Liz Cheney mulls third-party run to block Trump victory - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15298129
Fasces wrote:To call a convention requires a simple majority vote in 34 state legislatures. 19 states have already signed on, as of 2023.

In 2016, Republicans controlled majorities in both chambers of 32 states, and in 2 more states controlled at least one chamber.

In 2023, Republicans have a trifecta in 22 states, and control both chambers of the legislature in 6 more, controlling one chamber 3 more. The states with split legislatures include Kansas Louisiana, Alaska, Kentucky and North Carolina, where a GOP trifecta is entirely feasible.

It really isn't as far-fetched as you think it is. Procedures for adopting a new constitution will be decided by the convention, and I doubt they'll go for requiring unanimous state approval. Once they get their convention, they're pretty much free to do whatever.


Yes, indeed.

I frankly thought the issue with the USA is not righting the defects when they had multiple chances to do so. The only logical explanation is that both parties were benefitting from the corruption and therefore were willing to allow the defectiveness in the democratic architecture to remain untouched.

I think there is always that type of negligence that often characterizes a snowballing problem in many governments. Some neglect thing that is deliberately not confronted. One sees it in the French Revolution and many other Revolutions throughout human history. The ones in power just refuse to acknowledge something profoundly defective. They ignore it because they do not want to lose what they have in their hand. Lack of planning. Lack of acceptance of what the issue might become in the future.

It is really stupidity Fasces. What Harari from Sapiens book says is a big factor in enormous problems in human history.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/never-u ... uthor.html
#15298140
JohnRawls wrote:Its a problem. Is it a crysis or natural democratic process that is a really good question. I lean more on the nature of democracy honestly. US is not the first to experience this and will not be the last. Not sure where you and @Tainari88 took it that I am saying that all is fine in this regard, it isn't. But it also doesn't mean that this is something extremely new that democracies never faced before.

Retrospectively looking through history, Trump doesn't have the qualities, situation nor the ideas to turn US in to an autocracy. Doesn't mean that he won't try in his weird way but he will not succeed. He won't even get elected against Biden.


I think Trump has a shot at getting elected. That he succeeds is kind of in doubt. But, Biden is not really a favorite president either.

The problem is that the USA has deeply embedded corruption that is creating a lot of problems.

Money talks and bullshit walks in many of these hallowed halls of Congress.

Democracies can become dictatorships easily with the right set of circumstances. Many believe democracy is something easy to preserve and durable and bulletproof. It is not. Authoritarianism has a lot of advantages in terms of the ease of decision-making. It is much easier to have a centralized dictator in charge and an authoritarian rather than the mess of back and forth and compromising and pulling and tugging with many different pressures and constant compromising.

All you have to do is study successful dictatorships. They stabilize nations after Civil War or conflict, they often create reliability and promise stability to a weary populace sick of in fighting and warring factions.

How many thousands of years did you have Emperors and rulers and Kings and Queens, and Sultans and Caliphs and so on? Pharaohs and Messiahs? It is not a new concept in human societies seeking administration roles.

People lived through the Tsars and the Kings. They grew weary of the defects of such systems of inherited power and so on. So Republicanism and representative democracies were born.

Voting and constitutional forms of government came to be.

True Capitalism was implemented in England. And true Socialism for the first time was implemented in France. Both in Europe. Why? Reactions to those old monarchical systems. Feudal societies and all that went before. It had run its course.

You still have remnants of it in the UK and in nations like Spain that have symbolic monarchies still present. They no longer make direct political decisions but they are there...like background art in a museum.

One has to study why the US government is struggling with these authoritarians in this period of history.

The ones doing the authoritarian moves are born and raised in the United States. A nation that billed itself as a working democracy where there are checks and balances to too much power existing in the hands of one powerful President (the Executive Branch), and when there was a strong disagreement that tried to break it apart into two separate nations, (the Civil War of the USA or the American Civil War).

So why now the authoritarianism? That is the big question?
#15298141
Fasces wrote:To call a convention requires a simple majority vote in 34 state legislatures. 19 states have already signed on, as of 2023.

In 2016, Republicans controlled majorities in both chambers of 32 states, and in 2 more states controlled at least one chamber.

In 2023, Republicans have a trifecta in 22 states, and control both chambers of the legislature in 6 more, controlling one chamber 3 more. The states with split legislatures include Kansas Louisiana, Alaska, Kentucky and North Carolina, where a GOP trifecta is entirely feasible.

It really isn't as far-fetched as you think it is. Procedures for adopting a new constitution will be decided by the convention, and I doubt they'll go for requiring unanimous state approval. Once they get their convention, they're pretty much free to do whatever.


Ratification of amendments proposed by the convention requires approval of 38 of 50 states.

In 2023, the Democrats have trifectas in 17 states, Republicans in 23. They won't get their convention, let alone ratification.
#15298143
Fasces wrote:Rugoz, you understand we're talking about a new constitution, not amendments to the current constitution?

They don't have to ratify it the same way or using the same procedures the current constitution uses. The convention is a event horizon - anything is possible afterwards.


I don't know what you're talking about. The constitution regulates how it can be amended. There's no way to "replace" it.
#15298144
How do you think the Articles of Confederation were replaced?

Article 5 describes the amendment process - which requires 3/4 of states to ratify after an amendment passes congress - and the calling of a constitutional convention, which can amend the current constitution or even throw it out entirely and propose a new one (including, in either case, the rules by which it will be ratified).

Article 5 wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments , which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress


2/3 of states call for a convention which amends or replaces the constitution, after which 3/4 of delegates at that convention may vote to enact the amendment or replacement.

I doubt states would not take every action possible, including secession, to avoid a massive rewrite of the constitution - but calling for a constitutional convention is a very real goal of the GOP, and they are actively and explicitly working toward it. This is undeniable. :hmm:

A group called the Convention of States Action was started in 2012. In summation, their goal – supported by The Federalist Society — is to persuade GOP-controlled state legislatures to call a constitution convention where far-right conservative values will become the law of the land.

How’s COSA doing? Besides raising over $10 million in 2020 alone, 19 states have passed the constitutional convention resolution, six states have passed the resolve in one legislative chamber and 12 states are trying to pass the resolution. This totals 37 states, three more than needed to call a constitutional convention.

[...]

Who is on board with COSA? These names may ring a bell: Gov. Greg Abbott, Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, Tom Coburn, Steve Deace, Sen. Jim DeMint, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Sean Hannity, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Mark Meadows, Sarah Palin, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum.

On COSA’s legal board of reference is John Eastman, a Trump-affiliated lawyer. The Supreme Court has been asked to suspend and disbar Eastman, “who it says orchestrated efforts that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection by Trump supporters.”

#15298146
Fasces wrote:2/3 of states call for a convention which amends or replaces the constitution, after which 3/4 of delegates at that convention may vote to enact the amendment or replacement.


No.

3/4 of states must approve the amendment, either by decision of the state legislature or a state convention. A state convention is an elected body or, possibly, a referendum.
#15298153
Rich wrote:Er no, the fact that White Supremacists will oppose White Inferiorism, the fact that White Supremaicsts may even find White inferiorism where none actually exists in reality does not mean that all people who oppose White Inferiorism are White Supremaicsts.

It is also important to note there was not some magical moment when all White Surpemaicsm ceased and White inferiorism began. The two can happily (or unhappily) coexst, sometimes even in the same person. Look at the membership of our current British Tory Government over the past few years. You would have a hard time claiming that so called non Whites are discriminated against. In fact all the signs are that there is massive institutionalised racist discrimination against people of European descent when it comes to selection for government. But at the same time this government has instituted the policy of making people with Pakistani heritage and other non European national origins stateless. This is a quite disgraceful policy, that I oppose. If there was a movement, particularly a violent movement against it, I would support it.


You see, there's no such thing as "white Inferiorism." It's a concept made up by white supremacists to justify their racist ideology.

You could argue that there is large scale discrimination against European decent, but you would be objectively wrong and laughed at for making such an absurdly false claim.
#15298155
KurtFF8 wrote:You could argue that there is large scale discrimination against European decent, but you would be objectively wrong and laughed at for making such an absurdly false claim.

You don't even have to leave the forum. Some posters relentlessly push the idea that, the European settlers who colonised the Americas were morally inferior to the peoples already occupying the continent. This is no different to the way the Nazis relentlessly pushed the idea of Jewish moral inferiority. If you go off the forum, virtually every where you work these days the diversity police force you to employ people who less qualified, less able and less competent to fulfill their diversity quotas. This is no different to the way that the South African Apartheid regime forced employers to employ people of European descent regardless of whether they were productive or not.
#15298157
Rich wrote:You don't even have to leave the forum. Some posters relentlessly push the idea that, the European settlers who colonised the Americas were morally inferior to the peoples already occupying the continent. This is no different to the way the Nazis relentlessly pushed the idea of Jewish moral inferiority. If you go off the forum, virtually every where you work these days the diversity police force you to employ people who less qualified, less able and less competent to fulfill their diversity quotas. This is no different to the way that the South African Apartheid regime forced employers to employ people of European descent regardless of whether they were productive or not.


It's fundamentally different than what the Nazis did actually. White people/people of European decent have long held positions of power and face general advantages that people of color do not in places like the United States. Trying to uplift communities of colors is not comparable in any way to the way that communities of color have faced generations of discrimination, not the least because white people are not being discriminated against in mass. No one in positions of power is promoting the idea that white people are inferior, this is a white supremacist myth that you're promoting. It only exists in the minds of white supremacists, not in the real world.

The idea that "less qualified people are getting positions over qualified whites" is another racist myth that just doesn't have a basis in reality.

You can try to use gaslighting comparisons to Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa, but no one should take such comparisons seriously when it's actually the holdovers of the ideologies of those regimes that promotes the very myths you're promoting here.
#15298232
Fasces wrote:Project 2025 is a blueprint for turning the US federal government into a one party state. GOP also has a backup plan that is scarily effective in state legislatures - they're quite close to triggering a second constitutional convention.

Scary Stuff . It sort of reminds me of these two dystopian stories I am aware of the one a TV series , Jericho , in which the entire western half of the country becomes the Allied States of America . And the second , Christian Nation , by Frederic Rich , in which America becomes a Dominionist regime . I feel as if the recent turn of events seems unreal , yet it is happening just the same . The remaining key question is how much will the American people put up with before possibly staging an uprising. Will we end up like the proverbial boiling frog , in which our civil rights and liberty is increasingly eroded , while the public stands idly by , or will we join together across the political divide to resist . Because this wouldn't be the first time that the overbearing federal government has acted to abuse its powers to suppress political dissent , under Democratic and Republican presidents alike . But it just seems that apart from anarchists and the actual radical left , not the lily liver liberal center-left that Trumpists like to paint as being far-left , no one in this country seems to be alarmed by this , just so long as it's their party that is in power , and is wielding such militarized secret police powers against their political enemies. If not , Democrats might fear the shadow government , and Republicans the deep state . But neither seems to reliably care about liberty and justice for all , including those they despise and disagree with. A few might even vote third party, as I did in 2012 , and 2016 , when I voted for the Green candidate , Jill Stein . But the majority seem to only find fault in the other major party , and overlook misconduct coming from their own side . Reviling third party voters as being spoilers , and enablers of their rivals.













Last edited by Deutschmania on 13 Dec 2023 02:09, edited 1 time in total.
#15298254
MAGA's are saying Trump has presidential immunity. Now, that's all bullshit, but do they not realize that if that were true, that means they can't prosecute Biden whenever Trump finally takes the presidency again?

Can these people walk and chew gum at the same time? Obviously, it's that they are authoritarian pieces of shit that don't actually care.
#15298264
Rancid wrote:MAGA's are saying Trump has presidential immunity. Now, that's all bullshit, but do they not realize that if that were true, that means they can't prosecute Biden whenever Trump finally takes the presidency again?

Can these people walk and chew gum at the same time? Obviously, it's that they are authoritarian pieces of shit that don't actually care.

It's as I have stated before , they only care about what furthers their agenda. They don't have any consistent principles . If Trump were to have won the popular vote , but not the electoral vote , they would then decry the lack of democracy . However , if their candidate wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote , they would then change their tune . Their position is one of mere convenience rather than pure conviction .
#15298270
Deutschmania wrote:It's as I have stated before , they only care about what furthers their agenda. They don't have any consistent principles . If Trump were to have won the popular vote , but not the electoral vote , they would then decry the lack of democracy . However , if their candidate wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote , they would then change their tune . Their position is one of mere convenience rather than pure conviction .


Indeed indeed. These people are dangerously stupid/entitled/greedy.

I can also post Israeli news reports about arms […]

World War II Day by Day

February 28, Wednesday Divers capture key to U-b[…]

Successfull Dictators

:lol: While I wouldn't exactly call him a dictator[…]

The whole "he's too old" is a weird line[…]