2024 POTUS ELECTON

[aurelius]

Stuff

I'm not advocating for billionaire tax cheats or for letting billionaires get away with tax cheating I'm just saying there is no free lunch here. And since this is the potus 2024 thread, I would circle back to my point that the differences between the parties and thus POTUS choices on this issue are mostly for show, in terms of impact to my own life.

Just meh. The CBO and others have run actual analysis on how much to fund the IRS and how much revenue that will generate. That is how they know how much to fund it (or defund it if the Republicans case). You can look that up or continue with your unfounded conjecture.

[mikeylikey]

Just meh. The CBO and others have run actual analysis on how much to fund the IRS and how much revenue that will generate. That is how they know how much to fund it (or defund it if the Republicans case). You can look that up or continue with your unfounded conjecture.

The CBO wants more funding for the IRS? You don't say.

wonka.jpg


Anyway this thread went way off topic.

[JonA]

Just meh. The CBO and others have run actual analysis on how much to fund the IRS and how much revenue that will generate. That is how they know how much to fund it (or defund it if the Republicans case). You can look that up or continue with your unfounded conjecture.

The CBO wants more funding for the IRS? You don't say.

wonka.jpg


Anyway this thread went way off topic.

Not too badly. Last election it was arguing over modernization of the Post Office, this one it is the IRS. Surprise! The sides have flipped!

https://time.com/6263424/louis-dejoy-tr ... al-reform/

[EricK]

Anyway this thread went way off topic.

I acknowledge that I, like most people, probably live in some kind of echo chamber and suffer from some degree of confirmation bias, even though I try to account for it as much as I can. That being said, I don't think Biden is the milque-toast Jesus, but I do think he's getting a raw deal in that despite generally good economic metrics there seems to be a bad perception of the economy and that has a consistently negative impact on presidential reelection. But what concerns me is that regardless of economic policy of either administration I think there is a very real issue with lack of accountability on the Trump side that simply doesn't exist on the Biden side. I'm not naive enough to think Biden is "without sin" or that the Democrats are (even close to) perfect.

That's a lot of fluff to preface the fact that, while I admit there are some hysterics about Trump, I think he really did incite a violent mob to try and overturn an election and I don't see how there can even be any question as to whether one should vote for or against a political candidate who has demonstrated the willingness to do that... Am I missing something?

[hector]

Anyway this thread went way off topic.

I acknowledge that I, like most people, probably live in some kind of echo chamber and suffer from some degree of confirmation bias, even though I try to account for it as much as I can. That being said, I don't think Biden is the milque-toast Jesus, but I do think he's getting a raw deal in that there seems to be a bad perception of the economy and that has a consistently negative impact on presidential reelection. But what concerns me is that regardless of economic policy of either administration I think there is a very real issue with lack of accountability on the Trump side that simply doesn't exist on the Biden side. I'm not naive enough to think Biden is "without sin" or that the Democrats are (even close to) perfect.

That's a lot of fluff to preface the fact that, while I admit there are some hysterics about Trump, I think he really did incite a violent mob to try and overturn an election and I don't see how there can even be any question as to whether one should vote for or against a political candidate who has demonstrated the willingness to do that... Am I missing something?

Maybe you’re missing something on the economic metrics part? For a lot of people, making about now what they made before Covid, things can seem tight.
Where I live there’s a sizable Muslim population. A bunch (not all), at least that I talk to, are not happy with Biden’s handling of the Israel/Hamas situation.
In terms of lack of accountability, I can’t make a strong case to defend Trump, but I can guarantee lots of people on the other side think Biden is evading accountability as well. If you were in the other bubble, you might too.

[EricK]

Maybe you’re missing something on the economic metrics part? For a lot of people, making about now what they made before Covid, things can seem tight.
Where I live there’s a sizable Muslim population. A bunch (not all), at least that I talk to, are not happy with Biden’s handling of the Israel/Hamas situation.
In terms of lack of accountability, I can’t make a strong case to defend Trump, but I can guarantee lots of people on the other side think Biden is evading accountability as well. If you were in the other bubble, you might too.

Re: economic metrics: totally get that the general perception is negative, my point was more that it seems trivial compared to the at least perceived) threat of a president whose willing to ignore or undermine any election results he doesn't like.

Re: accountability: Hunter has been indicted, I don't get the impression that Joe is doing anything to interfere with that but it seems obvious to me that Trump absolutely would. I believe Trump's first acts as a president would be to pardon himself of all federal charges and leverage federalism to obstruct justice in the state charges. It doesn't even seem comparable...

[hector]

Maybe you’re missing something on the economic metrics part? For a lot of people, making about now what they made before Covid, things can seem tight.
Where I live there’s a sizable Muslim population. A bunch (not all), at least that I talk to, are not happy with Biden’s handling of the Israel/Hamas situation.
In terms of lack of accountability, I can’t make a strong case to defend Trump, but I can guarantee lots of people on the other side think Biden is evading accountability as well. If you were in the other bubble, you might too.

Re: economic metrics: totally get that the general perception is negative, my point was more that it seems trivial compared to the at least perceived) threat of a president whose willing to ignore or undermine any election results he doesn't like.

Re: accountability: Hunter has been indicted, I don't get the impression that Joe is doing anything to interfere with that but it seems obvious to me that Trump absolutely would. I believe Trump's first acts as a president would be to pardon himself of all federal charges and leverage federalism to obstruct justice in the state charges. It doesn't even seem comparable...

For sure. I’m not making any kind of objective argument that Trump would be good or better. There’s nothing to convince me of on this front.

I’m saying that the idea that the other team’s elites evade accountability for crimes is common on both sides. They believe it as strongly as you do, actually more so. Forget pardoning; the other echosphere would tell you DoJ has been outright hijacked.

[mikeylikey]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-d ... 023-12-20/

Hopefully SCOTUS affirms quickly.

[EricK]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-d ... 023-12-20/

Hopefully SCOTUS affirms quickly.

Softball case.

[mikeylikey]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-d ... 023-12-20/

Hopefully SCOTUS affirms quickly.

Softball case.

meaning what

[aurelius]

Hopefully SCOTUS affirms quickly.

Very unlikely. Thomas and Alito are not even pretending to be judges anymore. They are bought and paid for. Remember, Thomas's wife is guilty of insurrection. He needs to make this go away because it is a huge liability for him. No matter what it is 2 against. Needing 5 of the remaining 7 to affirm.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The bolded (engaged) is arguable. I think Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett essentially will say what Trump did was ill-advised but not in the Court's purview to determine the threshold of 'engaged'. In the end they will avoid answering the question entirely and state Trump's actions must be decided by a criminal court and not unelected judges. I believe any of the 4 remaining Justices could sign on to this opinion (Roberts and the 3 liberal justices).

Which leaves the underlined (aided). What materially is 'given aid or comfort'? I think the Court will be reluctant to answer that given Trump (to my knowledge) did not use his executive power to protect the people that engaged in the January 7th assault of Congress. Leaving the possibility if Trump does win and uses his executive power to pardon or hamper the DOJ efforts to prosecute the January 7th participants being disallowed to serve office. Fun times ahead!

This decision will be precedent setting so my guess is the court tries to be as narrow as possible without disrupting the status quo. But ultimately will vote somewhere between 7-2 or 9-0 that Colorado can't disallow Trump on the ballot until Trump is convicted in a criminal court.

More interesting is the question of Trump's immunity the DOJ has put before the Court in the insurrection case. I think that is a no brainer in that Trump has no immunity but will the Court act quickly enough for this to matter?

[5hout]

8-1 Brown Jackson dissenting. Grounds: invalid procedure, regardless of merits or not in America we punish after trials, not before. A state agency may not make a unilateral declartion of this sort forcing a person to sue and prove they didn't rebel. Complete inversion of due process and impermissible burden shifting.

Also, the section 5 argument and the officer argument both probably collect 6 votes each in concurrencies.

[mikeylikey]

I keep seeing, including above, the idea of due process and how Trump has not been convicted by a Jury of his Peers of any criminal act.

Removing a candidate from the ballot is not a criminal punishment or a finding of criminal guilt. Trump is not in jeopardy to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. It is a civil and/or administrative sanction and to my thinking would follow a process more inline with how voter registration, building permits, OSHA fines, tax penalties, civil asset forfeiture, or eminent domain work. I.E. broad leeway for unilateral administrative action with a narrowly defined appeal process should a defender, on whom the burden of proof then falls, wish to contest the sanction.

The trial court found, based on the preponderance of evidence, that Trump engaged in insurrection. As far as I know, there were no material factual disputes in that trial and the trial judge was essentially interpreting events that everyone agreed happened. A jury is not required when the facts are not in dispute, and juries cannot make legal findings, which this was. The appeals court agreed with the findings of fact from the trial court. It would be surprising for SCOTUS to insert itself and reverse the finding of facts of both lower courts. And in my understanding the pro-Trump side cannot submit any new evidence or factual disputes which were not raised at trial, which was none.

Yes Trump appointed 3 of them, but this is also the SCOTUS which has so far failed to come through with so much as a writ of cert on a single 2020 election appeal from Trump.

[5hout]

@mikeylikey

Set aside that this is Trump for the moment. Are you really comfortable with the idea that we're going to remove candidates from ballots (eg saying they have acted so outside the bounds of democracy that you cannot choose to vote for them) on a preponderance of evidence from a district court where the candidate has to beg leave to allowed in as an intervenor (i.e. a collateral hearing with the candidate in question is neither primary litigant)?

Keeping in mind that the electors control which district court, and as you allude to above, the moving party has a massive advantage when it comes to setting the record/determining trial location and other issues. Now on appeal the prospective candidate faces a limited record with a limited ability to preserve issues for appeal and you're ready to wash your hands and go "sounds good, no one is allowed to vote for this candidate on the basis of this minimal hearing"?

You'd need more process, and have more opportunity to intervene, if your neighbor wanted to build a road through a wetland where you already owned the easement than the amount of process people are apparently comfortable with using for excluding candidates for President from democracy.

This is full on banana republic nonsense. This is the kind of stuff we routinely criticism other nations (Iran, Pakistan, India, among others) for using administrative proceedings to prevent voters from deciding.

I'd also note that in most places/roles felons, ineligible to vote, can run and hold office just fine.

[mikeylikey]

@mikeylikey

Set aside that this is Trump for the moment. Are you really comfortable with

I'd prefer to separate the questions of what I'm comfortable with vs. what the law is

the idea that we're going to remove candidates from ballots (eg saying they have acted so outside the bounds of democracy that you cannot choose to vote for them)

This is literally the intent and plain meaning of the 14A.

on a preponderance of evidence

Objectively, legally speaking, the 14A does not set a standard of proof for insurrection DQs. In non-criminal proceedings, preponderance of evidence is usually the standard.

Subjectively in terms of my comfort with possible errors of either approach, I think I find
EXcluding a candidate based on 51% probability that that candidate tried to overthrow the government
... to be a more palatable error than ...
INcluding a candidate who, with *up to 95-ish% probability,* tried to violently overthrow the federal government.

Because if "unanimous vote of 12 jurors convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" is the threshold for ballot removal, the latter error is implicitly allowed for.

from a district court

In contrast to what? All cases start at lower courts. There have already been dozens of 14a challenges to Trump and most dismissed on procedural grounds. SCOTUS cannot hear them all. That's how our system works.

If you mean this shouldn't originate in the courts, I'm not sure where. The 14a gives congress veto power over any DQ which to me at least strongly suggest the disqualification wasn't intended to originate with congress. It sure as hell can't originate in the executive branch for obvious reasons. That leaves courts. Right?

where the candidate has to beg leave to allowed in as an intervenor (i.e. a collateral hearing with the candidate in question is neither primary litigant)?

And was (100% properly) granted leave to intervene, with to my knowledge, no difficulty or controversy... so... what's your point? It would make no sense for him to be a primary litigant.

Keeping in mind that the electors control which district court, and as you allude to above, the moving party has a massive advantage when it comes to setting the record/determining trial location and other issues. Now on appeal the prospective candidate faces a limited record with a limited ability to preserve issues for appeal and you're ready to wash your hands and go "sounds good, no one is allowed to vote for this candidate on the basis of this minimal hearing"?

If Trump wanted to contest evidence at trial he could have. At both district and state supreme court appeal he could have contested all sorts of things that happened at trial right? He did neither because there wasn't anything to contest as the factual basis was all indisputable public record. The legal conclusion of the trial court, affirmed by the appeals court, is fully reviewable by SCOTUS is it not?[/quote]

I'd also note that in most places/roles felons, ineligible to vote, can run and hold office just fine.

True but irrelevant.

[Hardartery]

I'd also note that in most places/roles felons, ineligible to vote, can run and hold office just fine.

I'd like to note that it is largely a fiction that felons cannot vote. A person can, indeed, have a felony record and be eligible to vote following the end of their sentence.

[5hout]

I'd also note that in most places/roles felons, ineligible to vote, can run and hold office just fine.

I'd like to note that it is largely a fiction that felons cannot vote. A person can, indeed, have a felony record and be eligible to vote following the end of their sentence.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/

9 states potentially perm., 23 after prison and the rest in the middle. Iirc some of the middle states require paperwork beyond completion of probabation to regain the right.

[mikeylikey]

And then there were 2…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ry-ballot/

[SSJBartSimpson]

Ron DeSantis's campaign seems to be going very well. It will really take off when he announces.

[EricK]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-d ... 023-12-20/

Hopefully SCOTUS affirms quickly.

Softball case.

meaning what

I was mostly being sarcastic.

To be cynical I think Thomas and Alito will struggle with trying to balance their conservative originalism against their love for rent free properties, extravagant vacations and luxury RVs.