Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
New Breed Leader
New Breed Leader's Journal
New Breed Leader's Journal
April 28, 2024
Jim Crow 2.0 is coming and the beta testing is happening in Louisiana
https://twitter.com/colorfullstory/status/1784595399614890291
April 3, 2024
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/project-2025-trump-president-for-life?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=501423&post_id=143115582&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ru6f5&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Project 2025, the Republican plan to functionally annihilate not just the federal government but democracy as well if Trump wins in November, is an unceasing parade of horrors.
Banning the abortion pill nationwide? Check. Rolling back protections for LGBTQ people? Check. Deporting literally millions of undocumented immigrants? Check. But amid each objectively horrible aim is an even more more insidious one: abolishing the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. It’s an unvarnished, right-out-in-the-open plan to keep Trump in office well past 2028.
It’s not as if this is genuinely unexpected. By July 2019, Trump had “joked” at least six times about being president for life. Floating that as a possibility, as Peter Tonguette did last week over at The American Conservative, is a great opportunity to show fealty to a candidate who values loyalty over all else.
The American Conservative is a “partner” of Project 2025, along with such luminaries as Stephen Miller’s America First Legal law firm (currently suing everyone over the mildest of diversity efforts) and the Claremont Institute, which gave us Christopher Rufo and Moms for Liberty.
As Media Matters notes, the reasoning in Tonguette’s piece is dubious at best, but that doesn’t really matter. Project 2025 doesn’t rest on solid law, respect for democracy, or an understanding of history. It rests only on the notion that Trump should be allowed to exhibit raw, vicious, and unchecked power.
Tonguette’s piece doesn’t even bother with the pretense that getting rid of the 22nd Amendment would strengthen democracy overall. Instead, the piece is predicated on the utterly unfounded notion that when the amendment was passed, no one could have foreseen that a president would be elected to non-consecutive terms.
While Tonguette does mention Grover Cleveland, who every schoolchild learns did indeed serve two nonconsecutive terms, he seems to think that people were perhaps unaware of him when the 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951. Tonguette handwaves away the existence of Cleveland by simply writing, “In modern times, it is virtually inconceivable that any of the ousted one-term presidents would have seriously thought of running anew against the same opponent (now the occupant of the White House) who had bested them four years earlier.”
It’s also inconceivable that millions of Americans would line up for a candidate who incited an insurrection, is facing 91 criminal charges, was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, and was just recently rich-guy panhandling to pay his massive bond to appeal his civil fraud penalty in a different case, but here we are.
Embracing autocracy … for this guy?
Like many other projects of the modern Republican Party, a newfound loathing of the 22nd Amendment is wildly hypocritical.
Though there were multiple unsuccessful pushes for presidential term limits before the passage of the 22nd amendment, the GOP House majority prioritized the issue after Franklin Delano Roosevelt's death in 1945. No Republicans broke the party line during key congressional votes on the amendment, but they were helped along by southern Democrats who were mad that President Harry Truman continued FDR’s liberal economic policies.
Project 2025 reveals its goal: Trump as President for life
Project 2025 reveals its goal: Trump as president for lifehttps://www.publicnotice.co/p/project-2025-trump-president-for-life?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=501423&post_id=143115582&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ru6f5&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Project 2025, the Republican plan to functionally annihilate not just the federal government but democracy as well if Trump wins in November, is an unceasing parade of horrors.
Banning the abortion pill nationwide? Check. Rolling back protections for LGBTQ people? Check. Deporting literally millions of undocumented immigrants? Check. But amid each objectively horrible aim is an even more more insidious one: abolishing the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. It’s an unvarnished, right-out-in-the-open plan to keep Trump in office well past 2028.
It’s not as if this is genuinely unexpected. By July 2019, Trump had “joked” at least six times about being president for life. Floating that as a possibility, as Peter Tonguette did last week over at The American Conservative, is a great opportunity to show fealty to a candidate who values loyalty over all else.
The American Conservative is a “partner” of Project 2025, along with such luminaries as Stephen Miller’s America First Legal law firm (currently suing everyone over the mildest of diversity efforts) and the Claremont Institute, which gave us Christopher Rufo and Moms for Liberty.
As Media Matters notes, the reasoning in Tonguette’s piece is dubious at best, but that doesn’t really matter. Project 2025 doesn’t rest on solid law, respect for democracy, or an understanding of history. It rests only on the notion that Trump should be allowed to exhibit raw, vicious, and unchecked power.
Tonguette’s piece doesn’t even bother with the pretense that getting rid of the 22nd Amendment would strengthen democracy overall. Instead, the piece is predicated on the utterly unfounded notion that when the amendment was passed, no one could have foreseen that a president would be elected to non-consecutive terms.
While Tonguette does mention Grover Cleveland, who every schoolchild learns did indeed serve two nonconsecutive terms, he seems to think that people were perhaps unaware of him when the 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951. Tonguette handwaves away the existence of Cleveland by simply writing, “In modern times, it is virtually inconceivable that any of the ousted one-term presidents would have seriously thought of running anew against the same opponent (now the occupant of the White House) who had bested them four years earlier.”
It’s also inconceivable that millions of Americans would line up for a candidate who incited an insurrection, is facing 91 criminal charges, was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, and was just recently rich-guy panhandling to pay his massive bond to appeal his civil fraud penalty in a different case, but here we are.
Embracing autocracy … for this guy?
Like many other projects of the modern Republican Party, a newfound loathing of the 22nd Amendment is wildly hypocritical.
Though there were multiple unsuccessful pushes for presidential term limits before the passage of the 22nd amendment, the GOP House majority prioritized the issue after Franklin Delano Roosevelt's death in 1945. No Republicans broke the party line during key congressional votes on the amendment, but they were helped along by southern Democrats who were mad that President Harry Truman continued FDR’s liberal economic policies.
March 25, 2024
Trump doesn't fear prison; he fears being poor
Read the whole thing:
https://establishmentbar.blogspot.com/2024/03/a-bad-day-for-trump-great-day-for.html
A Bad Day for Trump, a Good Day for America by Trevor LaFauci
Seeing Trump unable to put up the $550 million to the bond company this past week has shown everyone, including his most die-hard supporters, that Donald Trump is not the multi-billionaire he has claimed to be. For decades, he overvalued his assets. His team of lawyers pulled out every trick in the book to do so. Like so many in his income bracket, he tweaked the numbers so that he wouldn't have to pay taxes. To him, that was "smart"; for the rest of us playing by the rules, that was cheating and manipulating the system. Trump's overarching business model has been to screw over his small contractors and tie them up in court so they would have to accept far less payment than initially agreed upon. When Trump himself got into trouble for his lewd and salacious behavior, he turned to threats, intimidation, and ultimately paying for the silence of those he had wronged such as Stormy Daniels. Money for Donald Trump was both an end goal and a tool that could be wielded to get what he wanted. He saw his perceived wealth as the key to living the type of life he always wanted to live.
March 20, 2024
GOD DAMMIT: Fulton County Judge allows Trump to appeal his decision to keep Fani Willis
https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1770461565776495017
March 14, 2024
Democrats prepare to go to war against 3rd party candidates
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1768228931767808497“We’re facing an unprecedented election and we know the GOP is already working to prop up third-party candidates like Robert Kennedy Jr. to make them stalking horses for Donald Trump,” Corridoni told NBC News. “With so much on the line, we’re not taking anything for granted. We’re going to make sure voters are educated and we’re going to make sure all candidates are playing by the rules.”
The move comes as a coalition of outside groups — which includes Democratic and anti-Trump Republican organizations — stockpile money and work to stymie third parties.
The move comes as a coalition of outside groups — which includes Democratic and anti-Trump Republican organizations — stockpile money and work to stymie third parties.
March 11, 2024
SCROTUS may kneecap a key law used to prosecute insurrectionists
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/will-scotus-kneecap-law-prosecute-insurrectionists-fischer-v-united-states/Perhaps because the government’s ability to charge criminal defendants under this provision is such an important part of its efforts to seek accountability for the January 6th attack on the Capitol, several defendants have argued that the statute does not, and cannot, encompass the activities they are accused of engaging in. In April 2024, in a decision that will have consequences for Donald Trump’s federal indictment related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments and decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) can be applied to January 6th defendants. A decision is expected by the end of June. Depending on how the Supreme Court interprets the statute, the convictions of hundreds of January 6th defendants could be invalidated, causing a huge step backwards for accountability.
Who brought the case?
The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a police officer from Pennsylvania who was charged with, among other things, assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the U.S. Capitol, and obstruction of an official proceeding for his actions on January 6, 2021. During the attack on the Capitol, Fischer allegedly had a “physical encounter” with at least one police officer, and during the attack encouraged members of the mob to “hold the line” and “charge.”
Who brought the case?
The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a police officer from Pennsylvania who was charged with, among other things, assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the U.S. Capitol, and obstruction of an official proceeding for his actions on January 6, 2021. During the attack on the Capitol, Fischer allegedly had a “physical encounter” with at least one police officer, and during the attack encouraged members of the mob to “hold the line” and “charge.”
March 9, 2024
Trump mocks President Biden's stutter
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1766600821658075276
March 4, 2024
"This was in no way a win for Trump"
https://twitter.com/NoahBookbinder/status/1764677614646521882"While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump. The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so. Every court–or decision-making body–that has substantively examined the issue has determined that January 6th was an insurrection and that Donald Trump incited it. That remains true today. The Supreme Court removed an enforcement mechanism, and in letting Trump back on the ballot, they failed to meet the moment. But it is now clear that Trump led the January 6th insurrection, and it will be up to the American people to ensure accountability.”
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jul 27, 2019, 03:23 PMNumber of posts: 625
