The chances that Trump doesn’t finish his term are extremely low IMHO
Our best real hope is a loss of confidence in him and the GOP leading to Democratic gains in Congress and an inability to do too much further domestic damage…
I’ve heard somewhere that at least in 2018, that’s a pretty tough ask, just because of how many democrats are up for reelection and how comparably few republicans are.
The Senate will be hard to take back much less lose a seat or two, however the Republicans seem to be making all the right moves to make it so we either stay the same or D may even pick a seat up.
The House is very much in play except for Gerrymandering. The tide could be so big that it overwhelms the computer generated districts.
On the subject of gerrymandering, Gill v Whitford was argued on about a month ago. The full transcript is available at the link above. (I really really really hate this new transcription service SCOTUS uses. the margins are bigger than the text)
The case for relief is a pretty good one and kinda targeted at conservative Justice Kennedy. To make a long story short in an older case Vieth v. Jubelirer Justice Kennedy basically said (paraphrased) “I see we have a gerrymandering problem here, but I don’t see a workable standard the court can apply, and therefore we must do nothing”
This new case presents exactly that, a workable, material, and neutral standard the court can apply in the form of the efficiency gap. It’s gonna be quite some time before we find out what the court does. And it could do a great many things.
I wait with bated breath.
Republicans in the House have introduced a bill to remove Mueller from the Trump-Russia investigation. Nominally this is over the Uranium One Deal, pretty much the definition of political bullshit that is a complete non-issue.
Louie Gohmert is one of the three republicans behind so you know it is complete bullshit.
“Paradise Papers” leak shows more ties between Trump administration and Russia.
What’s the bet that Assange/Wikileaks condemns the paradise papers, as he/they did with the Panama Papers when they showed information embarrassing to Russia?
Assange is a basically a Russian stooge at this point.
So assange is an example of an issue I’ve been pondering lately.
Which is the real problem? Certain people themselves or the ideas/ideals that certain people have/hold?
Assange, at a time when I was younger and more idealistic represented someone who showed the world and the country what combat actually looks like, and made the states think twice if we wanted to be in it. That was pretty good.
Now he’s a complete shit-stain. So is he a problem? Or are his ideas a problem?
This holds no matter who we’re talking about. Is the problem nazism or richard spencer? Is it the modern ideals of the republican party or donald trump?
If it’s the ideas/ideals, then it’s really a PR/hearts and minds fight. It’s a problem only solved by debate and literally convincing other people.
If it’s a in individual people problem… We need some pretty bad things. We need a whole lot of murder, or this 300ish year old experiment called the united states of america is coming to a close.
I think there’s a fair possibility that Assuage isn’t even the person that’s actually posting anymore.
“Faith without works is dead”
You can have the best of ideals, but if your actions ignore or outright betray those ideals.
The trouble with Wikileaks, it showed a clear bias toward the Republican party, because while they are mean, they are also incredibly stupid. They’d rather have an American run by idiotic bullies, that someone that is willing to be a world leader.
You can fight for the idea of “Small Government”, but when the modern practice is tax cuts for the rich and corporate subsidies with no oversight it’s hard to take that group seriously.
There are serious problems with how America’s government is currently run, a lot of those problems were created in the wake of 9/11. However I’m less inclined to believe or trust some rando that is more likely a Russian twitter bot.
Healthy debate is incredible difficult when you have the Fox News airhorn constantly blasting away, creating an alternate reality where facts are derided as “opinion”.
As for Nazism and Richard Spencer, both the idea and the person can fuck off in equal measure.
Well, really, back then, what could we say we knew about the guy? He wasn’t fond of the US, he knew a decent amount about computers, presumably, and released some US secrets that were leaked to him.
Consider what we know about him now - That he’s a racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, alt-right white-supremacist loon and conspiracy theorist, hiding out in an embassy to avoid going down for a rape charge, claiming credit for things he didn’t do, and perfectly happy to put other people in danger for the sake of his ego, like the time he doxxed practically every woman in a country that really isn’t terribly nice to women.
His leaks can’t be trusted, because we know he modifies, editorializes, and whithholds parts of them them to suit his own purposes(in fact, he admitted as such around the time of Collateral Murder in an interview with Colbert), and we know that he’s been happy to take both information and money directly from the Russian government, and that the leaks his organization come out with are almost always against enemies of Russia, or to advance Russian interests - to the point of coming out against the Panama Papers, because they revealed some Russian secrets.
And to cap it all off, we have a number of people who’ve known him in the past who have said about pretty much everything but the Russia stuff, “Yeah, he’s basically always been this way, he just used to bother hiding it because he knew it wasn’t publicly acceptable.”
So, in his case, it seems less a case of “Which is bad”, and more a case of “It was always bad, we just didn’t know before.”
None of this was a defense of Mr. Assange. I recognize him to be a bad thing in this world. He was just a useful illustration of a broader issue I see.
One where depending on what the problem is, the solution is either. Lots of killing, or trying to change the minds of just awful people. Neither of those really appeals to me.
Nah, I was picking up what you were putting down. Just that in his case, we actually have an answer - he was always shit, and his information has been at the very least somewhat untrustworthy ranging through to absolute shit for years.
As for the rest, I don’t know the solution, nobody does. For now, I think the best we can suggest is that we do our best to ensure these things are seen as grossly unacceptable in society. Keep getting Nazis fired. Keep counter-protesting their events. Keep turning them into social lepers. Keep making fun of them in entertainment media. Just like folk did back in the day - you can’t stomp all the roaches, but you can make sure they stay in their metaphorical hiding places so long they start to starve themselves to death. We didn’t finish the job last time, this time, we do.
Since you brought up Nazis being fired, I’m curious, is it ok for an employer to fire an employee for anything they do outside of the workplace that happens to get posted to social media, that the employer doesn’t like?
While I want Nazis to get fired too, I think that sets a dangerous precedent.
I would argue no, but with the obvious exception for things that are abhorrent, like white supremacy, nazism, etc. There is already a line as to where people generally think things are okay or not okay reasons to fire someone, I’m not advocating we move the line, just that we make sure that abhorrent views like nazism and so on are socially unacceptable enough that they’re considered firmly on the “Fire the fuckers” side of the line.