Don't cuss me but what if....

[Elixir]

How does it feel to live in interesting times?

Feels like shit to me.
How are things in Thailand?

 

[SLD]

Trump is currently leading in the swing states, although these polls may not mean anything, it's still a bit concerning. I'm sharing an article that details Trump's plans for revenge should he be elected to a second term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/

It’s a scary article, but I’m skeptical that much, if any of this, could be accomplished. The Justice Department depends on career prosecutors who would not necessarily obey, or would, at best, sabotage their efforts. It might be very hard to get juries to actually indict, much less convict, especially in Washington, D.C. where 87% of people voted against Trump. Or for that matter almost anywhere. Even in Alabama, the federal courts are headquartered in major cities that are democratic, such as Birmingham and Montgomery. A unanimous jury would prove very difficult. Not to mention judges in these courts would not go along with overturning decades of jurisprudence just to help trump get his revenge. This would be true of even conservatives judges, and even many trump appointed judges. He can’t control the, like he thinks he can.

What I really fear is self styled vigilantism, with a wink and a nod from Trump. People are murdered and investigations are delayed and shoddy and no one is ever charged. Gee. Couldn’t catch the murderer. Too bad, so sad. Even some federal officials, political appointees, might use their power to harass or even harm opponents of him. This shifts the onus to defend themselves on to the victims, and the Supreme Court has severely limited our rights in this regard.

 

[SLD]

He's already announced he will fire droves of non-political government workers to replace them with thugs drawn from the Ilk of Hatred.


Expect Trump-47 to act quickly to begin the firing of "disloyal" government workers. The idea that competent careerists will prevent Trump excesses may fail, as the Ilk pushes to acquire absolute power quickly. Rich cronies will get so much government largesse that the country's dreams will be sapped, and awakening will come too late. Expect Trump-47 to share America's secrets with foreign enemies, if only out of spite.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I hear you, but it’s not that easy. Government employees have rights that are protected by statute and Supreme Court precedent. Changing such laws is difficult and highly unlikely given the Republican refusal to give up the filibuster.

Trump thought could start demanding that congress effectively grant him dictatorial powers. but it would be a bridge too far for even very conservative Republicans. Maybe some manufactured crisis, like burning of the reichstag.

I did watch that Netflix movie last night, Leave the World Behind. The US suffers a huge cyber attack and the characters are trying to figure out what is going on. One talks about a scenario that is basically a coup d’etat. Then the woman see New York City being bombed. I could see Trump orchestrating something like that with Putin’s help.

 

[Patooka]

The thing that gives me hope is how colossally short people's attention spans are these days. I mean we live in the age of 30 second TikToks and people losing their shit because their Uber Eats arrived five minutes late. So my point is what we are discussing now will have zero impact in the 2024 election. At this point during the 2016 cycle Americans were still talking about Jeb Bush vs Hillary and in 2020 the talk was how Bernie would do against Trump.

The thing that will decide 2024 hasn't even happened yet so whilst the speculation is fun, it isn't really meaningful.

 

[RVonse]

I would be considering where we might be able to emigrate to. I have serious doubts of the safety of living here if that happened.

We heard a lot of you mob say that when GW won and when Trump won and none of you seemed to emigrate.

It's not easy. And 2016 was simply a problem. If he won in 2024 I would think it likely that we would no longer be a democracy.

We already don't live in a democracy, our political system just makes it look like we have democracy. Congress and the President are not accountable to the voters. More important than votes is the campaign contributions that lead to election. The House and Senate and President are elected on the basis of large sums of money contributed by the rich and powerful financial and economic interests, such as the military/security complex, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical, energy, agribusiness and other industries. Elected officials have to comply with the interests of those who provide the money, or next election the money goes to their opponents.

Basically our votes don't matter nor does Trump even getting elected or not. Even if we assume Trump is the Hitler dictator (which he really isn't) and he does get elected (which he won't), the real money who does run this country won't let anything happen they don't want to happen.

You can rest easy now.

 

[bilby]

Basically our votes don't matter

That's really not true, but it isn't surprising that a lot of people believe that it is.

The problem is that people think of pure democracy - government by the people, when what they actually have is representative democracy - government that is subject to removal by the people.

The only important difference between a President and a King is that you can't get rid of a King without violence.

The voters have one power, and one power alone - they get to decide who won't be President.

The rich and powerful might get to decide what the President does (though their control is far more limited than you suggest), but the voters can reject any candidate; And can even eject a candidate who was successful, after just four years, if they don't like what that President is doing.

US democracy is weakened by the fact that even a hugely popular President is required to step down at the eight year mark; And further weakened by lacking a mechanism for voters to bring down a President prior to the end of their four year term. But it still retains its essential democratic concept of giving the voters the right to end the rule of an unpopular ruler.

The critical and defining difference between democracy and dictatorship is that a dictator* is in charge for life, and cannot be removed by the people without the use of violence.




* A King is just a hereditary dictator; Monarchies in which the monarch holds real power are therefore dictatorships.

 

[ideologyhunter]

We vermin have some work to do.

 

[unapologetic]

Elixir said:

"I can easily envision Brownshirts in the streets,"

tRump's brownshirts have already stormed the capital building on 1/6/2021.

I strongly suggest that us nons in the US change our voter registration to republican before the primary election in your state,
so as to vote against tRump, and try to keep him from being nominated.
I have changed my registration. I don't care who the Dems nominate.
I live in Pennsylvania. My informal man-in-the-street poll indicates that Democrat voters have taken the anti-Biden propaganda to heart, and may vote for tRump.
So I'm worried.

 

[Toni]

Basically our votes don't matter

That's really not true, but it isn't surprising that a lot of people believe that it is.

The problem is that people think of pure democracy - government by the people, when what they actually have is representative democracy - government that is subject to removal by the people.

The only important difference between a President and a King is that you can't get rid of a King without violence.

The voters have one power, and one power alone - they get to decide who won't be President.

The rich and powerful might get to decide what the President does (though their control is far more limited than you suggest), but the voters can reject any candidate; And can even eject a candidate who was successful, after just four years, if they don't like what that President is doing.

US democracy is weakened by the fact that even a hugely popular President is required to step down at the eight year mark; And further weakened by lacking a mechanism for voters to bring down a President prior to the end of their four year term. But it still retains its essential democratic concept of giving the voters the right to end the rule of an unpopular ruler.

The critical and defining difference between democracy and dictatorship is that a dictator* is in charge for life, and cannot be removed by the people without the use of violence.




* A King is just a hereditary dictator; Monarchies in which the monarch holds real power are therefore dictatorships.

Not true. In the US, POTUS is subject to laws just as regular citizens are. As Trump is finding out.

The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy. FDR was hugely popular yet people still had the wisdom to foresee that (had he not died), unlimited terms in office could and would create a defacto dictatorship. Or at the very least, a president who was untouchable, and what is that anyway, other than a dictatorship?

What (some, perhaps too many) people have not completely evolved past is the desire to put their hopes in the wagon of someone with an outsized personality, even if they lack the requisite skills and character to carry out the terms of office. I'm thinking Reagan here, and obviously Trump. I really liked Obama but I'm queasy when I hear people talk about wanting to bring back Obama.

Of course we have a mechanism for removing a POTUS from office prior to the end of their term: impeachment can and has removed POTUS in the past, although Nixon had the decency and perhaps ego to resign rather than be removed. Unfortunately, too many people are elected who have no interest in serving the country or the people but instead wish to serve the masters who pay them. Who are not necessarily Americans.

 

[bilby]

Not true. In the US, POTUS is subject to laws just as regular citizens are. As Trump is finding out.

Really?

A regular citizen who repeatedly defied a judge's gag order and continued to intimidate witnesses would be in jail.

A regular citizen found in posession of classified materials that were improperly secured would be in jail.

Trump has demonstrated very effectively just how little the law actually applies to the POTUS.

 

[bilby]

The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy.

No, it's not.

It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.

 

[Elixir]

It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.

I disagree. The intrinsic value of regularly turning over the office IMO exceeds the value of retaining any individual’s power (with very limited exception e.g. WWII), as far as long term democratic system viability is concerned.

 

[Elixir]

If my old man had as much faith as Abraham, I'd have suffocated him in his sleep. (self defense)

Sometimes it pays to be a sinner.

The Abraham story was one of the first things that deprogramed me as a kid.

I think the first thing that struck me as a mere tot, was “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was God, and The Word was with God.”
I mean, right off the bat, that’s obviously an intentionally obscure way of saying “we don’t know shit about how all this got here”
And it gets less interesting from there - as you point out there is juicier violence in comic books.

I don't understand how anyone could think that story is 'inspirational'.

Maybe your dad?

(I’ll show myself out)

 

[Toni]

The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy.

No, it's not.

It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.

Not really. With longevity of service comes accumulated power as is seen when we have Senators and Representatives serving, at the will of the people, many, many years.

I understand that you sympathize with your system where governments are formed and fall...not by vote of the people but by vote of other elected officials. I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic, even though I also support as close to 100% registration and voting of the eligible electorate.

 

[Toni]

Not true. In the US, POTUS is subject to laws just as regular citizens are. As Trump is finding out.

Really?

A regular citizen who repeatedly defied a judge's gag order and continued to intimidate witnesses would be in jail.

A regular citizen found in posession of classified materials that were improperly secured would be in jail.

Trump has demonstrated very effectively just how little the law actually applies to the POTUS.

This, of course, is what the whole Trump debacle is about: whether Trump can be held liable and accountable for his actions. The arc of justice is long but I believe it is true. Trump will be convicted and sentenced to time in prison.

Certainly the strength of any law in any jurisdiction depends upon the willingness of the legal system to act. When the offender is the holder of a high office, the stakes become exceptionally high and every care must be taken to carefully build a case to support arrest and conviction. That's what's going on right now. So far, Trump is losing, bigly. Ultimately, he will lose.

 

[Elixir]

The arc of justice is long but I believe it is true. Trump will be convicted and sentenced to time in prison.

Posthumously, in all likelihood.

 

[Tigers!]

The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy.

No, it's not.

It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.

Not really. With longevity of service comes accumulated power as is seen when we have Senators and Representatives serving, at the will of the people, many, many years.

I understand that you sympathize with your system where governments are formed and fall...not by vote of the people but by vote of other elected officials.

Sounds like your impeachment process to me

I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic, even though I also support as close to 100% registration and voting of the eligible electorate.

We do not have compulsory voting. We do have , essentially, compulsory voter registration (but with the crucial distinction that whom who may vote for is not important). We also have compulsory attendance but we do not have compulsory voting.
Once my name is ticked off and I have the ballots in my hand I can do almost what I wish with those ballots. I can tear them up, set them on fire (might spook the horses though), deface them, throw them on the ground and storm out, put them into the boxes unmarked etc. With no penalty apart from perhaps being a public nuisance. One thing I cannot do is give them to another person to use, nor can i remove them from the polling station.
Anti-democratic is where electorates are chosen based upon previous polling intentions, or your skin colour, or any other criteria, apart from purely numeric.

 

[Tigers!]

Not true. In the US, POTUS is subject to laws just as regular citizens are. As Trump is finding out.

Really?

A regular citizen who repeatedly defied a judge's gag order and continued to intimidate witnesses would be in jail.

A regular citizen found in posession of classified materials that were improperly secured would be in jail.

Trump has demonstrated very effectively just how little the law actually applies to the POTUS.

This, of course, is what the whole Trump debacle is about: whether Trump can be held liable and accountable for his actions. The arc of justice is long but I believe it is true. Trump will be convicted and sentenced to time in prison.

Guilty until proven innocent? (Don't get me wrong Trump is a clown and should never have been elected.) But he is also entitled (however reluctantly) to the presumption of innocence and a fair (sic) trial. Even as an ex-president.

 

[Elixir]

Guilty until proven innocent?

Not at all. Trump has repeatedly violated the terms of his release. He has been indicted by juries on 91 felony counts.
Because he's rich, he is out on bail until found guilty or not guilty, supposedly unless terms of bail are violated, in which case bail is normally revoked and the person remanded into custody pending trial.
UNLESS IT'S DONALD TRUMP
in which case you grift the millions it takes to delay justice until long after you're dead.
Meanwhile you can freely intimidate potential witnesses, taint the jury pools with lies, personally attack law enforcement personnel, and all the other shit he is still getting away with while
ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE IN JAIL

 

[Toni]

Not true. In the US, POTUS is subject to laws just as regular citizens are. As Trump is finding out.

Really?

A regular citizen who repeatedly defied a judge's gag order and continued to intimidate witnesses would be in jail.

A regular citizen found in posession of classified materials that were improperly secured would be in jail.

Trump has demonstrated very effectively just how little the law actually applies to the POTUS.

This, of course, is what the whole Trump debacle is about: whether Trump can be held liable and accountable for his actions. The arc of justice is long but I believe it is true. Trump will be convicted and sentenced to time in prison.

Guilty until proven innocent? (Don't get me wrong Trump is a clown and should never have been elected.) But he is also entitled (however reluctantly) to the presumption of innocence and a fair (sic) trial. Even as an ex-president.

Heh, I’m not in the jury pool. It seems pretty obvious just from reading his tweets that not only is he guilty but he knows he is. But of course that’s for the various courts /juries to determine.