knob
1d ago
I don't believe the fake electors plan falls inside of that explicitly defined process. The memos and testimony we have now show:
- Trump's team knew the plan conflicted with the Electoral Count Act of 1887
- Pence’s own counsel told him he lacked the unilateral authority to pick or reject electors as the plan would have required
- The fake electors did meet and draw up their own certifications, showing that this was more than just some idea they dreamed up, they really did intend to go through with it
knob
1d ago
What he initially did: make his case in court, where he had the opportunity to show evidence of vote tampering or other forms of fraud significant enough to change the outcome of the election. It was his right to do that, and it's good that we allow it in our justice system. After he lost all these cases, he should have conceded and let it be. Instead he continued to pursue hanging onto the office via other means with much less legal justification behind them.
knob
1d ago
I consider myself pretty much a centrist. I don't like the left and I don't like the right. And I think Trump's actions during the 2020 election are inexcusable and, if not legally, then morally, disqualifying for holding the office of President. That was basically the line in the sand for me and my registered Republican family members who voted for him the first time around. They didn't vote for him again (as far as I know), and they might have if it weren't for 2020. So I do think I have at least some knowledge of what centrists think.
Seeing language on Wikipedia claiming he "devised a scheme" doesn't do much to convince me of the neutrality of the sources reporting on it.
This seems overly uncharitable to me. Of course we can never truly know, but say he had done what the Wikipedia article says. What language would you expect or want them to use? "Devising a scheme" is just straightforwardly what one would call that.
knob
1d ago
that would push every centrist like me, who doesn't take anything Trump says about himself seriously nor takes anything Trump's detractors say about him seriously, into a realization that Trump is in fact a threat to American democracy. It would prove every leftist correct, that Trump is the worst thing ever, a wannabe dictator, the whole thing.
Strongly disagree. I think there's probably very few people who aren't already convinced of this that would then become convinced by him trying a 3rd term. He already tried to hang on to power after an election whose results he disagreed with via very legally dubious means. I don't get the reasoning that sees the fake electors plot and concludes "Yeah, now that he attempted that and faced no consequences, won reelection, and has a Supreme Court ruling now saying he can't face any criminal liability for his actions as President, he probably won't try anything like it again".
knob
1d ago
In my view it's precisely because this would be complex that Trump supporters would be fine with it. Anyone opposed could be cast as a lame nerd quibbling over boring legal language.
They're following a leader, because they believe that in the big picture their leader wants what they want and fights for it, and what they want is for America to get back to being a great country ... If nothing else, those sort of shenanigans are too complex to appeal to anybody but political obsessives, they inherently turn off normal people.
a. ) I don't think this is incompatible with him trying to get a 3rd term? If he's fighting for them, why would they want him to stop? Bannon basically says as much in the interview I linked. They have a vision, the base likes the vision, and they need at least 4 more years after this term to complete it.
b.) Many, many things Trump does inherently turn off normal people, and it hasn't seemed to matter much.
knob
1d ago
Presumably the same as whatever the upside was for him running for his 2nd term?
knob
1d ago
If the Trump camp telegraph this way ahead of time, maybe. The Democratic Party machinery would have to spin up a whole campaign around Obama, assuming he even wants to do it, and assuming the Democrats actually want to play into further cementing that precedent. I see a scenario where Trump somehow gets a favorable ruling in 2027 and Democrats hold off on running a 3rd term candidate so that in the event they do win, they can work to cement the law to really make the spirit of the 22nd Amendment an unambiguous thing without looking like they're pulling up the ladder behind them.
Another possibility is the Democrats don't see this coming, Trump brute forces it with some help from favorable state legislatures to get on the ballot, wins, and then the SCOTUS ruling in his favor comes through post-2028 when he's already secured the presidency. Then the Democrats have the option to run Obama for 2032, but that's too far out to really reason about. Who knows what happens if we get to that point.
knob
1d ago
Steve Bannon is back in another interview asserting that Trump will get a 3rd term. Like previous times where he's said this, he doesn't really go into too much detail, besides saying they have a plan and they're working on it. I get this is Bannon's schtick lately and he's a political operative and so maybe this is just something he bangs on to rile up the base, but for fun, I want to consider here what the actual plan could be.
Bannon does give away more here than I've seen in other interviews where this has been brought up. I'm going to focus on 2 statements that I think start to give the plan away. When the interviewer says the 22nd Amendment makes it clear that Trump cannot have another term because he's on his 2nd term already:
At some point in time, we will make sure we go through and define all those terms
To me, this is a point in favor of the theory that's been floated around already that their plan relies on some very literal reading of the 22nd Amendment.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Key word: elected. Fairly straightforward, and again, not anything that hasn't been brought up before. Trump runs as some other GOP candidate's VP, they win, and that candidate immediately steps down, making Trump president despite not having been "elected to the office of the President". He's been elected twice, but the 22nd says nothing of being President more than twice. The usual objection to this is that the 12th Amendment prevents this by barring someone who is ineligible for the presidency to be VP, but you can also play word games with this. If you interpret the 12th Amendment's "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" to just mean "doesn't meet the requirements laid out by Article II", then Trump is still eligible to be President. He's just ineligible to be elected.
But isn't this against the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? Bannon:
If the American people, with the mechanisms that we have, put Trump back in office, are the American people tearing up the Constitution? Would the American people be going against the spirit of the Constitution?
It's one thing for Trump to lose the election and then try to still hang on for a 3rd term. But it's another if--given he's able to get on the ballot as VP for 2028, which I think he probably could in enough states--he and his Presidential candidate do actually win. Then the messaging becomes much easier. But how can Bannon be sure enough that the American people will elect Trump in this manner? Simply rig the election. Many say this is too difficult because you'd have to rig so many individual elections, and the states control elections, and if it's easy then why don't we see evidence of it being done in the past, etc. I'll admit this is probably the weakest part of the plan. But if you step back and say, "What steps would be required for this to be doable, and are they doing them?" then there are definitely signs. Dominion was recently bought by a Republican operative, and Trump's people are already signaling they want to mandate election rules for states in time for the midterms in 2026. A Trump DHS appointee who will be in charge of election infrastructure told all 50 states at a recent meeting that they
should plan to use 'fusion centers', which are hubs for collaboration across intelligence and state, local, and federal law enforcement, for election matters
Even if they can't pull off mandating election rules at the federal level, Trump may have enough state legislatures in the bag that they might just take enabling actions "independently" of any top-down federal enforcement.
Also, you know, he could just actually win legitimately, that's completely possible with the state the Democrats are in right now.
So yeah, this isn't really anything genius. Win the election or rig it so that you do + creatively interpret the 22nd and 12th Amendments. Some quick responses to possible objections:
- The courts, or SCOTUS if the case makes it there (which it probably would), would strike this down
Lower courts yes, SCOTUS I'm 50/50 on. There are smart people who know the legal world far better than I do who are certain that even the current SCOTUS would rule 9-0 against Trump on this, so maybe. But smart people have been wrong about many matters involving Trump, and SCOTUS has disappointed me before. I don't care that "such-and-such legal scholars have written X about the interpretation of the 22nd/12th Amendment" because at the end of the day it's just SCOTUS that matters. I've seen a theory that SCOTUS has been forgiving to Trump in recent rulings because they know this day is coming, so they want to build up credibility with him for when they inevitably have to rule against him on this. That just seems far too giga-brained for me.
- Paper ballots, other election security measures
I never really bought the claims that "2020 was the most secure election in history" even though I don't think it was rigged. I just think if someone really tried, they could. Voting machines are repeatedly shown to have security flaws, and I don't think that all the swing counties that matter will use paper ballots and do risk-limiting audits to verify the results.
- The military would step in
Maybe, although by 2028 Hegseth may be able to fire enough people and appoint loyalists in their place to make this a non-issue. Someone with deeper knowledge of the US military can comment here. I don't take the "swearing an oath to the Constitution, not the President" thing too seriously, because while I think it may hold at the top, I don't think it holds all the way down the chain of command, and that's what matters if it comes to having to forcibly remove Trump from the Oval Office. However the Courts rule also plays into this, if it can be framed that this whole thing actually isn't violating the Constitution.
- This isn't in anybody's interest, Congress doesn't want it, Trump is too old, MAGA is dying, why would the elected President willingly step down?
Congress continues to abdicate its powers in favor of letting the executive do whatever they want (both parties) and I don't see this changing anytime soon. The only defectors from the GOP we see right now are MTG and Rand Paul. Trump is still going strong despite his age, and I think the people in the MAGA-sphere surrounding him have sunk too much into it to do anything other than milk it until he dies in office. I've completely given up hope that anybody in the White House or Congress will take a principled stance on this. Democrats will continue to be very concerned and maybe organize a No Kings march to no effect.
knob
12d ago
The reason to believe that paying so much gets you a good CEO is that companies that want to continue existing care about costs, and so if large compensation packages for CEOs didn't attract good CEOs, market forces would pressure them to offer lower compensation. So the fact that we continue to see successful companies pay CEOs a ton is reason to believe.
knob
16d ago
I am American and understand how it works, I’m okay with all of that and mostly think the execution has been very bad. Citizens shouldn’t have to worry about being detained for even a few hours by federal agents just because those agents randomly decide your license is fake, especially in a country like this where limiting government overreach was a core value of our constitution. I haven’t liked when Democratic administrations have done stuff like this and now I also don’t like that the Trump administration is doing it.
knob
17d ago
How do you know they’re not US citizens if, as ICE has been doing, the people being detained are not given a chance to prove their citizenship? In May they took a guy’s REAL ID after wrestling him the ground and cuffing him, and just declared on the spot that it was fake. They then kept him detained for a few hours and eventually let him go after he provided his SSN (wtf???), but that doesn’t change the fact that this is retarded. There would be no story here if they simply had not done that, and just arrested the guys who were undocumented. A traffic cop can scan my license and verify it’s real, why can’t ICE? I don’t carry around my passport and as a US citizen I’m not required to. I don’t know what defense I’d have in the moment if ICE decided to detain me after making the determination that a.) I’m undocumented and b.) the license I gave them is fake. Add to that the fact that some of these guys are masked, not in uniform, and refuse to present a badge. It’s pretty close to just plain kidnapping. It’s idiotic and Americans are right to sour on such an astounding lack of professionalism.
knob
3yr ago
Not to mention the people (in the US) who most loudly complain about needing to have a job to have health insurance then instantly going to bat for the OSHA-enabled vaccine mandate, saying “Look, the government isn’t forcing you to get the vaccine! You’ll only lose your job if you don’t get it!” I gladly got the vaccines and the boosters, and this is still one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen in US culture. I’m never forgetting it, and it really made me skeptical that any of those people care about causes beyond how much they enable their authoritarian personalities.
knob
3yr ago
Please just tell me where you think white people are supposed to live
A friend of mine (white, very left-leaning) recently made an offhand remark that the large US city they live in is has "sooo many white people" upon discovering that said city is roughly 50% white. By the way they said it, it was clearly meant as a complaint. Knowing this person pretty well, this was about par for the course for them so I just ignored it, but I've heard similar things from other friends and it seems to be a general theme on the left in the US lately that there are too many white people everywhere, in a country comprised of 60-75% white people (depending on how you define it) as of the most recent census estimates [1]. I've heard this about cities, and I've heard it about rural areas in the form of "Yikes, I'd never live in {rural area}, too white". Importantly, I often hear the claim absent any other explanation of why that is intrinsically bad. Being somewhat progressive myself, I definitely recognize the impact on city demographics of slavery and redlining inflicted by white populations. I just don't see why the remedy is then to complain about the actual number of white people themselves, since in cities people in general are more progressive and therefore likely to vote for policies that work to alleviate long-lasting effects of racial injustice.
As someone who doesn't have a preference for an exact racial makeup in the place they live, but generally likes places that embrace multiculturalism like many large US cities do, I don't know what the reasoning behind such a complaint is, or what anyone who takes it seriously would like to see done about it. I'd like to hear from other progressive people what the steelman version of this is. For one thing, it is a basic fact of statistics that with a population of 60-75% white people, you shouldn't be surprised to find a city with roughly 50% white people. Second, do these people realize what scenario we'd end up in if they were to get what they seem to be advocating for (have all the white people move out of whatever area they're in)? Taken to the extreme, you get one area with all the white people and then 0 white people everywhere else, by definition what white nationalists advocate for, not to mention something I and everyone else who isn't a white nationalist finds detestable. This becomes even more confusing when the person complaining is white, by I'll chalk that up to just plain old stupidity.
More concretely, if a white progressive like my friend wants to act on their dissatisfaction and move to a place with far fewer white people, they are increasing the new place's white population and becoming part of the problem that made them relocate in the first place. What is the reasoning here? They get a pass on being white due to their progressive bona-fides? What are they even trying to signal? If we chalk it up to virtue signaling, why not just advocate for better/more just zoning and housing policy? I realize this post is heavy on me sharing anecdotes from my friend group, but I've heard it enough times now that I felt like I had to finally ask.
[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221
I see this “They just walked around a government building for a few hours” thing all the time and I think it’s a pretty dishonest way of downplaying what happened. Was it a real insurrection attempt that had any chance of working, like the most hysterical people on the left say? In my opinion, no. But a police officer died probably as a result of it, and by all outward appearances it was intended to stop the certification of the election. And intentions do matter. Republicans would rightly freak out if a mob of libs tried the exact same thing and entered the Capitol during the certification of Trump’s win in 2024, even if it didn’t work.
And because the BLM riots always get brought up as a counterexample, yeah, those were also bad and did much more damage. There is a lot of hypocrisy in how these two events were covered and the subsequent reactions to them. I don’t have a problem saying both are bad, and we should be honest about what actually went down in both cases.
More options
Context Copy link