US Politics - Primary Numbers

[A Horse Named Stranger]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They swear an oath to protect the Constitution and the country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. If we arrive at this point in time Trump would officially be a domestic enemy of the country.   

You lot should really consider making your senators swear that oath, too.

To paraphrase a former bodyguard.

So many vows, they make you swear and swear. Obey the President, protect the President, protect the country from all enemies, foreign or domestic. [...] No matter what you do, you are forsaking one vow or another.

[SpaceChampion]

3 hours ago, maarsen said:

John Brunner in The Shockwave Rider

I really have to finish that book (um, which I started probably 20 years ago).  Usually the case is when I have trouble getting into a book difficult to get into, it turns out to be one of my favorite books.  Like his Stand on Zanzibar was for me.

[mormont]

Folks, Trump is not going to refuse to leave. He's a physical coward. He will not run the risk of a physical confrontation. The thought is simply not compatible with anything we know about ol' Bone Spurs. He may rail and encourage others to risk *their* necks, but he'll leave the building meekly when the time comes.

[Fragile Bird]

Trump sure is a pro at trolling.

I saw a clip of him in the WH, talking about his great US economy and the fact that there are now 4 trillion dollar companies: Microsoft, Apple, Google and Amazon.

Bezos must be grinding his teeth.

For months we've talked about how dangerous Trump would be if he could talk about things like the economy and keep his trap shut about other things.

[felice]

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

What's the problem with Trump expressing his opinion on this?  He has the legitimate power to unilaterally commute Stone's sentence to zero via pardon.  He's actually being restrained by merely commenting.

What's the problem with the guy with the gun shooting us in the legs? He has the power to kill us, he's actually being restrained by merely kneecapping.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Folks, Trump is not going to refuse to leave. He's a physical coward. He will not run the risk of a physical confrontation. The thought is simply not compatible with anything we know about ol' Bone Spurs. He may rail and encourage others to risk *their* necks, but he'll leave the building meekly when the time comes.

This is not borne out by the facts. What Trump's modus is is that generally he leaves only when people pay him to leave. As an example, Deutsche Bank wanted to get out of a deal with him, and in response he sued them for 3 billion dollars. They eventually dropped the suit and lost $40m as a result. There's a lot more stories like that, but all of Trump's failures essentially result with him being ousted after guaranteeing escaping any actual indemnity or punishment. 

So no, he won't just walk out meekly. That isn't his story at all, and it never has been. 

[Ormond]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is not borne out by the facts. What Trump's modus is is that generally he leaves only when people pay him to leave. As an example, Deutsche Bank wanted to get out of a deal with him, and in response he sued them for 3 billion dollars. They eventually dropped the suit and lost $40m as a result. There's a lot more stories like that, but all of Trump's failures essentially result with him being ousted after guaranteeing escaping any actual indemnity or punishment. 

So no, he won't just walk out meekly. That isn't his story at all, and it never has been. 

I don't know if Mormont is right, but the above example seems irrelevant to me. Deutsche Bank wasn't going to send armed police or soldiers to escort Trump out of a building. Trump could be quite willing to sue to get out of a financial deal without indemity, but that doesn't necessarily translate into his not being a "physical coward" who would avoid having actual hands laid on him to get him out of a building.  

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I don't know if Mormont is right, but the above example seems irrelevant to me. Deutsche Bank wasn't going to send armed police or soldiers to escort Trump out of a building. Trump could be quite willing to sue to get out of a financial deal without indemity, but that doesn't necessarily translate into his not being a "physical coward" who would avoid having actual hands laid on him to get him out of a building.  

That's fair. That said, I have zero faith it'll come to something like actual hands being laid on him in any way. He's never done a perp walk in his life, and has never come close to doing so. 

As long as he isn't going to be physically assaulted he'll keep on fighting or send others to do fighting for him.

And if anything, this indicates to me that a nonviolent solution will never, ever work.  

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Remember that opinion that was making the rounds a while back though that was like "Trump will quit before his term is over" or something?  How absurd does that look today?

I do remember, and it looked absurd at the time.  Yeah, Trump is lazy, but he also knows no one can stop him from obsessing over cable news rather than doing his job as POTUS.

[Zorral]

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is it the Secret Service's job to remove someone refusing to vacate the White House? 

That's why I originally answered my own question from Kal's query the way I did.  Congress has power over the Capitol Police.  The courts have some (it's still part of the DOJ) authority over the US Marshals.  One would think the secret service, as an entity, would be inherently compromised in such a situation.  So, I think they'd allow another agency actually take care of the physical removal if that ever became necessary.

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's why I originally answered my own question from Kal's query the way I did.  Congress has power over the Capitol Police.  The courts have some (it's still part of the DOJ) authority over the US Marshals.  One would think the secret service, as an entity, would be inherently compromised in such a situation.  So, I think they'd allow another agency actually take care of the physical removal if that ever became necessary.

I'm not sure under what law they'd remove him, though. Or what context. I think this is another one of those norms that just hasn't been violated yet. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think this is another one of those norms that just hasn't been violated yet. 

Yep, there's no precedent there, so it's all pure speculation.  Just trying to give my best guess.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

If I had more time I'd go back and try to see which pundits actually said this.

Fan favorite The Mooch was one of them.

[Larry of the Lawn]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure under what law they'd remove him, though. Or what context. I think this is another one of those norms that just hasn't been violated yet. 

Seems like trespassing would be simple enough 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Well, I'm just learning about Klobuchar's record as a prosecutor. How damn difficult is it for all these prosecutors to show some empathy? And why are they all Democrats? We have 4 candidates now (Bloombergy, Pete, Klobuchar and Harris) who have been problematic when it comes to race and harsh enforcing of the law. I shouldn't give Biden a pass either for his busing+tough sentencing, so let's make it 5.

I always felt that the Democrats taking the AA vote for granted was a bit of a stretch, but now I can see if I were in the AA community I wouldnt be enthused about any of the above.

Emily Bazelon talks and writes about the impact of bad prosecutors (all prosecutors?) on the justice system. I suppose you can be repentant about supporting injustice, but these former prosecutors never even attempt to be introspective about their time prosecuting people. Klobuchar specifically has been dismissive of her history--claiming what she did was insignificant or minimal. 

[mcbigski]

3 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

Then We the People storm the Bastille and he'll go out just like the Romanovs. 

Before anyone gets their hackles up, I hope that doesn't happen. But if he refuses to leave and the Secret Service doesn't do its job and remove him, then there's really no other option. 

This whole topic is absurd.  But I wouldn't recommend laying that responsibility at the feet of the Secret Service.  That would be too reminiscent of the Praetorian Guard.  Regardless, let's someone make a deal with me, if Trump seizes power for a third term, I'll bring all you guys care packages at the internment camps, if you promise to bring snacks at the Gulag if Soviet adoring Bernie wins.

1 hour ago, felice said:

What's the problem with the guy with the gun shooting us in the legs? He has the power to kill us, he's actually being restrained by merely kneecapping.

If the guy with the gun has the legal right to use deadly force in a given situation, he is clearly in fact acting with restraint if he stops at knee capping.  So I guess your point escapes me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Seems like trespassing would be simple enough 

Das ist was ich gesagt habe!!!

4 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Emily Bazelon talks and writes about the impact of bad prosecutors (all prosecutors?) on the justice system. I suppose you can be repentant about supporting injustice, but these former prosecutors never even attempt to be introspective about their time prosecuting people. Klobuchar specifically has been dismissive of her history--claiming what she did was insignificant or minimal. 

Historically judges and prosecutors who are elected are tougher on crime. It’s the nature of the cycle.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Das ist was ich gesagt habe!!!

Historically judges and prosecutors who are elected are tougher on crime. It’s the nature of the cycle.

And historically we can look at these tough on crime people and see the racist policies they perpetuate. It's one thing to be a product of a time period, it's another to be unrepentant. 

[Raja]

40 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

 Klobuchar specifically has been dismissive of her history--claiming what she did was insignificant or minimal.  

I think in a field that has been so far fairly large, it is easy to get away with stuff like that - some issues with candidates still pass through all the noise - like Buttigieg's clusterfuck with his police department & Harris' record - but some don't.

Another good example is Buttigieg's strange health plan. Like, it's ridiculous how bananas some components of his health plan are but it hasn't really been evaluated even with the various detailed* debates on health policy.

*detailed for TV & debates