US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death

[Killjoybear]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

My focus is on what Trump can or could get away with.  Neither of those examples were organized by him or his staff - although to be clear I'm absolutely not arguing he caused them.  There's a difference.  Rittenhouse is still being prosecuted.  Is it likely he'll be let off or at best be given a slap on the wrist?  Yeah, but that speaks to a broken justice system that frankly precedes Trump.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, and poitn of fact him encouraging stochastic terrorism is more of an indication of his power and lack of abilities to stop him, not less.

So can he order federal troops to seize ballot boxes? I mean, he can but he probably will be discouraged from that.

BUT...Will off-duty officers do that based on him saying how some people in Pennsylvania saw some antifa? That seems more reasonable.

Can he order police to beat the shit out of voters? Again, he can, but it probably won't happen.

BUT...Can he tweet that police need to beat the shit out of some voters at certain precincts and some people (police and non-police) follow up on that? Probably!

Can he order with absolute certainty that the Pennsylvania state legislature certify falsely the count of votes? Well, no he doesn't have the authority.

BUT...Can he say that in a tweet that it should happen and they just 'happen' to go along with it? Seems not too unlikely.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

BUT...Will off-duty officers do that based on him saying how some people in Pennsylvania saw some antifa? That seems more reasonable.

Will off-duty officers seize ballots by gunpoint?  No.  Will off-duty officers seize ballots at all?  Not likely, particularly in states and districts run by Democrats, which constitutes the vast majority of places you'd be worried about.  So, yes, this is fantastical.

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

BUT...Can he tweet that police need to beat the shit out of some voters at certain precincts and some people (police and non-police) follow up on that? Probably!

Are police going to violently attack voters at precincts?  No, they aren't that stupid.  It will be caught on camera.  Will police and non-police do everything to intimate voters without looking like the aggressors, or try to provoke protesters into looking like the aggressors?  You bet.  So, yes, your idea is fantastical, or at least unrefined.

8 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

BUT...Can he say that in a tweet that it should happen and they just 'happen' to go along with it? Seems not too unlikely.

Who gives a shit what the state legislature does?  We've already had this conversation.  This only matters if the election is very close.  In which case, for the thousandth time, I agree with you Trump will probably prevail.

[Fragile Bird]

I see AG Barr now wants protestors charged with sedition.

[Killjoybear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Will off-duty officers seize ballots by gunpoint?  No.  Will off-duty officers seize ballots at all?  Not likely, particularly in states and districts run by Democrats, which constitutes the vast majority of places you'd be worried about.  So, yes, this is fantastical.

Yes, because Portland being run by Democrats has definitely stopped police from teaming up with Patriot Prayer and other militia groups.

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Are police going to violently attack voters at precincts?  No, they aren't that stupid.  It will be caught on camera.  Will police and non-police do everything to intimate voters without looking like the aggressors, or try to provoke protesters into looking like the aggressors?  You bet.  So, yes, your idea is fantastical, or at least unrefined. 

Are non-police going to attack people at precincts while police stand by, like they have in a whole lot of demonstrations this year?

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Who gives a shit what the state legislature does?  We've already had this conversation.  This only matters if the election is very close.  In which case, for the thousandth time, I agree with you Trump will probably prevail.

It kind of matters for causing random chaos and violence. This isn't just about whether or not Trump will actively prevail. 

Mostly, this is pointing out how Trump doesn't have to specifically command people to do his bidding directly with some stupid executive order. A guy fucking shot up a pizza place based on Alex Jones - think people aren't going to do a lot more if Trump ramps it up? 

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I see AG Barr now wants protestors charged with sedition.

Well that's good and not at all a sign of the above being an issue

[karaddin]

Yeah one of the really discouraging things this year for me has been far too many thug cops realising they can abuse their power on camera and it still won't matter. I'll give DMC that doing so to voters at a polling booth is another jump from doing it to protestors but I've lost faith in video evidence itself being a deterrent.

We had police chase a man who left a hospital (after attempting to self admit and they didn't have room) having a mental health episode and drove into him with a police car to knock him down, then mass curb stomped, kicked him etc all on camera and it doesn't seem to do jack shit here either. That poor guy was in a coma last I saw and he's been charged with damaging the police car. Sorry that really belongs in the police thread, just... again... really disappointed at how little video seems to matter.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalibear said:

Yes, because Portland being run by Democrats has definitely stopped police from teaming up with Patriot Prayer and other militia groups.

....And you think this is the same as law enforcement seizing ballots for a contested presidential election?  It's abhorrent, but white people actually care about the latter.  That's why it's fantastical.  

2 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Are non-police going to attack people at precincts while police stand by, like they have in a whole lot of demonstrations this year?

See above.

3 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

It kind of matters for causing random chaos and violence.

I don't see how a state legislature sending competing certification - which by the way has no precedent nor authority to certify election results, you're just basing that off a speculative article based off a self-fulfilling "study group - is going to cause violence in the streets.  If there's violence in the streets it's because of Trump's rhetoric.  Using state legislatures is just one of many tools he could use for that.

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Yeah one of the really discouraging things this year for me has been far too many thug cops realising they can abuse their power on camera and it still won't matter. I'll give DMC that doing so to voters at a polling booth is another jump from doing it to protestors  newly minted criminals who won't be able to vote now, but I've lost faith in video evidence itself being a deterrent.

Ftfy 

[tzanth]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Will off-duty officers seize ballots by gunpoint?  No.  Will off-duty officers seize ballots at all?  Not likely, particularly in states and districts run by Democrats, which constitutes the vast majority of places you'd be worried about.  So, yes, this is fantastical.

It seems fantastical until it isn't any more. Again, I hope you are right, but I bet people were having conversations much like this in Germany in 1932. I agree that these things probably would not work - I don't think the US is at that point yet - but the fact that they seem like they might even be in the realm of possibility is terrifying. And considering how quickly the realm of "what is normal" has changed over the last four years I don't think we can rule anything out even if it seems fantastical in the moment.   

[DMC]

1 minute ago, tzanth said:

I bet people were having conversations much like this in Germany in 1932.

This isn't Germany 1932.  You mentioned Rittenhouse earlier.  If it was Germany 1932, Rittenhouse would be getting a parade, not a trial date.  I completely agree that the fact they're in the realm of possibility is terrifying.  I just think sometimes people need to take a step back, or lay off on the hyperbole, or in Kal's case, have a goddamned drink and relax.

[Martell Spy]

Barr attacks Justice Department staff, compares them to preschoolers

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/16/politics/barr-justice-department-speech/index.html

Quote

 

(CNN)Attorney General William Barr slammed the hundreds of Justice Department prosecutors working beneath him on Wednesday, equating them to preschoolers, in a defense of his own politically tuned decision making in the Trump administration.

"Name one successful organization or institution where the lowest level employees' decisions are deemed sacrosanct, there aren't. There aren't any letting the most junior members set the agenda," Barr said, speaking at a Constitution Day celebration hosted by Hillsdale College.
"It might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it is no way to run a federal agency," the attorney general added.

The comments are likely to inflame already strained relations between the politically appointed Justice Department leadership in Washington and the career attorneys across the country who serve through multiple presidencies.

 

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Barr attacks Justice Department staff, compares them to preschoolers

What I really wanna know is what preschool allows the 4 year olds to set the agenda?

[Gaston de Foix]

7 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Barr attacks Justice Department staff, compares them to preschoolers

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/16/politics/barr-justice-department-speech/index.html

 

The Justice Department staff who have disagreed with Barr have done so because he made decisions that were often contrary to Justice Department policy and virtually always contrary to the rule of law. 

The A-G has discretion but he is to exercise that discretion in accordance with his duty to uphold the rule of law.  Which Barr doesn't give a shit about.   

[Gaston de Foix]

Does anyone believe the SC Senate polls that show Harrison and Graham tied? I'm putting it firmly in the too-good-to-be-true category. 

Edited September 17 by Gaston de Foix

[TrackerNeil]

Rachel Bitecofer has a lengthy but interesting analysis on this election--it's quite a bit to read, but IMO worth it. For those who might not know, Bitecofer believes that elections are determined not by who is persuaded, but by who is activated, and I might agree with her.

Anyway, she makes another interesting point:

Quote

The inelasticity of American public opinion is a symptom of a democracy in full-blown crisis. A healthy “body politic” does not remain unresponsive to political stimulus on an epic scale. Ours alone is the only democracy in which the public flatlined in this way.

I could not agree more. Given a mishandled pandemic, 200K dead and an economy in the toilet, Trump's approval ratings should be in the twenties. Sure, his approval is not great, but, goddamn. Is the new reality that about 45% of Americans will support a president regardless of performance? If so...well, a full-blown crisis of democracy is putting it mildly.

[BigFatCoward]

Why am I reading about heat rays? Wtf is wrong with your government? 

Edited September 17 by BigFatCoward

[Padraig]

12 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Pod why in the name of the old gods and the new are you hanging out with some Seppo who needs convincing that Dems don't just...let violent criminals go?

Its a very good question.

I've know this person for years.  I never got the impression that she had these beliefs.  American politics isn't my normal topic of choice though.

I probably will have to re-consider certain things if things continue as they are.  But I wanted to make one attempt.

It was the most bizarre conversation i've ever had.  I spent the initial 5 minutes convinced I was been teased.  And then I realised...she is serious...

[Padraig]

And everyone else.  Thanks for your input.  That's very useful.  

Apologies for the very basic questions.  I'll be more educated at least!  Nothing is surprising me unduly but I didn't have deep knowledge of this.

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

Its a very good question.

I've know this person for years.  I never got the impression that she had these beliefs.  American politics isn't my normal topic of choice though.

I probably will have to re-consider certain things if things continue as they are.  But I wanted to make one attempt.

It was the most bizarre conversation i've ever had.  I spent the initial 5 minutes convinced I was been teased.  And then I realised...she is serious...

You are a better person than I, Pod. Thank you for trying to have a reasoned conversation with this person. I wish you luck and patience. I don't think you'll ever be able to really dismantle the racism that is clearly driving this person's thought-processes (I mean, nobody but the person holding the racist beliefs can do that, but you know what I'm getting at there), but hopefully you can at least make some headway on Green New Deal.

Edited September 17 by Xray the Enforcer

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Does anyone believe the SC Senate polls that show Harrison and Graham tied? I'm putting it firmly in the too-good-to-be-true category. 

I recognize what the poll is reporting, but I doubt it's indicative of who SC will send to the Senate in January.

I'll say this much, though: It's a bad environment for Republicans if Lindsey Graham is fighting for his job.

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Does anyone believe the SC Senate polls that show Harrison and Graham tied? I'm putting it firmly in the too-good-to-be-true category. 

I believe it. I believe Graham will win in the end, but I believe that Democrats have a surprisingly high floor in SC and that Graham will run a point or two behind Trump; making it even closer. South Carolina is much further behind North Carolina and Georgia, to say nothing of Virginia, in terms of changing partisan trends; but most of the same factors exist there too.