1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.SF.WRITTEN

  • Re: [OT] Why 2024 Won't Be Like 1984

    From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Feb 13 08:24:28 2024
    On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:15:02 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Of course, though, the title should have been

    Why 2025 Won't Be Like "1984".

    Oh, well. (Because both my post, and the Apple Macintosh commercial,
    were referring, in the second place, to George Orwell's novel, rather than >the actual year, and because Trump would only take office in 2025,
    upon being inaugurated, not after becoming President-Elect.)

    Well, maybe ... depending on the Supreme Court and the voters.

    I expect the Supremes to kick the can down the road for a while first.

    But eventually they will wake up and realize that they really don't
    want to be subject to the wrath of Trump II for not affirming his
    right to hold office at their first opportunity.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Paul S Person on Wed Feb 14 06:07:03 2024
    On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:24:28 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:

    I expect the Supremes to kick the can down the road for a while first.

    But eventually they will wake up and realize that they really don't
    want to be subject to the wrath of Trump II for not affirming his
    right to hold office at their first opportunity.

    I do suspect that, since there are valid legal reasons for doing so,
    the Supreme Court won't allow states to use the insurrection clause
    in the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

    But they're not likely to reverse the high court decisions denying Trump absolute immunity.

    It seems as though they're trying to convince us that they're a real
    Supreme Court that judges cases based on the law, despite being mostly appointed by Trump. So we're going to be kept in suspense. I've seen
    the titles of YouTube videos by Trump supporters which I haven't bothered
    to click on suggesting that Fani Wills has met with some reverses...

    I am not able to eliminate Trump II as a possibility.

    Unfortunately, the rest of the world has not gone to a war economy
    in order to pick up the slack in aid to Ukraine created by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

    And the world has not yet taken global warming seriously enough to
    put a stop to it, despite recent unusual weather.

    I do not wish the world to be in such a state that when I attempt
    to anticipate the future, what I see there is "doom!" - no, I agree
    with Trump supporters on one thing. I want to bring back the bright
    optimism about the future, and the properly functioning economy, of
    the 1948-1968 period.

    The rise of Trump after the long economic malaise of the post-1968
    era, along with less than stellar regimes in Hungary and, until recently, Poland... does bring to mind the fallout of the Great Depression, leading
    to an authoritarian regime in Poland as well as Hitler and Mussolini.

    A population that sees politicians failing to meet their economic needs
    will cast about further and further in seeking solutions... and if they
    don't get politicians who will do something, eventually they'll get to
    someone like Trump.

    And the American political system is rigged so that they'll get to Trump
    before getting to someone like Fidel Castro or even Bernie Sanders.

    But it's not clear to me that this, in itself, makes the ultimate outcome
    any worse, since left-wing demagogues also have a rather bad historical
    record.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Feb 14 09:21:54 2024
    On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 06:07:03 -0000 (UTC), Quadibloc <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:24:28 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:

    I expect the Supremes to kick the can down the road for a while first.

    But eventually they will wake up and realize that they really don't
    want to be subject to the wrath of Trump II for not affirming his
    right to hold office at their first opportunity.

    I do suspect that, since there are valid legal reasons for doing so,
    the Supreme Court won't allow states to use the insurrection clause
    in the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

    At least in the Primaries.

    I got my booklet for our Primary. As I recalled, I won't be voting in
    it because you have to declare your Party to do so, and I am
    independent.

    And that's my point: regardless of how it's done (ballot or State
    Convention), and regardless of whether the ballot actually chooses at
    least some of the delegates to the National Convention or is merely
    advisory, this is a /Party/ function and it should be the Party that
    decides who the candidates are.

    So, yes, even if they do not declare the insurrection clause
    inapplicable for some reason or other, they not only probably will but
    arguably should prevent States from interfering in internal Pary
    matters.

    The actual /election/ may be a different story.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)