this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
91 points (96.9% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2115 readers
1 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Colorado supreme court ruled that they can take Trump off the ballot, now it looks like California is trying to do that as well. Meanwhile, republican states are threatening to retaliate in kind.

This seems unprecedented for US, does anybody know what happens in this scenario?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aquilae@hexbear.net 51 points 8 months ago (3 children)
[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 8 months ago

I have a theory that the calls for unity between the democrats and republicans stems from an intrinsic understanding of the destructiveness of imperialism.

[–] timicin@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

i bet whatever form california and texas (and maybe new york or florida) end up as would gobble up their significantly weaker/poorer neighbors and both would end up warring with each other at some point.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 8 months ago

New Califorina Reich vs 2nd Confederacy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] roux@hexbear.net 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is how Bernie can still win.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

We should start building a Psyker throne and make Bernie the God Emperor with how ancient he would be if by some insane chance he accidentally wins.

I’m sure his Israel policy will be measured and good! /s

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Republicans can’t retaliate in kind because they have no precedent or legal backing to do so. This is basic pandering, temper tantrum, and political grandstanding for their constituents in order to not appear weak. States are mostly within their rights, especially ones who have clauses written into their constitutions regarding this, in removing Trump for being under inditement for a plethora of federal crimes related to crimes against the republic and the “democratic process”.

While he is a criminal in the grand sense, Biden is not under investigation, charged, or been found guilty for any federal crimes. So removing his ballot would be overturned during the appeals process near instantly.

[–] AlpineSteakHouse@hexbear.net 33 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Republicans can’t retaliate in kind because they have no precedent or legal backing to do so.

They don't have the legal backing to do a lot of things they already do so I don't see how that will stop anything.

Plus they can just decide to give all the electoral votes to Trump regardless of the vote total which would accomplish much the same thing while being entirely constitutional.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 9 months ago (14 children)

States are mostly within their rights, especially ones who have clauses written into their constitutions regarding this, in removing Trump for being under inditement for a plethora of federal crimes related to crimes against the republic and the “democratic process”.

Federal crimes like lying about hush money to his pornstar mistress? I mean, how many of us here actually buy the claims he "instigated an insurrection"- or that the "capitol attack" was much of, if any sort of insurrection (much less one instigated by Trump), that Trump tried to rig the election, or that his bringing classified documents home and to the washroom, as POTUS, was some great act of treason? Is the using of RICO laws- blatantly excessive, overly broad, whose use since inception has never been about justice but rather striking at those the government can't pin anything else on- supposed to strengthen their case?

I don't like the guy, but the more indictments they toss his way, the more certain I am that they're just trying to bury him, and these are political attacks and the weaponization of the courts against a political opponent on a scale not really seen (against a former POTUS no less) in US history. Trump is no less dirty, no less a criminal by the legal definitions, of a candidate than Biden if you ask me- but rather the opposite- literally nothing the establishment elites are accusing Trump of either doing (or wanting to do in a second term), they aren't doing many times over at the moment.

If I cared in any way whatsoever about liberal "democracy," and if I believed it was actual democracy- if you ask me, the real enemy of that system is Biden and the gang.

Fascism in America and the west has proven to come now, not merely with a flag and a bible- it's with two groups of competing fascists, both with flags, one holding the bible, and the other holding a much smaller rainbow flag (rainbow-washing, mere tokenism, mind) and espousing all sorts of faux-progressive platitudes. And if you ask me- my take on things is, one side has started its own take on the Reichstag fire and is now doing its best to stir the flames- and it's not the Trump side.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I very much agree with this. The real concern people who care about the current system in US should have is with the precedent being set here. It's very obviously a political prosecution and liberals being the smooth brains that they are keep cheering this on. What they don't seem to realize is that once the precedent is set, then this will be how politics are done going forward. They're forging the tools that the future fascist government will use to jail all its opposition.

These idiots have infantile understanding of how fascists take over a country. They think it's going to be a spectacle like Jan 6 where armed mobs overthrow the government. The reality is that fascists will simply take over the existing state machinery. All the police militarization, surveillance laws, and so on are what's actually setting up the stage for open fascism.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Justice@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I agree with many points in here or don't disagree enough to really respond.

However, I will say about the "insurrection" stuff: did Trump orchestrate it? Depends on what that means to you, I guess.

To me, a sitting president spent 2 months-ish crying because he lost, refused to just say that he lost, and then tweeted "everyone! I have evidence! Come to the Capitol Jan 6th! It'll be wild!" (Paraphrasing there obviously). And (further paraphrasing) had his henchmen and kid give speeches followed by himself which boiled down to "we're gonna go to the Capitol building...and convince them to not certify this election. wink wink"

So he purposely and clearly spent months after and years before the election laying the ground, prepping his base (and Republicans had done this for 40+ years waaaaaay prior to Trump. They've been whining about election stealing back to Kennedy, LBJ, etc. (some legitimate, some not. Also they did the same shit anyway).

Then he gave them a specific event which he manufactured basically and pretended it mattered beyond ceremony (the actual stuff on Jan 6 is literally just ceremony. All the locking-in has been done by that point. As Pence correctly has said, it didn't matter what he did/didnt do that day (from a purely legal outlook)).

And on the day he planned he gave a speech basically like "go MAKE them listen." Did he say directly "go kill Nancy!"? No. But did he need to? Does a mafia boss have to say directly "kill whoever" or can it be reasonably assumed at a certain point that they're saying certain things, doing certain things, etc. with a clear agenda towards encouraging an outcome?

I mean, look. I don't actually care about congress, the Capitol, their ceremonies, etc. We all know this is a farce and has been for quite some time... it isn't a democracy it's just a capitalist-controlled hellscape. But I'm also not gonna pretend Trump didn't sick his hordes of most brainbroken, most fanatic supporters on congress to harass them. Do I think he expected them to actually break in and accomplish anything (killing members, specifically)? No. But he knew what he was doing.

I think the event itself is overhyped, but, be definitely did that shit. What I find more concerning is the stuff like threatening officials in GA (a perfect phone call folks!). Again, liberal democracy blah blah blah, but if we're playing the game, and we all are because we are stuck in it, he definitely was going far beyond any acceptable practices there and his party leaders should've barred him from office. Can't have a shitty liberal democracy if one party is just clearly ignoring the law, telling a state official to "find votes," etc.

I know this will absolutely never happen, but every time I hear Trump speaking on legitimate problems, I'm like "GODDAMNIT man! Can he drop the Nazi bullshit and just do... good stuff? He wants us to like him. Just do good shit!" Obviously that's pure fantasy, but it's absolutely frustrating sometimes hearing him speak, how he can read a room, and then seeing him pivot directly into the same neoliberal bullshit as everyone else.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 15 points 8 months ago

that Trump tried to rig the election,

Let's be fair here, he did basically ask Republican governors to fuck with election results in their states

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 33 points 8 months ago

The funniest election so far joker-dancing

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hear me out, what if the US just doesn't have a president for a while. Give the role a break, give the country some time to recover. Nothing wrong with a break every once in a while.

[–] 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml 37 points 8 months ago

Hear me out, what if the US just doesn’t ~~have a president~~ for a while. Give the ~~role~~ world a break, give the country some time to ~~recover~~ not be. Nothing wrong with a break every once in a while.

[–] PanArab@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Do I dare to dream of the breakup of the US?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] context@hexbear.net 26 points 9 months ago (3 children)

my guess is the supreme court steps in to overrule colorado and any other state thinking about doing this

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I can definitely see that happening given that this opens a whole can of worms.

[–] context@hexbear.net 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

although they might also wait until after primary season just to see how it plays out a bit, first.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 9 months ago

gonna be interesting to watch

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] luchuan@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The ballots still have blanks even the digital ones. You can vote for yourself. Or Trump or whichever of the duopoly candidates was removed from the ballot in your state.

But it does hurt the perceived legitimacy of the election. I had thought the reason so many stop the steal legislators did a 180 after the capital riots was that owning the libs wasn't worth endangering bourgeois rule.

This is shortsighted of the duopoly to say the least.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you've nailed the problem on the head. If the election goes forward where some states allow one candidate and others allow the other, then whoever wins will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Whichever side loses will immediately claim that the election was unfair and that the results should be overturned. This gets US a step closer to the civil war scenario.

[–] KrasnaiaZvezda@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They're so used to doing these things in other countries that they will try it themselves?

Let me grab some popcorn.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 9 months ago

A color revolution finally coming home.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

From what I've seen- it looks like it's not merely a matter of removing him from the ballots, but ruling him as "ineligible" for presidency- votes for him will be disqualified (if this isn't shot down by the US supreme court) basically. People will be able to throw away their vote by writing him in, but even if the majority of the population did- he would still be "ineligible."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This sounds like the lead up to a civil war or secession crisis tbh. If half the country refuses to recognise the elected leader and elects their own, either the central government can try to crack down on this or just let it happen and do nothing. Either way it will increase the divides in the nation.

Though I think the most likely scenario is that they grumble a lot but ultimately nothing comes of it, neither side really presses the issue because it isn't really in either side's best interest and Trump gets elected. There's not really any profit to be had in succession, so I can't see it happening.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Civil War begins

Insulin and Jalapeño Popper supply chain is shut down

96% of republicans successionists instantly die.

Second American Civil War Length: 2 and a half days.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, any conflict between the two would need the army to split, and I don't know enough about how factionalised the US military is to know whether that's likely to happen.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

Very unlikely for the military to splinter, as unlike other countries like Yugoslavia for example, soldiers don’t have strong allegiances to rival internally nationalist ideals, or separate tribes, or major clashes between religion (India and Pakistan), and so on.

The allegiance of the US military is to the state and state alone. It’s the state that pays their pay checks and pension after all. You would get some defectors, but they would be a tiny tiny margin. The military is mostly homogeneous in its ideals as well, as even POC, indigenous, immigrant, LGBT, etc, soldiers are mostly highly conservative, and nationalistic, defecting to any succeeding army would be treason and unthinkable to a majority of them.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Given that the military is firmly on the right, I think it's quite plausible that they would largely support a republican dictatorship as long as it had a thin veil of legality to it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I don't know, the regular forces are as you describe but the various state national guard units seem like a real mixed bag. I could see some of them going along with their governor in a balkaniation-type scenario

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Literally what the Northerners thought in the first civil war too.

History doesn’t repeat, but it sure does rhyme.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 20 points 8 months ago

I sure hope not

[–] FALGSConaut@hexbear.net 18 points 8 months ago

Maybe my Year of Four Presidents prediction was off, we could also get a president/anti-president situation happening. Now where would america's Avignon be? Richmond? Mar-a-Lago?

[–] 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm the end the oligarchy will get some stooge in there. It might cause civil unrest but they will get them in there. It will also be someone the Republicans are ok with because they are the ones who not only have more of the guns but also the support of the police more or less. If they forced a democratic president on the people there would be more gunfire. If they force a Republican then the libs will just removed and moan about it.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 8 months ago

That definitely seems like the most likely scenario.

[–] Dr_Gabriel_Aby@hexbear.net 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I can’t wait to be scolded into voting on a single candidate ballot.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 8 months ago

If you don't vote for Biden, you're voting for T̸͈̟̥̟̽͂͋͗̓͠H̵̥͋͌̀̍̿̿̑͊̑̍̆͝Ē̵̡͕̥͍͓̠̺̲̲̥͖̬̍̿̀͆̄͊̀͒̓͛̚ ̴͍͔͈͎̝̘͕̜͓̰̯̟̍̀͆̔̉̃̕͜À̷͈̥͔̞̺̭͆̓̂̎B̶̡̩͍͇̫̱̠̼̖͇͉̃ͅY̴̬̗̘̜̩̜̥͕̜̖̋͆͆͒̒̾̚͠S̸̠̓̉̓̀͐̈̎̓̔S̸̥̪̳̯̔͋!

[–] ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 8 months ago

I don’t think the Republican states will be able to block Biden. I’m sure they’ll try and it won’t work and they’ll get mad. But then again they’re always mad. I personally don’t like the precedent; that being said, who on Earth thinks that if a leftist candidate ran, they wouldn’t just do this immediately, precedent or not? The fact that it’s being done justifies the action when it inevitably happens to the left(we did it to the right wing, we’re just being fair to protect the country, they’ll say) but I stress that it would happen regardless. Bourgeois liberalism will ditch whatever rules they have for their grand spectacle the minute they start to lose and they’ll grasp for their Fascist side to change rules and drop all semblance of fairness or democracy.

load more comments
view more: next ›