That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=94389
Aaaand there's my personal signal of doom...even YK is hanging it up. Damn.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
Why worry? According to the GOP, Kamala Harris has sole power to choose the President when the time comes.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
She could be a MAGA operative for all we know...hell, she could be dead for all we know...who is she again?!?Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:54 pmWhy worry? According to the GOP, Kamala Harris has sole power to choose the President when the time comes.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
Look on the bright side, at least it will be finally over in 4 more years.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
You think it takes longer than that to establish a fascist dictatorship?Punisher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 8:57 pmLook on the bright side, at least it will be finally over in 4 more years.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
I've never understood this FWIW. I don't think we deserve any of this. There has been a widespread and concerted attack on liberalism in the Western world. And it unfortunately found a path here through the accidental Constitutional patch of the EC. If Trump wins, it'll almost certainly be again a lopsided vote where he loses the popular vote by millions and squeaks in by the tens of thousands in several small key states. I have a hard time reconciling that with some notion of "deserve".
Yeah, I thought the same for a long time - that we're getting what we deserve. That might be true on a local level (when people a directly voting for local representation), but on a national level? We're a mess because of the Electoral College and the added impact of Gerrymandering and the fact that no one votes.
I legitimately believe people would be fine with Dictator Trump as long as gas prices are reasonable and the NFL is still able to play regular season games.A new Washington Post report tracing the modern trajectory of the Electoral College has the latest sobering data and finds that the 2024 White House race is “likely to target a smaller share of Americans than at any point in the modern era, despite massive increases in spending due to online fundraising.”
...
As the Post explains, political scientists Daron R. Shaw, Scott Althaus and Costas Panagopoulos have found that between 1952 and 1980, presidents targeted 26 states on average during their campaigns. That number has plunged since then, and during the last election Republicans and Democrats running for president focused on merely 10 states and two congressional districts. In that first era, presidential campaigns targeted areas that covered about 3 in 4 Americans, but by 2020 that had fallen to 1 in 4. And it’s likely to get worse: “If the major parties do not contest Florida in 2024, as is widely expected, only 18 percent of Americans would live in battlegrounds,” the Post reports.
Fair enough, I won't say it again. I get frustrated because my opinion of Americans is low and falling, but the MAGAts and christofascists and their enablers are still a minority. They're just very good at taking advantage of a system that's tilted in their favor, and gradually increasing that tilt.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 10:37 pmI've never understood this FWIW. I don't think we deserve any of this. There has been a widespread and concerted attack on liberalism in the Western world. And it unfortunately found a path here through the accidental Constitutional patch of the EC. If Trump wins, it'll almost certainly be again a lopsided vote where he loses the popular vote by millions and squeaks in by the tens of thousands in several small key states. I have a hard time reconciling that with some notion of "deserve".
I am amazed at how low she is portrayed as ranked, given how little she is in the news. I guess a women of color who does not know her place as a conservative is the lowest of the low.Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:54 pmWhy worry? According to the GOP, Kamala Harris has sole power to choose the President when the time comes.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
Ding!
One way or another if the trajectory holds.Punisher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 8:57 pmLook on the bright side, at least it will be finally over in 4 more years.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
And we failed to make it better. If humanity burns the world to the ground but it was only 3% of humanity that pushed this while 97% let it happen and they weren't powerless to stop it, "deserve" kinda fits. Does it fit here? I'm not convinced one way or another? Are we responsible? Yep and we will largely be held to account one way or another.
I think we need the YKs of the country to stare into the abyss for a couple of minutes right now and perhaps re-engage their drive. People like YK are the key to fixing the country - good people in the middle of it all who have not previously been a big voice.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:54 pmAaaand there's my personal signal of doom...even YK is hanging it up. Damn.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:05 pm I'm already just assuming he wins next year. I've lost every bit of faith in humanity. Congrats, America, you finally beat the optimism out of me.
A federal appeals court has denied Mark Meadows’ bid to move his Georgia-based criminal charges into federal court, rejecting a procedural gambit that could have derailed the state’s election-related charges against not only Meadows but also Donald Trump.
In an unsparing opinion written by a stalwart conservative judge, the court ruled that Meadows, who served as Trump’s White House chief of staff, must fight the charges against him in state court in Atlanta. Meadows had aimed to transfer the charges before a federal judge in hopes of having them quickly tossed out.
Meadows could appeal Monday’s ruling to the Supreme Court. But for now, the ruling from a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals keeps on track Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ racketeering prosecution of Trump, Meadows and a dozen other allies for efforts connected to Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. Former Justice Department official Jeff Clark and three GOP activists who falsely signed Electoral College paperwork are also seeking to transfer their cases to federal court, though Monday’s ruling is likely a harbinger of doom for those efforts.
...
Throughout his 36-page opinion, Pryor expressed bewilderment at Meadows’ unlimited conception of his duties as Trump’s chief of staff. Meadows’ lawyers argued that nearly every action he took was part of his official White House responsibilities — even when they involved making campaign decisions to aid Trump’s reelection.
“We cannot rubberstamp Meadows’ legal opinion that the president’s chief of staff has unfettered authority,” Pryor wrote.
Attorneys for Trevian Kutti, one of Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia election racketeering case, filed notice on Monday night they no longer intend to represent the embattled publicist who has gained notoriety for her outlandish public statements.
Reached by phone, Darryl Cohen, Kutti’s Atlanta-based attorney, said that “in order to have a good lawyer-client relationship, the client has to listen, the client has to be on board and you have to be paid.”
“All these things have to happen,” Cohen added. “I'm not saying any of those things did or didn't happen, but you can extrapolate.”
~fun read starts on page 7Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:29 pm Wasn't really expecting this. Colorado Supreme Court finds Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf
Just curioys. Why do you think it would be a bad precedent?Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:40 pm~fun read starts on page 7Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:29 pm Wasn't really expecting this. Colorado Supreme Court finds Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf
Just came to share/talk about this too.
Amazing.
I wonder if it will stick?
Also, is this a bad precedent?
But isn't this specifically a ban due to the insurrection claise and Trumps direct involvement?
In a way it is simulaneously amazing and a straightforward application of facts to law.Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:40 pm~fun read starts on page 7Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:29 pm Wasn't really expecting this. Colorado Supreme Court finds Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf
Just came to share/talk about this too.
Amazing.
I wonder if it will stick?
Also, is this a bad precedent?
This is where I land on it. If not - then it's lost anyway - is how I see it.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:32 pmOn the other, the potential for abuse in the future is often not a totally satisfactory reason to not apply the law fairly here.Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:40 pm~fun read starts on page 7Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:29 pm Wasn't really expecting this. Colorado Supreme Court finds Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf
Just came to share/talk about this too.
Amazing.
I wonder if it will stick?
Also, is this a bad precedent?
Trump intervened in the lawsuit. There's no question that Trump is a "party at interest" in these proceedings, so that's not controversial.
If you ask people I know who support Maga; she is a “pretend” American RINO traitor who betrayed Trump by running against him. Realistically there is no one but trump who can win in 2024.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:37 pm It's also worth stating the obvious that Colorado is not voting for Trump in 2024 regardless, so this doesn't realistically impact the election outcome directly. Things only get really real if this is upheld by SCOTUS or if there's a similar ruling in a swing or red state.
I also wonder a bit whether this creates an opening for Nikki Haley to gain grounds on a "hey, maybe let's not nominate someone at material legal risk of getting disqualified". Though obviously that would be painted by Trump as the "deep state" keeping him down, and he'd probably gain support.
The 14A says nothing about being convicted; it seemingly only requires demonstration that someone "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" in order to be disqualified.
The intent was to prevent the president from allowing former leaders of the Confederacy to regain power within the U.S. government after securing a presidential pardon. It states that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is required to allow public officials who had engaged in rebellion to regain the rights of American citizenship and hold government or military office.
A judge has ruled it, doesn't that have the same weight as a jury? Doesn't presumption of innocence only apply to trials? Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection, so the jury can't be out.Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:41 pm This seems obvious to my naive non-legal mind: Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. He's been charged and is being tried, but the jury is out. Without that conviction, trump is not guilty of insurrection and therefore the 14A doesn't apply to him (yet). It pains me to side with trump on anything whatsoever, but the presumption of innocence is paramount here.
Convince me otherwise.