Trump would take foreign help in election and not tell FBI: "They have information. I think I'd take it"

[Jaskalas]

Remember when Gore was offered info on GWB's campaign and turned it over the the FBI? Can we please go back to even that mediocrity of civility and lawfulness.

People appear to want power, not honor or lawfulness. This decay could be a consequence of having naturally divided governments in perpetuity for the United States. Other nations vote for parties and they gain the equivalent of the "Presidency" as a result of taking "Congress". Ours requires a hope and a prayer of ever having enough control to ever make a difference.

I feel that this setup breeds desperation amongst our politics. And it has manifested as increasingly aggressive acts against our Democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

"Revolutionary fantasies" are actually more realistic than the one where Dems win a court packing fight and the right accepts that outcome, effectively locking in Dem control of the country for generations if not all time.

You don't understand the goal, which is not to put Democrats in charge for eternity, but to stop Republican misbehavior. You use packing the court to inflict pain and then you offer a compromise to reform the institution permanently and end the threat.

For example you add 40,000 judges to SCOTUS, making sure the Democrats never lose another case. Then you go to the Republicans and say 'how about we amend the SCOTUS nomination process to something like Pete Butteigeig's plan so this madness stops once and for all?' You show them the costs of defection AND a better way forward.

 

[zinfamous]

This fits with the recurring pattern of Democrats breaking norms or engaged in self-serving behavior in a small way, then see Republicans take the strategy and ratchet it up by several orders of magnitude shortly thereafter.

Dems hold up some Bush judicial nominees because they can, GOP does it wholesale to years of nominees.

Dems "Bork" an otherwise qualified nominee because they are afraid of his politics, GOP does it for multiple nominees to the same court for openly partisan reasons.

Biden muses about delaying SCOTUS nominees in an election year, the GOP does it openly to Merrick Garland.

Dems close ranks to protect a lame duck Bill Clinton from being convicted in impeachment when video evidence of lying under oath was public, GOP refuses to even consider voting for impeachment much less conviction with a Donald Trump who willingly flouts all norms and laws as he sees fit.


Progressives, just think about the above every time you advocate for something that provides you a momentary partisan advantage. The GOP has proved time and time again that decision will come back to haunt you and reverse severalfold the momentary advantage you gained.

still with the "GOP is the fault of the Democrats!"

fuck off you pathetic quisling.

 

[fskimospy]

still with the "GOP is the fault of the Democrats!"

fuck off you pathetic quisling.

As I've said before you always know when conservatives know they are doing something wrong because they will blame Democrats for making them do it.

 

[glenn1]

If you think there would be an armed civil war over the composition of the Supreme Court you are living in a fantasy world. The average person simply doesn't care.

Yeah, people wouldn't care if you effectively politically marginalized the so their vote didn't matter. We can see how that's played out with people passively accepting SCOTUS rulings like Roe v. Wade and Citizens United, that "the average person doesn't care" and would be perfectly fine if more rulings like that could be issued entirely in one side's favor for the foreseeable future.

If you know game theory you know that's factually false. In an infinitely repeating game of this sort where each party has the opportunity to cooperate or defect employing a tit for tat strategy leads to a cooperative equilibrium in a large amount of cases. It's not perfect, but nothing in the real world is. It's possible that it can enter a sort of defection spiral but for Democrats that's no worse anyway as not retaliating is also an unconditional surrender, just a more drawn out one.

Again, if you think either side would ever stand for an end result where the other got to "pack" the court and that was the end state, you're delusional. "Adding 4 justices" or any multiple thereof would never, ever be a stable end state. Accepting that would be unconditional surrender and no "cooperative equilibrium" would ever be reached that wasn't status quo ante. Even if you could why would you, as we're basically a 50/50 nation and you'd effectively be abandoning democracy if you succeeded.

 

[zinfamous]

Also, contrary to what he says, Trump watches all the other outlets and the coverage is uh...not good. He's being excoriated across the board out in the non-Fox world. As bears out in his morning tantrum:


View attachment 7358

The Prince of Whales, eh? So now our POTUS is claiming that he communes with the Kingdom of Cetacians?

what a great brain.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Basic game theory also says you consider who has the guns and the knowledge of how to use them before you make your endgame move. The "4 then 40k pack" would cause American Revolution v2 and rightfully so. There would be no "you can stop this any time you want" since the only stable end state would be either status quo ante, or the complete unconditional surrender of one side or the other.

Pretty much summarizes my concern from 2016.
If I’m running against someone using Russia’s help and China digs up some files that are useful to me, saying I’ll end all tariffs for that help really isn’t a crazy thing to do.
Rise and repete on every other election, add more foreign actors to the mix too.
Surely you don’t think that is a good idea

 

[glenn1]

still with the "GOP is the fault of the Democrats!"

fuck off you pathetic quisling.

I don't care whose "fault" it is. This is an instance where #bothsides is perfectly apt. It's been shown repeatedly that #bothsides are completely willing to abandon all principles and defend "their guy" when they can get away with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, people wouldn't care if you effectively politically marginalized the so their vote didn't matter. We can see how that's played out with people passively accepting SCOTUS rulings like Roe v. Wade and Citizens United, that "the average person doesn't care" and would be perfectly fine if more rulings like that could be issued entirely in one side's favor for the foreseeable future.

Party activists care, and people care in some marginal sense as to how it affects their voting but you bring up a good point. The fact that there has been no armed insurrection against Roe v. Wade despite plenty of people thinking abortion is the murder of tens (hundreds?) of millions of innocent babies shows just how nuts your idea of an armed civil war is. People simply don't care enough.

Again, if you think either side would ever stand for an end result where the other got to "pack" the court and that was the end state, you're delusional. "Adding 4 justices" or any multiple thereof would never, ever be a stable end state. Accepting that would be unconditional surrender and no "cooperative equilibrium" would ever be reached that wasn't status quo ante. Even if you could why would you, as we're basically a 50/50 nation and you'd effectively be abandoning democracy if you succeeded.

I don't think you understand how this works because what you're saying is nonsense. There's absolutely no rational reason to believe the end result of a cooperative game would need to be status quo ante. That makes no sense and I'm unaware of any research that supports it.

See my other post, because remember this is an endlessly iterative game.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't care whose "fault" it is.

lol, since when? That is your entire premise for shitting up this thread

 

[glenn1]

Party activists care, and people care in some marginal sense as to how it affects their voting but you bring up a good point. The fact that there has been no armed insurrection against Roe v. Wade despite plenty of people thinking abortion is the murder of tens (hundreds?) of millions of innocent babies shows just how nuts your idea of an armed civil war is. People simply don't care enough.



I don't think you understand how this works because what you're saying is nonsense. There's absolutely no rational reason to believe the end result of a cooperative game would need to be status quo ante. That makes no sense and I'm unaware of any research that supports it.

See my other post, because remember this is an endlessly iterative game.

Do you think either side would agree to it becoming "endlessly iterative"? I'm guessing it would last exactly one cycle, with Dems packing with 4, the GOP packing with 400, and the larger GOP run court then ruling that further retaliatory court packing attempts by Dems were unconstitutional. Game, set, match.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think either side would agree to it becoming "endlessly iterative"? I'm guessing it would last exactly one cycle, with Dems packing with 4, the GOP packing with 400, and the larger GOP run court then ruling that further retaliatory court packing attempts by Dems were unconstitutional. Game, set, match.

Of course it's endlessly iterative. I mean you already spelled out in previous posts how you believe it's been iterating for decades.

 

[glenn1]

Of course it's endlessly iterative. I mean you already spelled out in previous posts how you believe it's been iterating for decades.

So Dems pack, GOP retaliates, GOP majority SCOTUS strikes down further packing. What then? After the GOP inevitably exercises the power move, are Dems going to go Andrew Jackson and ignore the SCOTUS ruling in this fantasy scenario? Again, game theory breaks down when one of the players has a way to prohibit the other from retaliation with a "first strike" effort. Unless you're willing to commit to "Mutually Assured Destruction" and abandon pretense that you'll abide by the current constitutional arrangements then this isn't a fight you can win. Unless your side is the one making the first strike and packing by way more than 4 justices to create a supermajority willing to rule against further packing. A minimalist approach of 4 justices actually just ensures your side loses.

 

[fskimospy]

So Dems pack, GOP retaliates, GOP majority SCOTUS strikes down further packing. What then? After the GOP inevitably exercises the power move, are Dems going to go Andrew Jackson and ignore the SCOTUS ruling in this fantasy scenario? Again, game theory breaks down when one of the players has a way to prohibit the other from retaliation with a "first strike" effort. Unless you're willing to commit to "Mutually Assured Destruction" and abandon pretense that you'll abide by the current constitutional arrangements then this isn't a fight you can win. Unless your side is the one making the first strike and packing by way more than 4 justices to create a supermajority willing to rule against further packing. A minimalist approach of 4 justices actually just ensures your side loses.

Of course at some point one side could choose to abandon the constitution and governance we've had for the last several centuries if they don't get their way but if one side is willing to do that then what we do doesn't matter anyway as, like I said all we're doing is drawing out the eventual takeover.

So sure, if your position is that Republicans are already so insane that they would overthrow the Republic rather than not get their way then this exercise is pointless. If that's not the case then my plan is the only sane choice. After all, everything I've suggested the Democrats do is 100% Constitutional and no argument can be made otherwise.

 

[allisolm]

"They have information. I think I’d take it."

Except, of course, if it came from Kim Jong-un's family. Then it would be strictly hands-off, doncha know. I have no doubt he would gobble it right up if it was obtained from the Prince of Whales. That stuff is fair game.

 

[HomerJS]

Yeah, people wouldn't care if you effectively politically marginalized the so their vote didn't matter. We can see how that's played out with people passively accepting SCOTUS rulings like Roe v. Wade and Citizens United, that "the average person doesn't care" and would be perfectly fine if more rulings like that could be issued entirely in one side's favor for the foreseeable future.



Again, if you think either side would ever stand for an end result where the other got to "pack" the court and that was the end state, you're delusional. "Adding 4 justices" or any multiple thereof would never, ever be a stable end state. Accepting that would be unconditional surrender and no "cooperative equilibrium" would ever be reached that wasn't status quo ante. Even if you could why would you, as we're basically a 50/50 nation and you'd effectively be abandoning democracy if you succeeded.

Mitch McConnell was able to withhold a SC pick from Obama for almost 1 year so why not??

 

[glenn1]

Of course at some point one side could choose to abandon the constitution and governance we've had for the last several centuries if they don't get their way but if one side is willing to do that then what we do doesn't matter anyway as, like I said all we're doing is drawing out the eventual takeover.

So sure, if your position is that Republicans are already so insane that they would overthrow the Republic rather than not get their way then this exercise is pointless. If that's not the case then my plan is the only sane choice. After all, everything I've suggested the Democrats do is 100% Constitutional and no argument can be made otherwise.

So adding 4 SCOTUS justices that would be appointed by your party and locking in a court majority isn't "abandoning the governance we've had"?

 

[Jhhnn]

As I’ve pointed out before it is unlikely that the framers of the constitution sought to provide the president with the ability to commit unlimited crimes, including murdering congress if they tried to impeach him. By your theory he is 100% legal for the president to have everyone who could impeach him killed because to arrest and indict him for it would be unconstitutional.

You cannot escape this fact, which shows the absurdity of your position. If you are willing to admit there are exceptions where the president can in fact be arrested and indicted then surely committing crimes to attain the office to begin with would be among them.

Heh. For your scenario to play out a president would have to personally engage in mass/serial murder. Anybody sent to do the deeds for him are still subject to the law. You paint a ridiculous contrived scenario.

 

[HomerJS]

So adding 4 SCOTUS justices that would be appointed by your party and locking in a court majority isn't "abandoning the governance we've had"?

It's not illegal.

 

[fskimospy]

Heh. For your scenario to play out a president would have to personally engage in mass/serial murder. Anybody sent to do the deeds for him are still subject to the law. You paint a ridiculous contrived scenario.

Nope, he could just pardon them. Total immunity for him and all of his associates for unlimited crimes.

It appears you are saying that you agree that the president can legally murder Congress at will but you just think he won't do that. Do you think that was the intent of the Constitution, to bank on the benevolence of the executive?

 

[glenn1]

It's not illegal.

Nope, just stupid. Since as I said the GOP won't make the mistake of packing the court with less than enough justices to create a supermajority that will rule against any future packing.

 

[fskimospy]

So adding 4 SCOTUS justices that would be appointed by your party and locking in a court majority isn't "abandoning the governance we've had"?

Of course not, the number of justices has been changed in the past and Congress's constitutional power to set the number of justices in it is well established over centuries. Like I said, if your argument is going to be that the GOP will simply declare things they don't like to be unconstitutional then they have abandoned the Constitution anyway so it hardly matters.

That's the only question - do you think Conservatives will abandon the constitution if they don't get their way? If so, the discussion is moot. If you do not think they will do that then my plan is an excellent way to get them to start behaving themselves.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, this kind of cinches it. Our democracy is over. Now it is just about getting power, with no limits on how you get it. Time to play for keeps. I sure hope the DNC is now in contact with every nation Trump has pissed off asking them to get every Republican's Tax return and any other damaging info that they can get their hands on and start to dribble it out in public next year. Then tell them to start to make stuff up. With that deep AI stuff I imagine that can create the pee tape even if it doesn't exist. I bet McConnell could be caught with his pants down with a 15 year old on tape. Maybe we can get Nunez giving a blowjob to a transsexual prostitute ... It is time to go full retard! We live in a post truth world after all.
If all that doesn't work perhaps they should ask them to use more, um, decisive, methods to remove Republican candidates.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this. I'm saying that this is where this sort of things leads if we don't do something about it. We have been divided, now just comes the conquering. We have a narrow window to stop this.

 

[glenn1]

Of course not, the number of justices has been changed in the past and Congress's constitutional power to set the number of justices in it is well established over centuries. Like I said, if your argument is going to be that the GOP will simply declare things they don't like to be unconstitutional then they have abandoned the Constitution anyway so it hardly matters.

That's the only question - do you think Conservatives will abandon the constitution if they don't get their way? If so, the discussion is moot. If you do not think they will do that then my plan is an excellent way to get them to start behaving themselves.

You might want to rethink your "excellent way" plan that involves Democrats creating a +4 SCOTUS justice advantage for themselves as a means of getting the GOP to "behave themselves." Simply using that grey matter you possess means this plan fails miserably at the Rawls veil of ignorance test as your side wouldn't suddenly start "behaving" if the GOP added 4 justices of their choosing to the court before you did.

 

[fskimospy]

You might want to rethink your "excellent way" plan that involves Democrats creating a +4 SCOTUS justice advantage for themselves as a means of getting the GOP to "behave themselves." Simply using that grey matter you possess means this plan fails miserably at the Rawls veil of ignorance test as your side wouldn't suddenly start "behaving" if the GOP added 4 justices of their choosing to the court before you did.

I'm going to refer you back to the tit for tat iterative game theory strategy.

The goal of adding 4 justices is not to permanently structure the government that way, it is to inflict costs on Republicans in order to make them rethink their approach to government.