A Deeply Fractured US

[Fishbone Jones]

Koch-Backed Super PAC Endorses Nikki Haley For President

Koch-Backed Super PAC Endorses Nikki Haley For President

The endorsement represents a big win for Haley — and another blow to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' presidential aspirations.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

Semantics.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Well, isn't the Constitution a physical document that sits in a pretty secure federal building?

 

[brihard]

Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution"

The former president's lawyers argue why he cannot be barred from running for office for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment.

www.newsweek.com

Right there that should be a massive red flag for anyone.

He is either certifiably no longer fit to do anything, or a raving lunatic, and most likely both.

Semantics.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So, I actually read portions of the Colorado decision (because of course I did, because I’m a loser)- not the procedural history that accompanies a decision like that, but the two meaty bits about insurrection, and applying the 14th.

The Colorado court did hold that Donald Trump “engaged in insurrection”. In deciding this they looked at, and dissected in detail, what “engaged in” meant, with considerable reliance on case law and statute contemporaneous with the drafting of the 14th amendment. That is to say, the court went to lengths to make sure that they understood “engage in” the same way the authors of the amendment did. Similarly for what would actually constitute “insurrection”. They didn’t find it to be a low bar, but not a particularly high one either. You don’t have to have picked up a rifle and started taking shots at the army or government officials as part of an armed uprising. It was interesting to read how they interpreted it- basically they found that he had an active and sustained role in inciting it.

The court also held, however, based on some very particular readings of different law, that the office of President of the United States is somehow not an “officer of the United States” for the specific purpose of the 14th amendment. I don’t recall the specifics of their reasoning; it was quite particular. The 14th disqualifies a candidate for president who, while an officer of the United States, was found to have engaged in insurrection. So because they found him not to have been such an officer, no such disqualification follows.

The court also ruled, if memory serves, that the 14th applies to the actual electoral ballot, but gives them no ability to rule on running in state party primaries. Conceivably this could mean a candidate could win a state primary, but be found ineligible under the 14th amendment to actually be on the ballot in that state come election day. That would be ugly.

The court did something else a bit unusual, besides finding that a former president, after losing an election, engaged in insurrection. Usually a court will rule on enough points to determine a legal question, but won’t rule beyond the points needed to strike the matter if it’s a ‘no’. In this case the court, recognizing the magnitude of the matter, the urgency, and the inevitability of appeal from both sides, ruled on all the major questions of law and fact put to it, so that there’s no further burning of time bouncing back and forth between lower and appeal courts as different things are decided. They’ve essentially handed the appeals court a complete package to rule on and washed the lower court’s hands of it. This is commendable on their part- it lets the judicial system tackle this rather momentous issue expeditiously.

There’s 14th amendment litigation underway in a number of other states. I don’t have a finger on the pulse of that, or how the Colorado decision may influence them. I would expect some rather furious litigating over the course of the winter.

 

[Kirkhill]

From the guys that brought you The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002.

A new tune.

Ruy Teixeira: .... In 2016, with Trump’s victory built on the backs of white working-class voters in the Midwest especially, it was very clear that the Democrats were not able to maintain the kind of share of the white working-class vote they needed to make the political arithmetic of a changing America work out in their favor. But as we saw after 2016, Democrats summarized their loss as being about the reactionary parts of America—the racist, the xenophobes, the left-behinds—and it didn’t seem to have much to do, in their view, with questions of economics. It was all about how they’re not “down” with the multicultural, multiracial America that’s coming into being, and that’s all there is to it. So, they thought, why even bother with these people? They’re “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton famously put it.

JJ: I used to always hear Democrats saying, “The election was all just Trump’s racist appeals,” but I actually went to the rallies in 2015. He would talk about bad trade deals. He promised to bring back Glass-Steagall, which is the bill regulating finance. He talked about health insurance. He was going to do a plan that actually would cover all Americans and wasn’t going to be like a rat’s maze. And if you compare the ads, his ads were overwhelmingly more policy-oriented than Clinton’s. She was really just attacking him as a bad guy and it didn’t work.

MM: So, you didn’t anticipate that the party that said, “We are the party of Paul Ryan, we’re the party of tax cuts, we’re the party of Milton Friedman,” would actually start to sound more liberal on economic policy?

RT: Yeah, and that’s another way in which Trump was misunderstood. He got the nomination because the Republican Party itself was changing and was becoming more of a working-class party driven by these kinds of voters. They didn’t want to hear the Paul Ryan message over and over again. They didn’t want to hear just about tax cuts. They didn’t want to just hear, “We unleash the free market, everything will be great. Trust us on this.” They were mad, and they thought the elites of the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party were selling them out. So Trump’s message fell on receptive ears, and that shock to the Republican Party system is still with us today, because I don’t think there’s any turning back to the former economic approach of the Republicans. Trump is the guy who changed the landscape. This gets away from looking at him as just an avatar of white supremacy or whatever it is he is frequently portrayed as by some Democrats.

Where Have All the Democrats Gone?

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira explain how liberals lost their way.

www.thefp.com

What a lot of people forget is that Trump gained Bernie voters when the Democrats dumped all over him.

The battle ground candidates weren't Bush-Clinton. They were Trump-Sanders.

 

[KevinB]

From the guys that brought you The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002.

A new tune.

Where Have All the Democrats Gone?

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira explain how liberals lost their way.

www.thefp.com

What a lot of people forget is that Trump gained Bernie voters when the Democrats dumped all over him.

The battle ground candidates weren't Bush-Clinton. They were Trump-Sanders.

But Trump then, isn’t the Trump of now.

A lot of folks like me, who while we preferred other candidates to Trump, got behind Trump once he won the Republican nomination. These days I don’t see the same things happening.

Trump has no policy other than vengeance. Just like the Anyone but Hillary vote won for Trump in 2016, the Anyone but Trump carried in 2020, and it’s getting larger for 2024.

Plus with any luck he’s off the ballot by then anyway.

 

[FJAG]

But Trump then, isn’t the Trump of now.

A lot of folks like me, who while we preferred other candidates to Trump, got behind Trump once he won the Republican nomination. These days I don’t see the same things happening.

Trump has no policy other than vengeance. Just like the Anyone but Hillary vote won for Trump in 2016, the Anyone but Trump carried in 2020, and it’s getting larger for 2024.

Plus with any luck he’s off the ballot by then anyway.

 

[Kirkhill]

But Trump then, isn’t the Trump of now.

A lot of folks like me, who while we preferred other candidates to Trump, got behind Trump once he won the Republican nomination. These days I don’t see the same things happening.

Trump has no policy other than vengeance. Just like the Anyone but Hillary vote won for Trump in 2016, the Anyone but Trump carried in 2020, and it’s getting larger for 2024.

Plus with any luck he’s off the ballot by then anyway.

And thereby proving the point of the other half of the country....

 

[mariomike]

Anyone but Trump carried in 2020, and it’s getting larger for 2024.

Have to wait and see.

2020 United States presidential election

Democratic 81,823,501

Republican 74,223,975

 

[Kirkhill]

In the 1971 Census - the first taken since the start of the Troubles in 1969 - the Catholic population had fallen slightly to 31.4 per cent.

In the 1926 Census - the first since the partition of Ireland in 1921 - the population in the north stood at 1.2m compared with more than 1.9m today.

Protestant churches and ‘other denominations' made up at 66.3 per cent of the population while Catholics accounted for 33.5 per cent.

Northern Irelands troubles started with only 1/3 of the population considering their government illegitimate.

You are far better off to keep both teams on the field and playing by the rules.

Catholic population has risen steadily

THE growth of the Catholic population in the north has continued steadily since the first Northern Ireland census in 1926 - dipping only during the early years of the Troubles.

www.irishnews.com

 

[Blackadder1916]

Northern Irelands troubles started with only 1/3 of the population considering their government illegitimate.

You are far better off to keep both teams on the field and playing by the rules.

Catholic population has risen steadily

THE growth of the Catholic population in the north has continued steadily since the first Northern Ireland census in 1926 - dipping only during the early years of the Troubles.

www.irishnews.com

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. Or the interpretation of data (answers to census questions). Such as the census questions for religion. In 1971, the Northern Ireland government required only one response - write in what church you belonged to. There was no assumption that one would profess "no religious affiliation", though I suppose one might write in that sentiment in the applicable box. While there were penalties for not answering the questions fully, the instructions did state "There is no penalty for refusing to state religious profession". I can imagine there might be the odd 1970s era Catholic who may have thought twice before providing name, address and religion (and whether they had one or more vehicles and where they kept them) to a Protestant majority government entity.

https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/1971-census-questionnaire.PDF

Forward 50 years to 2021 and the census question has progressed so that it is not only religionists being counted but the non-believing offspring being numbered as well.

https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/2021-census-individual-questionnaire.pdf

And "national identity" being added to the mix.

 

[brihard]

Minor update on the Trump criminal prosecutions: Judge Churkan in DC has rejected his motion asserting presidential immunity from prosecution in the DC January 6th case. Essentially she ruled that, once he’s out of office, he can be criminally prosecuted for alleged offences committed while he was in office. This is one of the few motions that could be appealed before trial, so she’s dispensed with it promptly so that appellate courts can weight in. This is important in getting the case to trial.

Judge rejects Trump immunity claim in 2020 election case

Because Donald Trump is the first current or former president to face criminal charges, Tanya Chutkan's ruling is the first by a U.S. court affirming that presidents can be charged with crimes like any other citizen.

www.reuters.com

 

[Kirkhill]

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. Or the interpretation of data (answers to census questions). Such as the census questions for religion. In 1971, the Northern Ireland government required only one response - write in what church you belonged to. There was no assumption that one would profess "no religious affiliation", though I suppose one might write in that sentiment in the applicable box. While there were penalties for not answering the questions fully, the instructions did state "There is no penalty for refusing to state religious profession". I can imagine there might be the odd 1970s era Catholic who may have thought twice before providing name, address and religion (and whether they had one or more vehicles and where they kept them) to a Protestant majority government entity.

https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/1971-census-questionnaire.PDF

View attachment 81571

Forward 50 years to 2021 and the census question has progressed so that it is not only religionists being counted but the non-believing offspring being numbered as well.

https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/2021-census-individual-questionnaire.pdf

View attachment 81572 And "national identity" being added to the mix. View attachment 81574

From the same article

In the 1971 Census - the first taken since the start of the Troubles in 1969 - the Catholic population had fallen slightly to 31.4 per cent.

Those identifying as Protestant also fell to 59.2 per cent while those who did not state their religious background rose sharply to142,511 - accounting for 9.4 per cent of the population.

By 1981, those identifying as Catholic was at its lowest with 28 per cent.

People identifying as Protestant stood at 53.4 per cent while those who did not state their religion rose significantly to 18.5 per cent.

In 1991, the census data showed a Catholic population of 38.4 per cent with 50.7 per cent identifying as Protestant.

By 2001 the Catholic population accounted for 43.8 per cent while 53.1 per cent identified as Protestant.

A decade later 45 per cent of the population identified as Catholic while those from the Protestant tradition fell to 48 per cent.

Regardless of the numbers and trends the original point was that it doesn't take much of a disgruntled minority to create an unsettled environment in which violence is seen to be acceptable to some.

In Northern Ireland the minority was 31 % of the population.

In the US will the minority be 49% of the population?

And I don't think it matters whether the Provos are likely to Democrats or Republicans. Anti-Fa or Militia.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Who let those damn Irish in here. Fenian bastards.

 

[Kirkhill]

Who let those damn Irish in here. Fenian bastards.

One of the earliest American-born organizations was the Fenian Brotherhood, founded in 1858 by Irish immigrants John O’Mahony and Michael Doheny. Thousands of Fenians, as members were called, participated in the U.S. Civil War, largely with the Union Army.

Celebrating Irish Americans: The Fenian Brotherhood

March is Irish American Heritage Month, and we’re taking a look at one of the more curious incidents in Irish American history: when Irish Americans attacked Canada! Today’s post comes from R…

prologue.blogs.archives.gov

They're a natural fit.

 

[KevinB]

@brihard covered part of this already but.

What a day for the rule of law!

I read Judge Chutkan's rejection of Trump's claim of presidential immunity so you don't have to

open.substack.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

@brihard covered part of this already but.

What a day for the rule of law!

I read Judge Chutkan's rejection of Trump's claim of presidential immunity so you don't have to

open.substack.com

"Trump claimed he was acting in his official capacity as president when he gave his fire breathing call to arms on the Ellipse.

He was still POTUS and gave a speech as such. I really can't see how they arrive and any other conclusion.

Yeah that's not a heavily biased article at all, Kev. Perhaps we should post some Alex Jones as a counterweight.

IMO, it's all theater. None of these trials mean anything until the appeals are exhausted. Judges decisions just move things around on the calendar. While their judgements and opinions hold true at the lower level, their status and opinion diminish with every appeal and jump higher in the judicial system. Besides, we know that the majority of the officials, judicial and AG and Special Counsel are supported by Soros and hard democrat appointed by a suspect Dept of Justice.

We'll see when it all comes out in the wash. Keep him off the ballot, especially if he wins the nomination? I'm sure the SCOTUS might have an opinion on that. The sad part is that, no matter the rule of law, states like Colorado keep spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars trying to delay the inevitable. Smarter states recieved the resolution, studied on it and ruled. No more wasting time and money. We can discuss the black balling of Kari Lake v Colorado at another juncture.

Every spike belt on the road they throw out there, Trump goes higher in the polls. Will it last? Who knows. Biden is a death knell to 2024 and democrats. Obama will not get his 4th term. The vultures like Newsom are already circling. I'm finished trying to suss things out until both primaries
are done and we know what players are still on the board.

 

[brihard]

IMO, it's all theater. None of these trials mean anything until the appeals are exhausted.

I won’t indulge the rest of it, but this, of course is utter nonsense, borne out of your desperate partisan leaning on the subject of Donald Trump, and a seemingly compulsive need to defend him.

The result of a criminal trial - any criminal trial - is a valid and meaningful legal outcome in and of itself. While the possibility of some sort of reversal on appeal of course does exist, that in no way invalidates the decision at trial level until such a time as that appeal is actually decided in such a way that reverses conviction. There are plenty of appeals working their way through appellate courts in the United States, where the appellant is a convicted felon, in prison, with a criminal record. Most of those appeals, of course, will fail. The felonious character of those convicts is not on some sort of hiatus until appeals are exhausted. Convictions are not merely tentative pending appeal.

What you mean is that you personally give no credence to any hypothetical criminal conviction of Trump until and unless - you say now - appeals are exhausted. Should we get to that point, I suspect you’ll find some reason to move the goal posts again and to not accept the result, which if it comes to it will be kind of ironic. But that’s your own concept of ‘theatre’ and ‘meaning’. It doesn’t reflect the reality of criminal prosecution.

 

[dimsum]

Dozens of Troops Suspected of Advocating Overthrow of US Government, New Pentagon Extremism Report Says

The report released by the Defense Department inspector general revealed that in fiscal 2023 there were 183 allegations of extremism across all the branches of military.

news.yahoo.com

 

[brihard]

Dozens of Troops Suspected of Advocating Overthrow of US Government, New Pentagon Extremism Report Says

The report released by the Defense Department inspector general revealed that in fiscal 2023 there were 183 allegations of extremism across all the branches of military.

news.yahoo.com

With the size of their military, that doesn’t surprise me. We aren’t immune either; we’ve had our own.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I won’t indulge the rest of it, but this, of course is utter nonsense, borne out of your desperate partisan leaning on the subject of Donald Trump, and a seemingly compulsive need to defend him.

Wow. Good fucking morning to you too. BTW, there is zero desperation on my part. It takes a lot more than you and the US election to get me excited these days.

I also love how you and most others give Biden and his administration a complete total pass here.

Oh, wait. This isn't a Deeply Fractured US, otherwise we'd be looking at the spectrum. It's the Get Trump thread. You should really get the mods to change the title.