7 ms·

I think we can all be certain that whoever is appointed by the Federalist Society and approved by Mitch McConnell will make sure Trump wins a second (or third,

I think we can all be certain that whoever is appointed by the Federalist Society and approved by Mitch McConnell will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term. The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over. Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid's Tale, get the fsck out if you still can.

abawany 6y ago
It really does seem the cosmos has decided that America's time of greatness (however broad the meaning of that word is) is at an end. I hope my comment turns out to be another "who needs dropbox". Edit0:s/this/my.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  Based on what? A justice dying and a terrible president who will be voted out of office in 7 weeks? Quit with the sensationalist “the world is ending” comments that aren’t based on anything but you’re pessimistic gut feeling.
  - abawany 6y ago
    You accuse me of pessimistic gut feeling while laying out yours. The election outcome is far far far from certain. I used to deal with coworkers who were similarly smug in 2016 and they were proven to be equally wrong.
    - bluedevil2k 6y ago
      Yes, people are wrong every election, that’s what happens when someone wins and someone loses. The same thing will happen in 7 weeks as well.
  - chrismsimpson 6y ago
    Have you just awoken from a four year slumber?
    - bluedevil2k 6y ago
      Have you? Yes, Trump is terrible, there have been other Presidents as terrible as him in US history (Buchanan, Johnson, Harding) and the ship has always righted itself. He also hasn’t fundamentally altered the American political system. Congress still makes laws, Supreme Court still rules on their legality, President still signs them into law. The comments on here act like Trump has become a Francisco Franco when the fact is he’s likely to be voted out of office in 7 weeks and gone from politics on January 20th.
      - staticman2 6y ago
        Congress makes laws, Supreme Court rules on their legality, President signs them into law. This is just procedure. It could describe a well functioning fascist regime or it could describe a rights-based democracy. I don't think Trump will be around forever but the problem is bigger than Trump.
bluedevil2k 6y ago
I think you’re underestimating the independence that justices feel when they’re appointed. The new appointee would owe nothing to Trump. Look at Roberts ruling for Oabamacare and Kavanaughs recent rulings.
- mindslight 6y ago
  You're ignoring the kompromat. It's presumably why most of these Republican senators have given up all shreds of conservatism and stand by watching Trump turn our country into a dumpster fire.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Do you think kompromat exists only for Republican senators? How would this happen?
    - mindslight 6y ago
      I'd guess it exists for most politicians. I'm just specifically calling out Republican senators as it seems they're no longer beholden to the US power structure. It's a novel position for me to be hoping the US establishment retakes control, instead of succumbing to whatever external powers are working to disrupt it. Freedom has to arise from the people via technological progress, a collapse will merely drag us backwards. As for how the creation of compromising material happens - people lust after power to obtain things that money can't buy. Epstein's island wasn't merely for recreation.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
Politically charged appointees to the Supreme Court have on occasion surprised naysayers and showed independence or at least made it a point to not be outright impartial.
bluedevil2k 6y ago
Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” - the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can” comments until it’s over. How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
- chrismsimpson 6y ago
  Read: don’t say “I told you so” until it’s absolutely too late
- geofft 6y ago
  > Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to gain from opposing it, and much to lose. I mean, do you honestly think the United States Postal Service would dismantle its own machinery and send out misinformation about elections?
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    They have lifetime appointments, what would they have to gain by ruling against a Constitutional Amendment??
    - geofft 6y ago
      They don't have lifetime appointments - they have appointments during "good behavior." Who's going to determine when they've started behaving badly? I mean, the history of basically every country that has fallen into single-party rule is the story of good intentions, including the belief that people will listen to the constitution, not counting for much in the face of real-world political power. I'm not saying it will happen to the US; I'm saying it's naive to believe it can't happen.
      - 6y ago
Trasmatta 6y ago
> will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term How would a Supreme Court Justice do this? A third and fourth term would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
- smcameron 6y ago
  The constitution means what the Supreme court says it means. Doesn't have to make sense.
  - Trasmatta 6y ago
    A Supreme Court ruling directly against the 22nd Amendment seems even less likely to me than somehow getting enough votes in Congress and then 38 states to ratify a new amendment to nullify it. Which also seems incredibly unlikely.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    Ok, are you honestly saying that you think a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule against a direct and clear Constitutional Amendment just to help a President that has no control over them or their jobs? Has this post really gotten to this point, that we’re just posting crazy claims without any merit or knowledge or research at all? Isn’t HN better than this?
    - Trasmatta 6y ago
      It's like Reddit, where people have been claiming for a year that Trump would just cancel the election, despite him having to power to do so. I expect a lot more fuckery to happen, but cancelled elections and the Supreme Court nullifying the 22nd amendment won't be included.
    - bleepblorp 6y ago
      A Republican USSC throwing out the constitution, and the principle of democratic fairness, to put a Republican in the White House is not without precedent. Al Gore legitimately won the 2000 election. The USSC prevented him from taking office.
kyleblarson 6y ago
Bye.
_prototype_ 6y ago
Wow the MSM media sure has filled you with propaganda. Talk about overdoing it jesus.

abawany 6y ago

It really does seem the cosmos has decided that America's time of greatness (however broad the meaning of that word is) is at an end. I hope my comment turns out to be another "who needs dropbox". Edit0:s/this/my.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
Based on what? A justice dying and a terrible president who will be voted out of office in 7 weeks? Quit with the sensationalist “the world is ending” comments that aren’t based on anything but you’re pessimistic gut feeling.
- abawany 6y ago
  You accuse me of pessimistic gut feeling while laying out yours. The election outcome is far far far from certain. I used to deal with coworkers who were similarly smug in 2016 and they were proven to be equally wrong.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    Yes, people are wrong every election, that’s what happens when someone wins and someone loses. The same thing will happen in 7 weeks as well.
- chrismsimpson 6y ago
  Have you just awoken from a four year slumber?
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    Have you? Yes, Trump is terrible, there have been other Presidents as terrible as him in US history (Buchanan, Johnson, Harding) and the ship has always righted itself. He also hasn’t fundamentally altered the American political system. Congress still makes laws, Supreme Court still rules on their legality, President still signs them into law. The comments on here act like Trump has become a Francisco Franco when the fact is he’s likely to be voted out of office in 7 weeks and gone from politics on January 20th.
    - staticman2 6y ago
      Congress makes laws, Supreme Court rules on their legality, President signs them into law. This is just procedure. It could describe a well functioning fascist regime or it could describe a rights-based democracy. I don't think Trump will be around forever but the problem is bigger than Trump.

bluedevil2k 6y ago

I think you’re underestimating the independence that justices feel when they’re appointed. The new appointee would owe nothing to Trump. Look at Roberts ruling for Oabamacare and Kavanaughs recent rulings.

mindslight 6y ago
You're ignoring the kompromat. It's presumably why most of these Republican senators have given up all shreds of conservatism and stand by watching Trump turn our country into a dumpster fire.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Do you think kompromat exists only for Republican senators? How would this happen?
  - mindslight 6y ago
    I'd guess it exists for most politicians. I'm just specifically calling out Republican senators as it seems they're no longer beholden to the US power structure. It's a novel position for me to be hoping the US establishment retakes control, instead of succumbing to whatever external powers are working to disrupt it. Freedom has to arise from the people via technological progress, a collapse will merely drag us backwards. As for how the creation of compromising material happens - people lust after power to obtain things that money can't buy. Epstein's island wasn't merely for recreation.

ComputerGuru 6y ago

Politically charged appointees to the Supreme Court have on occasion surprised naysayers and showed independence or at least made it a point to not be outright impartial.

bluedevil2k 6y ago

Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” - the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can” comments until it’s over. How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.

chrismsimpson 6y ago
Read: don’t say “I told you so” until it’s absolutely too late
geofft 6y ago
> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to gain from opposing it, and much to lose. I mean, do you honestly think the United States Postal Service would dismantle its own machinery and send out misinformation about elections?
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  They have lifetime appointments, what would they have to gain by ruling against a Constitutional Amendment??
  - geofft 6y ago
    They don't have lifetime appointments - they have appointments during "good behavior." Who's going to determine when they've started behaving badly? I mean, the history of basically every country that has fallen into single-party rule is the story of good intentions, including the belief that people will listen to the constitution, not counting for much in the face of real-world political power. I'm not saying it will happen to the US; I'm saying it's naive to believe it can't happen.
    - 6y ago

Trasmatta 6y ago

> will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term How would a Supreme Court Justice do this? A third and fourth term would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

smcameron 6y ago
The constitution means what the Supreme court says it means. Doesn't have to make sense.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  A Supreme Court ruling directly against the 22nd Amendment seems even less likely to me than somehow getting enough votes in Congress and then 38 states to ratify a new amendment to nullify it. Which also seems incredibly unlikely.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  Ok, are you honestly saying that you think a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule against a direct and clear Constitutional Amendment just to help a President that has no control over them or their jobs? Has this post really gotten to this point, that we’re just posting crazy claims without any merit or knowledge or research at all? Isn’t HN better than this?
  - Trasmatta 6y ago
    It's like Reddit, where people have been claiming for a year that Trump would just cancel the election, despite him having to power to do so. I expect a lot more fuckery to happen, but cancelled elections and the Supreme Court nullifying the 22nd amendment won't be included.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    A Republican USSC throwing out the constitution, and the principle of democratic fairness, to put a Republican in the White House is not without precedent. Al Gore legitimately won the 2000 election. The USSC prevented him from taking office.

kyleblarson 6y ago

Bye.

_prototype_ 6y ago

Wow the MSM media sure has filled you with propaganda. Talk about overdoing it jesus.