2024 POTUS ELECTON

[DCR]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.

That's the thing: there is no law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory (and don't include any such thing in any event). Perhaps you know of a case in which the charges were considered; that's possible, along with the color of the guy's shirt, the weather that day, and what side of the bed the judge woke up on. However, that is a different thing from saying that the charges must or will be considered, such that a prosecutor would have an incentive to load up on them.

[Hardartery]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.

That's the thing: there is no law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory (and don't include any such thing in any event). Perhaps you know of a case in which the charges were considered; that's possible, along with the color of the guy's shirt, the weather that day, and what side of the bed the judge woke up on. However, that is a different thing from saying that the charges must or will be considered, such that a prosecutor would have an incentive to load up on them.

I meant what I said, and said what I meant. A judge may or may not be able to ignore guidelines and recommendations, but the charged counts are the base not the convicted counts which changes the minimum and maximum with conviction as opposed to plea. I am not speaking hypothetically, I don't care what anyone reads or does not read about it.

[DCR]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.

That's the thing: there is no law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory (and don't include any such thing in any event). Perhaps you know of a case in which the charges were considered; that's possible, along with the color of the guy's shirt, the weather that day, and what side of the bed the judge woke up on. However, that is a different thing from saying that the charges must or will be considered, such that a prosecutor would have an incentive to load up on them.

I meant what I said, and said what I meant. A judge may or may not be able to ignore guidelines and recommendations, but the charged counts are the base not the convicted counts which changes the minimum and maximum with conviction as opposed to plea. I am not speaking hypothetically, I don't care what anyone reads or does not read about it.

I'm a lawyer, but not a Federal criminal lawyer. I have a former colleague and good friend who does that work, with whom I just spoke. He has never heard of any such thing.

[Hardartery]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.

That's the thing: there is no law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory (and don't include any such thing in any event). Perhaps you know of a case in which the charges were considered; that's possible, along with the color of the guy's shirt, the weather that day, and what side of the bed the judge woke up on. However, that is a different thing from saying that the charges must or will be considered, such that a prosecutor would have an incentive to load up on them.

I meant what I said, and said what I meant. A judge may or may not be able to ignore guidelines and recommendations, but the charged counts are the base not the convicted counts which changes the minimum and maximum with conviction as opposed to plea. I am not speaking hypothetically, I don't care what anyone reads or does not read about it.

I'm a lawyer, but not a Federal criminal lawyer. I have a former colleague and good friend who does that work, with whom I just spoke. He has never heard of any such thing.

I find that more than hard to believe, given my experience.

[JonA]

I think what they have to prove is that a reasonable person, in Trump's position, knowing what Trump knew and with the advice Trump got, would or should have understood they lost the election.*

Do you think we'll see MSNBC start talking about what a reasonable person Mike Pence is?

[hector]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.

That's the thing: there is no law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory (and don't include any such thing in any event). Perhaps you know of a case in which the charges were considered; that's possible, along with the color of the guy's shirt, the weather that day, and what side of the bed the judge woke up on. However, that is a different thing from saying that the charges must or will be considered, such that a prosecutor would have an incentive to load up on them.

I meant what I said, and said what I meant. A judge may or may not be able to ignore guidelines and recommendations, but the charged counts are the base not the convicted counts which changes the minimum and maximum with conviction as opposed to plea. I am not speaking hypothetically, I don't care what anyone reads or does not read about it.

I'm a lawyer, but not a Federal criminal lawyer. I have a former colleague and good friend who does that work, with whom I just spoke. He has never heard of any such thing.

I don’t care. I’m going to respect your opinion and continue to appreciate your comments regardless.

[DCR]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.

That's the thing: there is no law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory (and don't include any such thing in any event). Perhaps you know of a case in which the charges were considered; that's possible, along with the color of the guy's shirt, the weather that day, and what side of the bed the judge woke up on. However, that is a different thing from saying that the charges must or will be considered, such that a prosecutor would have an incentive to load up on them.

I meant what I said, and said what I meant. A judge may or may not be able to ignore guidelines and recommendations, but the charged counts are the base not the convicted counts which changes the minimum and maximum with conviction as opposed to plea. I am not speaking hypothetically, I don't care what anyone reads or does not read about it.

I'm a lawyer, but not a Federal criminal lawyer. I have a former colleague and good friend who does that work, with whom I just spoke. He has never heard of any such thing.

I don’t care. I’m going to respect your opinion and continue to appreciate your comments regardless.

Lol’d. Gonna do my best not to change your mind, but no promises.

[mikeylikey]

The thing about laws is they are written down. Like, really well.

I call bullshit a legal claim that is backed up by "I can't tell you how I know this but trust me."

[mikeylikey]

I think what they have to prove is that a reasonable person, in Trump's position, knowing what Trump knew and with the advice Trump got, would or should have understood they lost the election.*

Do you think we'll see MSNBC start talking about what a reasonable person Mike Pence is?

No. I think the line from MSNBC will be more like, "See, even Mike Pence thinks he's crazy."

[mikeylikey]

So, the question which comes up every 4 years:

Is this the year when the 2 major candidates are so bad that a 3rd party finally has a shot?

Related. I have tended to discount the utility of 3rd party POTUS candidates on the basis that without changing congress and state legislatures, electing Ron Paul (or Bill Mahr or The Rock or Whoever) president wouldn't really change much, and thus 3p potus candidates are a waste of time. I may have changed my mind on that; I heard a great counter argument on a podcast the other day which boiled down to look, you need ballot access and exposure to get 3p local govt & US congresscritters elected, and the best way to get that is with a viable 3p potus candidacy. Thought that was a darn good point. If the election was tomorrow and he's on the ballot, I am voting for RFK Jr. Bite me.

[aurelius]

So, the question which comes up every 4 years:

Is this the year when the 2 major candidates are so bad that a 3rd party finally has a shot?

Related. I have tended to discount the utility of 3rd party POTUS candidates on the basis that without changing congress and state legislatures, electing Ron Paul (or Bill Mahr or The Rock or Whoever) president wouldn't really change much, and thus 3p potus candidates are a waste of time. I may have changed my mind on that; I heard a great counter argument on a podcast the other day which boiled down to look, you need ballot access and exposure to get 3p local govt & US congresscritters elected, and the best way to get that is with a viable 3p potus candidacy. Thought that was a darn good point. If the election was tomorrow and he's on the ballot, I am voting for RFK Jr. Bite me.

Given the electoral college, winner take all system; a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. For a third party to be viable the electoral votes would need to be apportioned by the popular vote for each State. All a third party candidate would do is drastically change the odds of one of the two parties. See George H. Bush in 1990.

We ARE being given two very different options. I read a post that made sense:
--Voting in the US isn't Uber. It does not drop you off at your destination. Voting in the US is public transit. You pick the bus that gets you the closest to your destination. If that route does not get enough use (votes), it is discontinued. If that route continues to be used (votes), stops will be added closer to your destination.

Moral of the story: protest voting, not voting, whatever is contrary to most people's best interest.

[mikeylikey]

Given the electoral college, winner take all system; a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. For a third party to be viable the electoral votes would need to be apportioned by the popular vote for each State. All a third party candidate would do is drastically change the odds of one of the two parties. See George H. Bush in 1990.

It was 1992 but yeah.

The result of the 1992 election was 6ish years of, *on balance*, the most responsible and competent (or, least irresponsible and incompetent) federal government that has been assembled in several generations. Fight me on that.

[5hout]

So, the question which comes up every 4 years:

Is this the year when the 2 major candidates are so bad that a 3rd party finally has a shot?

Moral of the story: protest voting, not voting, whatever is contrary to most people's best interest.

1. No, this isn't the year.
2. The only way out, is through. So long as the 2 major parties KNOW they have 30% of the electorate locked up solid and are keeping on engagement and for a few voters in the middle, there will never be major change. This isn't about tomorrow, it's about building something for 30+ years from now. It's about getting a few sane local candidates and hoping they are the seed of a next generation that can seize a moment where one of the major parties is broken. Every single election will be sold as "too crucial" to vote for a 3rd party by the mainstream supporting media and the major parties. Fuck them and fuck their doomer sentiments. The abolition movement was a miserable failure for over 100 years in the west, before it wasn't. Extension of the franchise took even longer.

Certainly the Electoral College makes this harder, but we need a grassroots 3rd party system to win local elections/state elections not controlled by the EC long before we need to be worrying about a presidential election. Can't even get the Libertarian Party to win more than a few seats nationwide, and most of them go to complete idiots.

Its your vote, do with it what you will. But I'm done (largely) voting for politicians I don't believe in. Fuck 'em.

Also: Fuck the Libertarian Party for nominating Spike Cohen and more generally for being so stupid as to somehow take Covid and shit the bed with it.

[mikeylikey]

Also: Fuck the Libertarian Party for nominating Spike Cohen and more generally for being so stupid as to somehow take Covid and shit the bed with it.

[aurelius]

The abolition movement was a miserable failure for over 100 years in the west, before it wasn't. Extension of the franchise took even longer.

This does not support your argument. A major party (The Republican Party) began supporting the abolitionist position. Despite the political realities of amending the Constitution (in 2023 there would still not be enough votes) to end slavery, the election of Lincoln was arguably the catalyst for the Civil War. Slavery ended because Lincoln assumed unprecedented wartime powers, including suspending habeas corpus in some cases, and issued a proclamation. Not because of third party voting. Democracy* did not end slavery in the US. Let that sink in.

I am in agreement with you (to a certain extent) at the local level. The focus should be on quality candidates. But even State politics has gotten polarized by national politics. If you really believe the things you are saying, it would be better for you to invest your time taking over the local political machinery and be active in the primaries of whatever respective major party you most align with. But then you'd have to spend your free time going toe to toe with the Karens of the world. UGH. That is how the far-right took over the Republican Party and they did it in a handful of years. There are quality centrist type candidates in both major parties that can't make it out of primaries. And even when they do and are elected, almost always vote with whatever the national level leadership demands because they are too scared of getting primaried. Ending that feedback loop is a solution to the current dystopian political cycle we find ourselves in. Example: Lauren Boebert is such an embarrassment that the local Colorado Republican machinery is trying to primary her. A major party attempting to primary their own elected official is rare.

This is the 2024 POTUS election thread. I was mainly discussing the Presidential election (hence the mention of the electoral college). In which I see no point at this time in voting for a non-major party candidate. Voters will be given two very different and distinctive choice which IMO can be surmised as rule of law or dictator.

*The South was under Union military rule and Confederate State governments disbanded during reconstruction. Confederates were barred from holding office and voting. Women weren't allowed to vote (1919). The 13th (1865) and 14th (1868) amendments were passed without the Southern participation.

[aurelius]

Funny GIF

This GIF is getting harder to find. I think QAnon should find out why...

[5hout]

The abolition movement was a miserable failure for over 100 years in the west, before it wasn't. Extension of the franchise took even longer.

This does not support your argument. A major party (The Republican Party) began supporting the abolitionist position. Despite the political realities of amending the Constitution (in 2023 there would still not be enough votes) to end slavery, the election of Lincoln was arguably the catalyst for the Civil War. Slavery ended because Lincoln assumed unprecedented wartime powers, including suspending habeas corpus in some cases, issued a proclamation. Not because of third party voting. Democracy* did not end slavery in the US. Let that sink in.

I am in agreement with you (to a certain extent) at the local level. The focus should be on quality candidates. But even State politics has gotten polarized by national politics. If you really believe the things you are saying, it would be better for you to invest your time taking over the local political machinery and be active in the primaries of whatever respective major party you most align with. But then you'd have to spend your free time going toe to toe with the Karens of the world. UGH. That is how the far-right took over the Republican Party and they did it in a handful of years. There are quality centrist type candidates in both major parties that can't make it out of primaries. And even when they do and are elected, almost always vote with whatever the national level leadership demands because they are too scared of getting primaried. Ending that feedback loop is a solution to the current dystopian political cycle we find ourselves in.

This is the 2024 POTUS election thread. I was mainly discussing the Presidential election (hence the mention of the electoral college). In which I see no point at this time in voting for a non-major party candidate. Voters will be given two very different and distinctive choice which IMO can be surmised as rule of law or dictator.

*The South was under Union military rule and Confederate State governments disbanded during reconstruction. Confederates were barred from holding office and voting. Women weren't allowed to vote (1919). The 13th (1865) and 14th (1868) amendments were passed without the Souths participation.

I was mostly thinking of the European efforts, beginning in the early 1700s among religious movements in the UK and then buoyed by the French Revolution (then betrayed by Napoleon). It was seen as an insane fringe political position from, say, 1730 until 1790s. Then a fringe position, but sort of respectable, for about 20 years. Then UK Gov policy (but with a blind eye) for a while, then the UK deployed their Navy to right fuck it up.

As to "If you really believe the things you are saying, it would be better for you to invest your time taking over the local political machinery and be active in the primaries of whatever respective major party you most align with." I am active in local volunteer efforts, including local non-partisan ad-hoc citizen's committee groups that try to install sane, but freedom loving people, in my local government. So far, unsuccessfully, but I am trying to live my local 1st mentality.

[mikeylikey]

The abolition movement was a miserable failure for over 100 years in the west, before it wasn't. Extension of the franchise took even longer.

This does not support your argument. A major party (The Republican Party) began supporting the abolitionist position. Despite the political realities of amending the Constitution (in 2023 there would still not be enough votes) to end slavery, the election of Lincoln was arguably the catalyst for the Civil War.

Um what?

The republican party WAS a third party. It basically came into existence with Lincoln. I think he may have been their first actual try at a presidential candidate. Up till then you had a strong 2 party duopoly of the Democrats and, like, the Whigs or something.

Unfortunately rather than upending the existing 2 party system, the Republican party just replaced the whigs and we ended up with the same system and new names.

[aurelius]

Um what?

The republican party WAS a third party. It basically came into existence with Lincoln. I think he may have been their first actual try at a presidential candidate. Up till then you had a strong 2 party duopoly of the Democrats and, like, the Whigs or something.

Unfortunately rather than upending the existing 2 party system, the Republican party just replaced the whigs and we ended up with the same system and new names.

My recollection of the politics of that period is not great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ed_States) You made me learn Mikey. Kind of upset about that. I'd award two points. One point each to @5hout and @mikeylikey

It seems the Republican Party was formed from the dissolution of the anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soilers in the North when the Whig party died in 1854 because internal divisions over slavery. The Republicans ran Jon C. Fremont for President in 1856. There appears to be a period of 4 to 6 years between the dissolution of the Whig Party and the rise of the Republican party that there was only one major party (the Democratic). Only in the US is the party that supported slavery be called the Democratic.

Lincoln's Cooper-Union Speech in 1860 about Southern treatment of Republicans:
"When you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." ... But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

What is old is new. I love history.

[mikeylikey]

Voters will be given two very different and distinctive choice which IMO can be surmised as rule of law or dictator.

In terms of rhetoric and popular perception sure. (And I believe those things matter a great deal too).

Not in terms of actual policies.
In most ways that matter, Trump governed pretty much the same as Obama or Biden and in many ways that matter, slightly to the left.

... supreme court appointments notwithstanding, i'll give you that.