Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tywin Manderly

U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

Recommended Posts

Quote

What troubles me is that if Trump looses the election and claims, however transparently false, that it was stolen, 40% of the country could well believe him no matter how lacking in evidence his claims. And I'm not sure the Union would survive that

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

Edited by The Mother of The Others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

Disliking the outcome of an election is not the same as not accepting it.  The former is represented by political opposition.  The latter by militant resistance to a normal transfer of power.

The latter is much much worse than the former.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Disliking the outcome of an election is not the same as not accepting it.  The former is represented by political opposition.  The latter by militant resistance to a normal transfer of power.

The latter is much much worse than the former.

I don't know anyone personally or read/seen anything mainstream that suggests that anyone doesn't "accept" the last election. It was legally legitimate despite very credible attacks that benefited, but we're not 100% proved to be coordinated, with the winning candidate and current administration. To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

Eta- electoral college arguments aside. The legality is clear though absurd from a point of view.

Edited by Week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

OH MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT WE'VE BEEN THE MONSTERS ALL ALONG

HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY WANT TO OVERTURN THE ELECTORAL WILL OF 63 MILLION PEOPLE WHEN ONLY 66 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE OTHER PERSON

I'M MELLLLTINIG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

What Scot said. But also, unlike 2016 a Trump loss would 99.999% certainly be both a NPV and EC loss, which means he's not at all anything like being cast in the same image as the whinging left, who at least could keep crying "But the NPV! the EC system is broken. Hillary would be president if based on NPV." Trump and his supporters on the other hand would rely on solely on conspiracies lacking evidence about voter fraud. So really two very different images for whining about having lost an election.

The NPV argument is pretty much the same as complaints around FPP vs PR in parliamentary / congressional elections. And that has often been a reasonable basis for an electoral system making a change to better reflect the actual will of the people. Running around complaining about fraud without any evidence that it had a material influence, has never lead to reasonable reforms of the electoral system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Disliking the outcome of an election is not the same as not accepting it.  The former is represented by political opposition.  The latter by militant resistance to a normal transfer of power.

The latter is much much worse than the former.

Where does violating your duty to constitution fall If you re a self proclaimed member of the resitance like vindman or unnamed ivy league CIA worked for previous administration guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Here's the dirty secret that will make you feel a bit worse: the average voter of this country hasn't changed a bit. What has changed is the people willing to run and the character of the people in government. We didn't realize how much the actual functioning of the system relied on the politicians and people running the system to have somewhat reasonable morals and somewhat reasonable restraint. 

Well, it's hard to argue with the notion that the American voter has always been pretty stupid.  Hell, that's pretty much the point of The American Voter, the formative work on modern American political behavior.  (Well, its real point is that voters choose based on party ID but are not ideological, or exhibit ideological constraint, but that's much more complicated.)  But OTOH, it's not like the electorate, or at least a portion ot the electorate, perpetuating the worst impulses of elected officials is anything new.

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, I guess at least he'll be redistributing some of his wealth. Though probably no to the poor and working poor.

Heh, sure I guess there will substantial redistribution based on running a campaign and ad buys, which should "trickle down" to political operatives and broadcast journalists.  And I guess based on their tastes that should buoy....Apple products and trendy hipster restaurants?

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

not sure why trump voters are so thin-skinned with their unwarranted YOU DIDNT NOT EXCEPT TEH ERECTION.

I think it's pretty clear why Trump supporters would demand we all accept unwarranted erections.

4 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

 

Where does violating your duty to constitution fall If you re a self proclaimed member of the resitance like vindman or unnamed ivy league CIA worked for previous administration guy?

Um, just some basic govt 101 for you, the mandate for NSC staff is explicitly non-partisan (as is CIA's, which was established by the same act, but it's fair to point out CIA's history has hardly been "neutral") and both it and CIA mostly employ careerist bureaucrats that work across administrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

 

Where does violating your duty to constitution fall If you re a self proclaimed member of the resitance like vindman or unnamed ivy league CIA worked for previous administration guy?

I don’t understand the context of your question.  Are you implying Vindman is violating his duty under the Constitution by testifying?  Loyalty to a particular President is very different from loyalty to the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t understand the context of your question.  Are you implying Vindman is violating his duty under the Constitution by testifying?  Loyalty to a particular President is very different from loyalty to the Constitution.

Constitutionally, the legislature makes treaties the executive conducts other diplomacy and LT Col s who coordinate with disgruntled cia guys don't actually get a policy say.  Did Vindman actually have anything to say under cross questioning?  As an inferior in the chain of command you should either support the constitutionally elected executive or resign when all POTUS did was ask to examine corruption by his own government.

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, it's hard to argue with the notion that the American voter has always been pretty stupid.  Hell, that's pretty much the point of The American Voter, the formative work on modern American political behavior.  (Well, its real point is that voters choose based on party ID but are not ideological, or exhibit ideological constraint, but that's much more complicated.)  But OTOH, it's not like the electorate, or at least a portion ot the electorate, perpetuating the worst impulses of elected officials is anything new.

Heh, sure I guess there will substantial redistribution based on running a campaign and ad buys, which should "trickle down" to political operatives and broadcast journalists.  And I guess based on their tastes that should buoy....Apple products and trendy hipster restaurants?

I think it's pretty clear why Trump supporters would demand we all accept unwarranted erections.

Um, just some basic govt 101 for you, the mandate for NSC staff is explicitly non-partisan (as is CIA's, which was established by the same act, but it's fair to point out CIA's history has hardly been "neutral") and both it and CIA mostly employ careerist bureaucrats that work across administrations.

If you think a "mandate" is binding on self identifying elites in power, thats very Kerensky of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

  As an inferior in the chain of command you should either support the constitutionally elected executive or resign when all POTUS did was ask to examine corruption by his own government.

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

said 'corruption by the prior administration' was never anything but a completely discredited conservative delusion. Biden, at the time was at least the third in a string of Obama officials making the same demand over a period of several months,  YOU WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS,  POTUS was manifestly NOT interested in corruption, but solely in digging up 'dirt' on a political opponent - and deliberately did so in an illegal manner.  This is not open for dispute.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

Targeting a corruption investigation into your own political opponent is a patently corrupt effort. There are many ways to support anti-corruption abroad (Trump has mostly curtailed or ignored these). The faux-earnest "anti-corruption" angle is absurd from on its face. Try another for the grab bag of excuses and whataboutism. This corrupt activity clearly happened and was nearly successful - the cover up has been successful due to the stonewalling by the executive branch (of which there is no defense - no rational excuse other than to cover up malfeasance). This is continuing to go on and will only get worse with an emboldened Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

support the constitutionally elected executive 

he can't be required to lie under oath.  his military oath is to defend the constitution, which requires him to disobey unlawful orders.  he did not swear a loyalty oath to the person of the president; that was by contrast literally something in the third reich. that's what trump and y'all trump voters really want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

If you think a "mandate" is binding on self identifying elites in power, thats very Kerensky of you.

If you classify Alexander Vindman as a "self identifying elite," that's adorably stupid of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Week said:

I don't know anyone personally or read/seen anything mainstream that suggests that anyone doesn't "accept" the last election. It was legally legitimate despite very credible attacks that benefited, but we're not 100% proved to be coordinated, with the winning candidate and current administration. To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

Eta- electoral college arguments aside. The legality is clear though absurd from a point of view.

I not only don't "accept" the 2016 election I did not acknowledge the 2000 or 2004 Presidential elections as legitimate either. Those were occupying regimes, just as this group of criminals are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

It's almost as if the Americans should have some kind of department responsible for looking for things about justice. If only the US had such a department! 

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

So here's another question, since you're seemingly up on this sort of thing. Why was it testified that no one actually cared about whether or not the investigation occurred, and the only thing that mattered was announcing the investigation? Seems like if you wanted to, ya know, investigate corruption you'd actually focus heavily on investigating it, and you'd really want to keep that as hush-hush as possible so that you don't tip off the people you're investigating, right?

But instead, if you went after that person by very publicly announcing the investigation before actually doing any investigating, wouldn't that jeopardize the investigation? Especially if they're corrupt and are going to do corrupt things like destroy evidence or acid-wash servers? Wouldn't you want to make that a bit more secret?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I not only don't "accept" the 2016 election I did not acknowledge the 2000 or 2004 Presidential elections as legitimate either. Those were occupying regimes, just as this group of criminals are.

What was wrong with the 2004 election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×