Comments

1

Several historians have compared this debacle to the election of 1860.

Sure’s a good thing that America had an uneventful, boring decade after that one.

Wherever this cruel, insane KKKountry goes from here, it’s not gonna be good.

/seen online/

“Thanks to the GOP, Murdoch and Fox, 48% of the country is pro treason.
Pro sexual assault.
Pro racism.
Pro fear.
Pro Russia.
None of which is American. China isn’t wrong, we are collapsing.
Back when the Democrats controlled everything we defeated Japan and Germany, built the largest industrial capacity in the world, built the Middle Class, and to cap it off we put a man on the moon.
Fifty years of GOP tax cuts and we can’t even paint our bridges and have $22 trillion in debt.”

2

One thing's clear. We definitely need to recalibrate our definition of "experts."

5

Here's a thought: Let's just say for the moment that the Republicans win the two Georgia senate seats. There are three sitting Republican senators in states with Democratic governors, who would appoint their replacements. If Biden appointed two of those senators to his cabinet, Democrats would take the majority in the Senate. And we can drink a shot of sweet sweet fascist tears with a chaser of hydroxychloroquine and bleach. (Don't do this).

6

@5: Which states are those (three sitting Republican senators in states with Democratic governors)?

8

@5 Your theory has a flaw in that the theoretically cabinet-appointed Republican senators do not have to accept their appointments and can remain in the Senate if they so wish.

11

@10 Because it rots your teeth and people in Bellevue care about their teeth.

13

@6: Toomey in PA, Johnson in WI, Burr in NC. @7 NC would be a political risk, but the others are relatively blue states lately, and control of the Senate would allow admission of DC and Puerto Rico as states. Yeah, I think a Dem governor might take a slight risk to their political career to have the eternal gratitude of the party. The PA governor is term limited in 2022, so he'd have to choose another direction to go anyway. A power (but electorally risky) move would be to appoint himself to the Senate seat. Or appoint a placeholder who won't run again and run for the seat himself in 2022.

@8 and 9 Sure, they'd have to want the Cabinet position, but all three of those senators are planning to retire in 2022 anyway. They would have political capital to demand any policy terms they wanted. They probably wouldn't get invited to many Republican cocktail parties, but (a) none of them seem particularly attached to the direction the Republican party is going right now anyway and (b) if they really liked the cocktail party scene, they probably wouldn't be retiring from the Senate.

I don't know if Biden will play that kind of hardball, but if the transition goes badly and/or there is a clear expected outcome after the Obamacare lawsuit is heard at the Supreme Court, he might be convinced.

14

@12:

"If they are protests where participants wear masks, stay outdoors and try to maintain safe distancing, they're adhering to science. If they aren't they are superspreader events."

There, fixed it for you.

17

@13 You really need to learn how the government works. Admitting DC as a state would require a Constitutional amendment, and thus concurrence of 3/4 of the several States, which would never happen.

19

I've been investing in Renewables ETFs, actually.

Twice the return of the S&P 500.

And it makes change inevitable.

21

@ 20,

Remember on Tuesday after $hitler killed over 200,000 Americans with his coronavirus lies, stupidity, insanity, and incompetence, and 48% of sociopathic voters shrugged and voted for him to kill the rest of us because they hate black people, brown people, and LGBTQ people more than than they like being alive?

This KKKountry is just abusive, toxic, and destructive.

22

@20 - I cared, but yeah - what a year.

23

@17 US Constitution Article IV, Section 3: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union..."

So yeah, it's squarely in the hands of Congress and not a Constitutional Amendment. You might want to learn how government works.

25

but I didn't send flowers blip

26

@24: well said

27

@23 True in the case of Puerto Rico, which is a Territory of the United States. Not true in the case of the Federal District of Colombia. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution clearly states:

"The Congress shall have Power...

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

You can read more here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/the-constitution-says-no-to-dc-statehood/ar-BB15MkiW

28

@16

http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/kw3fj0/the-opposition-with-jordan-klepper-welcome-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/69m57b

29

A major intersection with wide crosswalks and a concrete pedestrian overpass is at 135th and Aurora, but hey, its two block away. Can't walk that far, so I'll cross a busy highway and hope not to hit by a car. I wish the city did more for me to protect me from my own judgments.

30

Still kind of a squeaker but trends are good right now.
Trump fraud claims seem to not be gaining much traction, I don't foresee a replay of Florida 2000.
Vote counts will (hopefully) proceed free of mob violence.
As yet no appetite for contesting results shown by GOP.
Still potential for some hysterical drama to come from Uday and Qusay and Trump himself but I suspect most of his loyal lieutenants are now preoccupied with insulating themselves from prosecution rather than depending on a Trump pardon.
Soon it will be the sorry spectacle of Trump In the Bunker.

36

@27 Other reasoned views here: http://dcstatehoodyeswecan.org/j/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=339:constitutional-and-legal-issues-surrounding-dc-statehood&catid=57:statehood-process&Itemid=120

39

@32:

No, it's a statement of fact: a 58 year old woman was killed, by a driver, and the police did not arrest them. The Stranger has made no "admission", because one is neither germane nor necessary to report the factual information.

But of course you're such a dumbass that simple bit of cognition would never have occurred to you...

41

@27 -- "There is no clause in the constitution which expressly prohibits Congress from erecting a state out of the nonfederal part of the District of Columbia. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, Congress exercises "exclusive" authority over the District. If the authority is exclusive, Congress can with the District what it wishes, including creating out of it a state. If Congress can not create a state out of the District, the authority must be less than exclusive, an interpretation which runs against the plain meaning of the "exclusive" power clause.
Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr.

https://dcstatehoodyeswecan.org/j/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=339:constitutional-and-legal-issues-surrounding-dc-statehood&catid=57:statehood-process&Itemid=120

Of course this would be fought in the courts. But you can't assume that the Supreme Court will vote one way or another. This is different than, say, splitting Florida back into two states (East Florida and West Florida) without approval of the Florida legislature. That would clearly be unconstitutional.

Anyway, the first order of business would be for Puerto Rico to become a state. There is widespread, national support for this. So much so that a few Republican Senators might go along with the idea, even though it would tip the Senate.

42

@36 Yes, there are always hypothetical arguments on both sides of this question but as a practical matter the small States will never allow this. If you live in DC and want representation of a State you can move 5 miles in any direction.

It's never going to happen. It would precipitate another civil war.

44

@34:

And yet the science has clearly shown that people gathering outdoors in large numbers while practicing safe distancing have a far lower chance of spreading the virus, about 20 times less than in an indoor setting. So, "the science" (a term you love to throw out, but clearly haven't got the least understanding of its meaning) readily acknowledges that, while certain situations such as large gatherings MAY pose potential risk, this can be easily and effectively mitigated in ways that are less likely to result in disbursal of the virus: outdoors is better than indoors; wearing masks is better than not wearing masks; maintaining safe distancing is better than staying in close proximity to others, and; exercising all of these precautions together is far, far, far better than completely ignoring them. That's why literally NONE of the outdoor protests that have occurred throughout the summer and fall have resulted in significant upticks to COVID infection rates where they've occurred, whereas mega-church services, GOP rallies and motorcycle meet up, OTOH...

45

@35 the case of which you speak upheld the decision of the governor of NV to restrict gatherings. You’re quoting the losing view. It was found that since it applied to like venues as well it wasn’t a worship restriction.

There is a difference between a couple thousand people distanced on a 160,000 plus sq ft gaming floor and a few hundred seat sanctuary or showrooms in the state. The restriction now is 50% or 250 persons, whichever is less for capacities of 2000 or less. That’s nearly all sanctuaries, clubs, showrooms and theater. It applies the same regardless of the reason for gathering. For larger spaces it’s determined on a case by case basis. For example the new stadium can host up to 6500 distanced and masked.

48

@46 Whatever. I'm not your enemy, I just call them the way I see them. As this election demonstrates, the States are almost equally divided. Republican-dominated States will never accept statehood for DC. It's never going to happen because there are too many obstacles and too easy a remedy for anyone living there to be a resident of Virginia or Maryland.

You have a reasonable shot at Puerto Rico and maybe Guam, assuming the people living there want it, and that's not clear either.

49

Regardless of how events play out leading to JB's taking the oath of office I can say with something approaching 100% confidence that we absolutely will not be witnessing a concession speech, which is incredibly sad and troubling for any number of reasons. But maybe for the best. Can you imagine the spiteful, bitter and angrily antagonistic tone such a speech would take? That would be something to behold.

(alright, I admit to also thinking it could be pretty freaking entertaining.)

50

Stop the Squeal!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bCtx7SNAE

51

@13 -- Back to your original idea:

Interestingly enough, all three are up for reelection in 2022, and all three have said they won't run.

All three are right wing wackos. All three don't believe in man-made climate change. Johnson thinks that the FBI has a "secret society" out to get Trump. Hard to see any one of them as part of a Biden administration, unless Toomey and Warren are appointed as a way to have "balance" somehow. Hard to see Toomey taking the job, either, knowing that he would have to fight to get any of his ideas accomplished, since Biden would almost always side with Warren. I just don't see any of those three being part of a Biden administration.

The only Republican senator I could see serving in a Biden administration is Collins. She is a moderate Republican in a state that has voted for a Democratic president since Clinton. But the timing is all wrong. She just won a bruising fight for her seat, and won it easily. Hard to see her giving it up. I also don't see anything special in her background that would make a cabinet position attractive (unlike a senator that focuses on foreign or military affairs).

It is possible that Collins could switch to being an independent, and caucus with the Democrats. That would put her more in line with the state, and pretty much assure (relatively) easy reelections, especially since Maine has second choice voting. She doesn't need the support of either party, and her current affiliation makes it tougher on her. That being said, I really don't see that happening. The time do do that was six months ago, going into the election.

The only realistic chance to take the Senate is to win both of Georgia's runoff races.

52

"Yes, there are always hypothetical arguments on both sides of this question but as a practical matter the small States will never allow this. If you live in DC and want representation of a State you can move 5 miles in any direction.

It's never going to happen. It would precipitate another civil war."

The small states have nothing to do with it! You probably don't need a constitutional amendment. It is like you are arguing against the ACA before Congress passes it, because you think the courts will throw it out. Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.

Congress can just pass the law, granting statehood, and let the courts fight over it. The House already passed the bill, all that is required is a Democratic Senate. If Congress controls all three, then it would certainly happen.

Oh, and if four years of Trump doesn't set off a civil war, then DC statehood won't.

You are an arrogant prick. First you claim that everyone else is stupid because we don't know how D. C. could become a state. Yet as it turns out, there is a very strong possibility that you are completely wrong. You were suggesting a prediction as fact, with little evidence to support that prediction. Now, faced with this new evidence refuting your arrogant claim, you come with some other bullshit reason for why it couldn't pass.

Look, no one believes that D. C. statehood will easy be to accomplish. They have been fighting for it for years. There are legal and political challenges.

So fucking what? The same is true for say, the Voting Rights Act. It faced major political challenges. It was also challenged in court, in at least a half dozen cases. Everyone knew it was going to challenged from the get go, and many predicted it would be tossed out. Yet it withstood those challenges. We didn't need to pass a new amendment.

58

@51 Maybe they'd take it or maybe not. Toomey used to work in banking. Imagine if Biden went to him and said, "I'm thinking of making Elizabeth Warren or someone to the left of her Secretary of the Treasury. I know you wouldn't be excited about that. What would your priorities be as Secretary? Maybe we can work together if you're willing to give up your Senate seat."

Repeat with Johnson and Commerce. In both cases, I think you could sell to both the senator and the Democratic base that they'll accept some slower progress in a couple of departments in exchange for control of the Senate.

Collins is a lost cause for the Democrats unless she's willing to flip sides for some reason. I can't see that happening though. No doubt whatever happens in the Senate will concern her deeply though.

59

@15 - apparently the non-exit polls are garbage too. My guess is an organized effort by the Trumpanzees to lie to pollsters. Or maybe they really do realize that they should be ashamed to be supporting him.

And dumbshits run/walk/stroll/stagger across that part of Aurora all the time. They can hop out from behind traffic on the other side of the road with basically no warning. I'm not at all surprised that a non-impaired driver hit one.

60

@49:

Makes me wonder if they'll even attend the inauguration - I'm guessing they'll have quietly slipped out of the country will already be ensconced in a nice, expansive dacha somewhere on the outskirts of Moscow long before then...

61

@37 - We don't do anything to limit flu transmission in any given year except provide a vaccine that half of us refuse to get anyway because Jenny McCarthy's tits or whatever. And that's how 50k people die. No lockdowns, social distancing, go to the bars all you want, etc.

For Covid, we took some pretty drastic measures to prevent spread. Having done that, way less than 10% of us got infected and 250k STILL died. Without the social distancing it would have been far far more than that.

So yeah, it is a pretty fucking big deal and it's worth making some sacrifices to slow the transmission until we can get an effective vaccine. And even then, a bunch of dumbasses will refuse to take it.

62

@52 Never going to happen.

63

@54:

Maybe because cops have a lousy track-record when it comes to shooting civilians, not to mention decades of examples of them routinely lying about the shootings, covering up or outright destroying evidence and other malfeasance? But in any case, can you point to a single written example where The Stranger has accused a LEO of having committed a crime prior to any charges being filed against an officer? Not just people they've interviewed who they have quoted making a speculation or accusation, but where a writer themselves has explicitly made such a statement?

65

@55:

The only time I'm aware of that the City has closed a park in the manner you suggest was for the September 7th rally planned by religious wackjob Sean Feucht at Gas Works, but that was AFTER he had already held a similar rally in August at Cal Anderson where several thousand of his cultist followers showed up virtually 100% without masks or practicing social distancing, so they had every reason to anticipate a repeat of that behavior, which THE SCIENCE says is enormously risky and which has been proven to result in "super-spreader events" in like circumstances. So, there was in fact a very legitimate public health concern for closing the park, and NOT, as you insinuate, because the City objected to the messaging.

In fact, the City has been extremely lenient in terms of not cracking down on such demonstrations - Feucht held one in August in Cal Anderson, The Proud Boys march through the streets and parks with impunity, as do pro-Trumpers and 2A-humpers likewise - despite the Governor's ban on large public gatherings, primarily because it DOES conflict with First Amendment freedom to assemble. But in most other instances those assembling have - unlike Feucht, The Proud Boys, and pretty much anyone associated with the GOP - gone to great lengths to do so in a way that maintains what - again - THE SCIENCE has shown to be comparatively much safer physical distancing and non-spreading behavior. If the Right is going to adamantly refuse to exhibit a similar high regard for and act in accordance with the established protocols, when THE SCIENCE clearly and unequivocally demonstrates the efficacy of doing so, they're nothing more than a threat to the Public Health and Welfare, and will continue to be treated accordingly, whatever their political beliefs may be otherwise.

70

@67- the other diference between the 250k and the 50k is that we know in any kind of normal flu year that the epidemic is going to most likely be limited to the 50k or so. On the other hand, if we let Covid spread unchecked, we simply have no idea how far it would go. Might be a million, or might be two million. Or more. And the effect on society would be horrific. All kinds of institutions collapsing. The civil unrest would be unprecedented. Might end up not being able to feed ourselves.

It's pretty goddamned depressing that almost half of us were willing to accept the above so that they could still go to the bars. Morons.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.