[Zelandakh]

 johnu, on 2021-January-12, 00:32, said:

If the 25th Amendment was invoked, the Manchurian President could be removed in a matter of hours.

This is actually factually untrue. I have heard that there is an appeals procedure built into the 25th Amendment so DJT would get to fight it before removal happened. He would only be removed in hours in the very unlikely event that he did not challenge it.

[Zelandakh]

 shyams, on 2021-January-13, 09:32, said:

The equivalence of the English soccer club in the NFL context is the Philadelphia Eagles! Most Eagles fans normal people, yet I'm sure there is prevailing reputation in the USA that Eagles fans are hardcore nutcases.

Funny, having watched the NFL since the early 80s, I would have said the Browns fans were the crazies. Eagles fans are the worst - they turn on their own team in an instant rather than supporting the team when they really need them - but I do not remember seeing anything like the old Dog Pound in pictures from Philly.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-13, 09:44, said:

This is actually factually untrue. I have heard that there is an appeals procedure built into the 25th Amendment so DJT would get to fight it before removal happened. He would only be removed in hours in the very unlikely event that he did not challenge it.

He could effectively be removed by the 25th Amendment - the whole process takes around 28 days to actually remove him.

[Winstonm]

 shyams, on 2021-January-13, 09:32, said:

In the event I wasn't very clear in my analogy,
.... The club fanbase = The GOP voting bloc (i.e. 45+% of your nation's population)
.... The hooligans = The lunatic fringe within the GOP voting bloc (be it MAGA maniacs, QAnons, whatever else)

The equivalence of the English soccer club in the NFL context is the Philadelphia Eagles! Most Eagles fans normal people, yet I'm sure there is prevailing reputation in the USA that Eagles fans are hardcore nutcases.

In case I wasn't clear with my analogy: 74 million people voting for Trump after 4 years = 74 million who support crazies.

Speaking of crazies, the ex-Navy Seal who was part of the insurgency is crying now for mercy because "he's not a terrorist", yet previously he said he wanted to make legislatures to think about what they were doing and leave them "shaking in their boots".

What else is terrorism but intimidation? That this guy doesn't understand that he has committed domestic terror doesn't forgive him for his actions.

[PeterAlan]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-13, 09:44, said:

This is actually factually untrue. I have heard that there is an appeals procedure built into the 25th Amendment so DJT would get to fight it before removal happened. He would only be removed in hours in the very unlikely event that he did not challenge it.

As I understand it:

25th Amendment Section 4 said:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

It seems that the second paragraph is the one relevant here, but from the first it appears that the Vice President becomes Acting President as soon as the written declaration is "transmitted", and there is no pre-emption mechanism, however short it may be before the President invokes the terms of the second. In this event, I don't suppose that the full 4 days + 48 hours + 21 days would be taken to resolve the matter. It would seem that the Vice President would remain Acting President in the event that a second declaration was transmitted; what's not clear to me is who is in office in the period between the President declaring himself able and the transmission of that second declaration.

In the previous invocations of the 25th Amendment, when Reagan and Bush were in surgery, they resumed office almost immediately afterwards, but they had invoked section 3.

[johnu]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-13, 09:44, said:

This is actually factually untrue. I have heard ...

I have heard ....

Just because you heard something doesn't make it true. It depends of the source. And the difference between appeal and contest.

[y66]

Jennifer Griffin, National Security Correspondent for @FoxNews said:

There are more US troops deployed on Capitol Hill now than in Iraq or Afghanistan. The 15,000 mobilized for Inauguration equals 3 times the number of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[y66]

Liz Cheney, R-WY said:

On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

I will vote to impeach the President.

https://www.politico...7e-fefc40700000

[pilowsky]

TWICE! how about that...

[y66]

anonymous GOP lawmaker in Politico said:

There’s a difference in our crazy people and their crazy people. Our crazy people have an excessive amount of arms. They have gun safes. They have grenades. They believe in the Second Amendment. They come here, and Trump’s made them think this is the Alamo.

[kenberg]

WaPo has been running an article where they puy in various updates.

https://www.washingt...n-live-updates/


For the 4:11 Wednesday afternoon update they report that a lawmakwer and her husband were ushered to saety from the mob, but left because Republicans refused to wear masks. The husband picked up covid.




I have to ask.


Are the Republicans running some sort of contest to see who can be the most disgusting?


They force people to choose between a violent mob and a bunch of idiots who won't wear masks because their leader says so. When does the Kool-aid get passed around?


like most people, I have seen some weird things and some disgusting things. But never like this. Do these people go home and brag to their kids about how they really put it to those Dems? Choose Dens, mob or covid.

I like to think it takes quite a bit to get me to write someone off as scum. I have now reached that point.

[thepossum]

Sorry about the delay responding. The responses were lost in the ongoing Trump saga. But there was big news today and I finally managed to find my question and some replies

 johnu, on 2020-December-31, 22:45, said:

It's nothing more than Moscow Mitch McConnell being hypocritical. He doesn't want to enable $2000 payments, but the larger payments have wide public support, and majority Senate support. Section 230 is something the Democrats and a few Republicans are firmly against so by tying Section 230 to the $2000 payments in the same bill, he will sink the payments because enough Senators will vote against Section 230 even though that also means voting against the $2000 payments.

That way Moscow Mitch can say that he brought up a bill for the $2000 payments without mentioning that he put a poison pill provision into the bill that guaranteed that it would fail.

Thanks for the information John and relaying it without being obnoxious

 cherdano, on 2021-January-01, 02:42, said:

Yeah there is absolutely no way to find out why Section 230 is tied to the $2000 payments, and what the motivations are for doing so. No way except to read the news. Absolutely no way to find out that McConnell inserted a poison pill because he didn't want the support payments to pass, but knows they are unpopular so he doesn't want to hold a vote on them. It's just so completely unknowable.

It's also completely unknowable hwo McConnell can do so many unpopular things, and yet remain majority leader in the Senate. It's almost as if his party only needs 46% of the two-party vote to win the Senate. I mean, have there been any news stories about the Senate giving more weight to the votes of some citizens than others? I can't remember ever reading something about that.

Wish I could ever say the same for you Cherdano. Kindly never be obnoxious in any response to me again and learn to be respectful
Thanks for the information. I read it a few times to see if I was being oversenitive and imagining the offensive tone and to whom it was directed, me or the ridiculousness and complexity of the issue. sadly I felt it directed at me. But seriously, who has that much time to try and get to the bottom of detailed congressional and Whitehouse shenanigans and its possible massive impact on the whole world

Worth checking out Jack's (sorry Mr Dorsey's) thread on Twitter today Jack's thread

Seems our tech overlords are planning the future of our planet. WOndering if we have any say in it at all anymore

Sadly it seems that Greater Silicon valley (for want of a better term) are trying to control our whole world for quite some time and now they may even have the political backing in Washington, and elsewhere, to assert that control. I have suspected it for a long time that the seeming wonderful excitement and progressiveness of much of the old hippie West coast techs and their wonderful philosophy was just a big con. Seems tanatamount to fascism from what I can see these days

I'm starting to be a bit over what seems to me (not just this one issue) but countless massive issues and debates being raised all over the world, but especially in the USA - followed by internationally - in a rather phony and manipulative way. The whole corporate-government role and responsibility is certainly being played out in a big way globally and to me at least its rather fake and manipulative and dangerous the way it is happening. There are just so many overlapping issues of platforms, media etc and the (at leat to me) way they have been used to the extreme over recent years to manipulate and polarise us on so many issues.

But the issues faced by the world and the growth in control and overcentralisation of certain levels of control within a relatively few corporations has also led to seeming break down in the ability to actually find quality accurate information in a short time frame and not have to waste our time looking through endless low quality sites and conversations. Thats why I like to ask aroound in different forums, and kind of don't like the attitude of - you could have read it in the media

But I am seriously concerned at the overcentralisation of this power that to me actually challenges Jack Dorsey's model or ideas for a model of social media (and cryptocurrency). I believe it has fallen down on the whole gig-economy, the way platforms are working etc. To me there is an illusion of decentralisation while in fact massively centralising power in a few oligarchs. That power (in many different forms - capital, voice etc) has been sucked out of much of the world by a few huge entities (or at least one or two locales and groups of entities). I know that much of that capital is in the form of shares distributed around some subsets of the world. But its a bit like Bitcoin really. A few people have a lot of it. And the rest of those who use it have a few nanocoins and about that much power over what the entity does

Hope nobody thinks this is all irrelevant since it has been provoked like a lot of other stuff over the last 4-5 years.

[thepossum]

I'm curious about the extent of the sanction against President Trump and his family and assets and freedom of speech. To me, I am not Trump supporter or MAGA in any way at all, but it seems mass overreach of both corporate and various government organisations in a corrdinated attack against one eneity (albeit a powerful one), with huge ramifications for the whole world. We are all subject in some way to what happens in the USA over this Trump issue and other related issues. Is it all phony or what. It seems both maniuplative and dangerous in many ways. Why should we even have to doubt our future, the futuure of our own lives, businesses and freedoms. I dont think we should have to, but I am

[cherdano]

I have seen the following two takes offered by conservatives the last few days:

• Calling the rioters "terrorists" is a drastic overreaction that only serves to further the divisions.
  
• Many Republicans members of Congress were afraid for their and their families' lives if they voted for impeachment.

[pilowsky]

 cherdano, on 2021-January-14, 03:50, said:

I have seen the following two takes offered by conservatives the last few days:

• Calling the rioters "terrorists" is a drastic overreaction that only serves to further the divisions.
• Many Republicans members of Congress were afraid for their and their families' lives if they voted for impeachment.

I've been watching Republicans offering a variety of explanations. The gyrations and sophisticated verbal gymnastics are a treat to watch.
Even Fox News is tearing itself apart.

It's like ancient Rome and the Colisseum in Conservativeworld at the moment.
Conversational bloodsport where the combatants whip each other with columns of smoke (to paraphrase Paul Keating).

[y66]

Jonathan Chait at New York magazine said:

Let me slightly reframe the point @mattyglesias makes here: the nature of the conservative movement has been fairly constant since the 1950s. What's changed is that it gained control of the GOP.

[y66]

Sean Illing at Vox said:

After the US Capitol was stormed by insurrectionists last week, American democracy is teetering on the precipice.

Democratic politics, at its core, has always been about navigating the tension between stability and progress. If a society resists change for too long, it becomes inert; if it changes too quickly, it becomes unstable. Traditionally, conservative parties have privileged stability and left-leaning parties have privileged change. That’s an oversimplification, but you get the point.

But what happens to democratic societies when conservative parties become radical in their defense of the status quo?

It’s a question we have to ask given the current state of the Republican Party. Even after the events of last week, even after at least five people were killed at the seat of American democracy, nearly 150 Republican lawmakers formally objected to the results of the 2020 election anyway. And even if that vote was performative, that so many GOP officials are still willing to play chicken with American democracy in this way speaks volumes about the state of the party.

Harvard political scientist Daniel Ziblatt (most recently co-author of How Democracies Die) argued in a 2017 book that the importance of conservative parties in democratic systems has been largely underappreciated. Democracies tend to evolve in the direction of more equality, and how a society responds to those changes determines how healthy and stable it is over time. Since it’s often the conservative parties that dictate this response, how they’re organized and what they do (or don’t do) is hugely consequential.

I reached out to Ziblatt to talk about his level of concern and how he views the GOP in historical terms. We discussed why democracies have buckled when conservative parties were too weak to control their more radical elements, why the Republican Party has become such an outlier, and why major constitutional reforms might be the only way to fix the problem.

Much of this conversation occurred before the US Capitol was besieged, so I contacted Ziblatt again after January 6 to get his thoughts on what transpired and what it means for the future of the country. After processing the attack, Ziblatt says it’s become clear that we’re facing “a regime-threatening moment” and a real tipping point for American democracy.

You can read a lightly edited transcript of our entire conversation at https://www.vox.com/...daniel-ziblatt.

Quote

Sean Illing: If you look across the democratic world today, how much of an outlier is the GOP?

Daniel Ziblatt: I don’t really have to guess at this. There’s an organization called Varieties of Democracy that we used in our book to categorize parties as abiding by democratic rules or not. And they’ve taken that and applied it to every major political party in almost every democracy since 1970. And what you see, based on the expert evaluations, is that in the mid-1970s, the Republican Party is basically in the same grouping as other major center-right parties throughout Europe.

Beginning in the 2000s, however, it goes dramatically off course in terms of its commitment to democratic norms. The American Republican Party now looks like a European far-right party. But the big difference between the US and a lot of these European countries is that the US only has two parties and one of them is like a European far-right party. If the GOP only controlled 20 percent of the legislature, like you see in a lot of European countries, this would be far less problematic — but they basically control half of it.

So I think the central weakness of our political system right now is the Republican Party. We had what was basically a center-right party and over time it’s become more ideologically extreme while still doing well electorally, and that opens the system to further extremism and risks a kind of spiral in which both parties become more radicalized in response to the other.

[Winstonm]

It occurs to me that before any reconciliation is possible that what is needed is a nationwide deprogramming of the members of the cult of Trump. As long as cultists believe The Big Lie (that Trump actually won the election), they cannot accept reality and will never begin to conceive of compromise.

This deprogramming must be accompanied by shaming, withholding of funding, and legal actions against anyone, group, or media that continues its echoing of The Big Lie.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2021-January-14, 03:50, said:

I have seen the following two takes offered by conservatives the last few days:

• Calling the rioters "terrorists" is a drastic overreaction that only serves to further the divisions.
• Many Republicans members of Congress were afraid for their and their families' lives if they voted for impeachment.

Being the perceptive soul that I am, I am guessing you find it interesting to consider these two claims side by side..

And I find it interesting that support for Trump now seems to be that "Well, yes, but he only has six days left, let's not impeach him". I hope that if I am in trouble my friends can come up with something at least a tiny bit better than that in support of me.

[barmar]

 thepossum, on 2021-January-13, 22:19, said:

I'm curious about the extent of the sanction against President Trump and his family and assets and freedom of speech. To me, I am not Trump supporter or MAGA in any way at all, but it seems mass overreach of both corporate and various government organisations in a corrdinated attack against one eneity (albeit a powerful one), with huge ramifications for the whole world. We are all subject in some way to what happens in the USA over this Trump issue and other related issues. Is it all phony or what. It seems both maniuplative and dangerous in many ways. Why should we even have to doubt our future, the futuure of our own lives, businesses and freedoms. I dont think we should have to, but I am

Just the usual Republican hypocracy. You're all for the free market and reining in government oversignt, as long as it allows you to propogate your agenda (e.g. raping the environment to fill the coffers of the 1%).