US Elections 2020 II - Bernie Topwin: "We'll see this trashcan dream come true"

[Ferris]

Not a big mystery. He's paying for 'em

Odd, not mysterious. I know why it's happening, it just feels... unsettling.

I doubt they could justify it to the editorial board.

[Dog Botherer]

i think the editorial board would much rather Bloomberg or Trump over Bernie

[Danger Man]

God they really must have so little on Bernie when this seems to be the main thrust of their attack "some of his supporters are mean online"

If Bernie wins the attack ads will be a picture of him with a heart monitering machine going 'beep beep beep' before going 'beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...............................'

[Famous Mortimer]

If you read  and think "yeah that sounds about right" then all I can say is that I disagree.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause, which Trump is 100% ignoring, and the Supreme Court is doing absolutely nothing about.

The President ignoring subpoenas, which the Supreme Court is doing absolutely nothing about.

Trump calling the impeachment process illegitimate and constitutionally invalid, which the Supreme Court is doing absolutely nothing about.

This is a casual ten minutes of searching on the subject, of reading article after article which describes the current Government as "unconstitutional", a state of affairs which has had no impact on that government at all.

As you're so insistent, it might be easier if you tell me some part of the constitution (or, really, any law) which exists outside of the will needed to enforce it?

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I doubt they could justify it to the editorial board.

I think you have a few lingering illusions about this sort of thing

[Cuellar]

Just saw Bernie's brother in Sainsbury's - was going to say something like 'good luck to Bernie!' but he might have been all 'I'm not Bernie, what are you saying good luck to me for you twat'

[Cuellar]

He had a 'Berine 2020' sticker on his coat, though, which was sweet

[EOLAN]

Just saw Bernie's brother in Sainsbury's - was going to say something like 'good luck to Bernie!' but he might have been all 'I'm not Bernie, what are you saying good luck to me for you twat'

You should have told him how you much loved his 1990s sitcom/chat-show.

[Mister Six]

He had a 'Berine 2020' sticker on his coat, though, which was sweet

Why the fuck is he backing Berine over his own brother? What a cunt.

[Ferris]

The Foreign Emoluments Clause, which Trump is 100% ignoring, and the Supreme Court is doing absolutely nothing about.

The President ignoring subpoenas, which the Supreme Court is doing absolutely nothing about.

Trump calling the impeachment process illegitimate and constitutionally invalid, which the Supreme Court is doing absolutely nothing about.

This is a casual ten minutes of searching on the subject, of reading article after article which describes the current Government as "unconstitutional", a state of affairs which has had no impact on that government at all.

As you're so insistent, it might be easier if you tell me some part of the constitution (or, really, any law) which exists outside of the will needed to enforce it?

Nah. Not worth my time going through this. Subpoenas aren't in the constitution, emoluments clause needs to be tried in lower courts before it makes its way to SCOTUS, and articles saying things are unconstitutional isn't the same as saying SCOTUS is run by nazis (for the last 5 decades) and they decide all the laws and any rights are subject only to their whims.

You're welcome to disagree with me, but in my opinion I think you're wrong. Other opinions are available, of course.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Love to meet Bernie's brother and go 'DEEE YEH WANNA FKENNN GOOOOOOOOOO'

[Cuellar]

Why the fuck is he backing Berine over his own brother? What a cunt.

You're right I should have slapped him

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Nah. Not worth my time going through this. Subpoenas aren't in the constitution, emoluments clause needs to be tried in lower courts before it makes its way to SCOTUS, and articles saying things are unconstitutional isn't the same as saying SCOTUS is run by nazis (for the last 5 decades) and they decide all the laws and any rights are subject only to their whims.

You're welcome to disagree with me, but in my opinion I think you're wrong. Other opinions are available, of course.

I'll even do you a favour and not get into specifics (because there are zero historical examples that you could come up with to show that the U.S. Constitution is a robust document independent of political whims), but you must at least concede that this is objectively how the system works. If the Supreme Court declares something constitutional or unconstitutional, there is no recourse. Congress can't do anything about it. The President can't do anything about it. Voters can't do anything about, short of an actual revolution. And it is farcical to think that the individual Supreme Court justices are not extremely partisan (on a spectrum that goes from "fascist" to "right-of-center liberal").

The media is incredibly bad at covering these sorts of issues, but it's nonetheless important to acknowledge the horrible role of the corporatist Supreme Court on American life. To rip just two concrete examples from the headlines, Trump would not be President and Michael Bloomberg would not be running if it wasn't for an extreme right-wing Supreme Court. In an earlier heyday, Congress wisely attempted to regulate media coverage of elections and to regulate campaign finance spending. The Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to spend money (yes, that is my paraphrasing) in order to invalidate those restrictions and keep the money flowing from and to corporations. These are not abstract complaints.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

The notion that there is a constitutional right to buy elections, but not a constitutional right TO VOTE, is the kind of system we are dealing with here.

[Ferris]

Sorry, I'm just not interested in the argument.

You think nazis run the Supreme Court (and have done since the late '60s), and at any moment can (and do) withdraw any universal constitutional rights without recourse. Ok, I just don't want to have the back and forth to disabuse you of that opinion.

It's your opinion, fair enough. You are wrong - that's my opinion. Other opinions are available. Who cares? It's all good.

[chveik]

It's your opinion, fair enough. You are wrong - that's my opinion. Other opinions are available. Who cares? It's all good.

politics threads aren't for you my friend

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I've canceled the U.S. Supreme Court because I hate their ass.

They're complete cunt rubble.

(Trying out a new invective via poo.)

[Hundhoon]

Bernie is 58 percent ahead of his closest rival amongst Hispanics in Nevada.

jawdropping numbers. Why on earth anyone is taking bloomberg seriously is beyond me, he would have to resort to a level of corruption that would do the US too much damage internally and externally . the DNC would if they could but i dont think they can here.

[Mister Six]

Latino vote is a good one to have in Nevada. How's he looking among other demographics?

DNC probably now studying the Republican party for pointers on how to disenfranchise and deport minorities that aren't rich enough to demamd Centrist Drone 2024™.

[Dog Botherer]

Glinner officially endorses Bloomberg

[Dewt]

I'll even do you a favour and not get into specifics (because there are zero historical examples that you could come up with to show that the U.S. Constitution is a robust document independent of political whims)

This all boils down to guns

[marquis_de_sad]

This all boils down to guns

I was wondering why Ferris was being so coy, but this is it, isn't it.

[Dewt]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1229916120469118978

It's amazing to see Nate Silver say this

Average projected delegates through Super Tuesday:

Sanders 608 (41% of delegates thru March 3)
Bloomberg 273 (18%)
Biden 270 (18%)
Buttigieg 157 (10%)
Warren 127 (8%)
Klobuchar 55 (4%)

[Ferris]

I was wondering why Ferris was being so coy, but this is it, isn't it.

Nah just can't be arsed with the barney

[marquis_de_sad]

Nah just can't be arsed with the barney

It doesn't have to be a barney just because you disagree. Being passive aggressive is worse than a robust disagreement.

[Dewt]

Make a second amendment thread or something

[marquis_de_sad]

Yeah, fair enough.

[Ferris]

It doesn't have to be a barney just because you disagree. Being passive aggressive is worse than a robust disagreement.

Ok. I'm genuinely not being passive aggressive (or I'm trying not to be, anyway).

[kngen]

I'll even do you a favour and not get into specifics (because there are zero historical examples that you could come up with to show that the U.S. Constitution is a robust document independent of political whims), but you must at least concede that this is objectively how the system works. If the Supreme Court declares something constitutional or unconstitutional, there is no recourse. Congress can't do anything about it. The President can't do anything about it. Voters can't do anything about, short of an actual revolution. And it is farcical to think that the individual Supreme Court justices are not extremely partisan (on a spectrum that goes from "fascist" to "right-of-center liberal").

The media is incredibly bad at covering these sorts of issues, but it's nonetheless important to acknowledge the horrible role of the corporatist Supreme Court on American life. To rip just two concrete examples from the headlines, Trump would not be President and Michael Bloomberg would not be running if it wasn't for an extreme right-wing Supreme Court. In an earlier heyday, Congress wisely attempted to regulate media coverage of elections and to regulate campaign finance spending. The Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to spend money (yes, that is my paraphrasing) in order to invalidate those restrictions and keep the money flowing from and to corporations. These are not abstract complaints.

The Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce its rulings - presidents and Congress have historically followed them because they have given them the results they've wanted for the most part. I don't think it's outwith the realms of possibility that Trump, given that he's already shown up how flimsy the 'checks and balances' on executive power already are, would ignore a Supreme Court ruling that wasn't in his best interests (although it's harder to imagine a scenario where that bunch of shills don't give him exactly the result he wants, unfortunately).

What we're seeing now is the explicit abuse of unchecked presidential rule by fiat, but this has been implicit since, at the very least, Reagan was given the power, by REX 84, to suspend the constitution and declare a national state of emergency if a sparrow farted near the White House. I suppose the one grimly amusing thing about this whole mess is that it has finally shown up the US's much vaunted three-ring circus of 'true democracy' for the charade that it is.

I feel a teensy bit bad, however, for the constitutional scholars who get wheeled onto Rachel Maddow to meekly explain why Trump still isn't in jail yet. Imagine dedicating your life to studying something hugely complex and nuanced and then being asked to expound on its real-time destruction before your eyes, like a Steinway historian being asked to provide colour commentary for a piano-smashing competition.

[C_Larence]

Anyone looking forward to the debates tonight? A fun drinking game for those with a death wish would be to take a shot any time someone mentions medical records or online bullying.