United States Politics Thread 47

[Torco]

I don't know, man, he keeps just... you know, outright flaunting laws and, seemingly, getting away with it. "willy nilly", as the americans say

Yes, exactly. I am hardly rooting for Trump, only observing that his scandals never seem to matter however outrageous they seem to everyone outside his base.

I get it. but that's not totally correct, you can see trumpies getting angry at the epstein thing, for example. not many, but hey. but I mean, his pop amongst independents -and those decide elections- *is* dropping. possibly this means people will oppose him when he tries to run for a third term or some other palpatine stuff like that... which it doesn't seem unlikely the guy would do.

The current law is called the Constitution of the United States. There's no leeway there.

yeah, but laws don't operate by themselves, they operate cause people invoke them to do. i'm not saying trump will definitely become king a la putin or xi, but he's, you know, likely to try.

[zompist]

I don't know, man, he keeps just... you know, outright flaunting laws and, seemingly, getting away with it. "willy nilly", as the americans say

Yeah, he never fails, if you omit the many times he fails.

Not gonna provide a complete list, but just a few that come to mind:

* He lost the House in 2018, which largely attempted his control over law and the budget.
* His approval rating dropped to 34% in his first term.
* He lost the 2020 election.
* His 2021 coup attempt failed.
* In 2024 he was convicted of a felony-- the first former president ever-- on 34 counts.
* His approval rating has now dropped to 37%.
* Among independents-- roughly speaking, the people he needs to win elections-- his approval has dropped to 29%.

The Epstein case is not going to make him pop like a zit; that's not how politics works. But it's important as a self-own, and an issue where his most fervent supporters are criticizing him.

[keenir]

In some ways, Trump's approval isn't the most relevant: he can't run for re-election under the current law, so, even if his popularity approaches that of herpes, it really doesn't matter.

What prevents the majority of the electoral college being people who have declared they will vote for Trump as president?

given how much Trump has been shooting himself in the foot, I think he'd suddenly learn the term "faithless electors" and use it incorrectly to talk about electoral college people who aren't voting for him.

Peers of the realm (e.g. Tony Benn on 4 May 1961 in a by-election to replace himself as MP) have won parliamentary elections in the UK despite being ineligible.

I'm not sure what (if any) paralel we have in the US to a Peer of the Realm, but we do have what we call "political royalty", such as when Julie Nixon married...I think it was an Eisenhower. Or our Brahmin bluebloods, like the Roosevelts.

But I don't think being blue-blooded or social royalty was any help or cause for Roosevelt to get that third election win.

[jcb]

On December 4, 2024, Luigi Mangione, motivated by his negative experience with the American healthcare system, (allegedly) shot and killed Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in Manhattan, NYC.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Brian_Thompson
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Mangione

A few days ago, on July 28, 2025, Shane Tamura, shot and killed Wesley LePatner, the CEO of Blackstone Real Estate Investment Trust, in Manhattan, NYC. So far, the police have said that the gunman left notes about football and CTE, and meant to target the offices of the NFL which were in the same building, but mistakenly got off on the wrong floor. This video puts forward a theory that the notes about football were just a ruse to hide the fact that he indeed meant to target Blackstone, motivated by his negative experience with trying to buy housing.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNcgjQhT328
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_ ... y_shooting

Events like these highlight the problem with Democrats identifying mainly with highly educated professionals instead of normal, average people. The problem is that they see successful winners like CEOs as their classmates and natural allies, instead of the unsuccessful losers at the bottom who are getting fucked by the system, who they see as enemies and the other. Thus, they lionize and help the former, and disparage and ignore the latter.

Healthcare and housing aren't going to reform themselves. The rage against the machine is growing. Will the Democrats give it an outlet? or will they continue to be lackeys for the rich?

[Raphael]

Looks like nothing else will matter if Trump and Putin actually blow up the world now.

[malloc]

Looks like nothing else will matter if Trump and Putin actually blow up the world now.

What happened now that made this particularly likely?

[Raphael]

Looks like nothing else will matter if Trump and Putin actually blow up the world now.

What happened now that made this particularly likely?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93dgr2dd53o

Sounds to me like we might all die in an actual flame war.

[zompist]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93dgr2dd53o

Sounds to me like we might all die in an actual flame war.

Emphasis on "might". That's been true for 76 years. (Not since Hiroshima, since the Soviets got their first bomb.)

It's only the second nuclear crisis this year.

I was going to say that it's worrisome that both leaders are stubborn idiots, but unfortunately having actually competent people in charge led to nuclear crises too— e.g. the Cuban missile crisis. Smart people make their own kind of mistakes, sometimes worse because they're good at rationalization. Then there was that time that the Soviet system gave a false signal of an impending attack, and one Soviet technician, well, saved the world.

Dealing with a small but real possibility of catastrophe is tricky, but it's not healthy to let your brain turn it into a likely possibility. After all, there are large but real possibilities of other types of catastrophe to worry about instead— climate change disaster, for instance.

[Raphael]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93dgr2dd53o

Sounds to me like we might all die in an actual flame war.

Emphasis on "might". That's been true for 76 years. (Not since Hiroshima, since the Soviets got their first bomb.)

It's only the second nuclear crisis this year.

I was going to say that it's worrisome that both leaders are stubborn idiots, but unfortunately having actually competent people in charge led to nuclear crises too— e.g. the Cuban missile crisis. Smart people make their own kind of mistakes, sometimes worse because they're good at rationalization. Then there was that time that the Soviet system gave a false signal of an impending attack, and one Soviet technician, well, saved the world.

Dealing with a small but real possibility of catastrophe is tricky, but it's not healthy to let your brain turn it into a likely possibility. After all, there are large but real possibilities of other types of catastrophe to worry about instead— climate change disaster, for instance.

Thank you, I'll try to keep that in mind.

[jcb]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93dgr2dd53o

Sounds to me like we might all die in an actual flame war.

Then there was that time that the Soviet system gave a false signal of an impending attack, and one Soviet technician, well, saved the world.

It wasn't a technician, but a lieutenant colonel.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

[Richard W]

Peers of the realm (e.g. Tony Benn on 4 May 1961 in a by-election to replace himself as MP) have won parliamentary elections in the UK despite being ineligible.

I'm not sure what (if any) paralel we have in the US to a Peer of the Realm, but we do have what we call "political royalty", such as when Julie Nixon married...I think it was an Eisenhower. Or our Brahmin bluebloods, like the Roosevelts.

Peers who sit and can vote in the House of Lords are disqualified from being members of the House of Commons. I'm pretty sure that 'sitting' does not require one to have taken one's seat.

What cognisance does US federal law take of electors' declared voting intentions at the College? While constituent states may have laws against faithless electors, I believe they don't actually invalidate faithless voting. At what point if any does the Constitution of the United States prevent a member of the College from voting for someone ineligible?

[Civil War Bugle]

Peers of the realm (e.g. Tony Benn on 4 May 1961 in a by-election to replace himself as MP) have won parliamentary elections in the UK despite being ineligible.

I'm not sure what (if any) paralel we have in the US to a Peer of the Realm, but we do have what we call "political royalty", such as when Julie Nixon married...I think it was an Eisenhower. Or our Brahmin bluebloods, like the Roosevelts.

Peers who sit and can vote in the House of Lords are disqualified from being members of the House of Commons. I'm pretty sure that 'sitting' does not require one to have taken one's seat.

What cognisance does US federal law take of electors' declared voting intentions at the College? While constituent states may have laws against faithless electors, I believe they don't actually invalidate faithless voting. At what point if any does the Constitution of the United States prevent a member of the College from voting for someone ineligible?

There's not a lot of case law on this that I'm aware of. However, one case, Chiafalo v. Washington, is very recent (2020) and says that states have fairly broad discretion to require pledges to vote a certain way and to penalize electors who don't follow through via fines or other punishments, although the case seems to stop short of saying the state can somehow reach in to alter the elector's vote in some way.

[malloc]

What are your thoughts on plans to gerrymander Texas and other states to maximize the number of Republican seats? If the plan goes through, that would all but guarantee that they hold the House regardless of what happens over the next year or so. For that matter, Trump recently fired the person in charge of labor statistics because she reported declining job growth. We could soon face a situation where we have no way to prove the economy has entered a recession.

[keenir]

What are your thoughts on plans to gerrymander Texas and other states to maximize the number of Republican seats? If the plan goes through, that would all but guarantee that they hold the House regardless of what happens over the next year or so

so you know that there was an attempt to gerrymander...but not that the attempt failed?

For that matter, Trump recently fired the person in charge of labor statistics because she reported declining job growth.

no, because she said it was a result of the constantly changing tarifs.

We could soon face a situation where we have no way to prove the economy has entered a recession.

We have always been at war in/with Eastasia.

[malloc]

so you know that there was an attempt to gerrymander...but not that the attempt failed?

The attempt to gerrymander Texas is ongoing. The last I heard, Democrats in the Texas legislature fled the state to deny the quorum necessary for a vote with the governor vowing to arrest them. I believe he also threatened to appoint a bunch of Republicans to fill the empty seats or something.

[keenir]

so you know that there was an attempt to gerrymander...but not that the attempt failed?

The last I heard, Democrats in the Texas legislature fled the state to deny the quorum necessary for a vote with the governor vowing to arrest them.

well I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to understand that a state governor can't arrest people outside of his state...unlike the governor.

I believe he also threatened to appoint a bunch of Republicans to fill the empty seats or something.

if legislatures were that easy to fill, we'd've done worse by now.

also wouldn't have bothered to threaten

[malloc]

well I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to understand that a state governor can't arrest people outside of his state...unlike the governor.

Eventually they will have to return, though. They live in Texas after all and cannot simply move to another state permanently without also losing the residency requirements for public office.

[keenir]

well I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to understand that a state governor can't arrest people outside of his state...unlike the governor.

Eventually they will have to return, though.

they can outwait/wait out the governor.

They live in Texas after all and cannot simply move to another state permanently without also losing the residency requirements for public office.

who said anything about permanently? yes, other than yourself. ;P

[malloc]

they can outwait/wait out the governor.

No they can't. It's not like he'll suddenly lose interest in gerrymandering if they wait long enough. He has his plan and every reason to pursue it to completion.

[zompist]

they can outwait/wait out the governor.

No they can't. It's not like he'll suddenly lose interest in gerrymandering if they wait long enough. He has his plan and every reason to pursue it to completion.

He has a deadline, so yes, they can outwait him.