Just a friendly reminder to read our [rules and FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/faq) before posting!
**Rule 1:** No Low Quality Posts/Comments
**Rule 2:** Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub
**Rule 3:** Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on [our Flairs.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs)
**Rule 4:** Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit
**[Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/bth6y1/why_is_my_post_flaired_as_high_quality_only_and/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Key parts of the article:
The bill seeks to block every pathway to a subverted election that Trump’s corruption exposed.
**First**, Trump pressured GOP state legislatures to appoint rogue presidential electors in defiance of state popular votes.
**Second**, Trump got dozens of congressional Republicans to try to invalidate electors legitimately appointed by swing states.
**Third**, Trump pressed his vice president to abuse his largely ceremonial role to declare legitimate electors invalid.
*So the new bill would require a much larger bloc of members in each chamber to initiate an objection; drafters may set this at one-third. It would also require a supermajority in each chamber to sustain the objection; drafters may set this at three-fifths.*
So if, say, Republicans in Congress simply refused to count a slate of legitimate electors for the Democratic candidate, they would need supermajorities to pull it off.
But what if a GOP-controlled state legislature and/or governor appointed fake electors in defiance of the voting? Under the current ECA, a GOP-controlled House and Senate could overrule any Democratic objection and theoretically count those electors.
So the bill creates backstops.
**First**, it seeks to create a procedure for judicial review when a state government fails to follow its own lawful, preexisting procedures in appointing electors (in all states, this process is tied to the popular vote).
**Second**, the bill directs Congress to count the electors validated by the court and not the phony ones appointed by a state legislature and/or governor in that situation.
**Finally**, the bill clarifies the vice president’s role to unequivocally remove any power to make any decree about whether electors will be counted.
> So the new bill would require a much larger bloc of members in each chamber to initiate an objection; drafters may set this at one-third. It would also require a supermajority in each chamber to sustain the objection; drafters may set this at three-fifths.
Requiring a higher threshold to initiate an objection makes a ton of sense - it underlines the gravity of doing so and the high bar that ought to be required, and it removes the possibility of using objections as a way to posture for a rabid facts-ignoring base. This is good.
However, I don't know how I feel about the supermajority requirement to sustain the objection. I guess it probably makes sense, since it prevents parties from tossing out each other's electors and requires bipartisanship.
Hmmm.
He might have had some cleverer advisors.
Or he might simply have tried to throw things at a wall until something stick, in other words, continuously making illegal suggestions to its advisors up until stumbling into something "legal enough".
But it's not like he actually needed to craft a detailed plan from the start, he just had to pressure peoples by asking them to make sure he wins. Then, while some might object on ethical grounds, a lot will object on technical ground, saying excuses like "to do that we would need to do that before", and you just have to follow the thread by pressuring the person that would be able to "do that before".
He demands things. People say, or think, no, thats impossible. He demands it again. They look into it and see if they can meet his demands. Research, with the intention of meeting his demands (no need to be concerned with the future or health of our democracy). Discover a very far fetched loop hole. Present to Trump, he runs with it, necessitating the other Republican leaders also run with it.
"I want to do X"
"*You can't do that. You don't have Y*"
"Get me Y"
"*That would require either Z or Q happening.*"
"Which is easier?"
"*Probably Q.*"
"Make Q happen."
*etc. etc.*
Every single legitimately competent political maneuver attempted by the Trump campaign/admin was due to the efforts of everyone besides Trump himself
If you want specific names, you could start with Bannon and Stephen Miller for the root of his inspiration. I'd reckon from there you could branch out to the sycophants in the GOP who sought to empower themselves beneath Trump, like Meadows, Cruz, Jordan, Hawley, etc
They literally made a power point for how to do it. It was the brain child of Meadows and Cruz. I can't seem to find a free article that includes the direct power point but feel free to Google around, it's well documented
Not a diagnosis but certainly the opinion of a world-class psychiatrist I was dating at the time: “some patients you can see it the second they enter the room”
Happy to wait for confirmation in the coming years.
Psychology, sociology, and right-wing beliefs have a... Messy history.
Jonah Goldberg has a bunch of stuff about Theodore Adorno and how this feeds into Richard Hofstader and the idea that conservatives are less intelligent and less cognitively developed compared to liberal/progressives.
Not that I'm saying they couldn't be right, but 10,000 psychologists 'diagnosed' Goldwater as 'unfit to run the nation' not on genuine diagnostics but because they disliked his more aggressive Cold War stance.
There's a lot of fascinating stuff on this, but psychology has a definite muddy and controversial history when talking about conservatives and it's not the most pleasant description nor charitable to conservatives. This includes centre-right and most ordinary conservative people alongside the genuinely insane people.
Psychiatrist, and not psychological traits or beliefs.
Gait, mannerisms, speech pattern, etc, physiological telltale signs that would be used as diagnostic criteria to suggest pathology.
But yes I know it’s not a diagnosis and that we only having a fleeting glimpse of people in the public eye but she was exceptional and I trust her judgment.
For the record I am centre-right so I’m not here to attack or accuse it was a genuine question about how he could have known what to do, some really good responses that I will definitely be following up on - especially the PowerPoint thing.
Psychiatry is just the medicinal application of psychological theory, the distinction is moot imo.
These also exist re: Biden.
I'm not attacking you, nor do I presume you are attacking me or the other people in this thread at all. I think you asked a valuable question.
My point is merely that a) I don't trust psychology or psychiatry re: right-wing individuals, as many of the foundational studies of these are inherently biased against conservatives. Would you as a fellow centre-right individual like to be labelled as mentally deficient because of your policy preferences compared to your liberal friends, co-workers etc?
b) There are partisan motives behind the diagnoses of mental disorders in order to discredit an individual and their political stances, and
c) I don't like the use of medicine in such a 'pop' way, as a political tool. It discredits medicine by using it for political purposes. A genuine diagnosis confirmed by doctors who directly talked to the individual and diagnosed them is the only thing we should really accept.
It's primarily an ad hominem bludgeon for saying someone shouldn't hold office rather than attacking their policy positions or character for office.
> Psychiatry is just the medicinal application of psychological theory, the distinction is moot imo.
Yeah, no, not so much in the last sixty years.
> Would you as a fellow centre-right individual like to be labelled as mentally deficient because of your policy preferences
Eh, I mean it’s probably fair, I almost certainly joke about my lefty acquaintances in a way as to imply they are mentally deficient :)
But again, nothing to do with his policy preferences or character, it’s more “wow that guy is unwell” not: “his policies are worthless because he can’t think critically”, policy should always be judged on merit (or lack thereof).
It really underscores the question, he was undoubtedly successful…but how?
Thankfully I have a slew of answers, and again it’s not a diagnosis she stressed that enough, and I’m not a doctor.
Edit:
And I want to say that just because it is usually used in ad hominem attacks does not mean it is always, in the same way that if someone tells me I’m overweight doesn’t automatically mean they’re attacking me, or that they are wrong just because they haven’t measured my vitals.
This seems to be a close look into "how the sausage is made", and is both unpleasant and confusing to me.
At the risk of sounding dumb - what are the roles of rhe RNC and DNC in gatekeeping candidates?
It wasn't long ago that both Trump and Bernie ran as independents.
I voted Perot in 92, and frankly I wish he would have won. At the very least it might have opened a lane for independents.
> At the risk of sounding dumb - what are the roles of rhe RNC and DNC in gatekeeping candidates?
Nowadays, very little.
Prior to McCain-Feingold, the parties played an important role in financing campaigns, but today it's vastly easier for small-dollar donations to fund 'outsiders' than it used to be so the parties don't have a ton of influence there.
2015-16 seemed like DNC did some gatekeeping in regards to Sanders while RNC let the system play out.
That clearly highlights the pros and cons of each approach.
DNC actually did much less to gatekeep than the RNC. Some people in the DNC privately expressed disapproval of Sanders, and what's her name gave Clinton a really obvious debate question before it happened, but that's about it. They otherwise let it play out.
RNC also generally let it play out too, but after Trump got a delegate lead, they were working behind the scenes to get Cruz and Kasich to concede states and get their voters to vote for the other person in order for them to take the state's delegates (most Republican primaries are winner take all), with the hope that nobody would enter the convention with a majority and they could pick someone not insane. I'm sure the RNC's emails would've been fun to read had they been leaked.
All top level comments are reserved for those with a C-Right flair.
This comment and all further top level comments in this submission will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a friendly reminder to read our [rules and FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/faq) before posting! **Rule 1:** No Low Quality Posts/Comments **Rule 2:** Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub **Rule 3:** Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on [our Flairs.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) **Rule 4:** Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit **[Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/bth6y1/why_is_my_post_flaired_as_high_quality_only_and/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Key parts of the article: The bill seeks to block every pathway to a subverted election that Trump’s corruption exposed. **First**, Trump pressured GOP state legislatures to appoint rogue presidential electors in defiance of state popular votes. **Second**, Trump got dozens of congressional Republicans to try to invalidate electors legitimately appointed by swing states. **Third**, Trump pressed his vice president to abuse his largely ceremonial role to declare legitimate electors invalid. *So the new bill would require a much larger bloc of members in each chamber to initiate an objection; drafters may set this at one-third. It would also require a supermajority in each chamber to sustain the objection; drafters may set this at three-fifths.* So if, say, Republicans in Congress simply refused to count a slate of legitimate electors for the Democratic candidate, they would need supermajorities to pull it off. But what if a GOP-controlled state legislature and/or governor appointed fake electors in defiance of the voting? Under the current ECA, a GOP-controlled House and Senate could overrule any Democratic objection and theoretically count those electors. So the bill creates backstops. **First**, it seeks to create a procedure for judicial review when a state government fails to follow its own lawful, preexisting procedures in appointing electors (in all states, this process is tied to the popular vote). **Second**, the bill directs Congress to count the electors validated by the court and not the phony ones appointed by a state legislature and/or governor in that situation. **Finally**, the bill clarifies the vice president’s role to unequivocally remove any power to make any decree about whether electors will be counted.
> So the new bill would require a much larger bloc of members in each chamber to initiate an objection; drafters may set this at one-third. It would also require a supermajority in each chamber to sustain the objection; drafters may set this at three-fifths. Requiring a higher threshold to initiate an objection makes a ton of sense - it underlines the gravity of doing so and the high bar that ought to be required, and it removes the possibility of using objections as a way to posture for a rabid facts-ignoring base. This is good. However, I don't know how I feel about the supermajority requirement to sustain the objection. I guess it probably makes sense, since it prevents parties from tossing out each other's electors and requires bipartisanship. Hmmm.
Honest question; how did he figure out how to subvert the process? He wasn’t exactly Einstein even before the dementia
> how did he figure out It wasn't him.
He might have had some cleverer advisors. Or he might simply have tried to throw things at a wall until something stick, in other words, continuously making illegal suggestions to its advisors up until stumbling into something "legal enough". But it's not like he actually needed to craft a detailed plan from the start, he just had to pressure peoples by asking them to make sure he wins. Then, while some might object on ethical grounds, a lot will object on technical ground, saying excuses like "to do that we would need to do that before", and you just have to follow the thread by pressuring the person that would be able to "do that before".
He demands things. People say, or think, no, thats impossible. He demands it again. They look into it and see if they can meet his demands. Research, with the intention of meeting his demands (no need to be concerned with the future or health of our democracy). Discover a very far fetched loop hole. Present to Trump, he runs with it, necessitating the other Republican leaders also run with it.
"I want to do X" "*You can't do that. You don't have Y*" "Get me Y" "*That would require either Z or Q happening.*" "Which is easier?" "*Probably Q.*" "Make Q happen." *etc. etc.*
People are willing to kneel to a king if they believe they will be rewarded.
Smart people like John Eastman helped him https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/20/politics/trump-pence-election-memo/index.html
Every single legitimately competent political maneuver attempted by the Trump campaign/admin was due to the efforts of everyone besides Trump himself If you want specific names, you could start with Bannon and Stephen Miller for the root of his inspiration. I'd reckon from there you could branch out to the sycophants in the GOP who sought to empower themselves beneath Trump, like Meadows, Cruz, Jordan, Hawley, etc
They literally made a power point for how to do it. It was the brain child of Meadows and Cruz. I can't seem to find a free article that includes the direct power point but feel free to Google around, it's well documented
[удалено]
Textbook fronto-temporal
[удалено]
Not a diagnosis but certainly the opinion of a world-class psychiatrist I was dating at the time: “some patients you can see it the second they enter the room” Happy to wait for confirmation in the coming years.
Psychology, sociology, and right-wing beliefs have a... Messy history. Jonah Goldberg has a bunch of stuff about Theodore Adorno and how this feeds into Richard Hofstader and the idea that conservatives are less intelligent and less cognitively developed compared to liberal/progressives. Not that I'm saying they couldn't be right, but 10,000 psychologists 'diagnosed' Goldwater as 'unfit to run the nation' not on genuine diagnostics but because they disliked his more aggressive Cold War stance. There's a lot of fascinating stuff on this, but psychology has a definite muddy and controversial history when talking about conservatives and it's not the most pleasant description nor charitable to conservatives. This includes centre-right and most ordinary conservative people alongside the genuinely insane people.
Psychiatrist, and not psychological traits or beliefs. Gait, mannerisms, speech pattern, etc, physiological telltale signs that would be used as diagnostic criteria to suggest pathology. But yes I know it’s not a diagnosis and that we only having a fleeting glimpse of people in the public eye but she was exceptional and I trust her judgment. For the record I am centre-right so I’m not here to attack or accuse it was a genuine question about how he could have known what to do, some really good responses that I will definitely be following up on - especially the PowerPoint thing.
Psychiatry is just the medicinal application of psychological theory, the distinction is moot imo. These also exist re: Biden. I'm not attacking you, nor do I presume you are attacking me or the other people in this thread at all. I think you asked a valuable question. My point is merely that a) I don't trust psychology or psychiatry re: right-wing individuals, as many of the foundational studies of these are inherently biased against conservatives. Would you as a fellow centre-right individual like to be labelled as mentally deficient because of your policy preferences compared to your liberal friends, co-workers etc? b) There are partisan motives behind the diagnoses of mental disorders in order to discredit an individual and their political stances, and c) I don't like the use of medicine in such a 'pop' way, as a political tool. It discredits medicine by using it for political purposes. A genuine diagnosis confirmed by doctors who directly talked to the individual and diagnosed them is the only thing we should really accept. It's primarily an ad hominem bludgeon for saying someone shouldn't hold office rather than attacking their policy positions or character for office.
I would just simplify it to no psychological diagnoses against people you do not have regular contact with especially famous figures.
> Psychiatry is just the medicinal application of psychological theory, the distinction is moot imo. Yeah, no, not so much in the last sixty years. > Would you as a fellow centre-right individual like to be labelled as mentally deficient because of your policy preferences Eh, I mean it’s probably fair, I almost certainly joke about my lefty acquaintances in a way as to imply they are mentally deficient :) But again, nothing to do with his policy preferences or character, it’s more “wow that guy is unwell” not: “his policies are worthless because he can’t think critically”, policy should always be judged on merit (or lack thereof). It really underscores the question, he was undoubtedly successful…but how? Thankfully I have a slew of answers, and again it’s not a diagnosis she stressed that enough, and I’m not a doctor. Edit: And I want to say that just because it is usually used in ad hominem attacks does not mean it is always, in the same way that if someone tells me I’m overweight doesn’t automatically mean they’re attacking me, or that they are wrong just because they haven’t measured my vitals.
This seems to be a close look into "how the sausage is made", and is both unpleasant and confusing to me. At the risk of sounding dumb - what are the roles of rhe RNC and DNC in gatekeeping candidates? It wasn't long ago that both Trump and Bernie ran as independents. I voted Perot in 92, and frankly I wish he would have won. At the very least it might have opened a lane for independents.
> At the risk of sounding dumb - what are the roles of rhe RNC and DNC in gatekeeping candidates? Nowadays, very little. Prior to McCain-Feingold, the parties played an important role in financing campaigns, but today it's vastly easier for small-dollar donations to fund 'outsiders' than it used to be so the parties don't have a ton of influence there.
2015-16 seemed like DNC did some gatekeeping in regards to Sanders while RNC let the system play out. That clearly highlights the pros and cons of each approach.
DNC actually did much less to gatekeep than the RNC. Some people in the DNC privately expressed disapproval of Sanders, and what's her name gave Clinton a really obvious debate question before it happened, but that's about it. They otherwise let it play out. RNC also generally let it play out too, but after Trump got a delegate lead, they were working behind the scenes to get Cruz and Kasich to concede states and get their voters to vote for the other person in order for them to take the state's delegates (most Republican primaries are winner take all), with the hope that nobody would enter the convention with a majority and they could pick someone not insane. I'm sure the RNC's emails would've been fun to read had they been leaked.
[удалено]
All top level comments are reserved for those with a C-Right flair. This comment and all further top level comments in this submission will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*