Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[draynay]

Is that why occasionally it stops to complain how Tulsi Gabbard is the newest Russian sleeper agent?

Is she no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for president?

[Dextroden]

Is she no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for president?

Does accusing people you don't like of being Russian spies have anything to do with the primary?

Can we go back to talking about Warren's nationality since she's in the primary?

[Orbitus]

Is she no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for president?

Doesn't look like it, considering how much time she has spent on Fox News.

[Muzjhath]

Okay but let's not pretend that if Trump shot someone on fifth avenue in front of God and everybody that we, as a society, would just shrug our shoulders and say, "There's just nothing we can do." It wouldn't go down like that and everybody knows it. Fortunately for Trump, everything he's alleged to have done is mired in political machinations or otherwise of dubious standing.

You, Sulla, and Thwart would still support him. You've made that clear over the past three years by deflecting every emolument clause break.
The fact that you "conservatives" haven't been leading the charge since the Comey removal to get Pence as POTUS frankly just blows my mind. Pence and Moscow Mitch would have gotten the conservative agenda far better through the Senate than Trump is doing.
... Without starting a trade war.

[Elegiac]

So, Gabbard just announced she isn't going to run for reelection in her district.

announced early Friday that she will not seek reelection to Congress, declaring that she was “fully committed to my offer to serve” as president.

“I'm so grateful to the people of Hawaiʻi for allowing me to serve you in Congress for the last 7 years. Throughout my life, I’ve always made my decisions based on where I felt I could do the most good,” Gabbard wrote in a series of tweets posted at midnight, which included a video message and a link to a lengthy statement.

“In light of the challenges we face, I believe I can … best serve the people of Hawaiʻi & our country as President and Commander-in-Chief,” she continued.

Gabbard, who has represented Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District since 2013, handily defeated her Republican opponent in last year’s midterm elections by a margin of more than 50 percent.

But her path to winning a fifth term in 2020 was complicated by a formidable primary challenge from state Sen. Kai Kahele, as well as her thorny relationships with other Aloha State politicians.

A trio of former Hawaii governors have backed Kahele’s bid to unseat Gabbard, and she ignited a feud with Sen. Mazie Hirono after authoring an op-ed in January accusing Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of “religious bigotry” in their questioning of a nominee for a district judgeship.

Hirono, a member of that panel who previously held Gabbard’s House seat, criticized the congresswoman and called her assertions “totally unfounded” during an interview in March.

Gabbard’s decision is also likely to stoke speculation that she is considering mounting a third-party presidential campaign, especially amid her high-profile clash over the past week with 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Important bit in bold. It might not actually be the case - her challenger is currently polling quite well, so she might just see the writing on the wall - but as said it does free up 2020 for a potential third party run, and she's giving off big Jill Stein energy right now.

[Skroe]

Tulsi Gabard NOT running for re-election to the House next year.

Real reason: Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele was going to primary her and win.

Thus ends that era.

- - - Updated - - -

So, Gabbard just announced she isn't going to run for reelection in her district.

Important bit in bold. It might not actually be the case - her challenger is currently polling quite well, so she might just see the writing on the wall - but as said it does free up 2020 for a potential third party run, and she's giving off big Jill Stein energy right now.

Oh she absolutely will, because she's absolutely the spoiler candidate.

It's been clear what her game is since she announced her candidacy.

[Dextroden]

Tulsi Gabard NOT running for re-election to the House next year.

Real reason: Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele was going to primary her and win.

Thus ends that era.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh she absolutely will, because she's absolutely the spoiler candidate.

It's been clear what her game is since she announced her candidacy.

I don't blame her. Would you have respect for your political party if they tried to bounce you on their stupid Russian conspiracy theory based on sour grapes?

[Orbitus]

I don't blame her. Would you have respect for your political party if they tried to bounce you on their stupid Russian conspiracy theory based on sour grapes?

She never had a chance to win, and she is basically being pushed by moronic Trump supporters, or Russian bots. It is really easy to see why she is backed by Russians.

[Dextroden]

She never had a chance to win, and she is basically being pushed by moronic Trump supporters, or Russian bots. It is really easy to see why she is backed by Russians.

It's one thing to be let down by your party. It's another for them to treat you like the enemy because they still need to cry about Russians.

I guess everyone except Biden is working for the Russians now.

[Spectral]

FBI. Give them immunity via the replacement President. And I think the authority of the US government is enough to overthrow an illigetimate president.

This really just sounds like a coup. Empowering a law enforcement agency the power to install unelected leaders is pretty much a canonical example of a coup.

[Dextroden]

This really just sounds like a coup. Empowering a law enforcement agency the power to install unelected leaders is pretty much a canonical example of a coup.

It is. You think people would support a coup against the man regularly compared to Hitler and is called a white supremacist and a fascist.

But I guess removing the new Hitler isn't something we need to do now.

[Spectral]

Tulsi Gabard NOT running for re-election to the House next year.

Real reason: Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele was going to primary her and win.

Of little importance, but damn if Hawaii isn't turning out some good looking people for its leadership:

[pionock]

It is. You think people would support a coup against the man regularly compared to Hitler and is called a white supremacist and a fascist.

But I guess removing the new Hitler isn't something we need to do now.

If I was a cynical journalist, I'd sure like another 4 years of easy trashbait articles talking about how everything is the president's/white people/men's fault. It helps to pay the rent with their 4 other roommates living in a one bedroom flat.

If I was a cynical politician, it'd sure be nice to stay in spotlight talking about how much we super-serial don't like the president.

But thank goodness I'm not one of those cynical actors, because that sure sounds unhealthy.

[downnola]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1187544241427214336

Video of Tulsi on Hannity railing against the impeachment process.

"B-b-bUt wHY dOeS tHe lEFt dISLIke TulSi?"

[Dontrike]

Okay but let's not pretend that if Trump shot someone on fifth avenue in front of God and everybody that we, as a society, would just shrug our shoulders and say, "There's just nothing we can do."

That's literally what you do to all the shit he does now and you expect us to believe you wouldn't continue to do so if that was the case? Sure, children keep dying in his concentration camps, but you sit there and go.......BIRD~!

- - - Updated - - -

I don't blame her. Would you have respect for your political party if they tried to bounce you on their stupid Russian conspiracy theory based on sour grapes?

Ah yes, the good ol' "they sabotaged the person in dead last" dumbass excuse.

- - - Updated - - -

It's one thing to be let down by your party. It's another for them to treat you like the enemy because they still need to cry about Russians.

Isn't this what Republicans do by calling others RINOs? Oh wait Trump did this multiple times and many did that to McCain on here.

[Dextroden]

That's literally what you do to all the shit he does now and you expect us to believe you wouldn't continue to do so if that was the case? Sure, children keep dying in his concentration camps, but you sit there and go.......BIRD~!

- - - Updated - - -



Ah yes, the good ol' "they sabotaged the person in dead last" dumbass excuse.

- - - Updated - - -



Isn't this what Republicans do by calling others RINOs? Oh wait Trump did this multiple times and many did that to McCain on here.

Ah yes. The "People I don't like are Russian spies" thought process.
Edit: Complaining about the stupid phrase RINO while doing purity tests. Your Democrats, ladies and gentlemen.

[Skroe]

This really just sounds like a coup. Empowering a law enforcement agency the power to install unelected leaders is pretty much a canonical example of a coup.

Agreed. No country that I'm aware has it so that a law enforcement agency or the military can unilaterally arrest a President or its analog.

But there are procedures around this. In this, America's constitution is woefully lacking.

For example - and I'm doing this from memory so I apologize for any imprecision - I believe both South Korea and Brazil have it so that when the President is about to be formally indicted by investigators, the supreme judiciary body (Supreme Court analog) confirms the indictment and then a process happens (might be a upper chamber vote) and the Vice President becomes a caretaker President - all the powers of the Presidency get temporarily transferred to him or her - and the elected President has their powers suspended for the duration of the trial. If found not guilty, they regain their powers. If convicted, they must be removed from office by a vote by the elected body.

It's something like that. I got some of the details wrong.

But in short, there is a process with its own legal checks to prevent abuse of turning the Vice President into the acting President while the elected President is undergoing their trial, and the outcome of that trial determines if the President can continue to be President or is removed.

I think something like that would be in our country's interest to add via the constitution and would make for a clearer role for the Vice President. This notion that the President can't be charged is Constitutionally accurate it seems but is an affront to the very concept of the rule of law and no man being above it. There should be a mechanism whereby even the President can be held criminally liable, and a process whereby the VP assumes his powers until guilt or lack-thereof is determined seems to be a practical option. After all, the VP is every bit the expression of the people's democratic will too. We elect a back up President. Might as well use it.

[Spectral]

Agreed. No country that I'm aware has it so that a law enforcement agency or the military can unilaterally arrest a President or its analog.

But there are procedures around this. In this, America's constitution is woefully lacking.

For example - and I'm doing this from memory so I apologize for any imprecision - I believe both South Korea and Brazil have it so that when the President is about to be formally indicted by investigators, the supreme judiciary body (Supreme Court analog) confirms the indictment and then a process happens (might be a upper chamber vote) and the Vice President becomes a caretaker President - all the powers of the Presidency get temporarily transferred to him or her - and the elected President has their powers suspended for the duration of the trial. If found not guilty, they regain their powers. If convicted, they must be removed from office by a vote by the elected body.

It's something like that. I got some of the details wrong.

But in short, there is a process with its own legal checks to prevent abuse of turning the Vice President into the acting President while the elected President is undergoing their trial, and the outcome of that trial determines if the President can continue to be President or is removed.

I think something like that would be in our country's interest to add via the constitution and would make for a clearer role for the Vice President. This notion that the President can't be charged is Constitutionally accurate it seems but is an affront to the very concept of the rule of law and no man being above it. There should be a mechanism whereby even the President can be held criminally liable, and a process whereby the VP assumes his powers until guilt or lack-thereof is determined seems to be a practical option. After all, the VP is every bit the expression of the people's democratic will too. We elect a back up President. Might as well use it.

The actual Constitutional procedure seems pretty straightforward to me. Much like the amendment process, people tend to kvetch about that process and try to do end runs around it because it's difficult to get the sorts of changes that people want. The explanation of the Senate's powers are hardly unclear:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

If there was actually broad agreement about a President's criminal activities, what's proscribed is entirely clear and straightforward - House impeaches, Senate holds a trial, President can be prosecuted once removed from office. The extent to which this seems nearly impossible is a consequence of actual disagreement rather than an issue with how the powers are allocated.

With regard to the Vice President, it seems like the main problem is that it became vestigial after FDR set the precedent for choosing VPs. After that, they've been more like a Game of Thrones Hand of the King.

[Skroe]

The actual Constitutional procedure seems pretty straightforward to me. Much like the amendment process, people tend to kvetch about that process and try to do end runs around it because it's difficult to get the sorts of changes that people want. The explanation of the Senate's powers are hardly unclear:

If there was actually broad agreement about a President's criminal activities, what's proscribed is entirely clear and straightforward - House impeaches, Senate holds a trial, President can be prosecuted once removed from office. The extent to which this seems nearly impossible is a consequence of actual disagreement rather than an issue with how the powers are allocated.

With regard to the Vice President, it seems like the main problem is that it became vestigial after FDR set the precedent for choosing VPs. After that, they've been more like a Game of Thrones Hand of the King.

I wish it were that straightforward, but the core problem is that for whatever reason, we treat removing the President - a position whose power as grown to be a de facto Emperor - as if it is some sort of epochal defining matter. It shouldn't be. It's patently ridiculous that after nearly 230 years, we haven't removed a President once for being that bad. It only nearly happened once, and probably would have happened once had Nixon not resigned.

It shouldn't be routine, but it shouldn't be scary or intimidating. He's "just" the President. We elect a back up. And every 4 years we have an election for a new President and a new back up.

There is a lot of reasons why we're here. One of them in the modern context is certainly the bullshit that is "unitary executive" theory, so removing the President is, under that theory, akin to killing off the entire executive branch, rather than just firing the top manager of it. Another is that Congress and the Senate have given so much additional powers to the Presidency over the past 70 years that the onus for governing has shifted out of their hands, and into a single person's.

It's really perverse.

Regardless of how and when this dark era of Trump ends, the key thing we must do to advance liberty in this country is cut the Presidency way, way, way down to size and reinvest power in the legislature, which is the supposed to be the first branch of government.

[Spectral]

I wish it were that straightforward, but the core problem is that for whatever reason, we treat removing the President - a position whose power as grown to be a de facto Emperor - as if it is some sort of epochal defining matter. It shouldn't be. It's patently ridiculous that after nearly 230 years, we haven't removed a President once for being that bad. It only nearly happened once, and probably would have happened once had Nixon not resigned.

It shouldn't be routine, but it shouldn't be scary or intimidating. He's "just" the President. We elect a back up. And every 4 years we have an election for a new President and a new back up.

There is a lot of reasons why we're here. One of them in the modern context is certainly the bullshit that is "unitary executive" theory, so removing the President is, under that theory, akin to killing off the entire executive branch, rather than just firing the top manager of it. Another is that Congress and the Senate have given so much additional powers to the Presidency over the past 70 years that the onus for governing has shifted out of their hands, and into a single person's.

It's really perverse.

Regardless of how and when this dark era of Trump ends, the key thing we must do to advance liberty in this country is cut the Presidency way, way, way down to size and reinvest power in the legislature, which is the supposed to be the first branch of government.

This is why I referenced Amendments as well - they're actually quite straightforward textually and we used to do Amendments pretty regularly. The explicitly defined procedure is consistent with an impression that the intention was to continually amend (or reconvene for a new Constitutional Convention) rather than treating everything that's there as sacred and untouchable. Because it's proven difficult to get the sorts of Amendments that would codify things that people wish were in the Constitution, people just kind of pretend those things are there (or aren't there, depending on the item).

Of course, this comes from cultural norms rather than anything textual, but I find it incredibly irritating. Maybe I'm just being autistic about the whole thing, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if there are clearly codified procedures and you can't get what you want using those procedures, you're just shit out of luck, you can't just make up new ones on the fly.

I'm in complete agreement about trimming executive power. A big part of that would be returning the federal government to some historically normal amount of power - this would diminish the value of power grabs. I certainly don't expect that to happen without some disastrous fracturing of the union.