It's not like a lecture. It's a pep rally. Energy rally. To rally is to come together for a common cause. It's meant to bring people together to boost and sustain energy, in this case about a candidate or party. You're not going there to learn things.
And removing the filibuster will serve the christo-fascist agenda just as well as anything else. You can try to hand-wave it away and act like I'm pointing this out for the "sound bites" (?), but it's simply a fact. Perhaps you should look around. Half the country fully supports those christo-fascists, and they seem a lot more armed, a lot more organized, a lot more politically entrenched, and a lot more strategic. You're right, they will probably remove the filibuster when they get in power, and you'll get your wish.
My point is that removing the filibuster means that the minority party, which will inevitably include the democrats, have a much harder time doing anything to stop the majority. That may seem great when you're imagining Obama, Biden, or Harris. But when it's Trump and whoever follows him, your desire to give the party in power even more power might seem less ideal. That's a lesson the democrats learned the hard way when they opened the door to removing the filibuster. They got some cabinet positions. Republicans took the supreme court. Play stupid games...
You can dither about the structure of the senate and it's equality-of-states construction, but that is what was intended when it was created. What you seem to actually want is to abolish the concept of senate itself.
Yeah well imagine what its like being a non-binary half black half Mexican person with disabilities. Ugh I'm so tired of privileged people like you whining about how no one will listen.
That's definitely true, and valuable to keep in mind. That said, it's a stall game for arguably the most powerful position in the world, and disenfranchisement is quite literally the whole point. Michiganders might protest en masse or whatever, but unless it somehow produces certified election results before Dec. 14, I'm not sure it will matter as much as it should. Politicians are surprisingly good at hiding, especially with the whole party apparatus helping and the presidency on the line.
I appreciate you providing these links. And to be clear, I've read them each time you post them. They're edifying.
What I think you might be overlooking is this: what if I don't do that mandatory duty in the timeframe stipulated? OK, so I broke the statute and related state constitution mandate. I may receive a mild punishment. Plus, now the board can demand the information. What if I don't heed the demand? Well then you might bring a lawsuit. What if I hire an attorney with the express intention of stalling, and part of what the lawyer does is moves the case before a sympathetic judge?
Even without a sympathetic judge, the lawsuit may take months. Remember, a fair legal hearing is part of "your" rules that you need to play by. Whoops. We missed the deadline, but we will see how the court case plays out sometime in 2025. What if the judge fast tracks it, I'm held to account, and I simply refuse to produce the results and choose to serve time? National scandal. Armed militias in Michigan activate. Still doesn't matter, because we miss the deadline. What happens after the deadline is missed become immaterial to the federal election, i.e., meaningless details to the larger plan. Maybe I serve some time like so many of Trump's collaborators. Maybe not. Remember, this is an attempted coup. Laws are to be used to leverage the attempt when it's useful and ignored when it's not. It's a bit like revolution: if it's successful, the former laws no longer apply anyway. It's a gambit.
The problem you have here is the same problem Democrats have had for almost a decade. You keep saying "but there are rules," and I keep telling you, "what if I don't give a fuck about your rules unless they serve my goal of overthrowing your rules?" You're left screaming about how it's not fair. Meanwhile, it installs Trump as president, so who cares how the case plays out? The damage is irrevocably done.
Meeting the federal deadline for state-level certification in almost every state is considered a ministerial duty. That means that it would only involve civil or administrative penalties, i.e., a light slap on the wrist at best. For criminal conduct, it would need to be elevated to obstruction of federal elections. This would be a federal crime and therefore pardonable.
Thanks for the link, but the plan The Nation outlined doesn't require fake electors or fraudulent documents. The only potential misdeed here is simply a failure to meet a federal deadline. It's related to the previous attempt insofar as it's an attempt to undermine American democracy, but this current plan is much more sound, involves much less legal culpability on the part of anyone involved, and generally appears to be constitutionally valid. Which is to say, the Republicans learned. The Democrats did not.
The bottom line is, overthrowing democracy is either a meaningless administrative infraction or a federal crime that will be pardoned. See the problem?
The VP certifies the results received by the deadline. That wouldn't change anything here, and she would be obligated to declare Trump the winner. Like Pence, the VP can't decide not to certify legitimate results submitted to congress by the deadline. The point here is that select blue states won't make the deadline through republican stalling, SCOTUS won't "interfere" in the election by adjudication, so the VP is required to only consider the full electors submitted by the deadline. And it would be perfectly valid at the federal level. The state actors might be committing a crime by stalling, but Trump will pardon them, so they really have little risk.
Realistically, even without "shall," most states carry the legal obligation in state statutes not the state constitution. The problem is that the crime is minor or will almost certainly be pardoned immediately by Trump. So even if it's "illegal," oh well. The governor refuses to certify, thereby breaking the law, Johnson still holds the deadline, the number of EC votes is lowered, Trump is declared the winner, and then the governors are pardoned and are in the good graces of the incoming POTUS.
Just to be clear, that makes everything valid and constitutional at the federal level for this plan. I don't think you're grasping how fully fucked we might be.
The vehicles with a higher automated driving rating than Tesla use a more diverse range of sensory inputs. While it may not make fully autonomous driving, it very clearly would have made Tesla closer to it based on the fact that cars that use things like lidar in addition to cameras surpassed Tesla's rating many years ago.
Uh, DC can deploy the national guard. You don't have a governor, so, you know, the president of the united states is authorized to deploy them.
The DC mayor can also request they be deployed, but it needs to be approved by the fed.