US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Manic Moran

BluePlanet wrote: »

That died a death in the aftermath of the Civil War.
The southern states pleaded 'states rights' to keep blacks as property.

They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose.

But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that".

So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.

mayordenis

I struggle with some aspects of this state rights vs federal over-reach or whatever. Like the civil war was in the 1860s, the beginning of the supreme court imposed federal over-reach took over around 1935 as you say, so it's this ****-show of a 70~ years that should be held as a standard of state self-sufficiency? A time not in any way similar to now.

And then there's the fact that state lines are pretty ****ing arbitrary, like why stop at state lines? Why not go further? Why not divide states up more? Obviously we'll be giving statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in this scenario? Does my idea of 'basic rights' match yours?

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose.

But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that".

So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.

I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole?

Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security?

I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.

Foxtrol

For all their complaining about voter fraud, it looks like the GOP have found a new way to disenfranchise voters - running fake candidates to pull votes away from democrats. Examples of it happening in 2 states so far and presumably what they were hoping for with Kanye before he ruined his 'campaign' on day 1.

https://twitter.com/stuffie1977/status/1326950969662451712?s=20

Itssoeasy

I see the remaining networks have called Arizona for Biden. It’s done whether trump and his inner circle want to admit it or not. Start getting the boxes ready and pack up the stuff. At least trump tower will be clean seeing as no one has lived in that part for over two years.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights.

Well how deep red states litter the bottom of the league tables for the likes of education, healthcare, economy etc provides plenty of evidence that states can not govern many aspects fundamental to those that live there.

Irish Praetorian

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose.

But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that".

So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.

Why the predilection for 50-States as the natural and most timeless manner of organising and governing a people? The story of humanity's advancement has been its ability to transcend the smaller and more isolated groupings for larger ones; from the hunter-gathering family-clan to the rural village to the market town to the city to the grand metropolis; or put another way, from 'me and mine' to 'those who I share a country with'. Conversely, the horrors which can arise from people relapsing into smaller and more restrictive ideals, be it ideological purity, racial group or religious belief, are plain to behold.

As the US modernises and undergoes the same rapid evolution (technologically, culturally and demographically) as the rest of the world, it is not unlikely that some people living in the present system are going to look around, see what others have and ask why they cant have it. In this case, it may be that a system designed in the 18th Century to foster political immobilisme may not be the same system capable of delivering country-wide healthcare or more accurate political representation.

BluePlanet

The whole States rights thing is just another messy and unresolved problem in the US.
It's just a cherry picking exercise.
One side wants States Rights to restrict access to abortion, or not recognize same sex marriages.
The other wants States Rights to legalize marijuana.

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole?

Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security?

I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.

There's a certain inevitability about it if an over-bearing USA Federal machine is serviced by a process that undermines the wishes of the majority of people by continuing a minority- stacked over-arching Government. A democracy must represent the will of the people, expressed through regular free and fair elections. If the so-called democratic process usually or mostly or always results in Governments that are created by the minority, then its not a true democracy. If most of that minority's Government is funded by taxes paid by the majority, then the very basis for the War of Independence, i.e. taxation without representation becomes true again, and the whole 'great experiment' fails.

Concerns around how this post-election process is playing out, with constant frivolous efforts to undermine the will of the People, openly endorsed or tacitly supported by the ruling minority Republican party will anger the People whose will is being bent. That cannot last! People will just not put up with being bullied.

Infini

Foxtrol wrote: »

For all their complaining about voter fraud, it looks like the GOP have found a new way to disenfranchise voters - running fake candidates to pull votes away from democrats. Examples of it happening in 2 states so far and presumably what they were hoping for with Kanye before he ruined his 'campaign' on day 1.

https://twitter.com/stuffie1977/status/1326950969662451712?s=20

That's pretty interesting, if the 3rd party candidate is a fake candidate would that not be illegal or something as they're there purely to manipulate the vote and are not a legitimate candidate?

Quin_Dub

Infini wrote: »

That's pretty interesting, if the 3rd party candidate is a fake candidate would that not be illegal or something as they're there purely to manipulate the vote and are not a legitimate candidate?

If the 3rd candidate was acting completely independently I don't think it's a crime, but coordination between 2 candidates with a view to impacting a 3rd absolutely would be.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well how deep red states litter the bottom of the league tables for the likes of education, healthcare, economy etc provides plenty of evidence that states can not govern many aspects fundamental to those that live there.

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.

I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole?

Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security?

I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.

The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC.

Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.



The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC.

Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.

I always enjoy your posts. I know this question isn't quite related but do you think Trumps antics have shown any potential weak points in the checks and balances that need to be addressed?

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.

The EU isn't the US though. Irish citizens don't pay significant federal taxes directly to an EU government.

These heavily red states that you claim have 'historically proven' to be able to govern themselves couldn't survive without other states paying their bills. For example, NY puts in around $20 billion a year more than they take out while Kentucky takes out around $45 billion more than they put in. Despite those payments from other states they are still terribly run.

If states want no 'interference' from the federal government they can pay their own way but instead they want to have their cake and eat it.

Brussels Sprout

Foxtrol wrote: »

For all their complaining about voter fraud, it looks like the GOP have found a new way to disenfranchise voters - running fake candidates to pull votes away from democrats. Examples of it happening in 2 states so far and presumably what they were hoping for with Kanye before he ruined his 'campaign' on day 1.

https://twitter.com/stuffie1977/status/1326950969662451712?s=20

The joys of First Past the Post!

Encouraging a no-hoper, minor candidate to run in an effort to siphon off votes from a rival is a tried and tested tactic in FPTP elections that don't have a 50% threshold for victory. One of the most famous deployments of this tactic was when Tommy Carcetti cynically encouraged his colleague Tony Gray to run against Mayor Royce, in Season 4 of The Wire, only for him to later join the primary race and win with a plurality of the vote as the two black candidates shared that voting block between them.

VinLieger

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The joys of First Past the Post!

Encouraging a no-hoper, minor candidate to run in an effort to siphon off votes from a rival is a tried and tested tactic in FPTP elections that don't have a 50% threshold for victory. One of the most famous deployments of this tactic was when Tommy Carcetti cynically encouraged his colleague Tony Gray to run against Mayor Royce, in Season 4 of The Wire, only for him to later join the primary race and win with a plurality of the vote as the two black candidates shared that voting block between them.

IMO this is far more insidious and malicious, the carcetti story line and similar real world situations are just politics. The republicans, who we assume ran the candidates, specifically were trying to trick voters by running a candidate with a very similar name to the democrat.

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.



The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC.

Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.

I don't see these comparisons with EU and/or Ireland as valid. Ireland is an independent, sovereign nation, as is the US. Texas and California are individual states within a single independent, sovereign nation.

Ireland's membership of the EU could be abandoned if a simple majority voted for an IrExit, jus as the Brits have done/are doing. Could California secede from the Union as easily? I don't think so!

eire4

Foxtrol wrote: »

The EU isn't the US though. Irish citizens don't pay significant federal taxes directly to an EU government.

These heavily red states that you claim have 'historically proven' to be able to govern themselves couldn't survive without other states paying their bills. For example, NY puts in around $20 billion a year more than they take out while Kentucky takes out around $45 billion more than they put in. Despite those payments from other states they are still terribly run.

If states want no 'interference' from the federal government they can pay their own way but instead they want to have their cake and eat it.

That is the bottom line on this so called States rights issue isn't. They want it both ways being the ultimate socialists of the US in taking so much from the federal government while bleating about big government interference and states rights and socialism is bad. Also low income states like Alabama or Mississippi double down on taking from the federal government as their citizens pay much less income tax but yet they are big recipients of federal programs that benefit low income people.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1327316137428873216?s=19

Another rant incoming...

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?"

If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them.



The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC.

Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.

For someone so well informed and you do add alot of information to discussions. You are way off base with your equivalence in this one.

You know well Ireland is a country in its own right , in a membership of customers and trade relationships. You know full well. This post reads a bit smug and is comparing Texas as its own country for someone in the armed forces it's a bizarre statement to make when your pay comes from federal money of the united states of America.

Inquitus

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1327316137428873216?s=19

Another rant incoming...

Odds of a concession :pac:

Manic Moran

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I don't see these comparisons with EU and/or Ireland as valid. Ireland is an independent, sovereign nation, as is the US. Texas and California are individual states within a single independent, sovereign nation.

Ireland's membership of the EU could be abandoned if a simple majority voted for an IrExit, jus as the Brits have done/are doing. Could California secede from the Union as easily? I don't think so!

Ireland is little more sovereign than Texas is, with the one exception of foreign relations which are expressly forbidden to Texas. Both have their own Constitutions, Legislatures, legal systems, police forces, militaries, government departments, education systems, budget, tax revenues, etc, and both are subservient to a higher political body. Or do I miss the point of the Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution?

It is true that Ireland can leave the EU, and Texas can't, but as long as both states are part of the respective unions, the relative levels of autonomy and capability remain the comparable. The concept that Ireland may have a better healthcare system than Texas has very little to do with the fact that if they wanted to, they could have Eirexit.

These heavily red states that you claim have 'historically proven' to be able to govern themselves couldn't survive without other states paying their bills. For example, NY puts in around $20 billion a year more than they take out while Kentucky takes out around $45 billion more than they put in. Despite those payments from other states they are still terribly run.

I wonder how much of that is a result of the programs enacted after the 1930s. I also suspect a lot of it is infrastructure-related: Most of the infrastructure expenditure in places like Kansas is actually for the benefit of the other States as people and goods are just passing through.

I know this question isn't quite related but do you think Trumps antics have shown any potential weak points in the checks and balances that need to be addressed?

The current business after the election? No. Last I heard, Biden was still tipped to move into the White House in January and I've seen nothing to indicate he will be prevented from doing so.

Headshot

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1327316137428873216?s=19

Another rant incoming...

Hopefully when he vomits his bs about electoral fraud every network switches him off

TomOnBoard

Inquitus wrote: »

Odds of a concession :pac:

I just got my hands on his remarks on the way to the teleprompter:

something...something...something... I won... Bigly...something...something...
lamestream media... crooked Hillary... Democrat fraud... I won... something...something...
...
...
...
...fraud...
...
...something else...
...
something similar...
...
...
I won...
...

Itssoeasy

NBC news have called North Carolina for Donald trump and joe Biden is the apparent winner in Georgia(presumably its apparent because of the recount) and the two Georgia senate races will go to run offs in January.

bewareofthedog

Itssoeasy wrote: »

NBC news have called North Carolina for Donald trump and joe Biden is the apparent winner in Georgia(presumably its apparent because of the recount) and the two Georgia senate races will go to run offs in January.

So as it was as before.

Brian?

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1327316137428873216?s=19

Another rant incoming...

Is it too much to hope for that he's coming out to concede and start a tidy and peaceful transition?

TomOnBoard

Brian? wrote: »

Is it too much to hope for that he's coming out to concede and start a tidy and peaceful transition?

Yes!

Agent Smith

Itssoeasy wrote: »

NBC news have called North Carolina for Donald trump and joe Biden is the apparent winner in Georgia(presumably its apparent because of the recount) and the two Georgia senate races will go to run offs in January.

306-232



From 2016

Foxtrol

Agent Smith wrote: »

306-232

From 2016

Trump also said similar over and over again

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1327337864263331845?s=20