US election thread (pls join in)

Filibuster prevented it.


He also came into office right at the start of the mortgage credit crisis with failing banks

I mean, he could have seized on the opportunity to overturn 3 decades of neoliberal economic policy and bail out the people instead of banks & corporations but why would anyone delivered to the highest position of power by a rotten corrupt system suddenly turn on that system?


How’s that filibuster doing nowadays?

It was already more than clear that the Republicans were gonna completely fuck shit up as much as they were able, but the Dems carried on playing by rules that relied on genuine bipartisanship.

Everything that McConnell did from 2014 onwards, Harry Reid could have done 6 years before.


Sure. Democracy breaks down if you have a 2 party system where one party doesn’t believe in democracy. Minority rule where you systematically disenfranchise people of colour. It’s easy to destroy, it’s incredibly difficult to build.


You still think Michigan will be certified tomorrow? I don’t know that the ultimate outcome will change, but I fear things are about to get messy…


As reported previously, the two Republicans involved in certifying the result have said that they do not see any reason to intervene on Trump’s behalf.

By law, the Michigan State Board of Canvassers must certify the results as submitted by the 83 counties. They have no choice.

The board cannot ask for an audit prior to certification, as requested by the Michigan Republican Party and the RNC. State law doesn’t allow that.

The board cannot try to certify part of the results for the state and not all of it, e.g. it cannot leave the Wayne County results out.

The only reason the board would be able to delay certification would be if they did not have all of the results or information they needed to certify. However, all counties have certified their results.


I don’t think all the Democrats were necessarily behind the idea of an NHS style system. When I look at the makeup of the houses in the US it seems like the representatives are far more likely to be much more self-interested and also beholden to huge donors compared the UK. He could have tried that but he might not have had the majority when it came down to the actual vote.

(Essentially I am with the view that Obama wasn’t worse than Trump. Otherwise yeah he didn’t seem to be particularly great President by any measure except possibly stacked up against other Presidents. Not really convinced there have been any Presidents you could definitely say were better than Obama apart from possibly that guy who died after a few months who probably barely got a chance to fuck anything up.)

1 Like


I hope you’re right. I think there’s a distinct possibility that the two Republicans on the board will decline to certify today whether it’s within their power to or not today though. One of them is a Trump activist, his wife is a Republican poll challenger and there’s enough vagueness in all the recent statements to leave open the possibility of them at least claiming that they want to see a 2 week pause/audit before certification. I appreciate they would probably pay a personal price for their defiance though.

The fact that the two goons who went to the WH, apparently stood up to Trump didn’t get any mean tweets from him after, and one of them mooted on Fox yesterday that this could cause a ‘constitutional crisis’ suggests there could be something going on - even if it’s more about trying to manufacture Republican base outrage by compelling the state Democrats to intervene and force certification or preventing Biden hitting 270 tomorrow and so delaying the GSA starting transition. Either way, we’ll find out this evening…

The Republican you referring to, former state senator Norman Shinkle, seems to relish in the attention he’s currently getting, but at the same time he likes to keep everyone guessing: “it doesn’t make sense to say you have made up your mind before the end of the hearing”.

The other Republican on the board, Aaron Van Langevelde, is a lawyer. He has not commented in public at all.

In the unlikely event that the board deadlocks on the decision to certify, Michigan’s Governor (who is a Democrat) can refer the board to the Court of Appeals to obtain an order requiring the board to certify the results. Board members who refuse to certify can be charged with a misdemeanor or wilful neglect of duty.

Alternatively, the Governor has the power to replace any board member and can act without waiting for a court or anyone else. However, this would be a politically contentious step.

Yeah, I get all the possible options if they refuse to certify…and as remote a possibility as it might seem on the basis of their remit, it is a scenario that their county level equivalents already had two bites at only last week.

I appreciate that it requires both Republicans to refuse and that other levers of the state machinery are likely to step in if it does happen - I was trying to make the point that things could get messy in the short term rather than necessarily threatening the proper outcome. There is so much cognitive dissonance needed to remain onboard with the Trump position now that both referring to the court and replacing board members feeds into the Republican narrative that it’s actually the Dems who are trying to steal a ‘failed’ election. Delay, feeding base anger and undermining the legitimacy of the result are the subtext of all of these challenges after all and desperation has forced the nuclear option in almost every post election action no matter how ridiculous/illegal it might be. This represents one of their final opportunities to score on all three fronts, so all I’m saying is it wouldn’t surprise me if Michigan remains uncertified at the end of today.

1 Like

So, has he not fucked off yet?


1 Like

ah now there’s the enjoyable scramble of republican officials realising they need to denounce trump faster than their peers so they’re not the last ones looking like fools/thieves

1 Like


You love to see it

biden’s guy already making threats:

The above quote is a claim made by the New York Times, but it appears to be based on a discussion that took place in July. What Blinken said was as follows:

Full transcript here:


yes, it was a joke about how they have no intention of helping these countries and any assistance they have to offer will be similar to the assistance they gave honduras in 2009, iykwim. the joke plays off the popular trope in cinema and television drama of organized crime groups veiling threats in ostensibly sunny, friendly language. i am therefore implying that the the US government has much in common with the mafia, a similarly illegitimate criminal regime.