General Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The most pressing practical question is whether it would even stand up in the courts on constitutional grounds if pursued.

I don’t think either Pompeo or Kerry (who in 2018 was a private citizen like Pompeo is today) have the weight to meaningfully impact foreign policy with what it is they were doing.
That might be a mitigating factor, and would reduce the penalty from the maximum. It doesn't
necessarily mean the defendant gets off with no penalty.
 
"So ridiculous! Sorry to inform you, but an Election is my form of 'coup,' and if I was going to do a coup, one of the last people I would want to do it with is General Mark Milley."

So Trump is saying that he's against coups but if he DID, uh, do a coup, he definitely wouldn't do one with Milley? That's not comforting at all!
:lol:

He’s still the Comedian in Chief!

We have a history to go on, and I remain convinced that Trump is more bark than bite. He’s been out of office for six months and there are still people thinking that the Reichstag fire decree #2 is around the corner? The fearmongering is just getting silly.
 
What about the whole violent insurrection. You know, this whole thing. The one that Trump stirred up, the Capitol guard leadership under pressure by the Trump admin stood down some of their people and didn't call reinforcements. Tons of evidence for encouragement of it, and removing forces that could hold it off.

https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1415718804005351424

And the fact that they told Pence to not certify the votes. That's also a coup attempt. Pence had no legitimate authority to reject the EC votes, nor does Congress have authority to reject it. Over half the House GOP, after getting run out of their chambers by insurrections, still voted to do so.

These statements by the military seem self-aggrandising, because the fact is, they didn't do anything. They are talking tough now, but when the insurrection went down, they weren't there.

America seems on a pretty bad course. Coup happens and only the goons get punished, and most fairly lightly. That isn't a recipe to stop coups. The GOP has suffered no cost for launching a coup, so they might as well keep trying. Historical fascists didn't come to power directly via coups. But a duel track of waves of violence, and legislative representation, leading to seizing power, once they got in, and institutions were undermined by the violence and chaos. Aided by the normal conservatives.

Historical coup attempts often weren't taken seriously. The Italian Fascists and German Nazis were considered jokes, and goons that could be controlled by the conservative establishment. They then hijacked everything.
 
Last edited:
:lol:

He’s still the Comedian in Chief!

We have a history to go on, and I remain convinced that Trump is more bark than bite. He’s been out of office for six months and there are still people thinking that the Reichstag fire decree #2 is around the corner? The fearmongering is just getting silly.
The USA gave Russia a gift in the form of Dancing Boris who got tanks to fire on their Duma
Russia returned the favour and gave you Litigatin' Donald and his troop of fools who stormed The Capitol.
Fair trade IMO. :)
 
Who’s Donald Trump? The TV guy before NBC had its licenses revoked?

I’m stuck in the timeline where George Bush used terrorism as an excuse to cancel the election, and now President-for-Life Cheney said that the American forces stationed in Iran will be scaled back to 500,000 by the year 2035.
 
I don’t think it’s necessary to be enforced for the reasons I stated just above.
Don't be obtuse. I wasn't asking about whether or not it's necessary due to what you consider issues in practical application. That's a deflection from your earlier arguments, an ongoing support of Naskra's ;)

But, if you can't think of a good reason (and Naskra certainly isn't going to bother giving one), that's fine by me.
 
I'm not sure what the contention is; on what is it you would like me to clarify?
Alright, let's drag us back through the chain.

In response to a claim that the Logan Act was never enforced "for good reason", you suggested that John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi would have to be arrested. This was your direct response to it not being enforced for a good reason. To which I said, basically, that that's not a very convincing deterrent.

So you shifted gears, to the point that the statue is "pretty broad". To which I replied by presuming your argument to be that Pompeo shouldn't be imprisoned because we'd have to imprison other people (such as Kerry and Pelosi, and maybe more). So I wondered if your concern was about regular folk, and pointed out that regular folk would be imprisoned regardless because the justice system in the US is all kinds of broken.

To which you claimed based on a historical anecdote that the average person was safe from prosecution. So that wasn't your concern, evidently. Which left me wondering, what was your concern exactly? So I asked why it mattered that the statute was broad.

You then shifted gears again, this being the second time you completely abandoned a stance and moved onto another, unrelated point in questioning whether or not it would stand up on constitutional grounds. You then proceeded to insert an opinion which likely underscores your actual argument here by claiming all these people mentioned don't have the "weight" to impact foreign policy in a "meaningful" way.

It's pretty evident that you don't think Pompeo's actions are worth any kind of attention, but it would be better if you came out and said this, instead of going about this roundabout method of discussion whereby you first attempt to say "but other self-interested politicians would have to be arrested", and then when confronted with the complete lack of care people have for that gotcha, then move onto something unrelated. A different set of goalposts, so to speak. They've been moved a lot because you don't want to offer a straightforward opinion on the situation.

Though we get pretty close when you talk (relatively unrelatedly) about the "fearmongering" around Trump. Which is pretty rich considering that we're just half a year from that riot on the US Capitol back in January.

If you have an opinion, just say it. "just asking questions" about how constitutional enforcing an Act is is pointless deflection when it's pretty clear you simply think that the Act shouldn't be enforced. That's your take, I believe. That it shouldn't. Not that it couldn't, not that there might be a chance that it could. Your take is that it shouldn't, with a side-order of "I don't think Pompeo did anything wrong".

Feel free to correct me!
 
You’re making a lot of assumptions about motives that aren’t there.
For someone who asked what I would like you to clarify, that sure is a nice dodge.

Seemed to me that would've been a perfect time to call out my apparent assumptions! Apparently not.

This is the General Politics Thread, by the by. You don't get to decree what is or isn't on-topic.

EDIT

As for the Capitol riot, the important thing is that it happened. Not that it wasn't successful (though, technically, it was, as they gained access to the building and came pretty close to high-ranking politicians). If you don't understand that, I guess it would explain why it's easy to dismiss valid fears people have as "fearmongering".

That said, I don't have much interest in turning this into another Capitol thread. Minds aren't going to be changed this late in the game :)
 
For someone who asked what I would like you to clarify, that sure is a nice dodge.
I asked because I thought there was something I missed or didn't understand, and I thought I would get a simple answer. I've given my honest opinions on everything.

You don't get to decree what is or isn't on-topic.
It's just me seguing from one point to another, not a command. Style!
 
I asked because I thought there was something I missed or didn't understand, and I thought I would get a simple answer. I've given my honest opinions on everything.
If you are, why have you not simply given a "yes / no" to me saying what I thought your take was? You sidestepped it, presumably deliberately.

Also, what's with the vague accusations of assumption? That's not very honest at all ;) Point them out! I'd like to know what you think they are.
 
I read this morning that Gen. Mark Milley, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was last Fall-Winter genuinely preparing to repel a coup attempt by Trump and his zombies to prevent President-elect Biden from taking office. He reportedly told aides it was a "Reichstag moment." Having identified the FBI, CIA and Defense Department as being key to any such attempt to prevent the newly-elected administration from being sworn in, Milley confronted the White House Chief of Staff about rumors the administration was about to fire the director of the CIA and replace her with a Trump loyalist. So. Yeah.

EDIT: Oops. Cross-posted with the other thread.
A likely story... months after the fact. He could have come out and said something back in December.
 
A likely story... months after the fact. He could have come out and said something back in December.
I'm not sure he could have, or can. That would be a UCMJ thing, I guess. And Teflon Don was still President, so talking about preparing to counter a coup would get him fired, at the very least. Anyway, afaik, Milley still hasn't said anything publicly. The quotes are attributed to him in a book written by a couple of Washington Post journalists. It's unclear to me whether the general himself spoke to the writers or it's from people who overheard the conversations. The article I read noted that Milley confronted the WH Chief of Staff about the CIA Director at the Army-Navy game. The article about the book also said that representatives for the general did not return calls.


p.s. I noticed that I wrote "then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs." He actually still is.
 
Last edited:
A likely story... months after the fact. He could have come out and said something back in December.

More worrying is his "protest" against a coup was going to be resignation, not arresting those attempting the coup.
 
The pedophilia and satanic cult talk stuff is more fun than rehashed hearsay. :mischief:
 
!!ALL THE THREADS!!

Well, maybe not quite all.

I'm still sort of amused that Pence is a hero of the republic, as it stands.
 
Hah! It'd be even better if somebody sharpie scratched out "202024."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom