Hey Travis, what up? How 'bout that stock market! :-)
Re: your comment, yeah, that's a problem. And, it's really just interwoven the author's theme that the Dems don't do "retribution". So, if a party doesn't have a history of doing X, well, of course the threat of them doing X will ring hollow.
And, the reasons for the lack of "retribution" politics are obvious: it often leads to a bad place.
It's a dangerous game, but the author may be right; the Dems might have to behave this way. Because the last election clearly demonstrated that facts, reason, and obvious risks aren't sufficient. The only other option is wishcasting it away, hoping Trumpism burns itself out.
The cycle of retribution will need some exogenous event to burn it out. Republicans I expect are giving the Democrats everything they deserve after their lawfare crusade during Biden’s term.
Democrats will hopefully reply with something but more rules based, which Republicans will still cry foul about in 2029. I doubt they’ll be placated even when Trump passes - you see the Trumpism mimicry of JD Vance who is eager is ascend to his boss’ position.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t want to keep being the fool who blinks first.
I suspect the problem is the "fake news" automatic response to everything contra-Trump.
One could argue that the Bragg prosecution was overzealous (but still perfectly legal, btw), but what about the rest? Documents? Capitol "riots"? Georgia?
If those things were "lawfare", then I think the question is: what *isn't* lawfare when it comes to Trump? Is there any law he could egregiously break that merits prosecution?
So you buy the GOP line that the attempts to respond to Trump's many crimes and illegality was "lawfare" and "weaponizing the DOJ?" IMO the Dems were for sure rules-based and way too slow in taking the action that needed to be taken under the law (see Merrick Garland).
Assuming the EV tax credit is still around come 2028 and dems win the house/white house, dems should keep the EV credit in place for all other automakers but revoke it for Tesla. They could say that "since Tesla's market valuation is greater than the rest of the automakers combined, we don't think we need to extend these credits to Tesla vehicles moving forward as they're already well beyond needing the incentive pricing at this point and it will save the government money in doing so." A boy can dream about selectively DOGEing Tesla credits.
The Musk penalty Biden should have invoked is already law—defense contractor CEOs can’t use drugs. SpaceX & Starlink can either kick him out or be seized or whatever penalty that law requires.
I remember reading about Newsom saying a while back CA could do that, using the same argument about market evaluation. I wonder what happened with that proposal?
Actually, Travis wasn't advocating prosecution. He was saying Dem blue state GOVERNORS should use their authority by "freezing assets of foreign leaders or tariffing their economies, prohibiting business dealings, executing tariffs on other states, and doing things like cutting off water/electricity to ICE field offices." I agree with that.
However, Dem Attorneys General (AGs) prosecuting Trump? Yes! "20 AGs (launched) a lawsuit to block the dismantling of the federal Department of Education . . . (19) AGs sued to block Trump’s executive order regarding election rules. A dozen states filed suit on Wednesday to block Trump's tariff powers. And . . . two-dozen AGs . . . filed suit against health-care funding cuts" (https://www.governing.com/politics/the-democrats-leading-the-opposition-against-trump).
Hey Travis, what up? How 'bout that stock market! :-)
Re: your comment, yeah, that's a problem. And, it's really just interwoven the author's theme that the Dems don't do "retribution". So, if a party doesn't have a history of doing X, well, of course the threat of them doing X will ring hollow.
And, the reasons for the lack of "retribution" politics are obvious: it often leads to a bad place.
It's a dangerous game, but the author may be right; the Dems might have to behave this way. Because the last election clearly demonstrated that facts, reason, and obvious risks aren't sufficient. The only other option is wishcasting it away, hoping Trumpism burns itself out.
The cycle of retribution will need some exogenous event to burn it out. Republicans I expect are giving the Democrats everything they deserve after their lawfare crusade during Biden’s term.
Democrats will hopefully reply with something but more rules based, which Republicans will still cry foul about in 2029. I doubt they’ll be placated even when Trump passes - you see the Trumpism mimicry of JD Vance who is eager is ascend to his boss’ position.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t want to keep being the fool who blinks first.
I suspect the problem is the "fake news" automatic response to everything contra-Trump.
One could argue that the Bragg prosecution was overzealous (but still perfectly legal, btw), but what about the rest? Documents? Capitol "riots"? Georgia?
If those things were "lawfare", then I think the question is: what *isn't* lawfare when it comes to Trump? Is there any law he could egregiously break that merits prosecution?
So you buy the GOP line that the attempts to respond to Trump's many crimes and illegality was "lawfare" and "weaponizing the DOJ?" IMO the Dems were for sure rules-based and way too slow in taking the action that needed to be taken under the law (see Merrick Garland).
No I don’t. Just going with a narrative we can understand.
Travis said nothing about retribution. Just wielding their power as state governors against their opponents.
Assuming the EV tax credit is still around come 2028 and dems win the house/white house, dems should keep the EV credit in place for all other automakers but revoke it for Tesla. They could say that "since Tesla's market valuation is greater than the rest of the automakers combined, we don't think we need to extend these credits to Tesla vehicles moving forward as they're already well beyond needing the incentive pricing at this point and it will save the government money in doing so." A boy can dream about selectively DOGEing Tesla credits.
The Musk penalty Biden should have invoked is already law—defense contractor CEOs can’t use drugs. SpaceX & Starlink can either kick him out or be seized or whatever penalty that law requires.
I remember reading about Newsom saying a while back CA could do that, using the same argument about market evaluation. I wonder what happened with that proposal?
They don’t have to do “retribution.“ They simply need to prosecute anyone who has broken any law. That covers a lot of people in this administration.
In addition to what Sandy says below, there's a range of options here, from a minimal application of the law to, well, the sky's the limit.
From reading all the responses, it's pretty clear Travis meant play "hardball". I.e. go well beyond simply prosecuting obvious crimes.
I think the 2 key questions for everyone thinking about this:
- How far are you willing to go?
- Will whatever that is be far enough to change things?
Actually, Travis wasn't advocating prosecution. He was saying Dem blue state GOVERNORS should use their authority by "freezing assets of foreign leaders or tariffing their economies, prohibiting business dealings, executing tariffs on other states, and doing things like cutting off water/electricity to ICE field offices." I agree with that.
However, Dem Attorneys General (AGs) prosecuting Trump? Yes! "20 AGs (launched) a lawsuit to block the dismantling of the federal Department of Education . . . (19) AGs sued to block Trump’s executive order regarding election rules. A dozen states filed suit on Wednesday to block Trump's tariff powers. And . . . two-dozen AGs . . . filed suit against health-care funding cuts" (https://www.governing.com/politics/the-democrats-leading-the-opposition-against-trump).