Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

[kEiThZ]

Well no they would cut texas to favour the red parts ofcourse so it be a disaster... so then dems cut up california, then next election gop cut up some red states...

I can tell they you're reading some fantasy conservative/Republican blog and don't know anybody from Texas. Or much about the state.

First off, they can't just randomly propose borders. The people who live in the successor states would have to approve the boundaries.

Next, guess where all the tax revenue is? Ask those future red staters how much more they are willing to pay in taxes for those additional Senators. It's about as serious an idea as suggesting Northern Ontario should split off.

Next, while this might get them Senators, this would almost certainly cost them the Presidency permanently by putting most of Texas' Electoral College votes in 1-2 highly urban blue states. No guarantee that they'd get a lot of Republican Senators either. Texas is actually diversifying all over. And it's only the central plains that are truly red anymore. A non-zero chance that three of five successor states end up at blue states.

Lastly, this would have been done soon. Texas' legislature could flip as early as this election. And they are diversifying so fast, they have maybe 3-5 years at best.

My point is this war is escalating for 10 plus years and it has shown no sign of reaching an end and it seems to be not fixing any issues at all.

No. One side has decided to weaponize protections for political minorities. And now they are at a point where the exercise of naked power without restraint is excusable.

So Republicans didn't want Obama's judge. Didn't give him a hearing. Now they want Trump's judge. So ram him through. That's the rules.

5 of 9 judges picked by presidents without the approval of a plurality of voters? That's the rules.

Gerrymandering the legislatures of Wisconsin and Michigan to hold power with a minority of voters? That's the rules.

State legislature stripping the executive of authority in the lame duck period after losing the election? That's the rules.

50:50 results on voting permanently advantaging the minority party (in both the US House and Senate)? That's the rules.

If this is going to be the argument, then dumping the filibuster, adding judges, granting statehood and banning partisan gerrymandering are also within the rules. And it will be Republican bad faith conduct that has brought this about. Polling shows Americans agree. There is now polling that says a majority of Americans don't want this pick till after the election. Disregarding the will of the majority will give plenty of sanction for what the Democrats will do in January.

I really hoped Americans would avoid this and the Republicans would show some compromise by nominating Merrick Garland (the Republican nominated by Obama). But as it stands, Republicans seem almost gleeful in challenging Democrats to get the war going.

Your solution is on the premise Democrats control all 3 seats of power for decades after they made such changes. That is the only way it works and there is no guarantees of that.

The changes can't be undone without Republicans gaining control of both Houses and the Presidency. Given demographics, that will not happen for a very long time.

And at this point, the Democrats have no choice. A 6-3 court is the end of progressive legislation. Just look at what they did with a 5-4 court. This same court gutted the voting rights act saying that racism wasn't as relevant in America anymore. That made racial gerrymandering legal as long as the claim was that it was partisan. They interpreted spending as an exercise of free speech while providing privacy for donors, enabling dark money to flood into elections. Healthcare barely survives with 5-4 votes. It's toast in a 6-3 court. Just imagine how they'll rule on a carbon tax, gun control legislation, expansion of healthcare, etc.

This is not a fight that any Democrat can ignore. And if the fight is on, they can't play to draw. They have to fight to win.

 

[kEiThZ]

If anybody wants to read up on how dividing Texas would work out electorally, you can read this analysis by Nate Silver of 538:

Messing with Texas

Last week, we discussed the political implications of Texas choosing to secede from the Union, something which — as is apparently unknown to its governor Rick …

fivethirtyeight.com

It's 10 years old. Now consider that Texas is polling within 2-3% this election. Biden has a greater chance of winning Texas than Trump has of winning Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota. In the 10 years since that article, Texas has become so blue that from Silver's analysis, two of the five states would be safe Democratic states today, one would be safely Republican and two would be swing states rapidly trending blue.

If I were a Democrat, I would absolutely dare the Republicans to make Texas five states. 5-10 years after that split, the Republicans will have permanently locked themselves out of Senate and the Presidency.

Even the Republicans understand this. The new talking point now isn't about breaking up Texas. It's about splitting their Electoral College vote and apportioning it by county. So to prevent the cities in Texas from giving the Democrats a lock on the Presidency when Texas flips.

 

[Jasmine18]

Well after 2008 we thought the Republicans could never come back and would be tainted for a generation and well...

None of the solutions you offered point to the major issue that Democratic voters are very unreliable and likely will forget to vote in 2022 and we go back to square one.

I remember the optimism under the Obama years and 2 years later most of the people who voted for him fell asleep it seemed.

Your solutions will require many consecutive terms of democrats with all 3 chambers of powers to push through because based on how Obamacare went, the conservative pushback against these proposals will make the Obamacare fight seem like a joke.

and there is no guarantees the democrats will be all fully united with all of these ideas as some will want to go more radical while others will think we gone off the deep end.

Like you think democrats can go in and start passing monumental shifts left to right and centre, that's not how the American system is designed.

To me, the solution is voting rights and fixing gerrymandering. Expanding the supreme court and adding and breaking up states is a waste of time and likely have drastic negative consquences.

And first of all this whole plan is based on the Democrats winning the senate in 2020 and its a 60% chance right now. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/senate/

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

None of the solutions you offered point to the major issue that Democratic voters are very unreliable and likely will forget to vote in 2022 and we go back to square one.

I remember the optimism under the Obama years and 2 years later most of the people who voted for him fell asleep it seemed.

Your solutions will require many consecutive terms of democrats to push through because based on how Obamacare went, the conservative pushback against these proposals will be intense.


Like you think democrats can go in and start passing things left right and centre, that's not how the American system is designed.

To me the solution is voting rights and fixing gerrymandering. Expanding the supreme court and adding states wont happen in 2 years.

You are trying to govern with wisdom and ensure representation that is meaningful and fair, not create a system that ensures one party domination - even if that party is what you favour. You can't even begin to fix voting rights and gerrymandering without winning this election and having a court that is sympathetic to dealing with the current problems in those two areas.

As to passing things left right and centre - well, Republicans proven it can be done, no? Especially combined with an executive that can work in lockstep. The American system wasn't designed to have an Executive who subverts the Judicial system, or a Senate that basically abrogates their independence and go full on enabling the Executive , etc - to bring up how the American system is "designed" as a be all and end all argument is to blindfold oneself to the reality how things can *really* operate.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

None of the solutions you offered point to the major issue that Democratic voters are very unreliable and likely will for

Irrelevant because in this scenario Biden would still be President.

Your solutions will require many consecutive terms of democrats to push through because based on how Obamacare went, the conservative pushback

Obamacare was stalled by conservative Democratic Senators not willing to pass an expansive healthcare bill. And Republicans unwilling to vote for it. If Democrats have the votes this time, they can pass what they want immediately. They don't need several terms. There's no limit on how many bills can be passed in a term.u Just like how the Republicans worked from 2016 to 2018 when they passed a budget bill with handwritten notes. It's no different than a party having a majority in Parliament in Canada. The only complication is the need to control both chambers and the Presidency.

Like you think democrats can go in and start passing things left right and centre, that's not how the American system is designed.

That is exactly how it is designed when the same party controls both chambers and the Presidency.

Just in case you don't know my personal history. I served on exchange in the US with their forces. Took a mandatory class on US law and politics as part of the exchange program taught by a former White House military aide. I'm not just making this all up on the fly.

To me the solution is voting rights and fixing gerrymandering. Expanding the supreme court and adding states wont happen in 2 years.

If any of it is going to happen, it will happen in literally the first year of Biden's term. They can't risk the House or Senate flipping in the midterms. There won't be months of deliberation, I would expect legislation to effect those changes tabled by March.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If any of it is going to happen, it will happen in literally the first year of Biden's term. They can't risk the House or Senate flipping in the midterms. There won't be months of deliberation, I would expect legislation to effect those changes tabled by March.

Not only because of anything flipping - but because the demand for action would be so irresistibly strong. The Dems aren't elected in these elections because of what they are - it's because they represent righting a wrong. Besides, I am sure there will be CI cards to play that will shine a very unsavory light on the GOP.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

To me the solution is voting rights and fixing gerrymandering.

Which the Republicans have expressly demonstrated they aren't interested in doing. Take a guess how long it took after the Supreme Court Ruling on voting rights for states to pass voter ID laws?

Take a guess.



2 hrs


Texas. College ID? Not acceptable. Gun license acceptable. And a third of Texas counties don't have a driver's licensing office within 125 miles. Most of those counties? High rural Hispanic population. Funny how that works.

You can't fix any of this because Republicans aren't interested in fixing any of this. They know the majority of Americans don't agree with their agenda. So they've decided the only way to enforce that agenda is by tilting elections and controlling the courts. The only way they'll stop is by facing serious consequences for their bad faith conduct.

 

[afransen]

Obama got so little done because he tried to be bipartisan, which was pointless.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Which the Republicans have expressly demonstrated they aren't interested in doing. Take a guess how long it took after the Supreme Court Ruling on voting rights for states to pass voter ID laws?
Take a guess.
2 hrs
Texas. College ID? Not acceptable. Gun license acceptable. And a third of Texas counties don't have a driver's licensing office within 125 miles. Most of those counties? High rural Hispanic population. Funny how that works.

Both parties are guilty at one point or another of gerrymandering - but GOP is fairly unique in siding towards implicit and explicit disenfranchisement in the past few decades. That alone to me makes a party unfit to govern in a democracy. And a legislature choosing to strip an incoming executive of powers that their own favourites in such a role would enjoy - and to state that openly? Same - unfit to govern in a rule-based democracy.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I am sure there will be CI cards to play that will shine a very unsavory light on the GOP.

Really curious to see what will happen. I have zero doubts that we'll see more prosecutions than Watergate. And these guys are all fighting for survival now.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Really curious to see what will happen. I have zero doubts that we'll see more prosecutions than Watergate. And these guys are all fighting for survival now.

They are fighting so hard precisely because the alternative is the slammer should they lose power. Leavenworth's calling. Ensuring the integrity of the electoral system (which is laughably atrocious for a nation of US' stature) and rooting out adverbial influence (from social media to finance and political figures) should be a Biden priority.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Both parties are guilty at one point or another of gerrymandering - but GOP is fairly unique in siding towards implicit and explicit disenfranchisement in the past few decades. That alone to me makes a party unfit to govern in a democracy.

AoD

Yep. And that is what has turned plenty of principled conservatives against them. I urge everyone to listen to the Lincoln Project podcasts. They are phenomenal. The one that really struck me was the interview with Anne Applebaum. A journalist based in Eastern Europe, who did a ton of work on former communist regimes. Her comparisons between the Trump administration and these regimes on language and conduct was chilling.

Google Podcasts

With Google Podcasts, you can find and listen to the world's podcasts for free.

podcasts.google.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Obama got so little done because he tried to be bipartisan, which was pointless.

Worse. The Republicans successfully weaponized obstruction. They refused to pass a large stimulus in 2008. Then with a tepid recovery they campaigned against Obama. They refused to pass anything in Obama's second term. And then used dissatisfication from that obstruction to campaign against Clinton. They would absolutely do the same to Biden if they run the Senate. To be honest at this point, I consider the GOP Senate a bigger threat than Trump.

 

[afransen]

Worse. The Republicans successfully weaponized obstruction. They refused to pass a large stimulus in 2008. Then with a tepid recovery they campaigned against Obama. They refused to pass anything in Obama's second term. And then used dissatisfication from that obstruction to campaign against Clinton. They would absolutely do the same to Biden if they run the Senate. To be honest at this point, I consider the GOP Senate a bigger threat than Trump.

I meant even when Dems controlled the house and senate, Obama still made a lot of noises about bipartisanship.

 

[kEiThZ]

I meant even when Dems controlled the house and senate, Obama still made a lot of noises about bipartisanship.

So did Biden. I mean Republicans loved Biden till he ran for President. Lindsay Graham was on video tearing up about him.