That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Smoove_B wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:46 pm it feels like if we collectively survive this election, there's going to be a point in late 2021 or 2022 when people in the know start coming out and commenting on how close we were to flying off into the abyss right now. Sort of like how people came out long after the 2008/9 financial crisis and said there was almost total collapse behind the scenes, but this feels worse.
Fortunately, like so very many things, Trump fundamentally misunderstands what the Court does or how Justices work. Possibly both.Tao wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:28 pmOne could interpret that as him not wanting a 4-4 split but I read it as he thinks he's buying a Judge.
The more important question is, What's he planning that he thinks John Roberts will oppose?Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:08 pmFortunately, like so very many things, Trump fundamentally misunderstands what the Court does or how Justices work. Possibly both.Tao wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:28 pmOne could interpret that as him not wanting a 4-4 split but I read it as he thinks he's buying a Judge.
I honestly don't think there's a plan, because even assuming that 5 Justices are somehow purchased, (something we have absolutely no evidence for) there's virtually no scenario that can be engineered where the Supreme Court is in a position to give Trump anything. I mean, if Trump is strong enough to seize the Presidency, he doesn't really care what the Supreme Court says. (right, Jackson?) And if he isn't, there really isn't any feasible scenario where the Court can gift it to him. That's....not what the Court does. At all.Holman wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:44 pmThe more important question is, What's he planning that he thinks John Roberts will oppose?
Where were you in December 2000?Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:57 pmI honestly don't think there's a plan, because even assuming that 5 Justices are somehow purchased, (something we have absolutely no evidence for) there's virtually no scenario that can be engineered where the Supreme Court is in a position to give Trump anything. I mean, if Trump is strong enough to seize the Presidency, he doesn't really care what the Supreme Court says. (right, Jackson?) And if he isn't, there really isn't any feasible scenario where the Court can gift it to him. That's....not what the Court does. At all.Holman wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:44 pmThe more important question is, What's he planning that he thinks John Roberts will oppose?
Yes, that happened. Once. In almost 250 years. It required a truly stunning number of events to line up perfectly to put that question before the Court - that's not a scenario that can be engineered reliably. And if we assume that Trump really CAN engineer that, then we may as well pack up and go home, because there's no way to stop an evil genius of that magnitude.
Drazzil 2024: I Told You Sogbasden wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:18 pm Every week that goes by I'm moving closer and closer to going full Drazzil. :/
Torches. Pitchforks.
I believe the full text is:
All it required was a delayed ballot-count, a willingness on the part of right-wing operatives (including Roger Stone) to storm the barricades with yelling and lawsuits, a compliant right-wing Secretary of State, and a Supreme Court willing to treat a constitutional crisis like a procedural one.Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:32 pmYes, that happened. Once. In almost 250 years. It required a truly stunning number of events to line up perfectly to put that question before the Court - that's not a scenario that can be engineered reliably. And if we assume that Trump really CAN engineer that, then we may as well pack up and go home, because there's no way to stop an evil genius of that magnitude.
Way ahead of ya, compadre! Enjoy living in Gilead! :p. (1/2 jk)Little Raven wrote:we may as well pack up and go home.
pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:12 pm DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.
Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!
Color me surprisedLawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:17 pmpr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:12 pm DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.
Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!
The misinformation is out there though, mission accomplished.
And with the weight of a major government alert.LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:17 pmpr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:12 pm DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.
Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!
The misinformation is out there though, mission accomplished.
She makes sense but there is a flaw in the reasoning. They all assume the law isn't going to break down. That is the problem with all these the 'center will hold' analyses. They all presume that the institutions...well...hold. And they most likely will. However, the small chance that they fail and do not prevent the *threat* lead to a black swan catastrophe. That is why we need to take the risk seriously. Deadly seriously. That means vote. It means positioning tiger teams of lawyers. The whole shebang. Telling people to calm down and that the risk is small is minimizing the emergency situation we are in the middle of. I'd rather this be remembered as a Y2K moment rather than a 9/11 one. I've said it before but people are just shit at gauging risk and this is a decent example of it.YellowKing wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:47 pm Good rebuttal to The Atlantic article about Trump stealing the election:
<snip Tweet>
TLDR -
1) Trump's comments are another example of him manipulating the media to turn his horrible poll numbers into a position of strength. In a couple of days he's gone from "consistently behind in the polls" to "in a position to claim the election no matter what."
2) The "slate of electors" gambit would require a series of improbable outcomes that also depend on unlikely hypotheticals
3) PA, MI, and WI all have legislatures have veto-proof majorities that would prevent this scenario from happening at the outset.
You miss the most important element - it required a near-perfect balance of electoral votes, to the point where a single state would swing the balance, and THEN it required an almost unbelievably tiny margin of victory within that state, to the point were a few hundred ballots could conceivably alter the outcome.
I look at it a bit differently. You are talking about a specific set of circumstances in one election. That, to me, doesn't mean for something like this to happen it can only happen in that way. If it can happen that way, it can happen in other ways. It sounds to me like the Republicans have decided that they will not accept defeat even if it's legitimate 'will of the people' defeat. I expect they are working out various scenarios to see which ones look the most productive, and I use the plural 'ones'. I'm sure they have their lawyers figuring out what ifs based on getting the election results in the Supreme Court's hands. Until Republicans made up a rule preventing Obama from appointing a justice there was no such rule. And now that a Republican is President there isn't such a rule again. Don't underestimate their willingness to hack out a path if it's the path they want.Little Raven wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:44 pmYou miss the most important element - it required a near-perfect balance of electoral votes, to the point where a single state would swing the balance, and THEN it required an almost unbelievably tiny margin of victory within that state, to the point were a few hundred ballots could conceivably alter the outcome.
None of the polls suggest this is remotely likely.
I'm with you on this one. In the end, a President is making an implied threat against the nation. It doesn't matter how outlandish it appears. It is unprecedented and its dangerous. In the end, he doesn't even have to succeed at getting it to the Supreme Court. If and when he doesn't concede and fights the election it will do immense amounts of damage. The chaos itself may give him opportunities. Can anyone imagine what happens when the entire Executive branch locks the Biden transition team out? And then use that as some argument about how they aren't ready to assume power? One off the cuff example but it is the type of thing we may hear during the transition. Chances are low that it will be uneventful. It is not like he is someone with has not demonstrated the capacity and willingness to abuse his power.gameoverman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:07 amThat, to me, doesn't mean for something like this to happen it can only happen in that way. If it can happen that way, it can happen in other ways. It sounds to me like the Republicans have decided that they will not accept defeat even if it's legitimate 'will of the people' defeat. I expect they are working out various scenarios to see which ones look the most productive, and I use the plural 'ones'. I'm sure they have their lawyers figuring out what ifs based on getting the election results in the Supreme Court's hands. Until Republicans made up a rule preventing Obama from appointing a justice there was no such rule. And now that a Republican is President there isn't such a rule again. Don't underestimate their willingness to hack out a path if it's the path they want.
I regret that this forum doesn't have likes. I'd like to believe Little Raven and Ms. Kanefield and numerous others who argue that we have rules and institutions to guide us through this process and it would take an extremely narrow set of circumstances to get us to a calamitous event. However, if there's one thing I've learned these past four years of the Trump administration, it's that rules and norms get eroded or smashed on a regular basis with few, if any, penalties. To think that the current administration wouldn't turn the dial up to 10 in an attempt to maintain power (and keep Trump out of jail) after seeing all of that, and to underestimate the damage it will cause... . Don't get me wrong -- I'm not down about voting. I think it's critical that everyone votes. Just fully expect malevolent and bad-faith actions that will take a toll. As Mr. Fed said, "Even in the best case scenario, we're not coming all the way back from this."malchior wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:17 am I'm with you on this one. In the end, a President is making an implied threat against the nation. It doesn't matter how outlandish it appears. It is unprecedented and its dangerous. In the end, he doesn't even have to succeed at getting it to the Supreme Court. If and when he doesn't concede and fights the election it will do immense amounts of damage. The chaos itself may give him opportunities. Can anyone imagine what happens when the entire Executive branch locks the Biden transition team out? And then use that as some argument about how they aren't ready to assume power? One off the cuff example but it is the type of thing we may hear during the transition. Chances are low that it will be uneventful. It is not like he is someone with has not demonstrated the capacity and willingness to abuse his power.
Edit: Waiting for the clip but this morning there are reports that Mark Meadows used the withdrawn DOJ statement about ballots for Trump thrown out in PA as *justification* for the rationale Trump is using to make his statements about waiting to see. They are expecting widespread voter fraud. He also made comments about how the FBI is terrible at finding voter fraud. They are preparing the ground. People just aren't ready for what is about to happen. Luckily, we still have time to prepare.
Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.Dogstar wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:29 amI regret that this forum doesn't have likes. I'd like to believe Little Raven and Ms. Kanefield and numerous others who argue that we have rules and institutions to guide us through this process and it would take an extremely narrow set of circumstances to get us to a calamitous event. However, if there's one thing I've learned these past four years of the Trump administration, it's that rules and norms get eroded or smashed on a regular basis with few, if any, penalties. To think that the current administration wouldn't turn the dial up to 10 in an attempt to maintain power (and keep Trump out of jail) after seeing all of that, and to underestimate the damage it will cause... . Don't get me wrong -- I'm not down about voting. I think it's critical that everyone votes. Just fully expect malevolent and bad-faith actions that will take a toll. As Mr. Fed said, "Even in the best case scenario, we're not coming all the way back from this."malchior wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:17 am I'm with you on this one. In the end, a President is making an implied threat against the nation. It doesn't matter how outlandish it appears. It is unprecedented and its dangerous. In the end, he doesn't even have to succeed at getting it to the Supreme Court. If and when he doesn't concede and fights the election it will do immense amounts of damage. The chaos itself may give him opportunities. Can anyone imagine what happens when the entire Executive branch locks the Biden transition team out? And then use that as some argument about how they aren't ready to assume power? One off the cuff example but it is the type of thing we may hear during the transition. Chances are low that it will be uneventful. It is not like he is someone with has not demonstrated the capacity and willingness to abuse his power.
Edit: Waiting for the clip but this morning there are reports that Mark Meadows used the withdrawn DOJ statement about ballots for Trump thrown out in PA as *justification* for the rationale Trump is using to make his statements about waiting to see. They are expecting widespread voter fraud. He also made comments about how the FBI is terrible at finding voter fraud. They are preparing the ground. People just aren't ready for what is about to happen. Luckily, we still have time to prepare.
How many times does the system need to utterly fail before you call it a failure?noxiousdog wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 amSo far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.
When the bosses skate and a couple of flunkies get prison time, that's not taking down the Mafia.noxiousdog wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 am Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.
My apologies (and I'm not being sarcastic) for not being specific enough. Yes, Manafort, Parnas, Flynn and Stone (and a few others as well) are facing or have faced the criminal justice system. However, those penalties have not been significant enough or hit key players that would impede corrupting influences within the administration nor deter administration figures from breaking norms and rules for the administration. I'm looking at Wolf, the acting DHS Secretary, as well as William Barr, the head of the DOJ. I'm looking at hand-waving away the Hatch Act, the conflicts of interest, the dismissal of testifying before Congress (and complying with subpoenas), the enrichment of the President and his family's businesses, and so on and so forth. So why wouldn't they push the norms in terms of voter intimidation, disinformation about ballots, raging against mail-in ballots, alternate slates of electors, etc. if it helps them maintain power and keeps things going?noxiousdog wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 am Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.
Those items at the end are not the end of a democracy. They show a corrupt political party, which if you remember, got crushed in 2018 and is more than likely going to happen again in 2020.Dogstar wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:25 amMy apologies (and I'm not being sarcastic) for not being specific enough. Yes, Manafort, Parnas, Flynn and Stone (and a few others as well) are facing or have faced the criminal justice system. However, those penalties have not been significant enough or hit key players that would impede corrupting influences within the administration nor deter administration figures from breaking norms and rules for the administration. I'm looking at Wolf, the acting DHS Secretary, as well as William Barr, the head of the DOJ. I'm looking at hand-waving away the Hatch Act, the conflicts of interest, the dismissal of testifying before Congress (and complying with subpoenas), the enrichment of the President and his family's businesses, and so on and so forth. So why wouldn't they push the norms in terms of voter intimidation, disinformation about ballots, raging against mail-in ballots, alternate slates of electors, etc. if it helps them maintain power and keeps things going?noxiousdog wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 am Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.
