U.S. Elections: Is Keeping The SC Worth Risking A Dictatorship?

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, S John said:

There is no group in this country more collectively full of shit than conservative Evangelical Christians.  

It's not that I expect Evangelicals to vote for Hillary or anything.  But I would have to think that Trump's gross antics are not helping with enthusiasm amongst this group. 

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Which is why I'd prefer the military have more input as to whether or not they start shooting. 

Well of course civilians should take the advice of their military professionals. Didn't we learn this lesson from the whole General Shinseki and Dubya episode?

13 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Right now it's ultimately up to ONE individual. And one of our choices includes a person who has said he refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe.  

Not true. The authority is divided up between congress and the president. And the military takes an oath to the constitution and not to the president. If Trump were to act beyond the scope of his powers, military men of good conscience should refuse Trump, citing their ultimate oath to the constitution and the rule of law.

In fact, this kind of happen, a bit, when Trump suggested he could order torture and some military types pushed back.

 

13 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

How would you address the flaws in our constitutional democracy? This isn't about military government or anything.  I'm genuinely interested. 

Well, for one, certainly not by "destroying it to save it!". As far as what structural changes to make, well I'm not sure. Most of my time has been spent thinking about other issues. I'd be game to hear suggestions. One thing I do know though, I have an extreme aversion to authoritarianism and anything that remotely smacks of fascism.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I actually posted this in the soon to be closed thread. So i'll repeat it here.  The thing is with Trumps SCOTUS nominees, they will be pay to play. The nominations will go to whoever has the deepest pockets backing them. Consevative vs Liberal ideology will take a distant back seat to how much moola Trump thinks he can grift out of the appointment. He needs some under the table cash to prop up his phony Billionaire act imo.

So Trump has been denied a casino license for his Vegas properties, he's lost his reality TV show, lost his beauty pagaent, his NJ casino's have been long sold, he's had a string of properties go through recievership and multiple chapter 11's and lawsuits for everything from Trump university to failure to pay for goods and services on multiple contracts. His charity under investigation........the only way out for this grifter has to be to try and sell some Supreme court seats.

I'm convinced Trump has calculated the value of those upcoming SCOTUS vacancies to the highest bidder and his appointments would be for sale for sure. Thats this grifters angle and thats why he has fought to win the Presidency. It's all to stave off his latest "House of Cards" financial collapse imo.

 

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well of course civilians should take the advice of their military professionals. Didn't we learn this lesson from the whole General Shinseki and Dubya episode?

Not true. The authority is divided up between congress and the president. And the military takes an oath to the constitution and not to the president. If Trump were to act beyond the scope of his powers, military men of good conscience should refuse Trump, citing their ultimate oath to the constitution and the rule of law.

In fact, this kind of happen, a bit, when Trump suggested he could order torture and some military types pushed back.

 

Well, for one, certainly not by "destroying it to save it!". As far as what structural changes to make, well I'm not sure. Most of my time has been spent thinking about other issues. I'd be game to hear suggestions. One thing I do know though, I have an extreme aversion to authoritarianism and anything that remotely smacks of fascism.

The President can always cashier officers who don't want to follow his orders and replace them with people who are loyal to him. 

Call a constitutional convention and start over. Use our current Constitution as a place to start, add amendments for things that need spelling out and replace the current form of government with the Westminster system except we have an elected head of state for ceremonial purposes.  

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

The people who actually know what they're doing. I would not trust a civilian like Trump with control over the Salvation Army let alone am actual military. The possibility of someone like him in charge should be enough to question the wisdom of the concept. 

When has there ever been evidence of a country's military actually being good at running anything? There have been lots of examples in history of the military being a disaster in running anything, much less a country. Just look at Latin America. Or Iran -Contra. Shining examples.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

When has there ever been evidence of a country's military actually being good at running anything? There have been lots of examples in history of the military being a disaster in running anything, much less a country. Just look at Latin America. Or Iran -Contra. Shining examples.

It's kept Turkey from becoming a theocracy more than once. And it's given power back. That looks like it's no longer possible there though. 

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

The President can always cashier officers who don't want to follow his orders and replace them with people who are loyal to him. 

That maybe true to some extent. But, that still doesn't relieve officers of the duty to refuse to follow illegal orders and to let the public know the reason why they were fired if it was because of refusal to follow an illegal order.

Officers who follow illegal orders should be promptly court martialed and they should know they will face such a court martial. 

And you act as if Congress is powerless to do anything here. That's not true.

16 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Call a constitutional convention and start from scratch. Use our current Constitution as a place to start, add amendments for things that need spelling out and replace the current form of government with the Westminster system except we have an elected head of state for ceremonial purposes.  

And this would improve military civilian relations how exactly? And would such a system necessarily improve war making decisions?

[maarsen]

Remember Gen. Al Haig? Would you seriously want him trying to be in charge again?

[The Fallen]

In my original post, the fear is that the military will flex their muscles and defy the president, not by refusing orders and willingly being replaced or stepping down, but rather that they would act autonomously. Because once that genie is out of the bottle it may be difficult to put it back in.

I like the fact that our military will obey their civilian Commander-in-Chief. What I don't want is a CiC who would push the military as a whole to the point where that obedience (for lack of a better word) will be lost. Because I would not want to live in a state where the military goes its own way, that's a recipe for a military dictatorship. 

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

That maybe true. But, that still doesn't relieve officers of the duty to refuse to follow illegal orders and to let the public know the reason why they were fired if it was because of refusal to follow an illegal order.

Officers who follow illegal orders should be promptly court martialed and they should know they will face such a court martial. 

And you act as if Congress is powerless to do anything here. That's not true.

And this would improve military civilian relations how exactly? And would such a system necessarily improve war making decisions?

I've moved on from that, the Westminster system is simply a superior form of government.  

 

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Remember Gen. Al Haig? Would you seriously want him trying to be in charge again?

You mean former General and then Secretary of State Alexander Haig? The one who was directing crisis management at the White House until the Vice-President arrived?

[DireWolfSpirit]

41 minutes ago, S John said:

There is no group in this country more collectively full of shit than conservative Evangelical Christians.  

I want this book on store shelves everywhere for the holidays lolol. Seriously that would make a great book subject and I would so love that read.

Another good book title right now would be:

"PUTIN'S PIDGEON: What a Trump Oval Office might look like?

[Guess who's back]

48 minutes ago, S John said:

There is no group in this country more collectively full of shit than conservative Evangelical Christians.  

I'd say it's the muslims. 

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

I'd say it's the muslims. 

Meaning....

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

58 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Call a constitutional convention and start over. Use our current Constitution as a place to start, add amendments for things that need spelling out and replace the current form of government with the Westminster system except we have an elected head of state for ceremonial purposes.  

Liberal Democracy is fragile and delicate, contrary to what Neocons used to think. Looking around the world, it fails more often than it succeeds. And a lot of those failed democracies had excellent constitutions, but it didn't matter because people didn't respect it.

Our Constitution isn't perfect, but Americans still do respect it with religious fervor. I'd be wary of burning that all down just to come up with a a new constitution with a slightly more effective electoral system.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

14 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Liberal Democracy is fragile and delicate, contrary to what Neocons used to think. Looking around the world, it fails more often than it succeeds. And a lot of those failed democracies had excellent constitutions, but it didn't matter because people didn't respect it.

Our Constitution isn't perfect, but Americans still do respect it with religious fervor. I'd be wary of burning that all down just to come up with a a new constitution with a slightly more effective electoral system.

I think they say they respect it, kind of like how they claim to respect the bible but ignore the parts that don't jive with their personal beliefs. I don't necessarily advocate burning it down, more like using it as the blueprint for something better. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

45 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

I'd say it's the muslims. 

There the same group with slightly different garb and grooming, thats the only thing that distinguishes any difference. Neocon/Taliban same oil soup licking beast.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

The President can always cashier officers who don't want to follow his orders and replace them with people who are loyal to him. 

Call a constitutional convention and start over. Use our current Constitution as a place to start, add amendments for things that need spelling out and replace the current form of government with the Westminster system except we have an elected head of state for ceremonial purposes.  

I've been calling for a Constitutional Convention for more than a decade.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

5 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I think they say they respect it, kind of like how they claim to respect the bible but ignore the parts that don't jive with their personal beliefs. I don't necessarily advocate burning it down, more like using it as the blueprint for something better. 

Yes, it's a lie on some level. But that's what keeps society together- a collective lie.

The Emperor has no clothes, but it's vital that no one points this out.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I think they say they respect it, kind of like how they claim to respect the bible but ignore the parts that don't jive with their personal beliefs. I don't necessarily advocate burning it down, more like using it as the blueprint for something better. 

They so far largely respect its rule. They try to coerce it or play around the rules and bend them a tad, but they aren't trying particularly hard to outright break them. The Patriot Act and the 15-year authorization for war is probably the closest we've come in a long, long time. 

[Altherion]

It turns out that Trump was not just being a sore loser after the debate:

Quote

 

The Commission on Presidential Debates revealed in a one-sentence statement Friday that Donald Trump's audio was impacted earlier in the week.

"Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in a statement. No other details were immediately made available.

 

If he's smart, he will take this and run with it. Even if it is ultimately a minor issue, shouting that the system is rigged is a much more electorally profitable endeavor than insulting the overweight.