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

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I don't ask this lightly. 

Continue....

[SkynJay]

Going to attempt to embed a tweet here.  This could fail spectacularly.

 

Hey, it worked!  Godwin's Law and all but seriously, read the review.

 

[SerPaladin]

This Miss Universe thing feels like his "screw you guys" moment. Let me set the school yard scene...

Trump started out taking on the next biggest kid in the schoolyard in the early debates, first Bush, then Rubio. Sure, he had nasty little shots for Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul, but they were afterthoughts. And it played out exactly how it would on the school yard. The weaselly followers joined his side and made a gang (Christie, Carson). Cruz was part of the bully clique until he emerged as the "next biggest kid" in Iowa, and earned himself a schoolyard nickname.

So here we are, one on one, no surrogates to sic on his opponent to pretend keep his hands clean, and clearly outmatched. This is where the bully says "I'm not playing your stupid game anymore, you're cheating, it's not fair, I'm taking my ball and going home."  Or in Trump's case "I'm thinking about skipping the rest of the debates, the election is rigged, I'm taking my ratings away from you news networks and going home to my yuuge gold encrusted toilet and taking a Trump dump."

There is no rational reason to keep talking about this Miss Universe thing. Unless it is to take focus from the more "real" Cuba issue and force the news networks to talk about nonsense while that issue peters out.

[The Fallen]

I've been wondering about this for a bit. If Trump were elected president and then ordered the army to commit war crimes and the generals refused, what kind of crisis would ensue? I guess he could fire the generals and replace them with guys who would be more than happy to follow his orders.

But in the hypothetical that the armed forces refused his orders, what would come next? That seems like a scary scenario to me. To have the armed forces essentially split with the government. Or to even set the precedent that the military will ultimately decide for itself what it will or won't do. Does this scare anyone else?

Moving on to something more likely, if Trump becomes president I can see him essentially selling out the US to the Russians for riches. His advisers with connections to Putin and the oligarchs are basically already trying to smooth the road to get a Trump administration to lift economic sanctions against Russia, and look the other way at Russia's annexation of its neighbors (not to mention the hacking they've done and can do during the election). I can see the Russians paying a lot of money for that, of which Trump would get the yugest cut. I guess conservatives wouldn't mind since they're in love with Putin. 

[Ormond]

I guess I find some of the arguments about Republicans or conservatives that are voting for Trump with the Supreme Court as a rationale a bit odd. Everything that's been said about Trump being completely unreliable in terms of actually appointing "conservative" Supreme Court justices could be true -- but the scenarios don't seem to rise to me to a 100% probability that Trump will NOT nominate "conservatives". On the other hand, there is a nearly 100% probability that Hillary Clinton will nominate more "liberal" justices.

So IF getting conservative Supreme Court nominations is one's number one priority, even if there's just a 5% chance that Trump will keep his pledge, that's better than the 0% that one gets a conservative nomination from Hillary Clinton. 

Given my top priority issue -- if my choice was between two candidates, one of which had a 5% probability of supporting GLBT rights and one who had a 0% probability, I know I'd go with the former. 

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

10 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

I've been wondering about this for a bit. If Trump were elected president and then ordered the army to commit war crimes and the generals refused, what kind of crisis would ensue? I guess he could fire the generals and replace them with guys who would be more than happy to follow his orders.

But in the hypothetical that the armed forces refused his orders, what would come next? That seems like a scary scenario to me. To have the armed forces essentially split with the government. Or to even set the precedent that the military will ultimately decide for itself what it will or won't do. Does this scare anyone else?

Moving on to something more likely, if Trump becomes president I can see him essentially selling out the US to the Russians for riches. His advisers with connections to Putin and the oligarchs are basically already trying to smooth the road to get a Trump administration to lift economic sanctions against Russia, and look the other way at Russia's annexation of its neighbors (not to mention the hacking they've done and can do during the election). I can see the Russians paying a lot of money for that, of which Trump would get the yugest cut. I guess conservatives wouldn't mind since they're in love with Putin. 

I've been against civilian control of the military for this very reason.  

[TrackerNeil]

31 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

There is no rational reason to keep talking about this Miss Universe thing. Unless it is to take focus from the more "real" Cuba issue and force the news networks to talk about nonsense while that issue peters out.

I don't think there's anything rational about Trump's reaction at all. In fact, I am beginning to realize that The Donald is one of those people who always feels the need to "defend" himself, regardless of the accusation. That's what started this whole mess, after all, and I see no reason why this won't recur in the next two debates. Trump will get started on Benghazi or email or whatever, Clinton will call him a fake billionaire and there we go. 

Something else has occurred to me. If Trump were a standard presidential candidate, with the full support of party elites, right now conservatives--particularly female ones--would be rallying to his side. Susan Collins and Kay Bailey Hutchinson and their ilk would be saying "this isn't the Donald Trump I know, liberal lies, blah blah blah." By and large, this isn't happening, because while Susan Collins won't speak against Trump, that doesn't mean she intends to burn in the fire he ignited for himself. I think that support from party elites signals to voters that it's OK to overlook the various flaws in the nominee, but that support is mostly absent in terms of Trump. I can't say that will lose the election for him, but I think it matters.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AMP,

If not civilain control, who would be in control?

I had a great title for the thread but someone got there before me.

[OldGimletEye]

34 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

I've been wondering about this for a bit. If Trump were elected president and then ordered the army to commit war crimes and the generals refused, what kind of crisis would ensue? I guess he could fire the generals and replace them with guys who would be more than happy to follow his orders.

But in the hypothetical that the armed forces refused his orders, what would come next? That seems like a scary scenario to me. To have the armed forces essentially split with the government. Or to even set the precedent that the military will ultimately decide for itself what it will or won't do. Does this scare anyone else?

Well number one, whether you are a private or a general you are bound by law, and by honor, not to follow a "manifestly illegal order" (I know the US doesn't generally use that language in its courts. But the concept applies).

If a general were to follow an manifestly unlawful order he should be court martialed. If Trump were to give an illegal order, he would be guilty of a crime and could be impeached.

Congress ultimately sets the bounds of military law, not the president.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

AMP,

If not civilain control, who would be in control?

I had a great title for the thread but someone got there before me.

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. 

[Ormond]

19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't think there's anything rational about Trump's reaction at all. In fact, I am beginning to realize that The Donald is one of those people who always feels the need to "defend" himself, regardless of the accusation. That's what started this whole mess, after all, and I see no reason why this won't recur in the next two debates. Trump will get started on Benghazi or email or whatever, Clinton will call him a fake billionaire and there we go. 

Something else has occurred to me. If Trump were a standard presidential candidate, with the full support of party elites, right now conservatives--particularly female ones--would be rallying to his side. Susan Collins and Kay Bailey Hutchinson and their ilk would be saying "this isn't the Donald Trump I know, liberal lies, blah blah blah." By and large, this isn't happening, because while Susan Collins won't speak against Trump, that doesn't mean she intends to burn in the fire he ignited for himself. I think that support from party elites signals to voters that it's OK to overlook the various flaws in the nominee, but that support is mostly absent in terms of Trump. I can't say that will lose the election for him, but I think it matters.

?? Susan Collins has already said she will not be voting for Trump, which seems to me to be one of the most damaging thing a Republican senator can say about him, So she definitely isn't going to be "rallying to his side" about his Miss Universe comments. Her support for Trump is "absent" in a much stronger way than it is for most other Republican office holders. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

48 minutes ago, Ormond said:

So IF getting conservative Supreme Court nominations is one's number one priority, even if there's just a 5% chance that Trump will keep his pledge, that's better than the 0% that one gets a conservative nomination from Hillary Clinton. 

Your equation misses the point of the title. It should be I'll vote for Trump because there is a 5% chance he'll appoint conservative justices plus he might explode the deficit, order the military to commit war crimes, use his presidency to make himself wealthy, create an evasive police state and deport U.S. citizens and that's better than the 0% chance that Clinton will appoint conservative justices. 

Because those are all things that Trump has said he will do, and if you recognize that those things are terrible, but are still willing to vote for him because of the SC, then I'm sorry, but your priorities are messed up. 

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

The people who actually know what they're doing. I would 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. 

As Clausewitz once said, “war is the extension of politics by other means.”

Ultimately, the decision to go to war or to refrain from war is a political decision that has to be made. And I’m not sure why that decision should ultimately be entrusted to generals. In fact, I don’t think it should.

Don’t get me wrong, I think a civilian leader should listen to the technocratic advice of their military leadership. But, ultimately, the decision to go to war is not the generals to make.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As Clausewitz once said, “war is the extension of politics by other means.”

Ultimately, the decision to go to war or to refrain from war is a political decision that has to be made. And I’m not sure why that decision should ultimately be entrusted to generals. In fact, I don’t think it should.

Don’t get me wrong, I think a civilian leader should listen to the technocratic advice of their military leadership. But, ultimately, the decision to go to war is not the generals to make.

It's dangerous though when you have a person who says he's smarter than the generals. As sick as it sounds I'd prefer a military government to Trump at this point. 

[TrackerNeil]

16 minutes ago, Ormond said:

?? Susan Collins has already said she will not be voting for Trump, which seems to me to be one of the most damaging thing a Republican senator can say about him, So she definitely isn't going to be "rallying to his side" about his Miss Universe comments. Her support for Trump is "absent" in a much stronger way than it is for most other Republican office holders. 

I was kinda using her as an example of party elites, but, yes, I concede this specific point. I was hoping to get feedback on the main thesis, though.

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

It's dangerous though when you have a person who says he's smarter than the generals. As sick as it sounds I'd prefer a military government to Trump at this point. 

Then vote against Trump number 1.

Also, what makes you think that a military government would necessarily pick conflicts better than a civilian controlled one? Maybe the generals pick those conflicts that benefit them. In fact that's pretty much what medieval kings often did. Democracy in western europe largely developed because people got tired of handing over resources to kings that fought wars for their own personal benefit.

And why would you be willing to tank our constitutional democracy so easily? I'll take a pass on authoritarianism. And I take a pass on military juntas. 

[Ormond]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Your equation misses the point of the title. It should be I'll vote for Trump because there is a 5% chance he'll appoint conservative justices plus he might explode the deficit, order the military to commit war crimes, use his presidency to make himself wealthy, create an evasive police state and deport U.S. citizens and that's better than the 0% chance that Clinton will appoint conservative justices. 

Because those are all things that Trump has said he will do, and if you recognize that those things are terrible, but are still willing to vote for him because of the SC, then I'm sorry, but your priorities are messed up. 

I was not responding to the title of this thread, I was responding to the posts about the issue near the end of the previous thread before it closed.

What makes you think that those who believe they are voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court believe as you do that those other things are likely to happen under a Trump presidency, OR that they are all necessarily bad things if they do? 

Once someone has committed to supporting a certain candidate, the normal human reaction to cognitive dissonance would lead them to either discount the possibility of the other bad things really happening, or lessening their evaluation of just how bad they really are. That is the way the human mind works, unfortunately, no matter what one's political convictions are. 

And of course you think their "priorities are messed up." You aren't a conservative Republican. right? 

[Castel]

I hope Clinton gives Machado and whoever else she puts in front of Trump hazard pay. Cause, at this point, it's clear what he'll do.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Then vote against Trump number 1.

Also, what makes you think that a military government would necessarily pick conflicts better than a civilian controlled one? Maybe the generals pick those conflicts that benefit them. In fact that's pretty much what medieval kings often did. Democracy in western europe largely developed because people got tired of handing over resources to kings that fought wars for their own personal benefit.

And why would you be willing to tank our constitutional democracy so easily? I'll take a pass on authoritarianism. And I take a pass on military juntas. 

Because I think Donald Trump (or Hillary to a much smaller degree) will pick conflicts that benefit him just like those medieval kings did.

Our constitutional democracy is broken and needs a severe overhaul and I'm not sure how we're going to get it under the current system. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Your equation misses the point of the title. It should be I'll vote for Trump because there is a 5% chance he'll appoint conservative justices plus he might explode the deficit, order the military to commit war crimes, use his presidency to make himself wealthy, create an evasive police state and deport U.S. citizens and that's better than the 0% chance that Clinton will appoint conservative justices. 

Because those are all things that Trump has said he will do, and if you recognize that those things are terrible, but are still willing to vote for him because of the SC, then I'm sorry, but your priorities are messed up. 

1. Single issue voters.

2. There is a limit to the damage that a president can do without Senate and House support. And while Trump may be a borderline lunatic, there are many sane Republican senators and congressmen who are not, and who would not help him do some of the stuff the anti-Trump fearmongers  are suggesting he will do.

So it's basically - get the conservative SC judges for the long term, and if you have to endure Trump for 4 years then that's an acceptable price to pay.