What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Te report was perfectly accurate.

Note that this article here seems to leave out a rather key element to this entire scheme.

The "resignation" that is happening in November? It is for a seat that would be vacated in the normal manner in December.

So the justice is "resigning" the seat he would have vacated due to his term ending like 4 weeks later. And he is doing it months and month ahead of time, so that specifially, they could cancel the election that was scheduled to elect his successor.

Normally, his term would end in December. The election to see who fills that seat should have happened a couple weeks ago. But he "resigned" his seat in advance a week before that, so the governor could accept his resignation, in advance, while allowing him to serve out the rest of his term (other than the 4 weeks between his resignation and when his term was up), and allowing the governor to appoint his successor for 2 more years beyond that, and cancel the actual election.

Forget whether this is technically legal (it appears to be due to a loophole in how the law was written). It is clearly a gross violation of the intent of democracy. I don't care how many justices pretend like this is ok. It is almost worse BECAUSE it is technically legal, while being obviously criminal in its actual practice.

I've only read the one article, and I don't get the impression from it at all that there was an election scheduled to elect the judge's replacement for the governor to cancel.  Rather, like I said, that the plaintiffs petitioned the court to hold an election, which was denied. 

I agree that the judge and the governor are totally gaming the system.  The reason I brought up this correction to your version is that it frightened me to think that a governor had the power to cancel an election required by law.  Therefore I found this version somewhat reassuring.

[Sheilbh]

Just re-read it, and got to be honest the American carnage inaugural holds up.

[grumbler]

I've only read the one article, and I don't get the impression from it at all that there was an election scheduled to elect the judge's replacement for the governor to cancel.  Rather, like I said, that the plaintiffs petitioned the court to hold an election, which was denied. 

I agree that the judge and the governor are totally gaming the system.  The reason I brought up this correction to your version is that it frightened me to think that a governor had the power to cancel an election required by law.  Therefore I found this version somewhat reassuring.

My understanding is that there was, indeed, going to be an election this year to choose a new justice, as the retiring justice's term ends Dec 31 by law.  That means that there has to be an election in 2020 to fill that seat.  I don't know whether the election would have been held on the second Tuesday in November, or earlier, but it was going to be held even if not yet scheduled.

The Constitutional provisions are, of course, atrocious, since they effectively negate elections whenever a judge and governor agree.  In fact, as I read the provisions, the newly-appointed justice could announce on January 2nd of next year that he was going to retire one day early, on Dec 30, 2022, and the current governor could appoint the person to fill that vacancy as well, almost 2 years ahead of time!

[Berkut]

Te report was perfectly accurate.

Note that this article here seems to leave out a rather key element to this entire scheme.

The "resignation" that is happening in November? It is for a seat that would be vacated in the normal manner in December.

So the justice is "resigning" the seat he would have vacated due to his term ending like 4 weeks later. And he is doing it months and month ahead of time, so that specifially, they could cancel the election that was scheduled to elect his successor.

Normally, his term would end in December. The election to see who fills that seat should have happened a couple weeks ago. But he "resigned" his seat in advance a week before that, so the governor could accept his resignation, in advance, while allowing him to serve out the rest of his term (other than the 4 weeks between his resignation and when his term was up), and allowing the governor to appoint his successor for 2 more years beyond that, and cancel the actual election.

Forget whether this is technically legal (it appears to be due to a loophole in how the law was written). It is clearly a gross violation of the intent of democracy. I don't care how many justices pretend like this is ok. It is almost worse BECAUSE it is technically legal, while being obviously criminal in its actual practice.

I've only read the one article, and I don't get the impression from it at all that there was an election scheduled to elect the judge's replacement for the governor to cancel.  Rather, like I said, that the plaintiffs petitioned the court to hold an election, which was denied. 

I agree that the judge and the governor are totally gaming the system.  The reason I brought up this correction to your version is that it frightened me to think that a governor had the power to cancel an election required by law.  Therefore I found this version somewhat reassuring.

There was an election already scheduled to take place, and it was canceled when the governor got and accepted the judges "resignation" letter. The election was scheduled for May 19th. Kemp, the Republican Governor, sent a note to the Republican elections chief, who canceled the election, since the governor would be appointing the successor for a 2 year term.

He could, by the letter of the law, appoint the same judge who just resigned.

[katmai]

I realized back in 2003 that trying to have a detailed discussion with you isn't worth it. So I'm happy to discuss things with you, but I'll pass on explaining the details.

  Not a very graceful concession, but I'll take it.

You appear confused.

No.  I challenged you to find a quote to support your claim about my position, and you responded that you can't be bothered with details... details like actually demonstrating that your claim had any basis in fact.

By conceding that you had no evidence whatsoever that you know my position better than I do, you are conceding that your position is untenable and you aren't going to try to defend the indefensible.  That's good enough for me.  It's really not very confusing if you are at all interested in reading for comprehension and making logical conclusions.  Trolls might get confused, though.

Oh, honey...

Clearly someone is gonna have to be the bigger man here. Hey katmai, can you come over here a second?

you called?

[jimmy olsen]

One would hope more would follow, but I doubt it.

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/status/1267985776270290946

Former Under Secretary of Defense James Miler submits his resignation to SecDef Esper, telling him "Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op."

[frunk]

History will judge the Complicit

Long ass article comparing Trumpism to the onset of oppressive regimes.

In retrospect, this dawning realization explains why the funeral of John McCain, in September 2018, looked, and by all accounts felt, so strange. Two previous presidents, one Republican and one Democrat—representatives of the old, patriotic political class—made speeches; the sitting president's name was never mentioned. The songs and symbols of the old order were visible too: "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"; American flags; two of McCain's sons in their officer's uniforms, so very different from the sons of Trump. Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser described the funeral as "a meeting of the Resistance, under vaulted ceilings and stained-glass windows." In truth, it bore an uncanny resemblance to the 1956 funeral of László Rajk, a Hungarian Communist and secret-police boss who had been purged and murdered by his comrades in 1949. Rajk's wife had become an outspoken critic of the regime, and the funeral turned into a de facto political rally, helping to set off Hungary's anti-Communist revolution a couple of weeks later.

Nothing quite so dramatic happened after McCain's funeral. But it did clarify the situation. A year and a half into the Trump administration, it marked a turning point, the moment at which many Americans in public life began to adopt the strategies, tactics, and self-justifications that the inhabitants of occupied countries have used in the past—doing so even though the personal stakes were, relatively speaking, so low. Poles like Miłosz wound up in exile in the 1950s; dissidents in East Germany lost the right to work and study. In harsher regimes like that of Stalin's Russia, public protest could lead to many years in a concentration camp; disobedient Wehrmacht officers were executed by slow strangulation.

By contrast, a Republican senator who dares to question whether Trump is acting in the interests of the country is in danger of—what, exactly? Losing his seat and winding up with a seven-figure lobbying job or a fellowship at the Harvard Kennedy School? He might meet the terrible fate of Jeff Flake, the former Arizona senator, who has been hired as a contributor by CBS News. He might suffer like Romney, who was tragically not invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference, which this year turned out to be a reservoir of COVID‑19.

Nevertheless, 20 months into the Trump administration, senators and other serious-minded Republicans in public life who should have known better began to tell themselves stories that sound very much like those in Miłosz's The Captive Mind. Some of these stories overlap with one another; some of them are just thin cloaks to cover self-interest. But all of them are familiar justifications of collaboration, recognizable from the past. Here are the most popular.

[The Brain]

I realized back in 2003 that trying to have a detailed discussion with you isn't worth it. So I'm happy to discuss things with you, but I'll pass on explaining the details.

  Not a very graceful concession, but I'll take it.

You appear confused.

No.  I challenged you to find a quote to support your claim about my position, and you responded that you can't be bothered with details... details like actually demonstrating that your claim had any basis in fact.

By conceding that you had no evidence whatsoever that you know my position better than I do, you are conceding that your position is untenable and you aren't going to try to defend the indefensible.  That's good enough for me.  It's really not very confusing if you are at all interested in reading for comprehension and making logical conclusions.  Trolls might get confused, though.

Oh, honey...

Clearly someone is gonna have to be the bigger man here. Hey katmai, can you come over here a second?

you called?

Yeah. Thanks! I think we're good though. Carry on.

[Syt]

https://twitter.com/FLOTUS/status/1267929157654269955

.
@POTUS & I honored the life & legacy of Saint John Paul II at @JP2Shrine today. His passion & dedication for religious freedom is a legacy that we must protect for people around the world.

(The Archbishop of DC condemned the action)

[Admiral Yi]

The light wood and gold set off his hair delightfully.

[Razgovory]

Why does it look like an orthodox church?

[The Larch]

survey of major international political parties regarding their treatment of minorities and undermining of liberal democratic principles. Taken from Twitter.

[Iormlund]

Bildu respects democratic values and minority rights?

[celedhring]

They are on the "undermine" column, just by little.

Pleased to see the Catalan separatist groups placed where they should be in that chart.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I don't see the UK parties on there. Did they Brexit from the analysis?