Conspiracy - Theory versus Reality

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I find it interesting that rather than actually discussing @Reds scenario, which to me doesn't seem completely unrealistic we discussing Obama. I would have enjoyed to watch a discussion about the Constitution or checks and balances - i.e. a factual discussion on whether this could play out. 

Is it really that the best (or only?) defense is an offense? Now, that's scary! 

For the record - I am not totally anti-Trump. But I am continuously surprised at what people are willing to accept in the name of the greater good. 

The reason the original scenario, posted by Red, is not realistic is that, notwithstanding the "Insurrection Act," a federalized National Guard is legally prevented from using force against Americans, as is the Army, under restrictive laws passed after the Civil War in 1861-64. There has been one example of troops not obeying the non-use of force outside of federal military bases, that being at Kent State when students doing nothing more than carrying anti (Vietnam) war signs and milling about on the lower campus were fired upon by Ohio National Guard troops standing in a line formation along a rise outside the demonstration area, murdering four students.  The prohibition against use of troops in domestic settings is contained in the "Posse Comitatus Act,"  18 U.S.C. § 1385 .  What is cited by Red as the "Insurrection Act" was passed by Congress in 1807.  thus it becomes apparent that Posse Comitatus greatly limits the Insurrection Act, due to the US tradition of civilian control of the military.

Further, there is an absolute right of the civilian population to overthrow the Government, either State or Federal, although Jefferson's writings in the Federalist Papers all were focused on the Federal Govt, and suggested a use of force every 30 years to "clean out the deadwood."  A President using the military (or attempting to do so, as I would doubt that military commanders would obey a Presidential Order to go shoot on civilians, even when those civilians are marching around inside the Capitol carrying their hunting rifles) is exposed to a punishment of two years in jail.  Is it realistic to overthrow the federal government?  Probably not.  But there is still the ballot box. 

Finally, the scenario posited, where Trump does all that in order to be re-elected, flies in the face of both the demands of his wife  (who does not want him to be President, and at least for the first months refused to go live in the white House, staying instead inside Trump Tower in NYC)  and his own frustrations at being president.  The current shutdown is a reaction to stalemates with Congress, which  will continue for the next two years, and then for the next five election cycles after that.  I just don't see The Donald running again, unless the Democrats are so tone-deaf and stupid as to once again go run Hillary.  And you never know just how totally clued-out the Democratic Party leadership can be. 

[Red + 252]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The reason the original scenario, posted by Red, is not realistic is that, notwithstanding the "Insurrection Act," a federalized National Guard is legally prevented from using force against Americans, as is the Army, under restrictive laws passed after the Civil War in 1861-64.

No force was required under the scenario - merely the mobilisation if the Guard in order to "intimidate".

18 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Is it realistic to overthrow the federal government?  Probably not.  But there is still the ballot box. 

Yes, and the scenario was to show how the vote could be impacted.

18 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Finally, the scenario posited, where Trump does all that in order to be re-elected, flies in the face of both the demands of his wife

You got me there... but Trump's fidelity is somewhat questionable: will marriage trump ego?

[TXPower + 643]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I find it interesting that rather than actually discussing @Reds scenario, which to me doesn't seem completely unrealistic we discussing Obama. I would have enjoyed to watch a discussion about the Constitution or checks and balances - i.e. a factual discussion on whether this could play out. 

Is it really that the best (or only?) defense is an offense? Now, that's scary! 

For the record - I am not totally anti-Trump. But I am continuously surprised at what people are willing to accept in the name of the greater good. 

Of course it could play out, here or anywhere else in the world.  Power corrupts.  The evidence is all over.  

In terms of the American Experience it’s largely been subdued and minimized to The Imperial Presidency.  It isn’t new and didn’t begin with Trump.  Suffice it to say, Executive Fiat, has a long and diverse history in our system of goverment.  Lincoln with the suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.   Roosevelt with Japanese interment during WWII. Truman’s attempt to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean Conflict of the 50’s.  Obama was well versed in such executive overreach too, from his creating of various Czars, arguably unauthorized cabinet level personnel not supported by our constitution; to DACA and many things in between.  Obama was not immune and actually is a fine example of the phenomena IMO.

Full disclosure, I voted for Trump.  I would not however, stand by idly if he attempted a gross violation of our constitution and it was a verifiable fact.  The real problem would be determining whether what Trump was saying was true, in terms of the threat of election meddling by NK or any other state actor actually being able to influence our election process.  

There is widespread mistrust of the MSM, deservedly so and I, like many, would be very suspect of reporting from them leading me to believe what they were reporting was true.  I know you are aware this is partly playing out now with the Russian Collusion theatre.  MSM here has worked so hard and screamed so loud that collusion with Russia is why Sillary lost that any attempt for them in the near term to convince huge portions of our electorate that Trump’s strategy is now the opposite what they allege was his strategy in the 2016 election, has an uphill climb at best.  They simply have been crying wolf for too long.

Fortunately, our Constitution does have checks and balances as you mentioned.  Our Judiciary is want and increasingly well versed in exercising power over the executive.  Additionally, if it was verifiable that actions suggested in the story linked by Red were verifiable on the part of Trump, there are many able bodied Americans who would go to great lengths, including taking up arms to thwart such a plot.  This of course is to say nothing of the principled military and LE men and women who would not stand for such an act.

I think our history supports a strong distrust of too much power being vested of in the hands of too few or one person for too long, especially presidents.  Hence the presidential term limitation of the 22nd amendment.  Now if we would just enact term limits for the House and Senate.

Could the suggested scenario be plotted and attempted by a president, Trump or any other, yep.  I find it unlikely and I, like many, would fight against it.  This country was hatched out fighting against the tyranny of a monarchy, we don’t want a king.  Not yet anyway.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

16 minutes ago, Red said:

No force was required under the scenario - merely the mobilisation if the Guard in order to "intimidate".

Yes, and the scenario was to show how the vote could be impacted.

You got me there... but Trump's fidelity is somewhat questionable: will marriage trump ego?

Red, I still think you are missing something as regards the dynamics of the National Guard.  Although called that, in fact the Guard units are "State Guard" units and remain under the control of the Governors of each State.  I grant that I am not expert in this part of arcane law, but it remains my impression that no State Guard unit can be "mobilized" or placed on a war footing without the signature of the Governor.  That is, the Governor has to hand over his troops to the US Army by some written instrument.  If anyone knows the details (including if my impression is wrong), please do chime in here. 

the State Guard units were, postwar, designed for use as Emergency units, specifically is say some massive flood or hurricane wrecked a State and they needed those troops to go out and rescue people and start using State bulldozers to rebuild washed-out roads and remove trees, that sort of thing.  Do you picture State Governors surrendering their state people and sending them under the command of Trump?  I just do not picture that as plausible. 

Once you get past the sign-off issues, then the next problem is, are State Guard troops prepared to fire on civilians?  The possibility of Commanders ordering their troops to do that, remembering that state guard units are basically a militia, composed of civilians, or "weekend warriors,"  that is again implausible. 

Is the Guard prepared to "intimidate" the citizens?  Or will the Commanders simply keep the mobilized troops in their barracks?  Another imponderable.  Personally, I suspect the guard will sit it out, and do nothing, federal orders or no orders. 

Now, as to Donald's marriage, he has this gorgeous wife, who is already angry with him over the "pee-pee tapes," totally disgusted with is cavorting with hookers in Prague.  She has sacrificed a lot in exchange for a materially comfortable life.  Donald is a bit of a narcissist, and being dumped by his wife is not for him.  He would dump the presidency first.  Especially since it is a sure thing that Pence would issue a blanket pardon the very first day of being sworn in. It is more plausible that Donald resigns just before the end of his presidency, lets Pence become president, even if only for a week, and picks up a presidential pardon from President Pence.  He goes back to New York, lives in his palatial (by his standards, anyway) massive apartment in Trump Tower, and goes back to bigger and better golf course deals around the globe, and walks away from the total headache that is Washington.  Pence is a seasoned political professional, he can handle it. That is much more likely than some Hail Mary Pass end-run using mobilized troops, and, what else?  Internment Camps for the Clintonistas? 

[TXPower + 643]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The reason the original scenario, posted by Red, is not realistic is that, notwithstanding the "Insurrection Act," a federalized National Guard is legally prevented from using force against Americans, as is the Army, under restrictive laws passed after the Civil War in 1861-64. There has been one example of troops not obeying the non-use of force outside of federal military bases, that being at Kent State when students doing nothing more than carrying anti (Vietnam) war signs and milling about on the lower campus were fired upon by Ohio National Guard troops standing in a line formation along a rise outside the demonstration area, murdering four students.  The prohibition against use of troops in domestic settings is contained in the "Posse Comitatus Act,"  18 U.S.C. § 1385 .  What is cited by Red as the "Insurrection Act" was passed by Congress in 1807.  thus it becomes apparent that Posse Comitatus greatly limits the Insurrection Act, due to the US tradition of civilian control of the military.

Further, there is an absolute right of the civilian population to overthrow the Government, either State or Federal, although Jefferson's writings in the Federalist Papers all were focused on the Federal Govt, and suggested a use of force every 30 years to "clean out the deadwood."  A President using the military (or attempting to do so, as I would doubt that military commanders would obey a Presidential Order to go shoot on civilians, even when those civilians are marching around inside the Capitol carrying their hunting rifles) is exposed to a punishment of two years in jail.  Is it realistic to overthrow the federal government?  Probably not.  But there is still the ballot box. 

Finally, the scenario posited, where Trump does all that in order to be re-elected, flies in the face of both the demands of his wife  (who does not want him to be President, and at least for the first months refused to go live in the white House, staying instead inside Trump Tower in NYC)  and his own frustrations at being president.  The current shutdown is a reaction to stalemates with Congress, which  will continue for the next two years, and then for the next five election cycles after that.  I just don't see The Donald running again, unless the Democrats are so tone-deaf and stupid as to once again go run Hillary.  And you never know just how totally clued-out the Democratic Party leadership can be. 

^ This.

[Red + 252]

21 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Red, I still think you are missing something as regards the dynamics of the National Guard.  Although called that, in fact the Guard units are "State Guard" units and remain under the control of the Governors of each State.  I grant that I am not expert in this part of arcane law, but it remains my impression that no State Guard unit can be "mobilized" or placed on a war footing without the signature of the Governor.  That is, the Governor has to hand over his troops to the US Army by some written instrument.  If anyone knows the details (including if my impression is wrong), please do chime in here. 

the State Guard units were, postwar, designed for use as Emergency units, specifically is say some massive flood or hurricane wrecked a State and they needed those troops to go out and rescue people and start using State bulldozers to rebuild washed-out roads and remove trees, that sort of thing.  Do you picture State Governors surrendering their state people and sending them under the command of Trump?  I just do not picture that as plausible. 

Once you get past the sign-off issues, then the next problem is, are State Guard troops prepared to fire on civilians?  The possibility of Commanders ordering their troops to do that, remembering that state guard units are basically a militia, composed of civilians, or "weekend warriors,"  that is again implausible. 

Is the Guard prepared to "intimidate" the citizens?  Or will the Commanders simply keep the mobilized troops in their barracks?  Another imponderable.  Personally, I suspect the guard will sit it out, and do nothing, federal orders or no orders. 

Now, as to Donald's marriage, he has this gorgeous wife, who is already angry with him over the "pee-pee tapes," totally disgusted with is cavorting with hookers in Prague.  She has sacrificed a lot in exchange for a materially comfortable life.  Donald is a bit of a narcissist, and being dumped by his wife is not for him.  He would dump the presidency first.  Especially since it is a sure thing that Pence would issue a blanket pardon the very first day of being sworn in. It is more plausible that Donald resigns just before the end of his presidency, lets Pence become president, even if only for a week, and picks up a presidential pardon from President Pence.  He goes back to New York, lives in his palatial (by his standards, anyway) massive apartment in Trump Tower, and goes back to bigger and better golf course deals around the globe, and walks away from the total headache that is Washington.  Pence is a seasoned political professional, he can handle it. That is much more likely than some Hail Mary Pass end-run using mobilized troops, and, what else?  Internment Camps for the Clintonistas? 

Jan, please read the contribution here from Dominic Jenkins as I think it covers your points.

There were other relevant issues raised at that site which to me suggest the scenario is plausible, irrespective of it being Trump or any future president.

Aside from the above, proclamation of a National Emergency introduces Presidential Emergency Action Documents, or peads, which originated as part of the Eisenhower administration’s plans to ensure continuity of government in the wake of a Soviet nuclear attack  They are draft executive orders, proclamations, and messages to Congress which are prepared in advance of anticipated emergencies - none has ever been publicly released or leaked.  That said, in 1987, The Miami Herald reported that Lt Col Oliver North had worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to create a secret contingency plan authorizing “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to fema, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.”   In that context, a 2007 Department of Homeland Security report lists “martial law” and “curfew declarations” as “critical tasks” that local, state, and federal government should be able to perform in emergencies. 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

Jan, please read the contribution here from Dominic Jenkins as I think it covers your points.

There were other relevant issues raised at that site which to me suggest the scenario is plausible, irrespective of it being Trump or any future president.

Aside from the above, proclamation of a National Emergency introduces Presidential Emergency Action Documents, or peads, which originated as part of the Eisenhower administration’s plans to ensure continuity of government in the wake of a Soviet nuclear attack  They are draft executive orders, proclamations, and messages to Congress which are prepared in advance of anticipated emergencies - none has ever been publicly released or leaked.  That said, in 1987, The Miami Herald reported that Lt Col Oliver North had worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to create a secret contingency plan authorizing “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to fema, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.”   In that context, a 2007 Department of Homeland Security report lists “martial law” and “curfew declarations” as “critical tasks” that local, state, and federal government should be able to perform in emergencies. 

 

Without going into the Jenkins Papers, and granting (which I easily and readily do) that the White House attracts more than its share of lunatics, sycophants, assorted hangers-on, and some seriously deranged and nasty people, the real issue remains:  is anybody outside that cabal of loonies and crazies, including Oliver North, going to be obeyed?  Specifically, are Governors and civilian policemen going to pay any attention to whatever paper garbage flows from the Oval Office?

What I think you are missing is a peculiar American attribute:  nobody pays much attention to authority.  The President can say whatever he wants; nobody much cares.  In the USA, there is this very long tradition of ignoring the laws.  Just look at the rampant speeding on the highways.  The reality is that nobody does much of anything about it.  There is this old American saying "Catching before hanging." 

I just don't picture the Governors of the States surrendering their jealously -guarded powers and prerogatives over to The Donald - or anyone else in that White House. 

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

 I would not however, stand by idly if he attempted a gross violation of our constitution and it was a verifiable fact.  The real problem would be determining whether what Trump was saying was true, in terms of the threat of election meddling by NK or any other state actor actually being able to influence our election process

Again, you would need to show that what was presented was not constitutional, as I have found no impediment.  Indeed, the more I now look, the more likely it is possible.

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

Fortunately, our Constitution does have checks and balances as you mentioned.  Our Judiciary is want and increasingly well versed in exercising power over the executive.  Additionally, if it was verifiable that actions suggested in the story linked by Red were verifiable on the part of Trump, there are many able bodied Americans who would go to great lengths, including taking up arms to thwart such a plot.

The scenario I presented was very much one of the 11th hour, and with a compliant Supreme Court:  Topical is that its present composition may very well agree that Trump is acting within the constitution, effectively neutering the checks and balance".

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

Could the suggested scenario be plotted and attempted by a president, Trump or any other, yep.  I find it unlikely and I, like many, would fight against it.  This country was hatched out fighting against the tyranny of a monarchy, we don’t want a king.

Could the scenario play out (as distinct from being merely attempted)?  More likely than not given there is nothing - so far presented - apparently unlawful or unconstitutional in the president's actions.  Of course the other problem is that the citizenry would then need to fight a rearguard action, although on what grounds?  Every action undertaken was lawful and constitutional.  You might not like what happened but apart from the ballot box, what are your lawful rights to fight it?  Maybe put on a yellow vest and keep taking to the streets?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

It seems to me that the scenario that @Red has presented is not totally un-plausible. However, as @Jan van Eck and @TXPower points out it seems that it could only pulled off if public public opinion was for it (in which case no tampering would be necessary). And also - in the scenario it seems a lot hinges on the Supreme Court. I would think that the weight of office might make Brett Kavanaugh think twice about blindly supporting Trump.

Still, food for thought. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[TXPower + 643]

7 hours ago, Red said:

Again, you would need to show that what was presented was not constitutional, as I have found no impediment.  Indeed, the more I now look, the more likely it is possible.

The scenario I presented was very much one of the 11th hour, and with a compliant Supreme Court:  Topical is that its present composition may very well agree that Trump is acting within the constitution, effectively neutering the checks and balance".

Could the scenario play out (as distinct from being merely attempted)?  More likely than not given there is nothing - so far presented - apparently unlawful or unconstitutional in the president's actions.  Of course the other problem is that the citizenry would then need to fight a rearguard action, although on what grounds?  Every action undertaken was lawful and constitutional.  You might not like what happened but apart from the ballot box, what are your lawful rights to fight it?  Maybe put on a yellow vest and keep taking to the streets?

Your “compliant Supreme Court” isn’t quite so compliant.  Kavanaugh and others have already demonstrated quite convincingly that they aren’t ideologues and Trump Stooges. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056

Your logic fails in that it requires a supposition that cant be tested or proven in the hypothetical presented.  It requires an apathetic public, federal, state and local governments, military and LE as already explained by myself and Jan, devoid of want or ability to think, investigate and determine facts and take action.  There are too many forms of communication beyond electronic to completely silence such a discussion.  Not to mention, again, our judiciary has clearly demonstrated that Executive Action does not live in a vacuum which it alone dominates.

“You may not like what happened but apart from the ballot box, what are your lawful rights to fight it? 

You clearly don’t understand America.  As Jan pointed out we Americans don’t blindly submit to authority.  Not yet anyway (the leftist, globalist agenda hasn’t come to full fruition).  For the time being Americans WILL act against a tyrant and need no law and certainly won’t need yellow vests to back the play.  The underpinnings of our Great Country rest on the inherent right and duty to oppose, violently if necessary, a would be usurper.  Our history bears this out.  (See our Declaration of Independence, American Revolution and Thomas Jefferson on The Tree of Liberty).

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

18 hours ago, Red said:

I don't live in America, but I too am curious why a plausible scenario is being sidetracked with a great deal of nonsense.  Seems very much par for the course in many threads, somewhat defeating the purpose of contributing.

My sincere apologies to all.  I was not intending to derail the discussion.  In my mind, red and I would have gone back and forth a few times, and the discussion would get back on track.  So my lesson today is a re-fresher on the laws of un-intended consequences.

Red, I feel you and I would not get along, as we seem to be talking in circles, my best to you sir.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, TXPower said:

Your “compliant Supreme Court” isn’t quite so compliant.  Kavanaugh and others have already demonstrated quite convincingly that they aren’t ideologues and Trump Stooges. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056

 

Brett Kavanaugh is another fraternity bro of mine from the old DKE House at Yale.  Those guys are nobody's stooges; neither am I.  

A recent case just debated before the USS Court bears this out.  The case is  Obudskey v McCarthy and Holthus LLP, Docket # 17-1307, in which Dennis Obudskey sued the lawyers representing Wells Fargo Bank for his legal fees in defeating them.  A fairly decent recitation of the case can be found here:  

https://www.gallantgoose.com/scotus-debates-the-meaning-of-debt-collector-in-foreclosure-case/

For those of you who like digging into the raw material, here is the actual 81-page transcript of the Oral Argument before the Court:

https://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/scotus-oral-argument-on-fdcpa-17-1307_apl1.pdf

Note that Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts, both appointed in the hope that they would be "right-wingers," were "skeptical" of the arguments for the lawyers for Wells Fargo Bank, and ripped up that legal team.  While there is no Decision, it becomes obvious that these Judges are nobody's patsy.  And personally, I rather doubt they have a high opinion of The Donald.  

I have not yet studied that 81-page transcript, which will make for tedious reading, but for those of you who are retired and have lots of extra time, hey, that's your next novel sitting there!   Enjoy.

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, Mike Marcellus said:

My sincere apologies to all.  I was not intending to derail the discussion.  In my mind, red and I would have gone back and forth a few times, and the discussion would get back on track.  So my lesson today is a re-fresher on the laws of un-intended consequences.

Red, I feel you and I would not get along, as we seem to be talking in circles, my best to you sir.

 

Mike, I have learned to not presume.

All threads drift, but if you felt the topic important, then start a new thread.  

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

@Red, important yes, but our debate of who is more divisive seems almost impossible to quantify, making evidence and proof difficult, it's beyond my skills to date. I have my vote, you get yours.  

-Mike

[Red + 252]

8 hours ago, TXPower said:

copied below with my comments in red

Your “compliant Supreme Court” isn’t quite so compliant.  Kavanaugh and others have already demonstrated quite convincingly that they aren’t ideologues and Trump Stooges. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056  I cannot see that the Supreme court would not be involved in the type of scenario I presented.  Which is very different to the SC deciding not to interfere with matters it felt were not within its remit.

Your logic fails in that it requires a supposition that cant be tested or proven in the hypothetical presented.  That is false.  I presented how existing laws permit the scenario to unfold.   It requires an apathetic public, at what point? federal, state and local governments, military and LE as already explained by myself and Jan, devoid of want or ability to think, investigate and determine facts and take action.  I am lost - at what point are they going to take action, and what are the new facts given everything is presently "lawful" in my scenario. There are too many forms of communication beyond electronic to completely silence such a discussion.<Not at issue. Not to mention, again, our judiciary has clearly demonstrated that Executive Action does not live in a vacuum which it alone dominates. Let's assume that were true.  The SC is presented with information that NK is going to subvert the political process - as has been apparently proven can be done via the ongoing Russia probes into the 2016 vote - and is asked to rule that this cannot again be allowed, irrespective of ideology.  What would the reasonable person think?  Do you believe that members on the SC are oblivious from what we know can be done via the media to affect an election?

“You may not like what happened but apart from the ballot box, what are your lawful rights to fight it? 

You clearly don’t understand America.  As Jan pointed out we Americans don’t blindly submit to authority.  You are not getting to be involved as a populace until it's time to vote - it's all part of the strategy and I repeat, there's nothing "wrong" with what the president is doing.  Not yet anyway (the leftist, globalist agenda hasn’t come to full fruition).  <Not a consideration under the scenario.   For the time being Americans WILL act against a tyrant and need no law and certainly won’t need yellow vests to back the play.  The underpinnings of our Great Country rest on the inherent right and duty to oppose, violently if necessary, a would be usurper.  I will repeat, the actions appear to be constitutional, so what is being usurped? Our history bears this out.  (See our Declaration of Independence, American Revolution and Thomas Jefferson on The Tree of Liberty).

Just for reference about the role of the National Guard. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military Advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Council and is also the Department of Defense’s official channel of communication to the Governors and State Adjutants General on all matter pertaining to the National Guard. He is responsible for ensuring that the more than 450000 Army and Air National Guard personnel are accessible, capable and ready to protect the homeland and to provide combat ready resources to the Army and Air Force.  All the Guard is going to be asked to do is make it safe for people to vote.  It is difficult to imagine that Governors would revoke orders from the Chief which prima facie are intended to protect voters from a potentially violent left wing element.  Indeed, whether you like it or not, your motivations would now constitute the very element that legitimises use of the Guard.  And the more of you thinking that way would strengthen the president's case.

[Red + 252]

33 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

@Red, important yes, but our debate of who is more divisive seems almost impossible to quantify, making evidence and proof difficult, it's beyond my skills to date. I have my vote, you get yours.  

-Mike

A simple way to quantify would be to get what was said by Obama on the issue and look at the language that he used, and then context it.  It's not bulletproof, but provides a starting point.  

In Australia we have similar issues with first peoples (lumped into the acronym ATSIs).  Just as Obama used "black", we would have to use ATSI to make it clear that the nature of the problem was specific.  The media "side-shows" the problem for ratings and creates a narrative to suit, often devoid of facts, but nearly always divisive.  Sheeting home the "division" to politicians is drawing a long bow, but the media don't need facts when half truths make a better story.

I linked you to Obama's speech a year later.  Why not get back to this thread with where you see him dividing America in what he said.

[TXPower + 643]

21 minutes ago, Red said:

Your “compliant Supreme Court” isn’t quite so compliant.  Kavanaugh and others have already demonstrated quite convincingly that they aren’t ideologues and Trump Stooges. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056  I cannot see that the Supreme court would not be involved in the type of scenario I presented.  Which is very different to the SC deciding not to interfere with matters it felt were not within its remit.

Your logic fails in that it requires a supposition that cant be tested or proven in the hypothetical presented.  That is false.  I presented how existing laws permit the scenario to unfold.   It requires an apathetic public, at what point? federal, state and local governments, military and LE as already explained by myself and Jan, devoid of want or ability to think, investigate and determine facts and take action.  I am lost - at what point are they going to take action, and what are the new facts given everything is presently "lawful" in my scenario. There are too many forms of communication beyond electronic to completely silence such a discussion.<Not at issue. Not to mention, again, our judiciary has clearly demonstrated that Executive Action does not live in a vacuum which it alone dominates. Let's assume that were true.  The SC is presented with information that NK is going to subvert the political process - as has been apparently proven can be done via the ongoing Russia probes into the 2016 vote - and is asked to rule that this cannot again be allowed, irrespective of ideology.  What would the reasonable person think?  Do you believe that members on the SC are oblivious from what we know can be done via the media to affect an election?

“You may not like what happened but apart from the ballot box, what are your lawful rights to fight it? 

You clearly don’t understand America.  As Jan pointed out we Americans don’t blindly submit to authority.  You are not getting to be involved as a populace until it's time to vote - it's all part of the strategy and I repeat, there's nothing "wrong" with what the president is doing.  Not yet anyway (the leftist, globalist agenda hasn’t come to full fruition).  <Not a consideration under the scenario.   For the time being Americans WILL act against a tyrant and need no law and certainly won’t need yellow vests to back the play.  The underpinnings of our Great Country rest on the inherent right and duty to oppose, violently if necessary, a would be usurper.  I will repeat, the actions appear to be constitutional, so what is being usurped? Our history bears this out.  (See our Declaration of Independence, American Revolution and Thomas Jefferson on The Tree of Liberty).

Just for reference about the role of the National Guard. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military Advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Council and is also the Department of Defense’s official channel of communication to the Governors and State Adjutants General on all matter pertaining to the National Guard. He is responsible for ensuring that the more than 450000 Army and Air National Guard personnel are accessible, capable and ready to protect the homeland and to provide combat ready resources to the Army and Air Force.  All the Guard is going to be asked to do is make it safe for people to vote.  It is difficult to imagine that Governors would revoke orders from the Chief which prima facie are intended to protect voters from a potentially violent left wing element.  Indeed, whether you like it or not, your motivations would now constitute the very element that legitimises use of the Guard.  And the more of you thinking that way would strengthen the president's case.

You have brought nothing new to this discussion and I suspect you feel the same about me.  Let’s be gentlemen and agree to disagree.  Good day sir.

 

[Red + 252]

44 minutes ago, TXPower said:

You have brought nothing new to this discussion and I suspect you feel the same about me.  Let’s be gentlemen and agree to disagree.  Good day sir.

 

Your case is that you seem to think the populace will prevent the scenario, or that the lawmakers will, or that the States etc will.  

It is one thing to "believe" it, but another to show how your ideas come to fruition.  The scenario I have painted plays out so close to the vote happening that it is difficult to see a coordinated opposition at grass roots level as distinct from a political level.  If you are a Trump supporter, and he appears to be acting lawfully, I am sot seeing where your argument comes from.

I regret that I cannot disagree with you given I cannot work out what I would disagree with regarding the apparent lawfulness of the scenario.  

[Red + 252]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Note that Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts, both appointed in the hope that they would be "right-wingers," were "skeptical" of the arguments for the lawyers for Wells Fargo Bank, and ripped up that legal team.  While there is no Decision, it becomes obvious that these Judges are nobody's patsy.  And personally, I rather doubt they have a high opinion of The Donald. 

The scenario looks at national emergency powers of an administration along with the specific issue of how electronic media can affect an election.  This latter issue would be what the SC examine, and perhaps they do consider the nature of the President in their deliberations - we would never know.  What we do know is that there is documented history whereby a foreign power can affect digital media in the USA to influence an election.  Do you believe that Americans who are aware of this would be happy with allowing a potential recurrence?  

Next, is there potential for the Patriot Act to be used if the SC's ruling were to be unfavourable?  Or could the president run the two Acts in tandem to initially taint those elements most likely to act against his re-election?  Voters have a tendency to lean towards those leaders who act against international threats, so only a little mud needs to stick to win another term.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Red said:

The scenario looks at national emergency powers of an administration along with the specific issue of how electronic media can affect an election.  This latter issue would be what the SC examine, and perhaps they do consider the nature of the President in their deliberations - we would never know.  What we do know is that there is documented history whereby a foreign power can affect digital media in the USA to influence an election.  Do you believe that Americans who are aware of this would be happy with allowing a potential recurrence?  

Next, is there potential for the Patriot Act to be used if the SC's ruling were to be unfavourable?  Or could the president run the two Acts in tandem to initially taint those elements most likely to act against his re-election?  Voters have a tendency to lean towards those leaders who act against international threats, so only a little mud needs to stick to win another term.

Red, I really get the impression that you do not have a complete picture of how Americans think.  Nobody tells Americans anything.  They do as they please, and the Government be damned.  You cannot seriously propose that when Russia goes and fiddles with (for example) some facebook site and posts stuff denouncing Candidate A and praising Candidate B, that this is going to make up the minds of the voters?  OK, maybe on the very thin margins, but those margins would be so thin as to be laughable.  Americans have their own ideas.  

One of the reasons the country is in this continuing state of impasse is that everybody has already made up their minds about everything (including Russians and the Chinese) and nobody can convince anybody else to compromise.  It is just the nature of the people here. Even the third rail of America, the sex stuff, does not derail much.  You have these church pastors in Oklahoma and Louisiana who run these mega-churches of 3,000 and 5,000 and then they secretly go off to some sleazy motel to join up with a hooker and do ridiculous sex stuff, they get found out, and go back to their congregation and wail on Sunday:  "I have sinned!" and the congregation responds:  "We love you!" and everything continues on.  Bill Clinton gets caught with some emotionally needy 20-year-old working as a volunteer "intern" in his office, does the sex stuff in the Oval Office in broad daylight, appalls everyone - and becomes the revered Elder Statesman of the political establishment.  He ends up going to the Davos Economic Symposium and rubs shoulders with the world political and financial elite. 

The reality is that you do not derail Americans with KGB-type posts on the Internet.  that does not work with Americans. Nobody cares.  OK, so Melania is ticked about the pee-pee tapes, but she is only one vote, and she is humiliated enough to not say anything. You speak of "international threats."  I remind you that the US Navy has ten super-carriers, $13 billion each, and another four mega-carriers, only slightly smaller than the super-carriers,  - and nobody else has anything that even remotely comes close.  Foreign threats?  To do what?  The USA has more firepower and more technical military hardware than the next 20 countries combined.  the Chinese have one carrier - it is an old hulk that the Indian Navy got partly built from the French, apparently, could not complete, and passed on to the Chinese on the cheap. Do you seriously think that is going to match up against a US carrier task force?  No chance. 

Finally, the US military is not going to take wild instructions from Mr. Trump.  Too many respected generals and admirals have either been fired or have quit, and that is a closed crowd.  Patriot Act?  What is Donald going to use to enforce, his personal secret-service detail?  Because that is going to be just about it.  

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Red, I really get the impression that you do not have a complete picture of how Americans think. 

I do not need to know how Americans think when it comes to the scenario.  The question would be how they reacted to a president who did everything in an apparent lawful manner.

The scenario paints a picture of a president reacting to foreign nation who has threatened a first strike, and is now capable of derailing the election of a president standing up to Little Rocket Man.  

Nothing in the scenario is about invoking a national emergency preliminary to a war footing.  It's all about creating a perception that the president should act in some way, and it's lawful.  The role of the Guard would be to protect voters, and it's difficult to see how State Governors would not be willing to comply with the right amount of spin.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/10/2019 at 2:16 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I find it interesting that rather than actually discussing @Reds scenario, which to me doesn't seem completely unrealistic we discussing Obama. I would have enjoyed to watch a discussion about the Constitution or checks and balances - i.e. a factual discussion on whether this could play out. 

Is it really that the best (or only?) defense is an offense? Now, that's scary! 

For the record - I am not totally anti-Trump. But I am continuously surprised at what people are willing to accept in the name of the greater good. 

Accepting Obama's or the current Democrat Party's goals is akin to aiming for democratic socialism and a government akin to the European Union's and its globalist United Nations perspective. Would that please you?

Edited January 12, 2019 by ronwagn
punctuation

[Red + 252]

44 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Accepting Obama's or the current Democrat Party's goals is akin to aiming for democratic socialism and a government akin to the European Union's and its globalist United Nations perspective. Would that please you?

I am sure that in your mind what you said is relevant to this scenario.  

[John Foote + 1,135]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Accepting Obama's or the current Democrat Party's goals is akin to aiming for democratic socialism and a government akin to the European Union's and its globalist United Nations perspective. Would that please you?

Trump is an outlier, but a more typical Republican or Democrat, the difference is how they sell and image, not really globalism which is really is bi-partisistic (is that a word). Globalism is really more curry favor to big money and big business, which has no allegiance to country, and modern politicians need to chase money to get a chance to win an election. Voters haven't had influence in some time for much of the meaningful laws in some time. There is the so called elites, and mega money, and that's about it.

And of course there is the mantra, go local, where you can influence who runs, how it works, etc.. And on a micro basis, the US system still works.

On a Federal level, the last 40 years suggests what works is a divided government, don't allow one party to run up their brand of lunacy. Give one party everything, and they screw it up more. IMHO much of Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama's success was tied to a divided executive/congressional system. Hard to argue that Bush43 wasn't statistically the worst we've had since Nixon in terms of damage. Personally I think Bill Clinton was really a closet Republican, he certainly monetized public office like no one before him, talking liberal to get vote, and going back his Arkansas days, in truth a friend to businesses to make a Rockerfellor blush. The basic monetary policy has been same since Carter put Volker in the Federal Reserve, although the free money to mega bank TARP is still beyond understanding. The foreign policy machine, roughly the same for every president, different tone, but same policy. And yes, Trump is truly different, and I hope we never find a money trail demonstrating he's more than turbulence in this decisions. I suspect the trail is there, but in so many interests never to emerge and further shatter our faith. LBJ knew Nixon committed treason, prolonging the Vietnam war intentionally, but felt keeping us sheep faithful to the system was better than stopping Nixon, who was quite competent at basic governance, though OMG the over-reach.

The attachment is a really dry, slightly famous Princeton study noticing what most of us vote and feel has very little to do what happens. Having lived in totalitarian states I know darn well life proceeds no matter the government, and the USA overall is pretty darn good.

Good governance is what I crave, more than the flavor, under-reach, or over-reach. The basic American ethos is a bit anti-government, and that plays against us doing to research to vote smart.

 

Ifluences.pdf

Edited January 12, 2019 by John Foote
spelling

[John Foote + 1,135]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Accepting Obama's or the current Democrat Party's goals is akin to aiming for democratic socialism and a government akin to the European Union's and its globalist United Nations perspective. Would that please you?

Trump is an outlier, but a more typical Republican or Democrat, the difference is how they sell and image, not really globalism which is really is bi-partisistic (is that a word). Globalism is really more curry favor to big money and big business, which has no allegiance to country, and modern politicians need to chase money to get a chance to win an election. Voters haven't had influence in some time for much of the meaningful laws in some time. There is the so called elites, and mega money, and that's about it.

And of course there is the mantra, go local, where you can influence who runs, how it works, etc.. And on a micro basis, the US system still works.

On a Federal level, the last 40 years suggests what works is a divided government, don't allow one party to run up their brand of lunacy. Give one party everything, and they screw it up more. IMHO much of Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama's success was tied to a divided executive/congressional system. Hard to argue that Bush43 wasn't statistically the worst we've had since Nixon in terms of damage. Personally I think Bill Clinton was really a closet Republican, he certainly monetized public office like no one before him, talking liberal to get vote, and going back his Arkansas days, in truth a friend to businesses to make a Rockerfellor blush. The basic fiscal policy has been same since Carter put Volker in the Federal Reserve. The foreign policy machine, roughly the same for every president, different tone, but same policy. And yes, Trump is truly different, and I hope we never find a money trail demonstrating he's more than turbulence in this decisions. I suspect the trail is there, but in so many interests never to emerge and further shatter our faith. LBJ new Nixon committed treason, prolonging the Vietnam war intentionally, but felt keeping us sheep faithful to the system was better than stopping Nixon, who was quite competent at basic governance, though OMG the over-reach.

The attachment is a really dry, slightly famous Princeton study noticing what most of us vote and feel has very little to do what happens. Having lived in totalitarian states I know darn well life proceeds no matter the government, and the USA overall is pretty darn good.

Good governance is what I crave, more than the flavor, under-reach, or over-reach. The basic American ethos is a bit anti-government, and that plays against us doing to research to vote smart.