Right now trump is by far the leading candidate for the 2024 republican presidential race. He is fundraising (and is likely the leading fundraiser) and is creating a media company to ensure he has positive coverage leading up and during his campaign.
I think it is also valid to point out that a tool (good or bad, as you point out its a tool) can and has been used for wrong and even evil purposes. And in this instance, that tool is being used for wrong/evil purposes. To ignore its history of usage would be no different that claiming assault weapons are only tools, and ignoring how or why assault weapons are used.
it's one thing to acknowledge history; it is quite another to build a moral argument around the history as a fundamental premise. That risks committing the genetic fallacy--to beat further the logical dead horse beaten earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Turley lovers: Democracy, Autocracy . . . or Hypocrisy? Biden Calls for Changing the Filibuster Rule https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/...uster-rule-in-reversal-of-long-held-position/
Wait, he's saying the federal government stepping in on how federal elections at the state level are run is unprecedented with the voting rights legislation. I'm confused. Didn't the federal government get involved during the civil rights era on how states conduct federal elections especially in states with long histories of disenfranchisement of Black voters? Didn't those states need federal approval if they made any changes to their federal election processes which only recently was ended by the Supreme Court because they thought racism was over? Also, in terms of principle why is it wrong for the federal government to standardize how FEDERAL elections are conducted per state? I understand being concerned about the feds intervening in state wide elections like governor or state reps but federal elections where a us senator or us rep's voting effects us all and not just the state said elected official comes from?
I wonder if the founding fathers ever foresaw that a sitting president would ever pressure congress and local election officials to overturn an election?
Wow, the list of assumptions you are making is extraordinary. I wish I had your optimism. The foundational assumption you are making is that Trump isn't running. Not sure what that assumption is based upon. Care to help me out on that? As a side note, I think democrats universally made the assumption in 2016 that there is no way a clown like Trump could even win. Trump manipulated the election by collaborating with Wikileaks and the Russians to drop well timed smear campaigns which certainly swayed many voters. Therefore, we know Trump is willing to play dirty and certainly he'd do it again. We just don't know what tricks he has up his sleeves this time.
Actually yes. The Founders were worried that a President could try to stay in power through corrupt means that is one reason why there are multiple layers to our elections. Part of the reason for the existence of the Electoral College is to make it harder for a demagogue to seize power through a mob. Also it was brought up during both impeachments of Trump that impeachment specifically applies to a president who is shown to have won election through fraudulent means.
So... the remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. And trump was impeached twice, but not removed from office. If trump would have been successful at convincing enough congressman and local elections officials to overturn the election, what would have happened? Impeachment without removal from office?
working my way through Gordon Wood's Power and Liberty, and he lays out how the roots of the federal approach to the executive are in the state constitutions enacted earlier:
None of this refutes my points, and whose mind is he gonna change by starting his own media company? He lost 2 senate seats in 20/20, yet somehow you think he can do better in 2024 after Jan 6 2021? The biggest mistake Democrats can make is picking a candidate and making election plans because of what Trump might be doing.
this is proven false. you do your own voters a disservice by continuing to spread a false narrative about why they lost in 2016.
1. There are many reasons why Hillary lost 2016 and many of those reasons are her own fault. 2. The only part that isn't definitive is if Trump actively colluded with Putin when it came to the DNC hack and misinformation campaign on social media. What is clear is the Putin regime desired Trump and helped him by releasing DNC emails in a timely manner that helped Trump's campaign and having troll farms spam US social media platforms with rhetoric that would help Trump. We just don't know for certain if Trump actively was seeking aid from the Putin regime.
That's not the only thing Filibuster has been used for, and It's not even the most prominent thing, yes it's dishonest and lazy to try and do away with something just because it was misused at one point in history. I never said it was not an argument my problem is that it is currently the leading argument, and it is full of holes, it's like the modern democrats have never used the filibuster at any point if you did not know better. If you do not understand the difference, that's on you.
Nobody is ignoring anything but basing your entire argument that a tool that was used for a certain purpose wrongly at one, means that the tool should be abolished because it was misused at a certain point in time is asinine. This is the same type of emotional argument that led to the stupid defund the police movement. The argument is much more substantive than that.
Because he is very old and he will continue to lose support as 2024 becomes nearer. Nothing about thinking he will not run is extraordinary, History and common sense is saying his actually running would be extraordinary. Trump is just a very lucky man who ran at the exact time his rhetoric struck a cord in this country, let's not forget he lost the popular vote twice. He is not very tricky at all just exceptionally lucky if you want to think he has some extraordinary power that's on you, but it's not based on facts, which is why I say all Democrats need to do is come out and vote in force if they don't want Trump again.
First of all, I am not basing my entire argument against the filibuster on one thing. In fact, I am not even certain I want the filibuster ended, or modified. And lastly, I never wanted police to be defunded (I am pro law enforcement and if anything I support greater spending on law enforcement)... don't know why you even brought that up. Seems you are the one jumping to conclusions in an emotional way, but whatever...
