|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 11 2022 02:11 JimmiC wrote:The big question coming up is, is DeSantis more or less terrifying than Trump? He is riding the same wave, is clearly smarter but not quite have the cult following. Some of the Op-Ed's I've read are starting to lean toward him being the nominee because Trumps ego can not handle another loss, in either the primary or the general. If they do go head to head in the primary and Trump loses the vote, will that end the Republican party? Because no way he accepts the vote is not rigged. Poll: More frightening leader of the Republicans?DeSantis (11) 85% Trump (2) 15% 13 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Trump
☐ DeSantis
To be honest, I'm sort of surprised that Trump is still being talked about as a potential runner. I thought he was done and gone, like, a while ago. Trump would certainly cause less worry to me, but then again neither of them really effect me at all. All I know about DeSantis is that he's down there doing regular Florida things, and that's about it; I would only choose him because there is not a "neither" vote here :3
|
On June 11 2022 07:25 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 02:11 JimmiC wrote:The big question coming up is, is DeSantis more or less terrifying than Trump? He is riding the same wave, is clearly smarter but not quite have the cult following. Some of the Op-Ed's I've read are starting to lean toward him being the nominee because Trumps ego can not handle another loss, in either the primary or the general. If they do go head to head in the primary and Trump loses the vote, will that end the Republican party? Because no way he accepts the vote is not rigged. Poll: More frightening leader of the Republicans?DeSantis (11) 85% Trump (2) 15% 13 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Trump
☐ DeSantis
To be honest, I'm sort of surprised that Trump is still being talked about as a potential runner. I thought he was done and gone, like, a while ago. Trump would certainly cause less worry to me, but then again neither of them really effect me at all. All I know about DeSantis is that he's down there doing regular Florida things, and that's about it; I would only choose him because there is not a "neither" vote here :3
Trump still usually polls in first place when asking Republican voters about who they'd prefer in their primary, although DeSantis has been gaining a lot of ground. I would like to see Trump lose the primary, just to see him lose, but I'm also worried about a President DeSantis.
|
As someone unfamiliar, is DeSantis expected to be as chaotic as Trump, but with more intent and purpose, or is he expected more to 'play the game' as it were?
Part of what made Trump frightening to me was that it felt like he'd do whatever was in his power to get what he wanted, be that shoving things through with executive order, or openly defying common practice in the lame duck affair.
Is DeSantis at least expected to 'be a politician' or are people expecting Trump to have cracked open pandora's box a little?
|
I think President DeSantis would be all of Trump's aggressiveness, disregard for the wellbeing of Americans, and disdain for the rule of law guided by a person with more self control and a better understanding of how to work within political systems to get what he wants.
Some of the replication of Trump's worst qualities might be performative to give the base what they want, but the harm done is just as real.
I think he would be just as willing than Trump to do whatever was in his power to get what he wanted, but with a better idea of what was in his power and how to use it, and less propensity for drawing on weather maps with a sharpie in an attempt to bring reality into line with the alternative reality he has constructed for himself.
EDIT: I am reasonably confident that DeSantis does not want to establish a DeSantis family dictatorship the way Trump seemed to want to establish his family as a line of absolute rulers of the US, but that's only because I think he's enough of a creature of the GOP to be looking to establish a GOP ruled one-party system.
|
United States43598 Posts
On June 11 2022 06:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 02:00 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2022 11:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2022 10:40 Zambrah wrote:
Says a lot about how the US has been systematically hollowed out over the past decades, we're a husk of a country waiting for that one strong gust of wind to cause us to crumble. I wouldn't say the past decades. Pence represents the evangelical right and even he didn't go along with the coup. This is entirely apart of the post bush dissolution with the fears of electoral nonviability of white nationalists due to changing demographics. Sarah Palin was the attempt of the Republican party to get back on track with more naked nationalism and reactionary content to rally up a dwindling base. That base got out of control and now we have trump. Pence wanted to do as Trump instructed but sought the advice of Dan Quayle who convinced him not to overthrow democracy. What a world. Idk if this is sarcasm but either way it's a valid point. Even a short huddle would have everyone in the evangelical right screaming no on what trump wanted to to. They after all were only with trump for the judges, judges that they got to a 6-3 supermajority no one saw coming. Why throw more chips into the pile when you're already up so much? Roe vs wade died for our democracy.
It’s not sarcasm, Mike Pence called Dan Quayle and asked him if the VP was allowed to just not recognize the election result. Dan Quayle explained that the constitutional role of the VP was to preside over the counting and that the VP was not, in fact, empowered to disenfranchise whole states by refusing to recognize their electors. Pence complained and brought up some Arizona conspiracy theories and Quayle told him to shut the fuck up and do his job.
Dan fucking Quayle saved American democracy. The traitor GOP senate bloc was ready to declare the election invalid and toss it back to the state legislatures (majority GOP) to keep Trump in power but Dan Quayle derailed their plan.
|
On June 11 2022 10:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 06:24 Sermokala wrote:On June 11 2022 02:00 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2022 11:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2022 10:40 Zambrah wrote:
Says a lot about how the US has been systematically hollowed out over the past decades, we're a husk of a country waiting for that one strong gust of wind to cause us to crumble. I wouldn't say the past decades. Pence represents the evangelical right and even he didn't go along with the coup. This is entirely apart of the post bush dissolution with the fears of electoral nonviability of white nationalists due to changing demographics. Sarah Palin was the attempt of the Republican party to get back on track with more naked nationalism and reactionary content to rally up a dwindling base. That base got out of control and now we have trump. Pence wanted to do as Trump instructed but sought the advice of Dan Quayle who convinced him not to overthrow democracy. What a world. Idk if this is sarcasm but either way it's a valid point. Even a short huddle would have everyone in the evangelical right screaming no on what trump wanted to to. They after all were only with trump for the judges, judges that they got to a 6-3 supermajority no one saw coming. Why throw more chips into the pile when you're already up so much? Roe vs wade died for our democracy. It’s not sarcasm, Mike Pence called Don Quayle and asked him if the VP was allowed to just not recognize the election result. Don Quayle explained that the constitutional role of the VP was to preside over the counting and that the VP was not, in fact, empowered to disenfranchise whole states by refusing to recognize their electors. Pence complained and brought up some Arizona conspiracy theories and Quayle told him to shut the fuck up and do his job. Don fucking Quayle saved American democracy. The traitor GOP senate bloc was ready to declare the election invalid and toss it back to the state legislatures (majority GOP) to keep Trump in power but Don Quayle derailed their plan.
Dan*
|
It's been over two years since I first heard about that call and it has never stopped being surreal to me. Dan Quayle's ability to say the most bizarre and incredibly dumb things when talking to the press (or just generally in front of cameras) essentially created an entire genre of jokes.
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
"It's wonderful to be here in the great state of Chicago.
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
This man was the face of politicians being idiots for over a decade before the public forgot about him in favor of George W Bush, who opened the 21st century with legendary lines like "They misunderestimated me."
And somehow, this was the person that, when called by Pence for advice on not certifying the election results, persuaded Pence that he should not go through with it, probably saving American democracy in the process.
|
United States43598 Posts
Just as an addendum, they had the whole coup mapped out weeks in advance. Christopher Miller, acting Sec Def (unapproved by the Senate but who cares about the constitution), testified that he was ordered by Trump to ensure that the national guard did not interfere with the coup. He issued new orders on Jan 5 prohibiting the DC national guard from deploying without his authorization which, on Jan 6, he refused to give until after Trump already told the protestors to go home.
After Pence refused to overturn the election they replaced him. Chuck Grassley, the replacement president of the Senate when Pence wasn’t there, announced on Jan 5th that Pence wouldn’t be present for the tabulation of the votes and that he would step in for Pence. Grassley knew ahead of time that there would be some kind of event that would directly prevent Pence from doing his constitutional duty and that Grassley would be next in line. Grassley stated that he wouldn’t approve the electors Trump opposed.
It was a genuine conspiracy to overthrow democracy. These people knew the plan. When Mark Esper (prior Sec Def) refused to help Trump stay in power he was replaced. When the Senate wouldn’t approve the new appointee he just took the job anyway without constitutional authority and literally ordered the military to stand down. When Pence wouldn’t go along with it they set a mob on him but only after conspiring with his replacement.
If Pence hadn’t shown then the electoral votes wouldn’t have been tabulated and Biden wouldn’t have been elected. Pence only showed up (against the instructions of his secret service) because Dan Quayle told him that he had to. That’s why we still have democracy in America. Every Jan 6 we should get together and write Dan Quayle a “thank you” card or something.
Jan 6 wasn’t a riot or a demonstration or an out of control mob, it was a carefully planned conspiracy against American democracy that came within an inch of installing a fascist dictatorship and people are far too casual about that.
|
|
|
apnews.com
Well I'm glad this got nipped in the bud and we shouldn't have to worry about texas taking transgender kids away from their parents and calling it child abuse.
Dan Quayle, real American hero. That's the world we live in.
|
United States43598 Posts
On June 11 2022 13:02 JimmiC wrote:And for every one who treats it like a cool move and victory when they plead the 5th. Show nested quote +exercise the right, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, of refusing to answer questions in order to avoid incriminating oneself. They are admitting guilt but just stating they wont help prove it. How many of those key witnesses did it how mamy times. So much was wrong and everyone knows and only a little ocer half care. Are the reps not aware they have a favourable system for them? Their are more dems, they could much of the same shit with more people at some point.
It’s not just for the guilty. If you were at a party but know you didn’t deal drugs to anyone there you still have the right to not tell the police you were at the party, regardless of whether you’re the guy they’re looking for.
|
On June 11 2022 00:23 Sermokala wrote:
I'm surprised that not even gh is freaking out over 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights to not having warentless searches of their property and being assaulted by federal agents in their home.
I thought you were generally more level-headed than this. It seems to be either hyperbole or a misunderstanding of the law.
I am a bit confused why this is even a thing, but that is generally due to the difference between civil law systems and common law systems. However, in this case it's about the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't to protect you from individuals, but rather from the government. Taking an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights just seems really weird to me, and I am unsurprised the court decided that it doesn't work that way. If your 4th amendment rights have been infringed upon, you take that up with the institution that infringed them. If "undue violence" was used against you by an individual, wouldn't it be "assault" or "battery", not an infringement of your 4th amendment rights?
Basically, the only institution that can infringe your 4th amendment rights is the government. So your recourse should be a complaint to the government. The government should then deal with that. And if they don't deal with it in a way you feel is adequate, you should sue the government. And if, while also infringing on your 4th amendment rights, an individual border official used undue physical violence, then you go to the police and have them charged with battery.
The supreme court deciding that you cannot take an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights doesn't mean 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights. Just that you cannot sue individual border officials for infringing them.
And yes, I understand your justice system is total shit, and the judicial branch protects the executive branch rather than the citizens both are sworn to work for. It's all cronyism and sucks, but the solution doesn't seem to be to break the way the law is supposed to work further. The US clearly needs a thorough reform of all its political systems, rather than kludged together patches (such as sueing individuals for government overreach) that seem completely arbitrary.
|
On June 11 2022 18:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 00:23 Sermokala wrote:
I'm surprised that not even gh is freaking out over 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights to not having warentless searches of their property and being assaulted by federal agents in their home. I thought you were generally more level-headed than this. It seems to be either hyperbole or a misunderstanding of the law. I am a bit confused why this is even a thing, but that is generally due to the difference between civil law systems and common law systems. However, in this case it's about the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't to protect you from individuals, but rather from the government. Taking an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights just seems really weird to me, and I am unsurprised the court decided that it doesn't work that way. If your 4th amendment rights have been infringed upon, you take that up with the institution that infringed them. If "undue violence" was used against you by an individual, wouldn't it be "assault" or "battery", not an infringement of your 4th amendment rights? Basically, the only institution that can infringe your 4th amendment rights is the government. So your recourse should be a complaint to the government. The government should then deal with that. And if they don't deal with it in a way you feel is adequate, you should sue the government. And if, while also infringing on your 4th amendment rights, an individual border official used undue physical violence, then you go to the police and have them charged with battery. The supreme court deciding that you cannot take an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights doesn't mean 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights. Just that you cannot sue individual border officials for infringing them. And yes, I understand your justice system is total shit, and the judicial branch protects the executive branch rather than the citizens both are sworn to work for. It's all cronyism and sucks, but the solution doesn't seem to be to break the way the law is supposed to work further. The US clearly needs a thorough reform of all its political systems, rather than kludged together patches (such as sueing individuals for government overreach) that seem completely arbitrary.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You seem to agree with me that the supreme court said that border agents can invade your home at any point and assault you at will if you're in this new 100 mile 4th amendment free zone. You can't complain to the government about this because the supreme court just said that its legal.
Like you not being able to sue border agents for infringing on your 4th amendment rights is you loseing your 4th amendment rights because you're now no longer able to have any recourse for it. I don't think requiring border agents to need a warrant to invade your home would break the system I think that's how the system is suppose to work. Having an arbitrary 100 mile zone that just happens to contain quite a chunk of democratic voters is just something else we're suppose to overlook as well.
|
On June 11 2022 23:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 18:46 Acrofales wrote:On June 11 2022 00:23 Sermokala wrote:
I'm surprised that not even gh is freaking out over 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights to not having warentless searches of their property and being assaulted by federal agents in their home. I thought you were generally more level-headed than this. It seems to be either hyperbole or a misunderstanding of the law. I am a bit confused why this is even a thing, but that is generally due to the difference between civil law systems and common law systems. However, in this case it's about the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't to protect you from individuals, but rather from the government. Taking an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights just seems really weird to me, and I am unsurprised the court decided that it doesn't work that way. If your 4th amendment rights have been infringed upon, you take that up with the institution that infringed them. If "undue violence" was used against you by an individual, wouldn't it be "assault" or "battery", not an infringement of your 4th amendment rights? Basically, the only institution that can infringe your 4th amendment rights is the government. So your recourse should be a complaint to the government. The government should then deal with that. And if they don't deal with it in a way you feel is adequate, you should sue the government. And if, while also infringing on your 4th amendment rights, an individual border official used undue physical violence, then you go to the police and have them charged with battery. The supreme court deciding that you cannot take an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights doesn't mean 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights. Just that you cannot sue individual border officials for infringing them. And yes, I understand your justice system is total shit, and the judicial branch protects the executive branch rather than the citizens both are sworn to work for. It's all cronyism and sucks, but the solution doesn't seem to be to break the way the law is supposed to work further. The US clearly needs a thorough reform of all its political systems, rather than kludged together patches (such as sueing individuals for government overreach) that seem completely arbitrary. I don't understand what you're trying to say. You seem to agree with me that the supreme court said that border agents can invade your home at any point and assault you at will if you're in this new 100 mile 4th amendment free zone. You can't complain to the government about this because the supreme court just said that its legal. Like you not being able to sue border agents for infringing on your 4th amendment rights is you loseing your 4th amendment rights because you're now no longer able to have any recourse for it. I don't think requiring border agents to need a warrant to invade your home would break the system I think that's how the system is suppose to work. Having an arbitrary 100 mile zone that just happens to contain quite a chunk of democratic voters is just something else we're suppose to overlook as well.
Huh? I'm saying pretty much the reverse of that.
You are treating sueing an individual border officer for violating your 4th amendment rights as your principal way of safeguarding them. It shouldn't be, and according to the SC, isn't.
I absolutely agree with you that border police needing a warrant would be an excellent solution, though. But even then an individual border police officer wouldn't/shouldn't be suable. Rather, he should be fired on the spot and any damages should be settled by the employer that let him get away with that shit, just as it should be now: ultimately, this is the government doing all of this, not individual officers. And in the case that it *is* individual officers hiding their abuse of power behind their job, it should still be the employer's job to pay the damages and then sue their own (hopefully ex) employee.
Finally, the SC doesn't seem to disagree with you that requiring warrants could be a solution, as they punted this straight back to the legislative branch who are the ones who'd need to create this type of rule. If only your Congress wasn't such an incompetent shit show and you weren't so hopelessly reliant on kludged together patches (dubious juris prudence) for defense of almost all your rights.
|
But the court knows how much of a shit show congress is and that they will never make legislation on any sort of immigration reform. Them "punting it back to the legislative branch" is them saying in the meantime people don't get their 4th amendment rights. Agencies have no reason to fire someone if they know they won't get sued for something. The supreme court is a part of the government and they have the responsibility to understand that basic fact. They can't hide behind the fact of "its not our job to protect the constitution" when its literally their job to.
They know what they're doing and they're doing it anyway. Taking away women's rights over their bodies over an abdication of their responsibilities isn't a mistake for them. Taking away peoples rights near the border isn't a mistake for them just because no one can now be punished for violating those rights isn't a mistake for them.
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/opinion/inflation-biden-congress.html
Good article from Dem congressman Ro Khana on what Biden could do to help better fight inflation. Really needs to do something on this instead of blaming Putin and just sitting on his hands if they don't want to be destroyed in November midterms. Then again, maybe thats all he's capable of at this point?
To the guy saying they have a chance in the senate I don't think they have a chance in hell, but hoping to be wrong.
|
On June 12 2022 01:21 Sermokala wrote:
But the court knows how much of a shit show congress is and that they will never make legislation on any sort of immigration reform. Them "punting it back to the legislative branch" is them saying in the meantime people don't get their 4th amendment rights. Agencies have no reason to fire someone if they know they won't get sued for something. The supreme court is a part of the government and they have the responsibility to understand that basic fact. They can't hide behind the fact of "its not our job to protect the constitution" when its literally their job to.
They know what they're doing and they're doing it anyway. Taking away women's rights over their bodies over an abdication of their responsibilities isn't a mistake for them. Taking away peoples rights near the border isn't a mistake for them just because no one can now be punished for violating those rights isn't a mistake for them.
But this court ruling says nothing about sueing agencies (aka the government, aka the institution that the 4th amendment applies to). It is all about bringing a civil case against an individual border agent. Insofar as I understand it, Boule could sue the Border Police.
As for your point about the SC knowing the Congress is a fucking mess and won't do shit... that's true, but that doesn't mean they can do anything about it. The division of power is quite clear and exists for a number of very good reasons. Turning the SC into the supreme legislative body instead of/in addition to the supreme judicial body is just an exceptionally bad idea. Sure, this is the SC telling Congress to get their shit together, but it's also telling the American people to get their shit together. Are your rights being eroded by Congress's inaction? Maybe do something about it rather than voting repeatedly for the same incompetent fuckheads that have been doing jack shit for the last 30(ish) years.
And yes, because you have common law, the precedents serve as a form of weak(ish) rules that later courts use to guide their judgements. If you used civil law (as here) the courtcase would have been thrown about before it even started. There are absolutely no grounds here on which to sue a government employee for breaking your constitutional rights that protect you from government overreach. Sue the government (or rather, use one of the many other forms of getting this rectified by the government, because sueing should really be your last option, not your first).
|
On June 12 2022 00:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 23:50 Sermokala wrote:On June 11 2022 18:46 Acrofales wrote:On June 11 2022 00:23 Sermokala wrote:
I'm surprised that not even gh is freaking out over 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights to not having warentless searches of their property and being assaulted by federal agents in their home. I thought you were generally more level-headed than this. It seems to be either hyperbole or a misunderstanding of the law. I am a bit confused why this is even a thing, but that is generally due to the difference between civil law systems and common law systems. However, in this case it's about the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't to protect you from individuals, but rather from the government. Taking an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights just seems really weird to me, and I am unsurprised the court decided that it doesn't work that way. If your 4th amendment rights have been infringed upon, you take that up with the institution that infringed them. If "undue violence" was used against you by an individual, wouldn't it be "assault" or "battery", not an infringement of your 4th amendment rights? Basically, the only institution that can infringe your 4th amendment rights is the government. So your recourse should be a complaint to the government. The government should then deal with that. And if they don't deal with it in a way you feel is adequate, you should sue the government. And if, while also infringing on your 4th amendment rights, an individual border official used undue physical violence, then you go to the police and have them charged with battery. The supreme court deciding that you cannot take an individual to court for infringing your 4th amendment rights doesn't mean 60% of the population is losing their 4th amendment rights. Just that you cannot sue individual border officials for infringing them. And yes, I understand your justice system is total shit, and the judicial branch protects the executive branch rather than the citizens both are sworn to work for. It's all cronyism and sucks, but the solution doesn't seem to be to break the way the law is supposed to work further. The US clearly needs a thorough reform of all its political systems, rather than kludged together patches (such as sueing individuals for government overreach) that seem completely arbitrary. I don't understand what you're trying to say. You seem to agree with me that the supreme court said that border agents can invade your home at any point and assault you at will if you're in this new 100 mile 4th amendment free zone. You can't complain to the government about this because the supreme court just said that its legal. Like you not being able to sue border agents for infringing on your 4th amendment rights is you loseing your 4th amendment rights because you're now no longer able to have any recourse for it. I don't think requiring border agents to need a warrant to invade your home would break the system I think that's how the system is suppose to work. Having an arbitrary 100 mile zone that just happens to contain quite a chunk of democratic voters is just something else we're suppose to overlook as well. Huh? I'm saying pretty much the reverse of that. You are treating sueing an individual border officer for violating your 4th amendment rights as your principal way of safeguarding them. It shouldn't be, and according to the SC, isn't. I absolutely agree with you that border police needing a warrant would be an excellent solution, though. But even then an individual border police officer wouldn't/shouldn't be suable. Rather, he should be fired on the spot and any damages should be settled by the employer that let him get away with that shit, just as it should be now: ultimately, this is the government doing all of this, not individual officers. And in the case that it *is* individual officers hiding their abuse of power behind their job, it should still be the employer's job to pay the damages and then sue their own (hopefully ex) employee. Finally, the SC doesn't seem to disagree with you that requiring warrants could be a solution, as they punted this straight back to the legislative branch who are the ones who'd need to create this type of rule. If only your Congress wasn't such an incompetent shit show and you weren't so hopelessly reliant on kludged together patches (dubious juris prudence) for defense of almost all your rights.
If you haven’t read the prior SCOTUS decision this SCOTUS refused to apply in the border patrol context, I recommend giving Bivens a read. It persuasively sets forth why individuals acting under the color of law can and should be held liable for unreasonable searches and seizures. At a minimum, it establishes that such a view is defensible in a vacuum and particularly compelling where there exists no sufficient alternative at law, which is the point Sermokala ably makes above.
And to your point about suing the agency, the federal government and its agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from suit unless that immunity is abrogated by Act of Congress, and there has been no such abrogation with respect to 4th amendment claims, in part because Congress saw fit to let Bivens lie as an undisturbed common law decision providing aggrieved parties with a remedy for those claims.
|
On June 11 2022 12:33 KwarK wrote:
Just as an addendum, they had the whole coup mapped out weeks in advance. Christopher Miller, acting Sec Def (unapproved by the Senate but who cares about the constitution), testified that he was ordered by Trump to ensure that the national guard did not interfere with the coup. He issued new orders on Jan 5 prohibiting the DC national guard from deploying without his authorization which, on Jan 6, he refused to give until after Trump already told the protestors to go home.
After Pence refused to overturn the election they replaced him. Chuck Grassley, the replacement president of the Senate when Pence wasn’t there, announced on Jan 5th that Pence wouldn’t be present for the tabulation of the votes and that he would step in for Pence. Grassley knew ahead of time that there would be some kind of event that would directly prevent Pence from doing his constitutional duty and that Grassley would be next in line. Grassley stated that he wouldn’t approve the electors Trump opposed.
It was a genuine conspiracy to overthrow democracy. These people knew the plan. When Mark Esper (prior Sec Def) refused to help Trump stay in power he was replaced. When the Senate wouldn’t approve the new appointee he just took the job anyway without constitutional authority and literally ordered the military to stand down. When Pence wouldn’t go along with it they set a mob on him but only after conspiring with his replacement.
If Pence hadn’t shown then the electoral votes wouldn’t have been tabulated and Biden wouldn’t have been elected. Pence only showed up (against the instructions of his secret service) because Dan Quayle told him that he had to. That’s why we still have democracy in America. Every Jan 6 we should get together and write Dan Quayle a “thank you” card or something.
Jan 6 wasn’t a riot or a demonstration or an out of control mob, it was a carefully planned conspiracy against American democracy that came within an inch of installing a fascist dictatorship and people are far too casual about that.
It seems like you have researched this more than me, but when I look into it I see a lot of the same things you and others in this thread do.
With all of this being true why in the hell is Trump not behind bars right now? Is it just impossible for an American politician goes to jail even he appears clearly guilty?
This is part of the reason I've just become disenchanted with politics over the last few years. Seems like there are no consequences for anyone as long as the keep the breaks coming for the other 1%ers as the 99% continue to get screwed.
|
United States43598 Posts
On June 12 2022 02:02 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2022 12:33 KwarK wrote:
Just as an addendum, they had the whole coup mapped out weeks in advance. Christopher Miller, acting Sec Def (unapproved by the Senate but who cares about the constitution), testified that he was ordered by Trump to ensure that the national guard did not interfere with the coup. He issued new orders on Jan 5 prohibiting the DC national guard from deploying without his authorization which, on Jan 6, he refused to give until after Trump already told the protestors to go home.
After Pence refused to overturn the election they replaced him. Chuck Grassley, the replacement president of the Senate when Pence wasn’t there, announced on Jan 5th that Pence wouldn’t be present for the tabulation of the votes and that he would step in for Pence. Grassley knew ahead of time that there would be some kind of event that would directly prevent Pence from doing his constitutional duty and that Grassley would be next in line. Grassley stated that he wouldn’t approve the electors Trump opposed.
It was a genuine conspiracy to overthrow democracy. These people knew the plan. When Mark Esper (prior Sec Def) refused to help Trump stay in power he was replaced. When the Senate wouldn’t approve the new appointee he just took the job anyway without constitutional authority and literally ordered the military to stand down. When Pence wouldn’t go along with it they set a mob on him but only after conspiring with his replacement.
If Pence hadn’t shown then the electoral votes wouldn’t have been tabulated and Biden wouldn’t have been elected. Pence only showed up (against the instructions of his secret service) because Dan Quayle told him that he had to. That’s why we still have democracy in America. Every Jan 6 we should get together and write Dan Quayle a “thank you” card or something.
Jan 6 wasn’t a riot or a demonstration or an out of control mob, it was a carefully planned conspiracy against American democracy that came within an inch of installing a fascist dictatorship and people are far too casual about that. It seems like you have researched this more than me, but when I look into it I see a lot of the same things you and others in this thread do. With all of this being true why in the hell is Trump not behind bars right now? Is it just impossible for an American politician goes to jail even he appears clearly guilty? This is part of the reason I've just become disenchanted with politics over the last few years. Seems like there are no consequences for anyone as long as the keep the breaks coming for the other 1%ers as the 99% continue to get screwed.
Where in the constitution does it specifically say that you can’t overthrow American democracy by seizing the capitol building, preventing the certification of the election, and punting the issue back to the states?
What pisses me off isn’t that he did it because he was always going to. He said in 2016 that he wouldn’t accept the result of the election if he lost. What pisses me off is that half the American public were fine with that. They were willing to forgive fascism if it meant that they could hurt minorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
