God Has Abandoned Us: U.S. Politics November 2023

Good morning!:

People close to the former president say they are seeking out a different type of lawyer committed to his “America First” ideology and willing to endure the personal and professional risks of association with Mr. Trump. They want lawyers in federal agencies and in the White House who are willing to use theories that more establishment lawyers would reject to advance his cause. This new mind-set matches Mr. Trump’s declaration that he is waging a “final battle” against demonic “enemies” populating a “deep state” within the government that is bent on destroying America.

Where’s the gag order?

Dickerson on Trump on Colbert last night didn't really give me much hope for the future:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA0VEa2uQj0

God's abandoned us
God's abandoned us
God's abandoned us
from a distance

The actual lyrics are just as desparing.

Toot toot toot, toot diddelyada, toot diddelyada
Toot, toot, he blows it eight to the bar
He can't blow a note if the bass and guitar isn't with him
And the company jumps when he plays reveille

I couldn’t read that NYT article due to paywall but based on Alfred’s excerpt there’s something I don’t get: what makes Trump and his people think a lawyer like that will fare any better in court? I get that a lawyer like that might be effective on TV but it seems to me that judges won’t react so kindly.

Yeah, surrounding yourself with yes men doesn't work if everyone else still says no.

he just wants the yes men. he doesn't care about the results.

its gotta be hard to find good henchmen these days. trump always wanted that gotti-style servitude from people without having to pay for it. which makes it a lot harder.

I couldn’t read that NYT article due to paywall but based on Alfred’s excerpt there’s something I don’t get: what makes Trump and his people think a lawyer like that will fare any better in court? I get that a lawyer like that might be effective on TV but it seems to me that judges won’t react so kindly.

― tobo73,

I guess they're relying on endless litigation; meanwhile the battle goes on.

Where’s the gag order?

making this the new "where's the tax returns"

he just wants the yes men. he doesn't care about the results.

it's an ego strategy not a legal strategy

yeah, its his mental state. just tell him what he wants to hear because that is all he wants to hear.

someone should convince trump to preemptively freeze his head in a block of ice, for the future.

Though I get the sense he's tried that at least once already.

That article in full:
If Trump Wins, His Allies Want Lawyers Who Will Bless a More Radical Agenda

One of the many bizarre aspects of the way this is playing out is how Trump's (I believe genuine) messianic complex is converging with his essential nature as a grifter.

Lmao

New Quinnipiac Poll with some big 👀 on RFK Jr.:
- Biden 39%
- Trump 36%
- RFK Jr. 22%

Kennedy has a plurality of independent voters (!!!): 36% for RFK Jr., 31% for Trump, 30% Biden. https://t.co/o6T1ZCngsM

— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) November 1, 2023

always wonder if the 'independent voters' really know what that means

'independent voters' are really republicans and libertarians (other republican voters) in disguise

they’re republicans who do their own research

So I see there's an attempt by senate Republicans going on to push through all these military promotions that have been held up by Sen. Tuberville. What exactly is needed to overcome his hold? Is it something like a 2/3 vote or can he just unilaterally stop this forever?

I read about something called a 'standing order resolution', and oddly, it was actually supposed to be Sinema's idea... an unusual procedural move, not a rules change

who actually would benefit from an RFK spoiler? he'd pull Biden voters but I guess he'd pull Trumpers too.

I don't think it's clear at this point

I think he would pull more from Trump voters, but Cornel West on the other hand...

What are they even doing, is it just to garner money and fame? At least Dean Phillips is running in the democratic primary so we can all laugh at him as a joke candidate

West and Kennedy are unhinged, insane narcissists

Good thing they don't stand a chance of winning.

that's not the problem, though

i didn't take many Nader votes to screw the pooch for Gore

RFK would absolutely pull more Trump voters

yeah, he's cousins to JFK Jr. who is part of 'the plan'

RFJ Jr. terrifies Trump's people.

he'd pull Biden voters but I guess he'd pull Trumpers too.

There has been no indication that RFK Jr. would pull one single Democratic vote. He would, however, draw pretty deeply from the crazy end of the Trump voter pool.

you haven't met my lifelong Democrat voting stepfather, a big RFK fan

it is a real fucking problem

RFK Jr. probably would get some votes that otherwise would go to Biden, but the more exposure people have to him I think the fewer of those votes he gets. Right now some number of people answering the surveys are just reacting to the name. On the other hand, he can pull some loons who know all about his anti-vaxx and general conspiracy shit and love it, and a lot more of those are people who would otherwise vote for Trump if at all. Or that's how it seems.

Not yet. This story's a couple weeks old, but it tracks with what I've heard anecdotally:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/10/rfk-jr-independent-bid-could-do-trump-more-damage-than-biden

xpost to sleeve

I sure hope so

Then God has abandoned us.

lol waht, I was agreeing w/yr article!

I mean, obviously god has foresaken us since the breakdown of the bicameral mind ;)

what if God has abandoned us

https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780802023063-us.jpg

RFK's support is going to be a nonentity - he's weird and creepy, his only positives are (last) name recognition and anti-vaxxer cred. The former doesn't go far (if more of those people start to see him speaking) and the latter will fall back into the Trump camp assuming Big Don doesn't pull an Elvis on the shitter before next November.

I think that's true, my stepfather was a big OG Kennedy fan and that's where the uncritical support comes from, largely

(he may have changed his mind about all this, my last convo on it was in June)

support is

But then we're stuck with someone even worse than Mike Pence.

Would be hilarious if Trump got nixed from the ballot for insurrection in a key GOP state like Texas (will never here happen since our state supreme court is 100% Republican). But you only need 1-2 swing states to bounce him for his candidacy to be DOA (say any two of Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Nevada).

He needs to be beaten at the ballot. Repudiated.

Already happened once. That's plenty enough for me, so let's get on with it. He's welcome to die asap.

i'm done with hoping for him to get his comeuppance. our society is too dumb for it to happen.

hoping he goes to a gas station one night and his driver dies mid-ride and careens into the pumps

He will have to be buried in an undisclosed location to prevent people from pissing on his grave.

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Montesi_Formula#:~:text=The%20Montesi%20Formula%20is%20an,close%20proximity%20to%20the%20caster.

Best case scenario:

Trump wins all the Primaries and chooses Laura Loomer as his running mate. He accepts the nomination at the convention and then immediately dies of rabies. Loomer declares herself the nominee but Haley calls for a new delegate vote. Loomer delegates and Haley delegates begin fighting and setting themselves on fire. The Republican Party flees to Hungary.

M bison

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

xpost Eric Braeden is then given the nomination

And for jimbeaux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ

hoping he goes to a gas station one night and his driver dies mid-ride and careens into the pumps

― a very very unfair (Neanderthal), Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:41 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

Maybe a “Zoolander”-esque mishap

trump being barred from running in one or two states (that he would have lost anyway) would be bad for the long term "popular vote winner should be the winner" cause.

nah, not states like Colorado which he has basically no chance of winning in, a couple of swing states like PA, MI, or NV where not being on ballot destroys any real path he has to 270

I'm not a fan of this drive to get Trump off state ballots. Either beat him for real or throw him in jail, but this option isn't a good way to win.

yeah it just plays perfectly to his "weaponised DOJ" shtick that his base already believes and makes it look even more credible to their addled hick brains.

He will have to be buried in an undisclosed location to prevent people from pissing on his grave.

"The family opted for cremation until they were advised of the potentially onerous implications of a strictly private, unwitnessed burning of the body of the man who was, after all the President of the United States. Awkward questions might be raised, dark allusions to Hitler and Rasputin. People would be filing lawsuits to get their hands on the dental charts. Long court battles would be inevitable--some with liberal cranks bitching about corpus delicti and habeas corpus and others with giant insurance companies trying not to pay off on his death benefits. Either way, an orgy of greed and duplicity was sure to follow any public hint that Nixon might have somehow faked his own death or been cryogenically transferred to fascist Chinese interests on the Central Asian Mainland."

Moodles and I are of one mind on this. I prefer he lose the election first and then he gets thrown in jail, but let the election and legal system play out as they will.

^^^
This. Having him kicked off of ballots in certain states is a slippery slope, especially these days.

they can just bury him in that corner of the golf course next to his ex-wife

^^^^^

I'm not a fan of this drive to get Trump off state ballots. Either beat him for real or throw him in jail, but this option isn't a good way to win.

You seem to be under the impression that the old rules still apply. If only one side is abiding by them, they don't. Do you think if the poles were reversed, if Republicans held the incumbency, they wouldn't be filing motion after motion after motion to get Biden knocked off the ballot? It's very simple: When you are fighting for your life, every weapon at hand should — must — be used. And as has been stated many times, if Trump wins the next presidential election, there will never be another. So whatever it takes to stop him from winning is not just legitimate but necessary.

The big problem is convincing the Democratic party, and the nation's journalists, of this.

You can be sure, now that they've learned it is an even remote thing, Republicans will inevitably start fighting to keep Democrats off the ballot in the future, no matter the success of these attempts.

"Well, WE think Kamala Harris is a terrorist, so..."

Yeah I understand the concerns, but as with the criminal cases I’m in favor of letting it play out. It’s a good and legitimate constitutional question to raise. If it ultimately forces SCOTUS to rule in Trump’s favor, OK.

regardless the plain language of the 14th, the drafters intent for same, or any situational similarities with history, i cannot imagine scotus allowing any sec of state to ban trump from a ballot based on the 14th. long term maybe it's for the best.

Had Congress had the courage to convict him in the second impeachment, the case under the 14th Amendment for keeping him off the ballot would, I think, have been stronger. Of course, they could have just barred him from ever holding federal office again as part of the conviction.

yeah, I think a conviction would be necessary

putting it to the legislative via impeachment was very much better, and i was very supportive as it brought the facts to light and showed those evil simps for what they are. but it failed. 14th amndmt will be viewed as non-justiciable, but even if it was upheld, it will be cast as illegal sleight of hand (which it is not, but still).

I am pretty much past the point of worrying about precedent because the events of the past 7 years show it just doesn’t matter. Basically unperson OTM and the “what if they do it” hypotheticals show a fundamental misunderstanding of what the conservative politicians actually want because I guarantee you they have already been planning this gambit way before Trump gave the Democrats an opening to use it.

This Times piece is worth reading, not just because of what it openly says — that Donald Trump is a narcissistic psychopath in observable cognitive decline, who absolutely wants to declare himself dictator of America — but because it makes no attempt to be "even-handed" by raising bullshit complaints about Biden. Perhaps it represents a tipping point in the media narrative.

It links to this piece (headline: "The Case for Amplifying Trump's Insanity"), which is also good.

Edsall's one of the good ones.

yeah good piece and I'm guessing the media won't cover him this time the way they did in 2016, or even 2020. not because I think they've learned their lesson or whatever but because it's a lot harder to do the "both sides" thing when one of them has 91 felony charges and is openly using fascist language. not to mention the fact that he legitimately sounds like an insane person every time he speaks now. I know that's always been the case to some degree but as that article points out it definitely feels like his neurons are misfiring

I think they've learned their lesson

Good god, I hope so. It feels like the pertinent people in the media (e.g. reporters, editors, producers) have been "having a conversation" about how to cover Trump ever since he won the nomination in 2016, even as Trump has consistently framed them as enemies of the people, but they have coveted their reputations for fairness, objectivity, and respect for democratic norms above the need to hammer away daily at the existential danger Trump poses. They've constantly waited in vain for the Democratic Party to do that job, so they could duck it, but when the Democratic Party has tried to put that message out they've failed to amplify it.

I'm not concerned that the 14th amendment case will encourage Republicans to try the same thing. I just think it's a bad way to try to win the election and gives credence to the idea that it's all rigged. It's important to have the election be as straightforward as possible.

There is no Biden victory that the GOP will not call rigged, it's pointless to make that part of your calculus for any campaign strategy.

on the other hand who cares about giving creedence to something they're going to believe no matter what you do

I think if you can get a conviction on the insurrection charge it's worth trying! people who have actively tried to overthrow the government shouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot! if you don't like it run a better candidate!

f. hazel otm, they are not acting in good faith, the social contract has already been broken, gloves off, all the tools, etc

Edsall's one of the good ones.

This is kind of a funny thing to say about someone whose columns tend to consist mostly of block quotes of political and social scientists and research reports, but yeah, good piece. (Tbc, I actually appreciate what Edsall does quite a bit, but have very little sense of him as a person.)

No idea what he's like as a person. As for the column: I don't mind collated columns.

I appreciate Edsall’s columns, tho sometimes the very subject of his columns seems to betray certain viewpoints.

wild stuff

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/22/indian-americans-caste-discrimination-newsom-veto/

(ctrl-f "vice president harris", among many other things)

yes - read that the other day and had to re-read sections over and over to make sure i wasn't misunderstanding. the argument of the wealthy indian-americans seems to be "don't say caste"

Detractors of caste anti-discrimination laws — including many Indian American big-money donors and political power players — say the bills could fuel rather than curtail discrimination against South Asians, particularly Indian Hindus, because they are most often associated with caste hierarchy. They argue that the measures could falsely characterize all Hindus in America as inherently biased against members of their own community. They also said the laws could make people who belong to an upper caste — or whose surnames suggest they do — targets of frivolous lawsuits.

“They are trying to divide us among different castes and different classes,” said Romesh Japra, who founded the Americans 4 Hindus super PAC and recruited Bhutoria and other Democratic Indian American donors to fight the bill. “We came here to this country, to America, and we did not think that we’ll have to face this again.”

Japra said that during his 50 years in the United States, he has never experienced or seen any caste discrimination. “It doesn’t exist,” he said.

Ananya Chakravarti, a Georgetown University history professor and expert on the caste system, said this is a common refrain from wealthy American Hindus who are not from a lower caste.

“It would be a lot like White people standing up and saying they have never experienced race discrimination,” said Chakravarti, who is from an upper caste. “It’s literally a case of the upper caste trying to speak for the entire community.”

wondering how much of this is the supposed psudo-"moderate" beliefs of the interviewees as stated, and how much of it is far right ultra-nationalist stuff.

yeah I am a tiny bit sympathetic to the idea that the US judicial system might be bad at adjudicating this issue, but if your only response to "then what should we do about caste discrimination?" is "it doesn't exist" your stance is clear

for some reason I stopped feeling the need to wonder about the backgrounds of the "don't talk about caste" people after reading a few quotes

I do appreciate seeing Shri Thanedar's amazing hairpiece in one of the pictures, though

the stories from that guy's office are pretty ridiculous

At a glance it seems like this federal definition of existing civil rights protections could be understood to encompass caste, particularly the "ancestry" part: "Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin includes discrimination based on a person’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, or ancestry."

That was Newsom's argument for vetoing, but afaict the problem is that "ancestry" in that list is subordinate to "race, color, or national origin" and is therefore intended to add greater specificity to the concept of racial discrimination, which is not relevant when the case involves people of the same national origin, race, color, etc discriminating against each other (but ianal).

That said, iirc the article mentioned building up "case law" to establish a legal basis for caste discrimination, and I would guess it would draw on that language?

Yeah, it's not explicitly covered so you would need a judge to decide. It's tricky. A caste is not exactly an ethnicity or a group of national origin, but it seems like it has enough attributes — being heritable, particularly — that it would qualify. But you'd need the right case to prove discrimination with.