interstate lawfare wars. Trump is just the tip of the iceberg.
Trump isn't a victim of this kind of interstate lawfare. All his legal problems relate to behaviour which (if he did it) is illegal everywhere, and the claims of jurisdiction are pretty clear-cut.
Trump's current legal troubles are:
- Federal cases with a clear federal cause of action (the Mar-a-Lago documents, the federal Jan 6 case)
- New York cases where jurisdiction is proper because NY is the Trump Org's principal place of business (the Stormy Daniels payoff, the bank fraud case) or the behaviour alleged took place in New York (the E Jean Carroll rape and defamation lawsuits)
- A Georgia case relating to interference with a Georgia election.
"This kind of lawfare" strictu sensu - i.e. seeking to regulate the worldwide behaviour of businesses outside your jurisdiction on the basis that they did some business inside the jurisdiction - has been SOP in the US for a very long time. From my perspective as someone who has spent most of my career working in non-US multinationals, the biggest issue is random insane civil verdicts in US state courts, but there are a number of federal policies which are also objectionable - especially sanctions on Cuba and the law attempting to punish companies for participating in the Arab boycott of Israel. Countries other than the US do not do this - for example the UK only attempts to regulate British companies and British-based activity of foreign companies. In general, countries other than the US take the view that, as applied to international trade in goods, this kind of behaviour violates the WTO treaty, which says that countries can only discriminate between identical goods based on whether or not they have a trade deal with the country they were made in, not on who made them.
What Texas is doing is something slightly different in that it ties the requirement to doing business with the Texas government, not to operating in Texas. This is less objectionable from a jurisdictional comity perspective, because the Texan government is acting as a market participant, not a sovereign, and has the right to choose who it does business with in the same way as any other entity (FWIW, I have no idea if the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment does or should regulate States as market participants). This kind of behaviour used to be rare except for mission-driven organisations like charities and political parties - normal people care about what they are buying, may care about how it was made, but do not care about the general ethical record of the people making it. The idea that public sector customers should take an interest as customers in the out-of-jurisdiction activities of the companies they do business with is new - AFAIK it dates back to left-wing campaigns about corporate tax compliance in the noughties.
It will be interesting to see how Texas's attempts to enforce this against Wells Fargo pan out. If this was a term in a contract "Wells Fargo will not discriminate against a firearms entity" then at common law it would probably be unenforceable as a restraint of trade and/or a contract to break the law in a (legally) friendly jurisdiction. But making it a pre-contract enquiry means that Wells Fargo are pretty clearly guilty of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
I feel like this kind of interstate lawfare is exactly what the interstate commerce provisions in the US constitution were meant to prevent.
This is the important point - a world in which every jurisdiction tries to regulate activity outside its territory - particularly if that regulation is driven by idiosyncratic local politics rather than being an attempt to enforce widely-shared norms - is very bad from the point of view of making it legal for normal people to do business normally.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4mo ago
In a Bayesian sense, following mainstream MAGA Republican accounts on Twitter is very weak circumstantial evidence that someone is a "Nazi" (in the sense that the Very Online left use the term - which encompasses a lot of alt-right politics that has nothing to do with the OG NSDAP) - most MAGA Republicans are not alt-right, but most alt-right Americans are MAGA. Following GOPe accounts on Twitter is circumstantial evidence that someone is not a "Nazi" - the GOPe despise both actual Nazis and the "Nazi" alt-right as much as the left does. Whether DeSantis counts as mainstream or GOPe is left as an exercise to the reader.
But that isn't the context. The question is given that we all know the guy posts 14/88 memes, is he doing so because he actually has "Nazi" political views, or is he posting ironically. And in that context, affiliation with mainstream Republicans is much stronger evidence that the guy is serious - the overlap between "mainstream Republican" and "posts 14/88 memes ironically" is basically zero. People who post 14/88 memes ironically are either nihilistic trolls or lefties, and following mainstream Republicans on social media is good Bayesian evidence that someone is neither of those things.
In any case, I am happy to enforce the Rule of Goats against someone who LARPs as a Nazi absent very strong evidence that their heart is in the right place. As in I actually want to the Nazi character get chased round Europe by an old drunk and a cripple, or at least slip on a banana skin while goose-stepping.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
6mo ago
Lee was regarded as a true Southern gentleman
And Rommel was regarded as a true German gentleman. But if a statue of Rommel stood in a place of honour in central Stuttgart as part of the pantheon of military heroes of Baden-Wurttemberg, and it was melted down at the request of the local synagogue, we wouldn't be complaining about "teabagging the outgroup". In fact, part of the "Reconstruction" process in post-WW2 Germany was the removal of Nazi monuments.
Which is irrelevant, because no other US Presidents have committed the crimes Trump is being accused of.
If the facts set out in the Jan 6th committee report are correct, then
- The 2020 election was not, in fact, fraudulent
- Trump and his advisors at the very least knew that the specific allegations of fraud they were making (including the Dominion voting machines conspiracy theory) were false, and probably that there was no significant fraud at all.
- Donald Trump nevertheless conspired to remain in office
- As part of the conspiracy, the Trump campaign filed numerous lawsuits alleging facts they knew to be false, organised slates of fake electors some of whom sent fake electoral votes to Pence, intimidated State and local election officials, asked Mike Pence to violate his oath of office, and sent a riotous mob to the Capitol for the purposes of intimidating Mike Pence into doing what they wanted. (I am happy to admit that there is a legitimate factual dispute over whether or not Trump incited the mob to enter the Capitol).
- Some of this (the fake electors, the perjury, the hacking that Sidney Powell just pleaded to) is uncontroversially criminal. Much of the rest is caught by the vague laws against making false statements in official government proceedings that while a lot of people don't like it for good reasons, has stood up in Court just fine and is frequently prosecuted. There is also a lot of threatening behaviour which is clearly wrongdoing but might not be criminal because the 1st amendment is overprotective of threatening speech (sending goons to Ruby Freedman, Jan 6th itself).
- That Trump was sufficiently involved with the conspiracy to be vicariously liable for the crimes it committed under general principles of conspiracy law
- That Trump met with a retired general in the Oval Office to discuss the possibility of staying in power through an honest-to-God military coup. (Not prosecuted because the plans didn't go anywhere, but arguably the biggest outrage of the whole affair).
The last time anything remotely like this happened was the Hayes-Tilden election in 1876, and the fact that nobody was prosecuted for the malarkey then (which included a 3-figure number of murders) was part of a pattern of letting white southerners get away with shit that started with the culpable failure to hang Jefferson Davis and ended up with the north cucking to Jim Crow.
"Unsuccessful coup plotters go down" (whether they get the rope or just a long jail sentence depends on national tradition) is the historical default everywhere - there isn't a directly on-point precedent in the US because nobody in US history has tried to do the kind of things Donald Trump did between the election and Jan 6th.
You can argue that Donald Trump shouldn't be prosecuted because consensus reality is incorrect and he is factually innocent. You can argue that Donald Trump shouldn't be prosecuted because he is so disconnected from reality that he is incapable of forming the mens rea to commit a crime of dishonesty - based on the publicly-available information there is reasonable doubt on this point - although I am not sure you can do so with a straight face while suggesting that he be elected President of the United States. You can argue that he should be let off for the same reason Jefferson Davis was - that prosecuting someone for serious crimes of which they are obviously guilty is nevertheless dangerously divisive if a large percentage of the population still support the perp - but the precedent is that that was a mistake (at least if you reject Jim Crow and the Gone with the Wind/Birth of a Nation school of pop-history).
What you can't do and expect to be taken seriously is to argue that prosecuting a coup plotter is a shocking escalation, or that Trump is being prosecuted (at least as regards the election-related prosecutions) for something that a Democrat or pro-establishment Republican would have skated for, because neither Democrats nor pro-establishment Republicans would allow the kind man who would think of doing what Trump did near the presidency.
Not that it matters very much given that the politics of all this is driven by Jan 6th, but the story with the other prosecutions Trump is facing are similar,
- The Stormy Daniels payoff case in NY is bullshit - although even then the false accounting being charged is unambiguously criminal, and it isn't something that large numbers of people are let off for because it isn't a crime that large numbers of people commit.
- The documents case is clear-cut not bullshit. We can argue about whether Hilary's e-mails are comparable, but most big shots who deliberately mishandle classified information on that scale are prosecuted (Petraeus is the most recent one that comes to mind). The standard plea deal for big shots is a fine and probation, but Trump didn't co-operate so a few months in jail would be consistent with the precedents.
- The NY "civil" fraud case is strange because the punishment (effectively a corporate death penalty) is obviously disproportionate to the crime. But there is no doubt that the behaviour charged is large-scale fraud, of a type that isn't usually allowed to slide because large corporations don't normally commit it in the first place. And on the publicly-available information, the Trump Org sure looks guilty.
There is a lot of evidence, including from before Trump became a partisan political figure, that he is unusually dishonest by the standards of rich and powerful Americans. This means that you would expect him to have worse-than-usual post-presidency legal troubles.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
7mo ago
Yes, given that the naming of various high-powered Democrats as Pizzagate child abusers was based on John Podesta's e-mails, not Tony's.
"Tony Podesta is a paedo, so everyone in his e-mail address book has some 'splaining to do or else they go down for aiding and abetting" is a claim of guilt-by-association that doesn't stand up in court, but is a reasonable approach to take when deciding who is allowed access to your kids (or would be, if the evidence that Tony Podesta was a child molester was at least circumstantial rather than just vibes). "John Podesta's brother is a paedo, so everyone in his e-mail address book has some 'splaining to do or else they go down for aiding and abetting" is nonsense. I would have no idea if any of my main professional or social contacts had a brother who is a sex offender, because I don't vet my contacts' siblings, and apart from spouses probably never meet them.
I agree it isn't a meaningful difference to the question "Is Marina Abramovic a fit and proper person to be an honorary ambassador of Ukraine" because she was tight with both Podestas.
How is that wishy washy? You have to contort yourself into a pretzel to come to any other conclusion.
It is wishy washy because Hunter Biden is a liar, and it was a statement he made at a time when he was motivated to lie - the foreign crooks he was dealing with wanted to bribe Joe (although paying Hunter for access would be 2nd best), and would be much more willing to pay off Hunter if they thought the money was reaching Joe.
The "10% for the big guy e-mail" is one crook sending a note to another saying he was going to put aside some money for the big guy, but no money was actually put aside for Joe Biden except, possibly, in Hunter's head (unless there is non-public information about a segregated account, but if the Republicans had that I suspect they would have leaked it by now).
The fundamental problem with making "Joe Biden personally was on the take via Hunter" stick based on a jigsaw of weak evidence is that normally a lifestyle that exceeds known clean income is a key piece of the jigsaw, and Joe's lifestyle between VP and President was entirely consistent with what he has always claimed to be in his financial disclosures, i.e. an old guy with a net worth in the low double figure millions.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9mo ago
Trump doesn't need to offer red meat to his base. His base already love him so much that they are still supporting him even after he has been indicted twice for serious crimes of which he is obviously guilty (and once for some bullshit process crime in NY). His problem is that his base are not close to a majority of the electorate - they are barely a majority in a Republican primary.
Trump either needs to convince more NeverTrump Republicans to hold their noses and vote for the crook, not the Democrat, or to convince more Reagan Democrat types that trannies are more of a threat to their kids than Russians.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4mo ago
it would eventually have to also make a finding on the free speech issue
Baude's original law review article advocating disqualifying Trump points out the 14th amendment is also part of the Constitution, so the 1st amendment doesn't automatically apply the way it would to a normal criminal law. Under the normal rules for resolving conflicts between two laws of equal authority, the 14th overrules the 1st, both as the more specific provision and as the after-enacted provision.
So it is entirely possible that Trump is disqualified for inciting an insurrection, but is still protected by the 1st amendment from criminal prosecution for inciting a riot.
A quick check of the right wing alt-media site you link to shows that even they are not claiming that there were 150,000 test ballots improperly included in the count. 150,000 was the total number of postal votes in Fulton County - we can reasonably assume that most of these were legitimate, particularly given that the overall percentage of postal votes in Fulton was close to the statewide average. Nor does the article say that the ballots were lost - it says that Fulton County explicitly says they are not lost, but that one specific right-wing citizen-journalist doesn't believe them.
The actual lawsuit filed by Favorito, a conservative activist and 9-11 conspiracy theorist (the lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign didn't run on this point) is based on an affidavit by Susan Voyles, who saw one batch of 107 "pristine" postal ballots in a box of 8 batches. If you assume that Voyles only looked at one box of ballots to find this batch and therefore that roughly 1/8 of the postal ballots were dodgy, then you get the "possibly 10-20,000 fraudulent votes" alleged by Favorito. And the specific box of votes identified by Voyles was reviewed, and there were no irregularities. So the premise of the Favorito lawsuit is that Voyles misremembered the box number, and that a bunch of randos should be able to go through 150,000 votes to find the needle in the haystack. FWIW, the reason why it has come up again is that the standing issue has finally been adjudicated in favour of Favorito after two trips up and down the appeals hierarchy.
But the important point here is how easy it is to create a Gish Gallop of hinkiness. We have one poll worker claiming (under oath, admittedly) to have seen 107 votes that looked a bit wrong (an argument so frivolous that Trump's lawyers wouldn't touch it), being blown up to 150,000 fraudulently counted test ballots alleged on this forum. And apart from Voyles, who (being under oath) was careful not to allege any specific irregularity, all the amplification was done by randos. There are hundreds of more or less frivolous complaints about the election being exaggerated in thousands of places, and because they get vaguer as well as bigger online, it can take hours to find out what the allegation even is, let alone to rebut it.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
7mo ago
Legislators have the right to ask questions relevant to potential legislation (and to compel answers if the person being asked is within the jurisdiction) - - in Con Law textbooks this is called the investigative power of the legislature. Since the UK has no written constitution, everything is a potential subject matter for legislation by the Westminster Parliament (and regulation of offensive speech on social media platforms is, in fact, a current subject of active political debate). So she isn't violating any constitutional principle here. She is being a grandstanding idiot, and if I lived in Gosport it would make me significantly less likely to re-elect her. OTOH, in the UK right now everyone hates Russel Brand except the actual fans of his show, so I'm sure she will gain votes on net.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
11mo ago
The people pushing this stuff literally thought they were doing something broadly popular
They are. Lots of things are broadly popular (in the sense that 60%+ of the population support them) but where a large minority are sufficiently fanatical in opposition that being publically associated with them is a net negative. "Normal-ass employer-provided health insurance includes employer-paid abortions" is a prime example where you should do the popular thing quietly in order to avoid a damaging row with pro-lifers. Anodyne expressions of pro-LGBT sentiment like participating in Pride Month are similar - normies expect you to do it, but shouting about it draws unwelcome attention. The supporters of all these things know that there is a noisy minority of haters.
This applies more to companies which sell to consumers than companies that sell to other businesses. The universe of people who consoom product has a lot more Red Tribers in it than the universe of people who are able and willing to take corporate jobs.
Race-based affirmative action is the rare case where you are probably right - I think supporters genuinely don't grok just how unpopular it is with normies because they have successfully silenced opponents in their own spaces.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3mo ago
no, this couldn't be more wrong; Trump wins because he motivates non and low likely voters to show up when they otherwise wouldn't
This presupposes that Trump wins. He lost the popular vote to Dolores Umbridge in 2016 and lost the popular and electoral votes to an empty suit in 2020.
Trump appeals differently to swing voters compared to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans, but it isn't obvious that he appeals more to them. What is clear is that the Republican base prefer Trump to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans that run against him in primaries.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4mo ago
If you want to burn down the District of Criminals, do it yourselves this time. No need to involve the Canadians. Plus an all-American DC fire would probably have better music.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8mo ago
Putting pineapple on pizza is a crime against God and Nature (and pizza), and accordingly subject to universal jurisdiction even in the absence of specific local statutory law . I thought this was common knowledge on a forum where high IQ and good taste were the default.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8mo ago
I think part of the problem is that climate activism in general and Sunrise and Just Stop Oil in particular are run by people who are good at talking money out of left-wing foundations, not by people who understand climate. (This is recent - Al Gore knew what he was talking about when he was the public face of climate activism). So they tend to think of the policy problem as a fundamental moral problem whose solution needs to be enforced by the State, not as a fundamentally technical problem whose solutions need state support to implement. And the preferred frame on the stupid left is something like "All major social problems are easy to solve and the only reason they haven't already been solved is that the people in charge are mean." So there is a lot of climate left effort going into allocating blame to a small number of rich people, rather than the general mass of middle-class people consooming carbon-intensive product.
The problem is that blame is not something you can measure with a thermometer. It doesn't matter whether the carbon emissions produced by commuting to a desk job in a F150 are morally the fault of Ford shareholders, Ford executives, Ford employees, Oil company executives, oil company shareholders, oil company employees, the banks that financed them, the politicians that set up the system they operate under, or the driver. Whatever the moral arguments, at a practical level the person who has to change their lifestyle to stop those emissions entering the atmosphere is the driver.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8mo ago
Try not to do this.
To decide that you've had it up to here with the three or so well-funded idiots who make up Just Stop Oil and that you are going to hold your nose and sign up with the "I don't mind if the third world fries, it's hot out there I'm not surprised" crowd is a perfectly normal human response, and if at least some people do it it creates good incentives for activists not to be idiots. (Although I suspect that giving noisy idiots rent-free space in your head is bad for the soul). But that is a change in political tactics - changing your views on a factual question based on the noisy idiocy of a bunch of randos is irrational. If 550ppm CO2 is in fact as bad for humanity as the IPCC says it is, then this is the kind of fact that does not care about your feelings.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
10d ago
Blocking $26 billion in aid to an extremely wealthy country that also has the wealthiest per capita diaspora community is now anti-semitism?
No, but it is something that rich centrist American Jews care about. There is a reason why AIPAC is as powerful as it is. The sort of Jews who might switch from D to R in response to left-wing campus idiocy are exactly the sort of Jews who support aid to Israel most.
I support third countries getting the feck out of the I-P conflict (my gut feeling is that foreign support for both sides is net escalatory, although I understand the argument that the US paying for Iron Dome specifically is de-escalatory). But I am not American, and my views on this issue are not socially acceptable in elite American social circles. Apart from short-term humanitarian aid while the mess made by the current war is being cleaned up, the only use of donor money in the area I would support is bribing other majority-Muslim countries to take in Palestinian refugees.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4mo ago
You can push the failure of statecraft further backward in time if you like. The premise is the same: if we fought on the side of the Soviets, we were fighting on the wrong side. After all, the Soviets and Nazis were allied for two years, from 1939-41.
The US didn't get to choose which side they fought on, or even whether to fight - Hitler's ally bombed Pearl Harbour and Hitler honoured the alliance by declaring war. Assuming that Barbarossa happens in any alternative timeline, the only way the US avoids ending up on the same side as the Soviet Union is to cut a deal with Japan such that Pearl Harbour never happens.
The world where the US gives the Japanese explicit permission to carve up the European colonial empires in Asia as long as they stay away from the Philipines and supports the Nazis over the Soviets in post-Barbarossa Europe is obviously worse for humanity (either the Nazis win, or WW2 is even bloodier because it takes the Allies longer to win). I don't think either result looks good for the US either. In both cases, the US ends up as the weakest of three blocs (with the other two allied), doesn't have access to the Middle East oilfields, and is almost certainly on the wrong end of a nuclear monopoly. (The Allied bomb effort in our timeline was dependent on refugee talent who went to Los Alamos specifically to oppose Nazi Germany - if the US is neutral, then the Allied bomb project ends up in some suitably out-of-the-way part of the British Empire, and the German bomb project has more time and resources).
The most likely candidate I can think of is an amendment regularising the administrative state if it appears to be under serious threat from the conservative majority on SCOTUS. Nobody wants to live in a world where the clownshow that is Congress has to deal with the technical detail of bank capital adequacy or aviation safety, and very few people want to live in a world where those things are not regulated at all.
Before the McCarthy speakership fiasco, it looked like an Administrative Procedure Amendment would pass easily if needed with votes from Democrats, moderate pro-business Republicans, and conservative Republicans bought by the incumbent banks, airlines etc. I suspect in today's climate a lot of Republicans would be afraid of being primaried if they supported it (a majority of the voters in low-turnout non-Presidential Republican primaries appear to be the kind of anti-establishment conservative who would be happy to watch the world burn if libs were sufficiently owned as a result), so it would be difficult to get the required supermajority.
* IANAL, but my reading of the Constitution is that the administrative state is unconstitutional for the same reasons as the Air Force under any sensible interpretation scheme other than "living constitutionalism". But both the administrative state and the Air Force are good ideas, and should have been regularised by constitutional amendments which would have passed easily at the time.
More options
Context Copy link