Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

[Wigglytuff]

Not a lawyer so I'm asking the Smogon lawyers (TM):

Is/was there not a way to charge Rittenhouse for something lighter than murder? The virgin leftist take is "he shouldn't have brought a gun to a volatile situation", but the chad hog response is "but his life was threatened." These two observations aren't incompatible. The excuse of self defence may or may not be reasonable here (the court ruled it was), but what is absolutely certain is that shots being fired is transparently inevitable at the point that you are bringing a gun to a riot.

Wasn't there a much better case for manslaughter/reckless endangerment etc? Is it really a function of our legal system that you have to go big or go home?

 

[RaikouLover]

1) Is there any possible way, any possible thing the Dems could do to NOT massively lose both House and Senate next year?

No. 2022 is GOP flip on gerrymandering alone. It will either be a red wave or a red tsunami. The best case scenario for Dems is covid-19 and inflation die down by summer of 2022, Dem losses are kept to the red wave.

2) Is Trump the 2024 Presidential favorite? (Opinion: Yes) What needs to happen to make a Dem 2024 win possible, and what concoction of drugs does it involve pumping into Joe Biden to make it happen b/c lets face it the other options are total trash?

Absolutely not. There is a better chance of being struck by lightning than Trump winning in 2024. He has to evade criminal prosecution for another 3 years, successfully win a crowded GOP primary, and count on the 81 million people who already voted against him in 2020 to forget why they did so. Also, a significant number of his own 2020 voters will have died from complications of covid-19.

Not a lawyer so I'm asking the Smogon lawyers (TM):

Is/was there not a way to charge Rittenhouse for something lighter than murder? The virgin leftist take is "he shouldn't have brought a gun to a volatile situation", but the chad hog response is "but his life was threatened." These two observations aren't incompatible. The excuse of self defence may or may not be reasonable here (the court ruled it was), but what is absolutely certain is that shots being fired is transparently inevitable at the point that you are bringing a gun to a riot.

Wasn't there a much better case for manslaughter/reckless endangerment etc? Is it really a function of our legal system that you have to go big or go home?

I'm interested in hearing more about this as well. It seems like in high-profile cases, prosecutors frequently over-charge. Almost makes one think it is intentional...

 

[ASMRxism]

Absolutely not. There is a better chance of being struck by lightning than Trump winning in 2024. He has to evade criminal prosecution for another 3 years, successfully win a crowded GOP primary, and count on the 81 million people who already voted against him in 2020 to forget why they did so. Also, a significant number of his own 2020 voters will have died from complications of covid-19.

lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him. Even if Bernie defies being too old and tries running, the Dems block him again and push forward someone wildly unpopular like Kamala and Pete, and Trump will run over them. Biden apparently expressed a desire to run in 24 but he's barely able to stay awake less then a year into this term.

Unless the GOP finds some fun new toy, it seems pretty dang likely Trump takes it.

 

[Chou Toshio]

No. 2022 is GOP flip on gerrymandering alone. It will either be a red wave or a red tsunami. The best case scenario for Dems is covid-19 and inflation die down by summer of 2022, Dem losses are kept to the red wave.

Lib tears. Conservatives can laugh if they want, but genuinely sad.

I do feel like Dems came THIS close to making some really great progressive changes-- and seeing basically all but TWO Democrats essentially line up for real positive changes did change my perception of what's possible in the party (even if many house Conservative Dems had to be dragged kicking-- My rep was one of them, but when I e-mailed him he even expressed genuine support for 3.5 Trillion).

Not that the Dems could become a non-corporate party or a working class party, but that with enough time and continued cultural change, it might be possible for the same professional elite liberal class that controls the Democrats to be convinced that at least substantive Keynsian/New Deal/Social Democratic reforms are genuinely needed for the future of the country, and the future of the economy that also serves their interests.

Certainly, I think the time under Biden has lead the average rich MSNBC-watching Democrat to develop a LOT more animosity towards Republicans/Conservatives of all stripes than the AoCs/Bernies of the world. Heck, if Sinema's TANKING poll numbers are any indicator—

it’s been refreshing to see some of the most Anti-Bernie voices of the primary get behind the 3.5 Trillion and blast Manchinema is all I’m saying. A GOP takeover undoes all the progress we barely made at all.

Absolutely not. There is a better chance of being struck by lightning than Trump winning in 2024. He has to evade criminal prosecution for another 3 years, successfully win a crowded GOP primary, and count on the 81 million people who already voted against him in 2020 to forget why they did so. Also, a significant number of his own 2020 voters will have died from complications of covid-19.

I hear you about the anti-vaxers dying off (and GOP voters genuinely being real old is a thing too), but I can’t seriously imagine Trump having trouble with legal issues or the primary.

lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him. Even if Bernie defies being too old and tries running, the Dems block him again and push forward someone wildly unpopular like Kamala and Pete, and Trump will run over them. Biden apparently expressed a desire to run in 24 but he's barely able to stay awake less then a year into this term.

Unless the GOP finds some fun new toy, it seems pretty dang likely Trump takes it.

Yeah, super awful but this is much closer to my impression of reality.

Also I don’t think Bernie could win against Trump 2024. Too old, too perceived as an insider now, and with two losses. Bernie’s done incredible work as our Chairman but he’s not a winning card in 2024 imo.

I really wish there was an obvious ideological successor that was viable, but I think the younger progressives are going to have to make more real policy (and election) wins on the books, and do less culture warring/more rainbow coalition building to become such a figure.

Kamala, Buttegieg, and frankly Michelle Obama imo would all get spanked by Trump.

I still see Biden as the best bet, and as mentioned previously have come to like him a lot more in office. Seriously wish Bernie and Biden were both 15 years younger, and had the gas in the tank to really have been the Eugene Debs and FDR this era needed.

 

[RaikouLover]

lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him.

This is possibly one of the worst political takes in this whole thread. Biden as incumbent is already favored over a generic GOP candidate simply because it is difficult to overcome the structural and psychological advantages of incumbency. Let’s review the facts:

1) Biden’s team has expressed that he is running in 2024 and has vehemently denied all rumors suggesting otherwise.

2) Donald Trump is a historically bad Presidential candidate. He carried the lowest approval ratings into both elections and is one of just 3 incumbents to lose re-election in the last 100 years. He is literally the worst choice for Republicans to nominate to unseat a Democratic incumbent.

3) Donald Trump is currently mired in criminal investigations. They are more likely to escalate further should he run again.

4) Based on #2 and #3, it’s foolish to think in another two years Trump is “lock” for what will be a wide open GOP primary. Americans (including Republicans) generally do not support losers and that is all Trump did for the Republican Party from 2017 all the way up to losing two lay up Senate elections Jan 2021 in Georgia (a “red state” that hasn’t been competitive in decades).

It’s fascinating to see people still clinging to the Trump is a political juggernaut narrative five years later despite all evidence showing the contrary.

Kamala, Buttegieg, and frankly Michelle Obama imo would all get spanked by Trump.

Let’s give this a rest.

I’ll at least give Trump credit for turning a lot of political observers into believers of his own hype.

 

[Sultan]

lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him. Even if Bernie defies being too old and tries running, the Dems block him again and push forward someone wildly unpopular like Kamala and Pete, and Trump will run over them. Biden apparently expressed a desire to run in 24 but he's barely able to stay awake less then a year into this term.

Unless the GOP finds some fun new toy, it seems pretty dang likely Trump takes it.

Although I don't think a Trump victory is impossible, there are a few things going against him. One, he was banned from Twitter, which limits his reach outside of his echo chamber. Two, he has been proven to be toxic to performance in the suburbs, which is likely where the 2024 election will be won. Three, he has lost the popular vote twice, and the demographics in most states aren't getting any friendlier to him. Finally, the memory of the Capitol riots remains, and while that won't turn off his hardcore fans it will turn off enough people to prevent the razor-thin margins that Trump needs to win by. Trump would probably win the Republican nomination, even if he has criminal charges because the Republican Party is that fucked up at this point. But the Democrats would have to be extremely hated by 2024, possibly even more than Hillary Clinton was, for Trump to have a decent shot at the presidency again. For now, we should be focusing on the midterms - since West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio are likely flipping in 2024, the Democrats need to flip three seats in 2022 if they want to hold the Senate.

 

[Chou Toshio]

1) Biden’s team has expressed that he is running in 2024 and has vehemently denied all rumors suggesting otherwise.

Thank God-- and yet despite that clear proclamation to run again, doubt continues to proliferate because my man keeps falling asleep at the steering wheel.

Even amongst Democratic leaders/insiders, during the 2020 primary and now, Joe’s ability (for this purpose fundamentally regarding age) has continuously been under doubt.

Otherwise media mainstream nor indie would be horse-race Jockeying about the alternatives. That said, it’s got to be Joe because yeah we definitely need that incumbency advantage to be in it.

2) Donald Trump is a historically bad Presidential candidate. He carried the lowest approval ratings into both elections and is one of just 3 incumbents to lose re-election in the last 100 years. He is literally the worst choice for Republicans to nominate to unseat a Democratic incumbent.

Except that he got more votes than any candidate except 2020 Joe Biden, and I think the incumbency means less imo when the majority of Republicans believe the insanity that Trump was robbed of victory previously.

Let’s give this a rest.

I’ll at least give Trump credit for turning a lot of political observers into believers of his own hype.

It’s not so much about Trump being great as Democrats and traditional Republicans being weak.

Kamala is uniquely unpopular as a VP— the left dislikes her, the right hates her,even Joe Biden’s team has zero faith in her and tries to keep herout of important stuff.

Joe Biden deserved the great poll numbers he had early, and would have become imo the most popular modern President ever if Dems had just lined up to get shit done— if his own party had backed him up on Afghanistan and everyone lined up to pass Infra+3.5BBB but here we are with Biden’s tail-spinning poll numbers.
(I love Democracy, but bleh people are dumb. Biden is based)

Whether 2016, 2020, or 2024 the question with Trump is always about whether the establishment powers manage to fuck things up tripping on their own shoe laces.

Although I don't think a Trump victory is impossible, there are a few things going against him. One, he was banned from Twitter, which limits his reach outside of his echo chamber. Two, he has been proven to be toxic to performance in the suburbs, which is likely where the 2024 election will be won. Three, he has lost the popular vote twice, and the demographics in most states aren't getting any friendlier to him. Finally, the memory of the Capitol riots remains, and while that won't turn off his hardcore fans it will turn off enough people to prevent the razor-thin margins that Trump needs to win by. Trump would probably win the Republican nomination, even if he has criminal charges because the Republican Party is that fucked up at this point. But the Democrats would have to be extremely hated by 2024, possibly even more than Hillary Clinton was, for Trump to have a decent shot at the presidency again. For now, we should be focusing on the midterms - since West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio are likely flipping in 2024, the Democrats need to flip three seats in 2022 if they want to hold the Senate.

All real good points; the Twitter thing especially. Suburbs and Jan 6 effect matter a lot too.

And yeah it would be better to not give up on the mid terms yet. The biggest risk to 2024 is complete Legislative failure and impediment to Executive 2022-2024.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Not a lawyer so I'm asking the Smogon lawyers (TM):

Is/was there not a way to charge Rittenhouse for something lighter than murder? The virgin leftist take is "he shouldn't have brought a gun to a volatile situation", but the chad hog response is "but his life was threatened." These two observations aren't incompatible. The excuse of self defence may or may not be reasonable here (the court ruled it was), but what is absolutely certain is that shots being fired is transparently inevitable at the point that you are bringing a gun to a riot.

Wasn't there a much better case for manslaughter/reckless endangerment etc? Is it really a function of our legal system that you have to go big or go home?

I don't think so. Wisconsin does not officially have a "manslaughter" charge; they call that 2nd degree "reckless homicide".
Note that the lowest rittenhouse was charged with for the killings was 1st degree reckless homicide. He was also charged with 1st degree intentional.

First-degree intentional homicide.
(1)  Offenses.
(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.

940.01(2) (2)  Mitigating circumstances. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05:
940.01(2)(b) (b) Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.

2nd degree reckless homicide is functionally equivalent to other state's "manslaughter" charges. But the only difference between it and 1st degree reckless homicide is that 1st degree reckless requires "utter disregard for human life". The defense's statement (self defense) was going to be exactly the same either way, whether the prosecution could prove disregard for human life or not. Perhaps there was more leeway in charging with 2nd degree reckless, but the discussion in the courtroom seemed 100% focused on whether the self-defense was legitimate or not, rather than whether rittenhouse behaved with "utter disregard for human life". If the defense thought they could win by disqualifying that angle, they'd probably have spoken up about it more.


Rittenhouse was actually charged with reckless endangerment as well. Which also was deemed not guilty by the jury.

So I don't think there would be much "value" in aiming for a lesser charge because the defense would have been exactly the same. And the verdict would have likely been the exact same as well

 

[boo836]

Whether 2016, 2020, or 2024 the question with Trump is always about whether the establishment powers manage to fuck things up tripping on their own shoe laces.

I think it's amazing and speaks to the poverty of American political discourse that the former President of the United States and certain Republican presidential nominee is not considered part of "the establishment." It's like how forcing the inclusion of extremists' agendas makes one a "moderate," "free speech" means federal or state governments telling universities who they have to host, or book burnings are held because GOP activists are "concerned about race."

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think it's amazing and speaks to the poverty of American political discourse that the former President of the United States and certain Republican presidential nominee is not considered part of "the establishment." It's like how forcing the inclusion of extremists' agendas makes one a "moderate," "free speech" means federal or state governments telling universities who they have to host, or book burnings are held because GOP activists are "concerned about race."

Under one lens you can easily call Trump a part of the elite-- class, family history, right-wing alignment, etc.-- but when people make comments phrasing him outside of it, it's just accounting for the real fact that whether you were at the Chamber of Commerce, or on Wall Street, or in the military/intelligence complex, or speaking with high ranking GOP officials, there is a real category of "old power" that does find him abhorrent or at least extremely inconvenient for speaking the quiet parts of hegemony out loud.

Usable sure, but definitely undesireable up to the point where the alternative is an actual Social Democrat or further left alternative critiquing power.

 

[boo836]

Under one lens you can easily call Trump a part of the elite-- class, family history, right-wing alignment, etc.-- but when people make comments phrasing him outside of it, it's just accounting for the real fact that whether you were at the Chamber of Commerce, or on Wall Street, or in the military/intelligence complex, or speaking with high ranking GOP officials, there is a real category of "old power" that does find him abhorrent or at least extremely inconvenient for speaking the quiet parts of hegemony out loud.

Usable sure, but definitely undesireable up to the point where the alternative is an actual Social Democrat or further left alternative critiquing power.

no there isn't, if there were any semblance of real opposition from "old power," Trump would have been impeached and found guilty in the Senate. Instead, "old power" sought to turn impeachment over soliciting foreign election interference into a display of partisan theatre from the GOP. There would have been a mass mobilisation of capital that would have prevented him from becoming the nominee. There wouldn't be "moderate" longstanding kleptocrats like Joe Manchin trying to block any step taken to counter either Trump's assaults on democratic institutions, or COVID's detrimental effect on GDP growth. Americans' understanding of the "establishment" is entirely borrowed from far-right political discourse and amounts to little more than an insertion of "the establishment" as little more than an all-powerful boogeyman in whatever narrative meant to explain political failures.


Only in America can you command cultish devotion from the GOP, have billions in octogenarian millionaire cash backing you, and complacency from the military chain of command as you nakedly assist America's enemies, and still be considered "anti-establishment."

 

[faint]

Trump was anti-establishment for the 3 days or so until the GOP realized they could finally be themselves and drop esoteric responses for overt racism to appeal to both traditional Republicans and MAGA chuds.

 

[Chou Toshio]

no there isn't, if there were any semblance of real opposition from "old power," Trump would have been impeached and found guilty in the Senate. Instead, "old power" sought to turn impeachment over soliciting foreign election interference into a display of partisan theatre from the GOP. There would have been a mass mobilisation of capital that would have prevented him from becoming the nominee. There wouldn't be "moderate" longstanding kleptocrats like Joe Manchin trying to block any step taken to counter either Trump's assaults on democratic institutions, or COVID's detrimental effect on GDP growth. Americans' understanding of the "establishment" is entirely borrowed from far-right political discourse and amounts to little more than an insertion of "the establishment" as little more than an all-powerful boogeyman in whatever narrative meant to explain political failures.


Only in America can you command cultish devotion from the GOP, have billions in octogenarian millionaire cash backing you, and complacency from the military chain of command as you nakedly assist America's enemies, and still be considered "anti-establishment."

I think you are missing the ball because nowhere did I say Trump was anti-establishment--Trump served power.

Really though, this is probably a distinction without a difference, and I don't really care to argue the point one way or another. If you go to country clubs, or Chamber of Commerce events, or spend any time with American Global Executives you'll hear plenty of distaste for Trump, and even many many voices from "polite society" for whom the GOP has critically lost legitimacy as an institution. That is something substantive, and at the same time it isn't for the reaities you've said-- probably a distinction without a difference not really worth arguing about here.

 

[boo836]

I think you are missing the ball because nowhere did I say Trump was anti-establishment--Trump served power.

Really though, this is probably a distinction without a difference, and I don't really care to argue the point one way or another. If you go to country clubs, or Chamber of Commerce events, or spend any time with American Global Executives you'll hear plenty of distaste for Trump, and even many many voices from "polite society" for whom the GOP has critically lost legitimacy as an institution. That is something substantive, and at the same time it isn't for the reaities you've said-- probably a distinction without a difference not really worth arguing about here.

I already quoted your statement implying the "establishment" was seeking to undermine Trump, so I'm not going to bother again. Issuing "distaste" doesn't amount to anything, there are plenty of GOP loyalists to Trump who badmouth him privately. It doesn't change the fact that they are complicit in his many failures and crimes.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I already quoted your statement implying the "establishment" was seeking to undermine Trump, so I'm not going to bother again. Issuing "distaste" doesn't amount to anything, there are plenty of GOP loyalists to Trump who badmouth him privately. It doesn't change the fact that they are complicit in his many failures and crimes.

Like dude, what are you trying to argue over when it doesn’t sound like we got that much disagreement?

Also my initial post about establishment fuck ups was not so much about failure to undermine Trump so much as failure to develop a Society where Trump is unviable— which in the Dem Establishment’s case it absolutely was a failure to lose with Hillary against Trump following Obama’s admin.

 

[boo836]

Like dude, what are you trying to argue over when it doesn’t sound like we got that much disagreement?

Also my initial post about establishment fuck ups was not so much about failure to undermine Trump so much as failure to develop a Society where Trump is unviable— which in the Dem Establishment’s case it absolutely was a failure to lose with Hillary against Trump following Obama’s admin.

We can agree on the conclusions of our politics but still arrive to that place by different routes. How people talk about politics is just as important as politics itself. The metapolitics of the MAGA movement consciously appropriates language and posturing of "outsiders" while enjoying the support of the Beltway and insiders like Gingrich and Stone. My issue is that framing Trump as anything but the Republican establishment is to play into the GOP's hands.

 

[Chou Toshio]

We can agree on the conclusions of our politics but still arrive to that place by different routes. How people talk about politics is just as important as politics itself. The metapolitics of the MAGA movement consciously appropriates language and posturing of "outsiders" while enjoying the support of the Beltway and insiders like Gingrich and Stone. My issue is that framing Trump as anything but the Republican establishment is to play into the GOP's hands.

That’s fair enough, and I agree with the framing. I also agree it’s best for anyone with reasonable politics to frame Trump as representative of the GOP rather than exceptional, because what the rest of the party enables substantively is really no different.

If by some miracle tomorrow the GOP went the way of the wigs, the Dems became the de facto corporate party with some progressive representatives, and room was opened for a new Center Left party— thatwould be the best thing for our politics.

My point is that if Trump does win, as in 2016 the reason again will not be because of Trump’s strength but Dem weakness— with waaaaaayyy too much propensity for being squishy on display.

Staraptor ain’t invincible, but UU gets shit Steels.

 

[Bakugames]

Guess this is the best place to ask: While one can explain the fact some of Biden's plans haven't come to fruition due to a lack of support/push-back, what's with the approval of policies that were the same as Trump's government? There's no way it's all out of his hands.

I just took it as democrats just being another shade of right-wing, thus approving the same things he swore were bad or inhumane etc etc etc

 

[Drew_]

Guess this is the best place to ask: While one can explain the fact some of Biden's plans haven't come to fruition due to a lack of support/push-back, what's with the approval of policies that were the same as Trump's government? There's no way it's all out of his hands.

I just took it as democrats just being another shade of right-wing, thus approving the same things he swore were bad or inhumane etc etc etc

Its because nobody actually cares for details, all they care is left or right. Dems will support anything proposed by dems but reject the same exact thing proposed by republicans. Its the same the other way around as well. This country is fucked

 

[RaikouLover]

Its because nobody actually cares for details, all they care is left or right. Dems will support anything proposed by dems but reject the same exact thing proposed by republicans. Its the same the other way around as well. This country is fucked

That’s an oversimplification. It is asymmetric. Dem voters are more willing to consider policy and compromise. That’s how you get so many popular blue state Republican governors.

GOP is a different story. Funny how things like $15 minimum wage pass ballot measures in red states but get 0 Republican support when a Dem proposes it.

 

[faint]

Guess this is the best place to ask: While one can explain the fact some of Biden's plans haven't come to fruition due to a lack of support/push-back, what's with the approval of policies that were the same as Trump's government? There's no way it's all out of his hands.

I just took it as democrats just being another shade of right-wing, thus approving the same things he swore were bad or inhumane etc etc etc

Can you give specific examples of policies you're curious about? In general, when it comes to foreign policy, Pentagon shit, trade, and even the federal budget, Congress (as a representative party for Democrats and Republicans) agree on most policy. This is why leftists like myself get annoyed at liberals for complaining about Trump's concentration camps at the border while acting like Biden is putting those same people in hotels. It's all political theater. A liberal is just a conservative with more left-leaning social values (at least until reform is proposed in their neighborhoods).

 

[Bakugames]

Can you give specific examples of policies you're curious about?

I have a really bad memory due to some issues, so I don't have a lot of examples on the top of my head, unfortunately, but a recent one was the restarting of the "Remain in Mexico" program from the Trump era, and the detention areas/violence on the border in general.

 

[faint]

I have a really bad memory due to some issues, so I don't have a lot of examples on the top of my head, unfortunately, but a recent one was the restarting of the "Remain in Mexico" program from the Trump era, and the detention areas/violence on the border in general.

Yeah, the only people you're going to see speak out against this are members of the House Progressive Caucus or Bernie/Warren/Padilla/Markey in the Senate. For everyone else it's business as usual because they're poor and brown.

 

[Bughouse]

restarting remain in mexico was due to order by the supreme court. biden isn't the type to just defy the court (nor should any president be, if we care about rule of law yada yada).

 

[MrHands]

GOP is a different story. Funny how things like $15 minimum wage pass ballot measures in red states but get 0 Republican support when a Dem proposes it.

Because they vote against sweeping government policy at a federal level. They prefer individual states to make those decisions. Many Republicans don't directly oppose a livable wage and will vote for it locally, just not nationwide.

At least that's the argument. In reality the actual GOP is currently a pro Trump circle jerk who's entire political platform is literally just "the opposite of what the Libs want".