I absolutely agree that "the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again." I hope that The Bulwark considers itself among the "other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism". On the podcast today, Tim sai…
I absolutely agree that "the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again." I hope that The Bulwark considers itself among the "other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism". On the podcast today, Tim said, "Imagine what this guy will do now that the SC has given him carte blanche essentially, now that he will have an entire staff [loyal to him and not the Constitution]". You must SPELL OUT what he will do, not just ask us to imagine it. And it must be in terms that the undecided voters will relate to, like what will happen to their regular, monthly social security check when incompetent loyalists replace, experienced, competent civil servants in HHS? Or their IRS refund? Or FDA approval of experimental drugs that could cure a loved one's illness? Or what happens to their cleaning lady's native-born children when she and her husband are hauled off and deported?
And you must tear down this "the guardrails will hold" delusion. I wrote this in The Triad comments, and I'm going to repeat it here:
The guardrails are not self-executing. As Liz Cheney said last December, “The framers explicitly warned us that the checks and balances are only as effective as the people responsible for carrying them out. Those who try to dismiss the risk of a second Trump term do our country a grave disservice" [WSJ].
They held last time only because individuals did the right thing. Those include GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his COO Brad Sterling, all the judges who ruled against Trump in his 62 post-election lawsuits, and, of course, Judge Luttig's advice to Mike Pence, which he followed.
Vance has already said "If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020." He also said Trump should ignore "illegitimate" court rulings [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jd-vance-defends-trump-claims-invoking-jean-carroll/story?id=106925954].
That is NOT our system. The president doesn't get to decide which SC decisions are legitimate or not. That's not our checks and balances. You need to explain to the undecideds why the Framers built that into our federal system and how not having Constitutional checks and balances will hurt them.
I absolutely agree that "the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again." I hope that The Bulwark considers itself among the "other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism". On the podcast today, Tim said, "Imagine what this guy will do now that the SC has given him carte blanche essentially, now that he will have an entire staff [loyal to him and not the Constitution]". You must SPELL OUT what he will do, not just ask us to imagine it. And it must be in terms that the undecided voters will relate to, like what will happen to their regular, monthly social security check when incompetent loyalists replace, experienced, competent civil servants in HHS? Or their IRS refund? Or FDA approval of experimental drugs that could cure a loved one's illness? Or what happens to their cleaning lady's native-born children when she and her husband are hauled off and deported?
And you must tear down this "the guardrails will hold" delusion. I wrote this in The Triad comments, and I'm going to repeat it here:
The guardrails are not self-executing. As Liz Cheney said last December, “The framers explicitly warned us that the checks and balances are only as effective as the people responsible for carrying them out. Those who try to dismiss the risk of a second Trump term do our country a grave disservice" [WSJ].
They held last time only because individuals did the right thing. Those include GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his COO Brad Sterling, all the judges who ruled against Trump in his 62 post-election lawsuits, and, of course, Judge Luttig's advice to Mike Pence, which he followed.
Vance has already said "If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020." He also said Trump should ignore "illegitimate" court rulings [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jd-vance-defends-trump-claims-invoking-jean-carroll/story?id=106925954].
That is NOT our system. The president doesn't get to decide which SC decisions are legitimate or not. That's not our checks and balances. You need to explain to the undecideds why the Framers built that into our federal system and how not having Constitutional checks and balances will hurt them.