2020 Election - Thread #5

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, and I forgot to link it here -- I'll have to find a story covering it -- but yesterday the very very last lawsuit contesting the election was thrown out of court.

[Black Aeronaut]

Oh goody. Maybe this means that we can finally draw this series of threads to a close soon.

[Labster]

The extent to which the Republican Party has not conceded the last election is somewhat terrifying, though.  They're still saying Trump is at the center of the party, and Trump is still saying the election was stolen from him.  How does the party move on from that?  And this, from CPAC, which seems like it's right out of Exodus 32:



That was graven in Mexico, by the way.

So in some real way, the election isn't over, because one side has decided not to learn from its mistakes, and to start blaming phantoms instead.  I was there in 2016, and for all I heard "Hillary lost, get over it" from conservatives, Democrats had a pretty deep discussion about why we lost.  And we figured out what we could do to win again, what we could change.  Right now, this discussion is only happening on the fringiest fringe of the Republican Party -- your Liz Cheneys, Adam Kinzlingers, and Mitt Romneys.  People like that are so far outside the mainstream of their party that no one is listening.

[Bob Schroeck]

Apparently Sidney Powell is taking the Dominon lawsuit against her seriously enough that she's trying to weasel out of any kind of responsibility: she's now claiming that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims and that she was only sharing an "opinion", for which she can't be sued.

[hazard]

Unfortunately, the sheer amount of people who believed her imply two things, of which at least one must be true.

First, it implies that reasonable people did believe her claims and her defense is invalid.
Second, it implies that Trump's followers, and about half the Republican Party by association, are not reasonable people.

[Bob Schroeck]

Dominion Voting Systems sue Fox News

[GethN7]

Okay, Biden's been in office for awhile, and as the guy who admitted he preferred Trump, I'm kinda "okay, could've been worse".

If anything, as much as I liked Trump, I was getting TIRED of the fact a day didn't go by without Trump causing some sort of political grenade to go off. Ironically, Biden has the same problem Trump does, lack of filter on what they say, but at least Biden has admitted it and isn't posting every brain fart to social media either. He might be a "gaffe machine", by his own admission, but that alone makes Biden tolerable in the sense I'm not seeing social media on fire half as much.

[Dartz]

The amount of 'Oh fuck, what has this cabbage done now' posts on all forms of media just don't exist

I haven't heard of anything about the current administration beyond some corporate tax changes. No world ending stupidity or pretending to be a strongman

Just a dog that bites people, an old man stumbling on some stairs and some corporate tax shit.

It's kinmd of relief.

[Black Aeronaut]

I still see a few window banners (way too big to just call them decals) that read "FUCK BIDEN FUCK HARRIS AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR THEM". Which is god-awfully immature seeing as how Trump won Texas with a fair margin.

Personally, I think they're just sour over the fact that Biden hasn't done a damn thing to fulfill their wet-dream fantasies of the Democrats trying to turn all of the US into California.

(Don't get me wrong. I know there's a fair number of them that would love nothing less, and damn what it would do to other people. And I sincerely wish these Democrats did not exist. But you know, real life and all...)

[Labster]

Heh, all of the US is already becoming California.  Or rather, California and Washington state has become the axis around which the rest of the world revolves.

The Republican Party, more than anything, is being driven by California politics.  Not just literally, by Minority Leader McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), but the whole culture war thing, the victimhood, the obsessions with immigration and austerity.  The way they are now making a national platform based around issues that do not and cannot appeal to a majority -- all of these things are how the GOP moved itself into obscurity after Prop 187 in California.  The national Republican Party is adopting the same strategies that already failed, and made themselves essentially unelectable in California.  And of course they are, because even conservative media is driven out of the west coast.  And they have exported their anxieties to the entire nation.

The Democratic Party is also moving towards California's lead, with strong youth support and VP Harris getting her SF allies into Cabinet positions.  And also taking advantage of how, with Trump, the GOP has forfeited the minority vote for a generation (just like Prop 187).  We're already starting to see the shift that happened in California happen nationally, where large corporations have thrown in with Democrats.  They still want conservative tax policy, of course, but there's no point in losing customers to fight a losing culture war.  Might as well side with the people who actually have power, so you can gain influence.

But it goes further.  The largest companies in the world are headquartered in California and Washington -- Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google.  Tesla and SpaceX are also out here.  Of course, Elon is moving factories to Texas because it's lower taxes, for now.  That just means the Californification plan is succeeding.  I mean fuck, Texas is even having a major energy crisis a couple decades after California.  Keep going down that same path, guys!

So it's not just the US.  Between Hollywood as the greatest exporter of culture worldwide, to the great technological powerhouses near Seattle and San Francisco, the groundwork is already laid for us to conquer the world with economics and culture.  It all feels a bit like the Dutch Golden Age.  We even have our own tulip investments, NFTs and BTC.  It's going to be fun times!

[Black Aeronaut]

My primary concerns are centered gentrification of communities. It's getting crazy over here and it's only been a few years. Pretty soon, the only people that will be able to afford housing will be Californians.

That doesn't exactly sit well, even with the local Democrats.

[LynnInDenver]

Yeah, most of the issue is people, who've moved out of specific areas of California as the tech companies they work for seek greener pastures, are arriving flush with cash and capable of upending the local housing economy in Chinese curse interesting ways, between a lack of supply and a demand for housing - I saw an article saying at least one homeowner was getting unsolicited cash offers for his house. On a regular basis.

[Black Aeronaut]

I had a thought about that.

What if - as a local City or County ordinance - you place a mandatory moratorium on selling your home for ten years after purchase?

Some considerations:

1) Only applies to houses bought AFTER the law goes into effect, this way no one can cry about being stuck with something they didn't want because of the law.

2) Only applies to single-family houses and properties with a single-family house and any number of in-law units. Multifamily units like apartments and duplexes are not applicable.

2) Exception: if such an event occurs that causes that the insurance company declares the house a total loss, then the owner is released of any moratoriums.

3) Exception: Condemned houses. These may be flipped as a condemned property is doing no one any favors at all.

Thoughts?

[LynnInDenver]

I had a thought about that.

What if - as a local City or County ordinance - you place a mandatory moratorium on selling your home for ten years after purchase?

Some considerations:

1) Only applies to houses bought AFTER the law goes into effect, this way no one can cry about being stuck with something they didn't want because of the law.

2) Only applies to single-family houses and properties with a single-family house and any number of in-law units.  Multifamily units like apartments and duplexes are not applicable.

2) Exception: if such an event occurs that causes that the insurance company declares the house a total loss, then the owner is released of any moratoriums.

3) Exception: Condemned houses.  These may be flipped as a condemned property is doing no one any favors at all.

Thoughts?

Generally speaking, they do apply some of these - specifically the "must live in it, and for ten years" to first time home buying programs. I also wonder about the impact on people who buy houses that, while not condemned, are also badly in need of updating or cleaning and then being put back on the market (admittedly, the latter can feed into the problem). There's also the issue of "I lost my job due to a major industrial downturn, and the only way I can get a comparable job is to move out of state where my skills are still viable."

[Black Aeronaut]

I had a thought about that.

What if - as a local City or County ordinance - you place a mandatory moratorium on selling your home for ten years after purchase?

Some considerations:

1) Only applies to houses bought AFTER the law goes into effect, this way no one can cry about being stuck with something they didn't want because of the law.

2) Only applies to single-family houses and properties with a single-family house and any number of in-law units.  Multifamily units like apartments and duplexes are not applicable.

2) Exception: if such an event occurs that causes that the insurance company declares the house a total loss, then the owner is released of any moratoriums.

3) Exception: Condemned houses.  These may be flipped as a condemned property is doing no one any favors at all.

Thoughts?

Generally speaking, they do apply some of these - specifically the "must live in it, and for ten years" to first time home buying programs. I also wonder about the impact on people who buy houses that, while not condemned, are also badly in need of updating or cleaning and then being put back on the market (admittedly, the latter can feed into the problem). There's also the issue of "I lost my job due to a major industrial downturn, and the only way I can get a comparable job is to move out of state where my skills are still viable."

Well, this moratorium would, of course, apply to all buyers.  I would say, "Maybe make first time buyers the exception," but then I realized that it would be all too easy for some skeezy-ass cheese-needle to go around and have people who have never bought a house do it for them so they can flip it in exchange for a cut of the profits.

As for the condition of the house, that's really no different from how things are now.  It's all on the buyers and sellers.  A seller would be free to make all kinds of improvements, as would a buyer, but the quid pro quo would still be that ten year moratorium.  It's up to a home owner to maintain and/or improve their property.  They let shit go to pieces?  That's all on them.

Besides, banks REALLY don't like it when you don't have any equity (the difference between what you owe on your mortgage and what your home is currently worth) built up in your mortgage and suddenly you wanna sell it because the grass is looking greener on the other side.  This doesn't really start happening until, surprise surprise, about ten years into your mortgage.  Yeah, most are willing to work something out if something happens and you need to make repairs or improvements. The banks want to make a profit, and they can't do that if you shortchange them on the mortgage.  This is why a lot of mortgages come with penalties for selling too early.

As for having to moving long-distance...  well, there is a such thing as renting out.  Granted, I know it's not easy being a landlord and all, but this is what property managers are for.  Perhaps as part-and-parcel with the ordinance, the City can set up a market of property managers for home owners.  Might not be a bad idea because there is a demand for rental properties, too.  (Here in San Antonio, the rents are becoming an issue, too, and the city council has been looking into instituting rent controls in the Downtown area to keep low-income workers in the area.  Supply and demand definitely applies to rental properties.)

[Dartz]

Meanwhile, in Arizona there're those with the fervent belief that if you measure often enough the result will change.

[robkelk]

The Register: Now that Trump is useless to Zuckerberg, ex-president is exiled from Facebook for two years, possibly indefinitely

[Labster]

Trump is telling people he thinks he'll be 'reinstated' as president in August, according to a report

By now it's been confirmed by a few sources that yes, Trump really thinks he will be reinstated in a few short months.  Since the Electoral College voted and Congress accepted the results, there's really no "reinstatement" available that doesn't involve a military solution.  There is impeachment, and if Trump could get himself appointed to the Senate and elected president pro tem, then he could become President without an election. I can't imagine that happening without militias either.

But really we're left with the interpretation of whether it's just the ravings of a madman, a ploy to get attention, an actual seditious plot, or maybe all three?  Either way, Trump doesn't consider the 2020 election to be over, not by a long shot.  Meanwhile, Polls show 60% of Republicans mistakenly think the 2020 election wasn't legitimate.  So I guess the sedition is still going on.

[Black Aeronaut]

And to think that these were the same people that told us all to "get over it" when Trump was elected.  I knew the man was going to be trouble for this nation, and it holds true now.  It's like we've hit some kind of Point of No Return where, from now on, the new normal will include dealing with some cult-like following that believes this garbage excuse for a man is their lord and savior, and nothing is going to change it short of another (civil?) war.

[Labster]

The latest news is that the Trump Administration was spying on the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. We only found out because the gag order on Apple finally expired. So even being trusted with the nation's highest secrets is not enough to avoid an investigation from the Secret Police, or I mean the FBI.

And all of this to find out who was leaking embarrassing things on Trump. Why the fuck is it that the leaders who style themselves as strongmen are always so weak to criticism? I mean, fuck's sake, Winnie the Pooh is still banned in China, because Chairman Xi is a total fucking weakling who can't tolerate even the tiniest amount of criticism over his appearance.

And back in the US, the Department of "Justice" is still saying a woman can't sue the former president for defamation, because Trump was the goverment and therefore it's fine if he lies about raping a woman. You know, Biden won, and things are supposed to be different, but when it comes to rape I guess it's okay if they were ever President?

[hazard]

The latest news is that the Trump Administration was spying on the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  We only found out because the gag order on Apple finally expired.  So even being trusted with the nation's highest secrets is not enough to avoid an investigation from the Secret Police, or I mean the FBI.

Well, to be fair, that is not unreasonable. The nation's highest secrets are quite a prize to acquire, you know?

And all of this to find out who was leaking embarrassing things on Trump.

And this is just a stupid reason to do such surveillance. Leaking national, highly dangerous secrets? Sure. But 'the leader did embarrassing things'?

Why the fuck is it that the leaders who style themselves as strongmen are always so weak to criticism?  I mean, fuck's sake, Winnie the Pooh is still banned in China, because Chairman Xi is a total fucking weakling who can't tolerate even the tiniest amount of criticism over his appearance.

Because they know how much that strongmen facade is a facade, and that if that image gets broken they are never going to get it and thus the source of their power and influence back.

And back in the US, the Department of "Justice" is still saying a woman can't sue the former president for defamation, because Trump was the goverment and therefore it's fine if he lies about raping a woman.  You know, Biden won, and things are supposed to be different, but when it comes to rape I guess it's okay if they were ever President?

No. They are very wrong on this. The only argument that would stand up, in my opinion is the argument that, as long as somebody is president or a similarly highly placed functionary pursuing their duties they cannot be sued as it would distract them from their duties. And even then it would not be a strong argument.

Trump's no longer president. The argument is moot, he should be as available to the court as any given citizen.

[robkelk]

...
And back in the US, the Department of "Justice" is still saying a woman can't sue the former president for defamation, because Trump was the goverment and therefore it's fine if he lies about raping a woman.  ...

I think whoever said that needs to go back and re-read the oath he or she signed before being hired by the US Civil Service.

Here, I'll save folks the effort of looking up 5 USC 3331:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, { name }, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

Note that nowhere in that oath is any mention made of covering your boss' ass. Your civil servants are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the person whose name happens to be in the box at the top of the org chart.

[Labster]

Yeah, but what about covering your former boss's ass? That's still cool, right? Because it's definitely not moot.

I do wonder if DoJ is keeping the cases running here in order to fail. If they withdraw the case, sure you get justice immediately, but you never get legal precedent that what you did was wrong. And then when it happens again, you don't have to do all of the litigation again, because it's settled case law.

[Jinx999]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/spe...a-threats/

Intimidation and terroristic threats against poll workers.

[robkelk]

Former Republican senator: Trump's hold on GOP a threat to the party — and to democracy

He specifically calls Trump's claims about the 2020 election a "big lie". Oh, and he's from Arizona.