MAGA types have been criticizing The Lincoln Project for daring to continue to criticize Trump! But - first amendment much?

[eclipsenow]

I love the irony. MAGA types have been accusing The Lincoln Project of being 'un-American' because they dare to continue to criticise Trump.
But how 'un-American' is it to tell a group to quiet down during an election of such epic and toxic proportions?

 

[AlexB23]

I love the irony. MAGA types have been accusing The Lincoln Project of being 'un-American' because they dare to continue to criticise Trump.
But how 'un-American' is it to tell a group to quiet down during an election of such epic and toxic proportions?

I like the Lincoln Project. True conservatives are speaking the truth.

 

[Vambram]

I like the Lincoln Project. True conservatives are speaking the truth.

Sorry, my friend and brother in Christ, but the Lincoln Project is opposed by more than a few well known American Conservatives. I do not believe that project is speaking the truth at all.

The Lincoln Project imploded, and burned liberals who backed its anti-Trump viral videos

The group used social media to power its rise, gaining many liberal supporters.

mashable.com

 

[AlexB23]

Sorry, my friend and brother in Christ, but the Lincoln Project is opposed by more than a few well known American Conservatives. I do not believe that project is speaking the truth at all.

That is understandable, brother in Christ. I could have sworn that the Lincoln Project was made by Conservatives, though it did have some issues with one of the founders, as John Weaver harassed young men. But hey, we may not agree on everything, but we do agree that society has changed a lot, and some of the changes are causing more harm than good (such as the woke stuff), so I see why some folks would support Trump, though I know a few Republicans who are anti-woke, but also anti-Trump and who want more moderate Conservatives.


Quote from Fact Check:

"The Lincoln Project was formed by a group of prominent political strategists and former staff members of Republican presidents and presidential candidates, including Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, Rick Wilson and Reed Galen.

Schmidt and Galen managed the late Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and worked on former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006 reelection campaign. Wilson has been a campaign strategist since he worked on former President George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, and Weaver advised the presidential campaigns of McCain and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

After taking a medical leave in the summer of 2020, Weaver did not return to the Lincoln Project in 2021, when he admitted to sending “inappropriate” sexual messages to several young men who accused him of harassment."

Source (as of 2022):

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/lincoln-project-2/

 

[ozso]

Please. It's simply tone down the over-exaggerated propaganda of him being the most evil and dangerous person in history who will destroy the world if he becomes president again.

 

[eclipsenow]

I would - if I understood the checks and balances in the US that might stop Project 2025. But I've already started a thread around that specific question.

 

[Vambram]

I would - if I understood the checks and balances in the US that might stop Project 2025. But I've already started a thread around that specific question.

IMO, the checks and balances for what is supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government are not too difficult to understand. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Wikipedia has a good explanation concerning the US Constitution and the 3 co-equal branches of the Federal government.

 

[eclipsenow]

IMO, the checks and balances for what is supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government are not too difficult to understand. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Wikipedia has a good explanation concerning the US Constitution and the 3 co-equal branches of the Federal government.

Nope - not good enough because in Australia under the Westminster system of government down here the President or Prime Minister does not appoint High Court Judges (our equivalent). The Governor General does on behalf of the King. In other words, the High Court is not politicized by the frenzied concerns of the day.

Trump promised to appoint Conservative Judges to your Supreme Court to abolish abortion. Trump doesn't care what he has to say to get elected. I mean, this is the guy selling the Trump bible that has probably never opened one on his life! But he DOES call in favours.

Jan 6th? Boom. Out of court. Supreme Court compromised.
Where will it end?

 

[Vambram]

Nope - not good enough because in Australia under the Westminster system of government down here the President or Prime Minister does not appoint High Court Judges (our equivalent). The Governor General does on behalf of the King. In other words, the High Court is not politicized by the frenzied concerns of the day.

You do understand that judges cannot be approved to be in the SCOTUS until after the US Senate votes their approval of them, correct? Therefore, there is a system of checks and balances still happening there. A President cannot ever put a judge into any US Federal Court without that judge's selection by the POTUS being approved by the U.S. Senate.

 

[Hank77]

You do understand that judges cannot be approved to be in the SCOTUS until after the US Senate votes their approval of them, correct?

And the US Senate isn't political? M. Garland would have been on the SCOTUS if the Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell had allowed a vote to come to the floor. He held it up for 9 months! Not political, checks and balances work when men/women are behaving honorably by the rules but can be corrupted when power is at stake.

 

[Vambram]

And the US Senate isn't political? M. Garland would have been on the SCOTUS if the Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell had allowed a vote to come to the floor. He held it up for 9 months! Not political, checks and balances work when men/women are behaving honorably by the rules but can be corrupted when power is at stake.

That is a very fair reply. In response, I shall say that McConnell, as the Senate Majority Leader, was attempting to be a check and balance towards a Democratic POTUS. Was this politically motivated? Of course it was. However, I say that around 90% or more of the executive and legislative actions in Washington DC are politically motivated. Also, I believe that it would be easier to find the proverbial needle in a haystack than it would to find a politician in Washington DC whom hasn't been corrupted at all by politics.

 

[Pommer]

That is a very fair reply. In response, I shall say that McConnell, as the Senate Majority Leader, was attempting to be a check and balance towards a Democratic POTUS. Was this politically motivated? Of course it was. However, I say that around 90% or more of the executive and legislative actions in Washington DC are politically motivated. Also, I believe that it would be easier to find the proverbial needle in a haystack than it would to find a politician in Washington DC whom hasn't been corrupted at all by politics.

And then in 2020, when confronted with the exact same scenario, (SCOTUS vacancy in a President’s final year), disregarded his own “reasoning” and confirmed a late pick for the Bench.
Partisanship doesn’t get any purer than that!

 

[eclipsenow]

You do understand that judges cannot be approved to be in the SCOTUS until after the US Senate votes their approval of them, correct? Therefore, there is a system of checks and balances still happening there. A President cannot ever put a judge into any US Federal Court without that judge's selection by the POTUS being approved by the U.S. Senate.

Well I'm glad it's not just the sole appointment of the President.

But Judges interpreting something as socially binding as the Bill of Rights should be appointed very, very carefully. I don't know that you have enough checks and balances. Something seems up with the American system. I don't understand how Trump winning the 2016 vote is 'democratic' when he lost by 2.87 million votes nation wide.

I do not understand how he ended up with enough of his senators in the Committees to stack the Supreme Court with 'his people'.

I do not understand how the Supreme Court quashed investigation into his communications with the VP on Jan 6 as normal duties - when the question was not about whether speaking to his VP was legal - but what he was asking the VP to do was legal.

Basically - one President and his group get voted in during a societal 'moment' and stacks the Supreme Court - and it can have an impact on society for decades! In all sorts of weird and unpredictable areas - especially as the American Bill of Rights has implications for areas that in Australia we just call "Social Policy." I'm all for human rights - but dead against a bloated Bill of Rights. I want more democracy, not less! Nimble Parliamentary Social Policy - not Social Policy stuck in the dusty jail of a parchment written centuries before the modern world existed.

 

[Yarddog]

I love the irony. MAGA types have been accusing The Lincoln Project of being 'un-American' because they dare to continue to criticise Trump.
But how 'un-American' is it to tell a group to quiet down during an election of such epic and toxic proportions?

Typical.

 

[Yarddog]

You do understand that judges cannot be approved to be in the SCOTUS until after the US Senate votes their approval of them, correct? Therefore, there is a system of checks and balances still happening there. A President cannot ever put a judge into any US Federal Court without that judge's selection by the POTUS being approved by the U.S. Senate.

If Congress is run by Republicans for a Republican President, then he can.

 

[Vambram]

But Judges interpreting something as socially binding as the Bill of Rights should be appointed very, very carefully. I don't know that you have enough checks and balances. Something seems up with the American system. I don't understand how Trump winning the 2016 vote is 'democratic' when he lost by 2.87 million votes nation wide.

In the USA, we have the electoral college which was established by the US Constitution.
To be fair, the parliamentary system of democracy with three or more parties is also a little confusing to myself and other Americans here.

 

[Vambram]

If Congress is run by Republicans for a Republican President, then he can.

With the rules in the Senate, even the party that is in the minority can do lots and lots of stuff to stop the agenda and also the political appointments of the majority party.

 

[Yarddog]

With the rules in the Senate, even the party that is in the minority can do lots and lots of stuff to stop the agenda and also the political appointments of the majority party.

Yes, the Democrats tried that with Trump's appointments but only delayed things.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well I'm glad it's not just the sole appointment of the President.

But Judges interpreting something as socially binding as the Bill of Rights should be appointed very, very carefully. I don't know that you have enough checks and balances. Something seems up with the American system. I don't understand how Trump winning the 2016 vote is 'democratic' when he lost by 2.87 million votes nation wide.

I do not understand how he ended up with enough of his senators in the Committees to stack the Supreme Court with 'his people'.

I do not understand how the Supreme Court quashed investigation into his communications with the VP on Jan 6 as normal duties - when the question was not about whether speaking to his VP was legal - but what he was asking the VP to do was legal.

Basically - one President and his group get voted in during a societal 'moment' and stacks the Supreme Court - and it can have an impact on society for decades! In all sorts of weird and unpredictable areas - especially as the American Bill of Rights has implications for areas that in Australia we just call "Social Policy." I'm all for human rights - but dead against a bloated Bill of Rights. I want more democracy, not less! Nimble Parliamentary Social Policy - not Social Policy stuck in the dusty jail of a parchment written centuries before the modern world existed.

Legal Textualism in the US is the counterpoint to American biblical Fundamentalism. It has the same self-serving, decontextualized logic.

 

[eclipsenow]

Legal Textualism in the US is the counterpoint to American biblical Fundamentalism. It has the same self-serving, decontextualized logic.

I think I know where you are going with this - but could you please unpack it a bit more?