On the bright side, if the USA split up because of internal tensions it would probably be easier for individual states to turn socialist, and that would have a ripple effect around them each time
The US could never actually do that though. Libs love to compromise and to simp for the republicans.
Even if it didn’t, a balkanized US is better for the world regardless of the politics of those Balkanized states.
USSR was Balkanized without nuclear war
Even if it did, it’s a band aid we have to rip off eventually
I don't think so. Post-Soviet Russia had a lot nasty internal struggles like the war in Chechnya and nuclear weapons never went off then.
The fucking state on state wars that would be fought over water rights is gonna be cccrraaayyyzzzeeee
Yeah, it's one of the main things that keeps me in Wisconsin, tbh.
literally the only thing that shithole has going for it
Are roaming death squads a reasonable alternative? Maybe I'm just a doomer idk
I think its worth noting that he's hardly unbeatable. This is far less "Donald wriggling his way out" and far more "institutions just kinda falling on their face and letting him saunter past". But when states are stripping him from the ballot? IDFK. Unless a higher court puts him back on the ballot again, this sets up a very sharp conflict between the national party leadership (which wants Hailey at the top of the ticket in 2024) and the schlub voters (who are ride-or-die for Trump).
It looks like some subset of the bureaucracy has found its spine and is actually using real governmental powers to put hurdles in front of President Cheeto that he can't flounder his way past. American wasn't much of a democracy before now, so who gives a shit if its even less of a democracy during the next primary season? If a few big states like California and New York and Pennsylvania and Michigan yank him, this sets up a possible contested convention and a bunch of extremely angry delegates.
American wasn't much of a democracy before now
America was NEVER a democracy, it was an oligarchy from the very beginning. Only rich, white males had any say according to the constitution. The senate was created to make sure the oligarchs could veto any real challenge to the power structure. Window dressing has changed over the years, but the fundamentals remain.
America was NEVER a democracy
Eh. It had a few moments.
Window dressing has changed over the years, but the fundamentals remain.
The fundamental structure of democracy still exists. I believe it is the people who are ultimately too alienated and terrified of one another to properly utilize it.
The fundamental structure of democracy still exists
Hmmm, what flavor kool-aid did you get?
The one that has the elections and the candidates running popular campaigns and the people lining up in droves to participate.
Trump getting removed from a smattering of ballots and setting of a brawl on the RNC convention floor as "alternate delegates" from these states attempt to vote for Donald Trump in defiance of the party will actually be fucking hilarious and very cool.
When you're right you're right. Absolutely nothing will happen from this.
The US isn't gonna balkanize over this. Stop hyping yourself up over nothing.
Yeah if anything what this will do is just briefly annoy capital. We can dream, but I can't see this causing a genuine national split. Maybe some states like Texas or Florida will threaten, but nothing will happen.
The term definitely gets overused, but it is funny when states are perturbed into falling out of step with the federal government like this.
Let's say that this works and Trump is prevented from running. Genocide Joe wins another term. Democracy has prevailed over darkness, norms and civility reigns supreme in the halls of government.
Then what happens?
You still have deteriorating material conditions for people as well as blatant militarism and nationalism, creating fertile soil for fascism. You have a regime made up of the alleged "good guys" who are unwilling and incapable of improving life for the masses, a regime that is adding insult to injury by telling people they're idiots for believing their own lying lived experience over government spreadsheets. And you have a large section of the people who are convinced fascists who have ample reason to believe the election was stolen and that the deep state will never play fair with them. Many of these fascists are in law enforcement and the military.
This can't end well.
These are all for the primary and not the general election. I doubt any of these will stick and if they do it will make every four years even more of a political theater.
Before I assumed the supreme court will rule for Trump. I think I was entirely wrong. Recently I've noted commentators saying it's likely the court will avoid the hot potato and kick it over to congress. And that seems highly likely to me now.
I didn't read any articles on the details about how congress will deal with it. But if the house is involved - all these efforts are already DOA.
---
Ninja edit
Google is shity and the media is shittier. I scanned a couple articles on the theme of "Everything you need to know about Trump and the 14th Amendment". And they didn't answer my simple question: if the court sends it congress - what happens?
it wont go to congress. the highest court in the state made a ruling regarding a state law. for there to be a national disqualification, the justice department will have to file charges and he will be tried in a federal court. congress could spearhead this by investigating, but its up to the executive branch to file charges, and up to the judicial branch to reach a verdict. only if trump is a convicted insurrectionist can congress decide to disqualify him from running
it wont go to congress.
The NYT disagrees and says it could.
archive.today • How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump's Presidential Run - The New York Times
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will doubtless seek consensus or, at least, try to avoid a partisan split of the six Republican appointees against the three Democratic ones. He may want to explore the many paths the court could take to keep Mr. Trump on state ballots without addressing whether he had engaged in insurrection or even assuming that he had.
Among them: The justices could rule that congressional action is needed before courts can intervene, that the constitutional provision at issue does not apply to the presidency or that Mr. Trump’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.
They're just saying that the court could rule that the amendment by itself is inactionable until the legislature enacts laws to create a process to disqualify candidates. Similar to how Article III declared a judiciary branch, but it wasn't actually established until Congress passed the Judiciary Act, describing what kind of courts there would actually be, what their jurisdictions would be, how many justices would comprise the court, etc. etc.
But in this case, the amendment is clearly prohibiting an action. With a reasonable court, I can't imagine how they'd just allow somebody to continue violating the Constitution until Congress passed additional legislation to stop it. It's as ludicrous as saying that the executive branch can unreasonably search and seize anything they'd like until Congress explicitly spells out each and every action that's unreasonable and provides the exact remedy process to follow when the 4th amendment is violated.
I mean, it's a pretty moot point because the court has already shown that they're perfectly willing to create whatever calvinball rules they want. But of course good old liberal media has to get in there and grant an air of credibility to whatever flimsy justification they come up with that's even the slightest bit plausible sounding.
If the court wants to come out and say that they judge the President isn't an officer of the United States or that he wasn't personally engaged in an insurrection, then that's one thing. But kicking it over to Congress to legislate exactly what's prohibited by the Constitution and/or what the remedies are is just opening up a huge can of worms.
“congressional action is needed before courts can intervene” meaning that congress needs to investigate for insurrection in order to charge him for the crime. it would still eventually come back to the courts to decide on a verdict.
edit: my wording of “it wont go to congress” was clumsy. i meant that congress wont be the ultimate body making that decision. congress can decide to not disqualify even if hes found guilty, but thats if both houses pass a 2/3 vote
Man - libs are in Fantasyland in this thread. r/politics thread subthreads...
---
"1866 Colloquy on Phrasing of the 14th Amendment" - hahhhaahaha.
mochicrunch_ comments on Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot
Regardless, if this is being filed in Louisiana, and we are already writing out that it’s not gonna happen, the fact that it’s starting to have a domino effect that lawsuits are happening across the country because of this tells you that the Supreme Court is going to have to get involved and they’re gonna have to ultimately decide before the election.
A question that has never been answered - either Trump is disqualified nationally, they allow states to individually determine that for themselves, they try and set a definition for what insurrection means, or they say Congress has to make the determination because they don’t want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I'd argue it was answered in 1866.
1866 Colloquy on Phrasing of the 14th Amendment
Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency.
He stated, “[T]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States.”
So he asked, “why do you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.”
Senator Lot Merrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps I am wrong to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am.”
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20
---
Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot : politics
Removed in Colorado and Maine. Looking to be removed in Vermont, New York and now Louisiana. If he's actually removed Trump will have lost in 10% of States before the first ballot is even cast.
---
Faux-Foe comments on Louisiana woman files suit to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot
Can anyone else get in on this action? I live in Missouri.
PA here. That’d be awesome.
---
It starts with you.
---
Me too. I'd like to know.
---
Would be nice if this starts happening in red states.
Alaska is considering.
“Alaska is considering” i just talked with Alaska and they are totally gonna remove trump from the ballot. this is hilarious bc libs are gonna throw even more of a fit if trump wins and if trump doesnt win fascists are gonna be even more violent than jan 6. wait, that’s not hilarious. at least i can look forward to telling the libs in my life im not voting in next years election. ill vote for biden if we get $15 federal minimum wage, universal healthcare, and student loan forgiveness
universal healthcare, and student loan forgiveness
Sorry, we can't afford any of those because we need the money to pay reparations to survivors of the Gaza Genocide
sorry abt the poverty and ridiculous medical and student debt, maintaining the torment nexus is expensive! someone has to maintain this torment nexus or we wont have treats and slaves!
I always knew I was going to be a witness to the decline of the US empire. Over the past decade or so the US has seemingly done everything in its power to convince me that the word I'm looking for is "collapse".
St. Bernard Parish's idea of left is essentially George HW right. Absolutely shocking that this started there.
Please, you've gotta stop. I can't possibly get any harder!