|
I know we are saying that the army can refuse an order but we already saw Trump pretty much tell his supporters to go gently caress up Pence. If he had been more blatant and if his followers had succeeded then I guess there really aren't any consequences for a president.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Forget about Biden or even Trump specifically. History has shown us over and over and over that a despot can find a trigger man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:List of properties that will/may be seized. Is this your speculation or a list someone put out somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I get that there's legal precedence that soldiers have a duty to disobey such orders, but is there any precedence of soldiers actually refusing such orders? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/iraq-war-crime-army-cunningham-hatley-trial The story goes into a scenario where that happened, and the acknowledgement that it's an uncomfortable and even dangerous position to be in as the person refusing the orders, but it is clear that the fact that the duty to refuse those orders exists is a deterrence to people giving those orders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
I'm not convinced we have to limit these hypothetical scenarios to the US military. Just hire what's left of Wagner or conspire with Iranians to do the assassinations, who gives a poo poo if there's blanket immunity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:List of properties that will/may be seized. Does Trump really only have 3 buildings in NYC anymore? I dont know why i expected him to have way more
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Does Trump really only have 3 buildings in NYC anymore? I dont know why i expected him to have way more A lot of properties that have the Trump name on them are under licensing/marketing/management deals, and not actually owned by the Trump Org. There are quite a few branded properties where Trump is paid to be a name partner, while not owning a majority stake (or even necessarily any stake).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Nixon resigned because the Republicans weren't going to go down on his ship. Once the smoking gun tapes were released and Congressional Republicans were starring a blue wave in the face, they made the only move they had left and cast Nixon aside, with Nixon being enough of a party man to recognize when the game had been lost. That doesn't exist now with Trump and these Republicans; they're fully tied to him and Trump isn't a party man, Trump is the party. There's no scenario in which Republicans turn on Trump and there's no scenario in which he'll ever resign. If a president is knocking off anyone who looks like a threat to their continuing to hold the presidency, then criminal prosecution is not a meaningful obstacle. If the president can find a military group willing to assassinate rival presidential candidates, he's probably not going to have any trouble finding a military group willing to assassinate prosecutors or judges. While an Archibald Cox scenario is a possibility, it's not really a threatening one. The Saturday Night Massacre didn't work. While Nixon was able to get Cox fired, the resulting blowback was a fatal blow to Nixon's political standing. Not only was Nixon forced to bring on a new special prosecutor, but the public and Congress had decisively turned against him after that. Trying to pull something similar about a planned assassination of a political rival would be far more disastrous. If a president ordered a SEAL team to assassinate a US politician, the SEAL team refused, and the president followed it up by firing or even court-martialing the SEAL team in question, it's just about guaranteed that the matter would leak in great detail to drat near everyone. And the first rule of "assassinate your political rivals" club is that you make sure your political rival's party never gets ironclad evidence of specific assassination plans directly and unambiguously ordered by the president. Moreover, the rest of the military - including all of those superior officers who stand between the president and the actual SEAL team in question - would likely become suspicious and wary of the president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Is this your speculation or a list someone put out somewhere? Article from Newsweek. Article says the list is from letitia's office but I haven't checked for any announcements from her office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Article from Newsweek. Thanks for the link - looks like it's list of the properties she enumerated when she filed the case against him, which means they're a solid speculation even if she isn't going for all of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Thanks for the link - looks like it's list of the properties she enumerated when she filed the case against him, which means they're a solid speculation even if she isn't going for all of them. Now, if she starts taking buildings that are mortgaged to hell and back, is he still liable to pay the mortgage? I would assume so, which would be a huge kick in the rear end to him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
SEAL Team 6 was brought up in the specific context of an argument before the Supreme Court to really hammer home the idea of institutions under the President's direct control as Command in Chief and him taking the action as an unambiguously official act. It does not apply to reality, it was an oral argument made within that specific context, to those specific people. Getting wrapped up in semantics about that argument but coming away with reassurances that "It can't happen here" is putting heads in sand and avoiding reality for whatever reasons. Yes, if Trump stands in front of his cabinet and orders his secretary of defense to draw up plans to drone strike Biden when Trump becomes the dictator he says he wants to be on day one someone will say "No" and it won't happen but the takeaway from that hypothetical really, *REALLY* should not be a sense of security and a belief that Trump can never accomplish it because the US is somehow uniquely resistant to those forces. Putin didn't tell his generals to murder Navalny as a direct military order on the books for everyone to see. He had his usual pack of corrupt cronies do it that understand they're above the law because of Putin's desires and the other people around him that all have the same beliefs and want things to operate that way. The same way Skripal died to a poisoned doorknob, the same way Litvinenko found out how lethal polonium tea is, and the same way as he has done it for everyone else that isn't managed opposition. That is how it will happen not how it was argued in court, for the courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
which is why we NEED harsh punishments for this type of stuff "i don't want to help overthrow the country because if we fail we'll die" doesn't work when the punishment for failure is 4 months in a spa prison and a free tv show
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I get that there's legal precedence that soldiers have a duty to disobey such orders, but is there any precedence of soldiers actually refusing such orders? It's obviously not enough (in the big picture) or maybe not even technically within the scope of the question, but we should not forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:SEAL Team 6 was brought up in the specific context of an argument before the Supreme Court to really hammer home the idea of institutions under the President's direct control as Command in Chief and him taking the action as an unambiguously official act. It does not apply to reality, it was an oral argument made within that specific context, to those specific people. Getting wrapped up in semantics about that argument but coming away with reassurances that "It can't happen here" is putting heads in sand and avoiding reality for whatever reasons. The actual lesson is that institutional culture in government organizations is extremely important. The ultimate guardrail against coups isn't the rule of law itself, it's the cultivation of cultural practices in (most of) the civil service and military that prioritize respect for the rule of law over obedience to specific individual personalities or ideologies. The thing that's prevented coups isn't fear of being prosecuted for a coup, it's the fact that much of the civil service and military honestly believes that their ultimate loyalty is owed to the Constitution itself rather than to any individual president or cabinet secretary or general, and enjoy some protections from political meddling in the workings of their agencies. In fact, Trump's administration was substantially hindered by that. The so-called "deep state" pushed back against his illegal and unconstitutional orders. And they didn't do that because they were scared of being prosecuted. They did it because most of the civil and military workforce are non-political civil servants who believe in their jobs and in the law, who are hired and promoted based on ability rather than political leaning. The institutional culture of the government itself meant that most agencies were disinclined to follow blatantly unconstitutional orders, openly break laws, or straight-up defy court orders. Even if Trump ordered them to do so and promised pardons for doing so, they wouldn't do it. Not because they thought there would be criminal consequences for doing it, but because they honestly believed that doing it would be Wrong. This is also, incidentally, why Biden can't just ignore any Supreme Court order he dislikes. This is why it doesn't really matter what the Court thinks of Trump's immunity arguments here. The real coup threat doesn't come from these court arguments, it comes from his "Project 2025" plan to conduct a full-scale purge of the civil service, laying off those apolitical career civil service employees en masse and replacing them with ideologically-vetted cronies whose ultimate loyalties would be to Trump or the MAGA movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I get that there's legal precedence that soldiers have a duty to disobey such orders, but is there any precedence of soldiers actually refusing such orders? Back at the academy they taught us a formal procedure for doing it in Naval Ethics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
Nvm wrong Trump thread.
BigglesSWE fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:SEAL Team 6 was brought up in the specific context of an argument before the Supreme Court to really hammer home the idea of institutions under the President's direct control as Command in Chief and him taking the action as an unambiguously official act. It does not apply to reality, it was an oral argument made within that specific context, to those specific people. Getting wrapped up in semantics about that argument but coming away with reassurances that "It can't happen here" is putting heads in sand and avoiding reality for whatever reasons. He's been giving orders to execute people on social media lately. If he gets back into the office there be members of the military who start following them in defiance of their chain of command, guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is why it doesn't really matter what the Court thinks of Trump's immunity arguments here. The real coup threat doesn't come from these court arguments, it comes from his "Project 2025" plan to conduct a full-scale purge of the civil service, laying off those apolitical career civil service employees en masse and replacing them with ideologically-vetted cronies whose ultimate loyalties would be to Trump or the MAGA movement. To be fair, Project 2025 isn't Trump's plan. It was cooked up by the christofascists over at the Heritage Foundation. Their plan doesn't instantly enrich Trump, so there's no way he'd come up with something so elaborate as "replace all government bureaucrats with amoral toadies who'll follow orders without question."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
He can pick names off a list somebody hands him though. We saw that got judge appointments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
Dr. Gargunza posted:To be fair, Project 2025 isn't Trump's plan. It was cooked up by the christofascists over at the Heritage Foundation. Their plan doesn't instantly enrich Trump, so there's no way he'd come up with something so elaborate as "replace all government bureaucrats with amoral toadies who'll follow orders without question." It enriches Trump because it will let him do all the things that failed the first time around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
He understands revenge and punishing people who dare defy him though
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Trump's pride > Trump's greed > everything else As the above have said, important not to forget the one thing he cares about more than money: winning Killer robot posted:To be fair, this is true of any other president as well since the job is way bigger than one person. But Trump's circle is full of people with more focused agendas than him, and even the ones after blind self-enrichment rather than harming people or institutions will not tend to accidentally do good things. The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:He can pick names off a list somebody hands him though. We saw that got judge appointments. Yeah, that's just one of many reasons why "Trump's a weird chaos guy, who knows if he'll hurt or help?" was one of the dumbest takes of 2016. Even where he's least interested in governing, especially where he's least interested in governing, decisions will be made by who has his ear or who he delegates his authority to. To be fair, this is true of any other president as well since the job is way bigger than one person. But Trump's circle is full of people with more focused agendas than him, and even the ones after blind self-enrichment rather than harming people or institutions will not tend to accidentally do good things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
The Right looks at 2016-20 as a huge missed opportunity. They were taken by surprise (like everyone else, including Trump) when Trump won, and by the time they got up to speed, Trump had already filled his administration with loyalists, weird cranks, and hangers-on. They think he wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really burn the whole administrative state down from the inside and transform it into something unrecognizable, and a lot of the efforts they did make were cancelled out because they were done incorrectly (like by issuing overly-broad and badly worded executive orders) and reversed by the courts or the agencies themselves. The Trump era also showed just how vulnerable the system was and how few actual guardrails there were once  was off the table.The 2025 Project is them picking people and setting agendas so that the stuff they want starts happening on Day 1 of the Second Trump Presidency, starting with a full purge of anyone who would have the power to stop it and their replacement with rubber-stamping ideologues. We got lucky that Trump was so disorganized and unfocused in his first term, that really limited the amount of damage he was able to do (although he did do a tremendous amount of actual damage, starting with the million-plus pandemic deaths). A second Trump term, with actual competent and trained fascists installed in positions of power (as opposed to the kooks and freaks that made up the staffing of his first term) would be a catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Assuming Nixon ordered the Watergate break in, he was sufficiently afraid of consequences to deliberately order a cover up. OTOH, things were different then. He was absolutely personally and directly involved in the cover-up. And he lied frequently and extravagantly about the subject prior to his resignation. And he certainly didn't have any moral objections to or scruples about things like the break-in—he'd previously approached Hoover with a proposal to have the FBI do similar sorts of things (Hoover wanted everything on paper, and Nixon didn't). But evidence (e.g., discussions on the White House tapes) supports the idea that Nixon learned about the break-in only after the fact. In theory, if Nixon wasn't Nixon—and so he could cut bait and run instead of immediately committing to an ever-escalating chain of obstructions of justice—he could've walked away from Watergate with nothing more than a couple of staff resignations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
It really is amazing that everything I feared with a Trump presidency, less a nuclear detonation, ended up happening
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:It really is amazing that everything I feared with a Trump presidency, less a nuclear detonation, ended up happening It was worse than I thought and I'm a legendary pessimist in real life
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1770536527883391434
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:It really is amazing that everything I feared with a Trump presidency, less a nuclear detonation, ended up happening Oh no, it was significantly better than I had feared. Thanks to John McCain he didn't manage to abolish Medicaid. Imagine how would have died in 2020 if free medical care for the poor had been abolished in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:There are quite a few branded properties where Trump is paid to be a name partner Imagine being a property owner in NYC and doing that. Cimber posted:Now, if she starts taking buildings that are mortgaged to hell and back, is he still liable to pay the mortgage? I would assume so, which would be a huge kick in the rear end to him. I would assume that the property is liquidated, and the holders of the lien get in line with other creditors, but I actually don’t know how the prioritization works. I’m sure someone in this thread does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
You know who else "made the skyline of New York change forever"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
Trump campaign pleads for one million donations as cash crunch loomsquote:Donald Trump's campaign on Wednesday called for donations from one million of his backers, warning he could lose his New York properties, two days after the former president failed to secure a bond to cover a $454 million judgment in a civil fraud case. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:38
|
|
|
FMguru posted:You know who else "made the skyline of New York change forever"? *buzzes in* Hitler? *audience boos*
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:39
|
|
|
FMguru posted:You know who else "made the skyline of New York change forever"? https://youtu.be/PcKlPhFIE7w?si=PDZjfIYlph1aeDA3
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:41
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Imagine being a property owner in NYC and doing that. But this isn't a bankruptcy. This is asset seizure to satisfy legal judgement. His creditors are going to say 'Well sucks you don't own that building any more, but you still have a loan on it. gently caress you, pay me." And then he declares bankruptcy which would THEN screw his creditors, and he blames the evil NY state for all his woes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
Cimber posted:But this isn't a bankruptcy. This is asset seizure to satisfy legal judgement. His creditors are going to say 'Well sucks you don't own that building any more, but you still have a loan on it. gently caress you, pay me." Ah, right, I forgot it wasn’t a bankruptcy. Delicious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
Yeah it's closer to a car getting repossessed while still underwater
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
mdemone posted:It was worse than I thought and I'm a legendary pessimist in real life We're just lucky that it was also a few more orders of magnitude dumber than we expected which blunted a lot of the horrible things in weird says. I'd say "hilarious ways" but I think a lot of us were mainly laughing in order to avoid crying at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
"at the time"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 00:58
|
|