Post New

Hunter Biden falsified the form when he bought a pistol. His brother's wife threw it out 11 days later.

There are undoubtedly a lot of right-wing gun owners/buyers who are addicted to 'controlled substances.' What should the penalty be for all these people?

Should the Feds begin cross-checking medical records with records that reveal drug habits?

Is the usual penalty for a non-violent first time offender the max 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines?

Rush Limbaugh famously was addicted to illegally obtained opiates. Ostensibly he owned a firearm. Was he investigated, fined or imprisoned for either?

"....and so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on Oct. 5, 1995.

"Rush Limbaugh and prosecutors in the long-running prescription fraud case against him have reached a deal calling for the only charge against the conservative commentator to be dropped without a guilty plea if he continues treatment.

Why should Hunter Biden be treated any differently than Limbaugh?

Heck, the big fat 'pants on fire liar' went on to get the medal of freedom from Trump the rapist.

"Why should Hunter Biden be treated any differently than Limbaugh?"

Well, maybe because Limbaugh never was shown to have lied on a federal firearm registration form. A better question would be why should Hunter be treated any differently from those who have knowingly lied on a gun registration form .

Did Hunter ever even buy ammunition for the gun? Is there any record of that? But regardless of that, having only been in possession of the gun for 11 days, I can't believe this case will go anywhere.

Also, the first two of the three counts in the indictment are virtually identical and the third is an obviously result of the first two. This is the summary, courtesy of CNN:

- Count One accuses Hunter Biden of lying on an ATF form when he bought the gun, by falsely swearing that he wasn't addicted to illegal drugs or using illegal drugs.
- Count Two accuses Hunter Biden of lying to the federally licensed gun dealer in Wilmington where he bought the gun. The alleged lie was related to the same sworn statement on the ATF form.
- Count Three accuses Hunter Biden of illegally possessing the gun while using drugs or being addicted to drugs, which is a federal crime. He possessed the gun for 11 days in 2018.

So, Hunter lied on the ATF form, he lied to the gun dealer (was it the same lie?), and then he (obviously) possessed the gun that he just bought (for 11 days). This sure sounds like one charge to me.

It really does seem like Weiss only brought the indictment (after a jury found the charges reasonable?) because the statute of limitations would run out next month, and because he under pressure by republicans to DO SOMETHING simply because this was the son of Joe Biden.

Also, I will laugh my butt off if this case ends up being dismissed on 2nd amendment grounds! Hey, Albaby - is there any realistic legal ground for that?

There is only one issue here and it is influence peddling. I suspect they hope to use these minor charges as leverage to get the information they need to bring the influence peddling charge, which is the one that leaks over to the president.
Alan

"Did Hunter ever even buy ammunition for the gun? Is there any record of that? But regardless of that, having only been in possession of the gun for 11 days, ...I can't believe this case will go anywhere...."

Maybe, maybe not. whether he bought ammo or only had the gun for 11 days is irrelevant to the charge of knowingly lying on a Federal form. The point is why should he ..not..be charged with the lying on a Federal form when others who have done the same thing have had consequences for having done the same thing.

The point is why should he ..not..be charged with the lying on a Federal form when others who have done the same thing have had consequences for having done the same thing.

I've heard that it is "rare" to be charged with this offense. But checking on that, it seems to be over 60%. But I'm not clear on the difference between "referrals", "cases", and "charges". Presumably they are three successive steps in the indictment process, but then we'd still need to know how many cases result in actual charges to determine how "rare" it really is.

From https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prose...

Lying on the form is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. For being a user of unlawful drugs in possession of a firearm, the punishment is up to five years. The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent. In the 2019 fiscal year, when Hunter Biden purchased his gun, federal prosecutors received 478 referrals for lying on Form 4473 ' and filed just 298 cases. The numbers were roughly similar for fiscal 2020. At issue is when Biden answered 'no' on the question that asks about unlawful drug use and addiction when purchasing a gun. Biden had been discharged five years earlier from the Navy Reserve for drug use and based on his 2021 memoir, he was actively using crack cocaine in the year he bought the gun. The data do not show how many people might have been prosecuted for falsely answering the question about active drug use. A 1990 Justice Department study noted how difficult it was to bring cases against people who falsely answer questions on the form, especially because there is no paper trail for drug abusers like there is for felons.

So what is a good reason to ... not... have charged him and let the Justice system run its course?

<Lying on the form is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. For being a user of unlawful drugs in possession of a firearm, the punishment is up to five years. The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent.>

And there's this:

A federal appeals court in August struck down a decades-old law barring users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms '
another blow to US gun regulations after the Supreme Court cleared the way for courts to reexamine the nation's gun laws under a new legal standard
and a ruling that could be relevant in the new indictment of Hunter Biden.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/federal-appeals-court-...

"The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent.>

And there's this:

A federal appeals court in August struck down a decades-old law barring users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms ''

And then ther is this: the laws are on the books and people have paid consequences for knowingly lying on Federal forms. Why is Hunter different, why should he not be subject to laws that are on the books?

And then there is this: the laws are on the books and people have paid consequences for knowingly lying on Federal forms. Why is Hunter different, why should he not be subject to laws that are on the books?

Because it's apparently very rare to bring charges on this offense. Plus, Hunter is a non-violent offender with no prior offenses (I think). Let's face it, he's only being charged because he's the president's son. And so it would seen that there really are two tiers of justice: "throw the book" at all democrats, yet let republicans do anything they want. :-)

"Because it's apparently very rare to bring charges on this offense.

Not according to your numbers that in 2019 alone 298 out of 478 cases were filed for prosecution. Of those 298 in 2019 alone do you think might have also been non-violent first offenders, some..many? Yes there does seem to be ..two tiers.. of Justice, and it seems to be accepted and condoned by many here based on their politics. Just out of curiosity do you think it is wise to have a law that bars narcotic addicts from owning firearms or not?

Not according to your numbers that in 2019 alone 298 out of 478 cases were filed for prosecution

I've already said that the "very rare" qualifier doesn't mesh with 60% of referrals becoming "cases" (60% is in no way "rare"), but I also said that we still need to know how many of those "cases" result in "charges". If it's something like 10%, then "very rare" is justified.

Just out of curiosity do you think it is wise to have a law that bars narcotic addicts from owning firearms or not?

I do. But the 2nd amendment-friendly courts seem not to. Although, there are practicality problems: how do you prove someone is a narcotics addict? Is a former conviction necessary? Is mere self-admission enough? Testimony by others?

"I've already said that the "very rare" qualifier doesn't mesh with 60% of referrals becoming "cases" (60% is in no way "rare"), "

So is there any good reason why Hunter should not have been indicted on an obvious breaking the law, or are you of the group that calls this a selective prosecution in spite of the law?

So what is a good reason to ... not... have charged him and let the Justice system run its course?

No priors, no history of violence, weapon not used in the commission of a crime, and no reasonable expectation of his being a firearms threat to society.

Hunter is a non-violent offender with no prior offenses (I think).

But in the MAGA world he and his dad are the most evil people in the world. Much worse than their angelic Trump. Ask LM.

"No priors, no history of violence, weapon not used in the commission of a crime, and no reasonable expectation of his being a firearms threat to society."

It's hard to take this seriously. Of the 298(60%) cases recommended for prosecution in 2019 alone, how many of these fine folks were also non violent first offenders etc. These people paid a consequence for their action, why is Hunter different?

"But in the MAGA world he and his dad are the most evil people in the world."

That's nonsense. What he is is a grifter trying to game the system because of daddy.

Why is Hunter different, why should he not be subject to laws that are on the books?

Because the law on the books is apparently in contradiction to the Constitution.


<<" Biden has a reasonable chance ' in the chaotic aftermath of Bruen, and especially given this conservative Supreme Court ' of prevailing in his argument that the addict-in-possession ban violates the Second Amendment.

Last year, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court upended its approach to gun rights, saying that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms permits only those gun restrictions that have a basis in 'history and tradition.' That blinkered interpretation has set off a flurry of challenges to existing gun laws in the lower courts as judges have been forced to scour colonial-era statutes for analogies to modern-day regulations.

In Hunter Biden's case, that means finding historical antecedents for the federal law that prohibits those who use illegal drugs from purchasing or possessing firearms. Biden was indicted Thursday on three felony counts: making two false statements on a gun purchase form that he did not use and was not addicted to controlled substances, and illegally possessing a Colt revolver while he was using narcotics.

'Our response to the charge in court will point out that the United States Department of Justice, which is supposed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, by bringing its firearm charge, is disregarding the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit and is seeking to punish Mr. Biden for exercising a constitutional right these courts have stated he has,'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/15...

"Because the law on the books is apparently in contradiction to the Constitution."

So it is your opinion that Weiss, the DOJ special counsel, ignorantly charged Hunter with this crime because he doen't know the law of the land?

"Just out of curiosity do you think it is wise to have a law that bars narcotic addicts from owning firearms or not? "



Opium abuse in America is as old as America, yet the 2A doesn't say "except for opium users."

again, it is clear that you are saying that the DOJ doesn't know the law of the land are acting out of ignorance. LOL.. So do ...you...think a law that bars narcotic addicts from owning firearms is a wise thing or not?

Of the 298(60%) cases recommended for prosecution in 2019 alone, how many of these fine folks were also non violent first offenders etc.

I have no idea. Do you have reliable data?

These people paid a consequence for their action

Again, I have no idea. Do you have reliable data?

I think you should follow the thread, above gc177325 just provided them , Talk to him

So it is your opinion that Weiss, the DOJ special counsel, ignorantly charged Hunter with this crime because he doen't know the law of the land?

Nope. While Hunter did break the law as written, Weiss charged him because of political pressure. Were it not for that, since it was not a charge combined with the commission of a violent crime, it would have been minimized.

"Nope. While Hunter did break the law as written, Weiss charged him because of political pressure."

Yes, so the DOJ did its job. Let the Justice system work its ways with Hunter as it has for so many others whose fathers are not POTUS

Republicans thought that they had a scandal hat-trick against Hunter Biden, and thus Joe Biden:

* tax evasion / fraud charges
* a gun charge...
* ...stemming from drug use

Republicans were tremendously disappointed and angry when Hunter Biden came within probably twenty minutes of arranging a deal that avoided convictions or jail time on any of the charges by simply settling the tax bill with the IRS plus penalties, entering some sort of recovery program and being on good behavior.

On the tax issues, there isn't that much out of the ordinary involved. Unlike what most of us fear when WE'RE involved or would LIKE when others are involved, the IRS isn't very intent on getting jail sentences. They just want taxes paid. The controversy around Biden's deal was that the terms basically waived the right to pursue charges over any wider timeframe than the events in the original indictment. Some saw that and said AH HA! Favoritism shielding him from possibly earlier tax fraud. Perhaps. But equally likely that the IRS has numerous sources of financial data and has a pretty clear idea taxes HAVE already been paid in the periods PRIOR to this set of incidents and therefore knows there's virtually nothing dollar-wise to gain.

On the gun issue, the Bruen ruling issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 drafted by Federalist Society darling Clarence Thomas already pulled a leg out from under any law attempting to restrict gun ownership rights -- EVEN FOR CONVICTED FELONS. There's another case regarding a law that explicitly uses drug use as a disqualification bubbling up the appellate courts that will also reach the Supreme Court and, as a subset of what they've already decided in Bruen, will likely be tossed out. The DOJ knows this recent history and ORIGINALLY likely decided it wasn't worth charging someone for violations of a law that is arguably already defunct from Bruen. It could be argued that continuing a prosecution via a law already ruled unconstitutional would represent a violation of the prosecutor's oath.

However, once the terms of the original plea deal became public after the judge asked a question and realized the prosecution and defense were not on the same page, the Republican special prosecutor was pressured by Republicans who wanted something on HUNTER Biden to use in tarring JOE Biden and it seems the special prosecutor gave into that pressure. I'm sure talking head experts on conservative media might cite other examples but NO talking head former prosecutor I've seen on non-conservative media has ever seen these gun crimes charged unless the gun was used in another crime.

https://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/2023/08/despa...

As others have stated, the REAL case to be made here would involve influence peddling but the number of facts brought forth to support such charges remains exactly ZERO. For the record, do I think Hunter Biden -- either pre-crack or on-crack -- made representations to people that hiring him would get them listened to in circles of power? Actually yes. Do I think Hunter Biden actually HAD a deal with dad to use such access? No. Do I think Hunter Biden ever attempted to fake his business partners into thinking such a deal was in place? Yup. There seem to be a couple of examples where Hunter would call dad on a speakerphone with partners in the room so they could hear he was really talking to dad but NO ONE, including people in those rooms at the time, have testified that any actual "BUSINESS" was discussed. Just talk about growing up in Scranton, PA or Wilmington, DE or similar boring Biden family chitchat.


WTH

Did Hunter break the law?

"it is clear that you are saying that the DOJ doesn't know the law of the land are acting out of ignorance.

Nope. I'm saying attorneys feel the SCOTUS has stepped on its extremist dick and that act will be exploited to Hunter's benefit.

do you think a law that bars narcotic addicts from owning firearms is a wise thing or not?

Once an addict, always an addict. Limbaugh the addict got his 2A rights restored

Rush Limbaugh's attorney said "Rush Limbaugh was singled out for prosecution because of who he is. We believe the state attorney's office is applying a double standard.

"he filed a "not guilty" plea to the charge. Prosecutors explained that the charges were brought after they discovered he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. In 2009, after three years of prolonged discussion regarding a settlement, prosecutors agreed to drop the charge if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation, completed an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician, submitted to random drug testing, and gave up his right to own a firearm for eighteen months."

After that his record was expunged and got to buy guns.

Why should Hunter be punished any more than Limbaugh?

Boater: "Did Hunter break the law?"

Good question. Do Trump next!

"Why should Hunter be punished any more than Limbaugh?"

Hunter hasn't been punished at all at this point. If you think you can make a case on the dead Limbaugh, go for it LOL

Hunter hasn't been punished at all at this point. If you think you can make a case on the dead Limbaugh, go for it LOL

So you're saying the failure to investigate, try and punish Limbaugh to the fullest extent of the law was a failure of our justice system, and that Trump gave a MoH to a thug who should have been serving 25 years hard time?

Sorry, I am not going to play the diversion game with you. This thread deals with Hunters indictment. Even you have admitted that he did in fact break the law, and now the DOJ has reacted. The Justice system will do its thing with him just as it has done with others who have broken the same law. End of story

Even you have admitted that he did in fact break the law, and now the DOJ has reacted. The Justice system will do its thing with him just as it has done with others who have broken the same law.

As another poster commented, that's fine.

Now do Trump.

I agree WTH, good analysis. The IRS is usually happy if it gets the money. As for the gun, I'm in favor of Hunter Biden getting no special treatment

Pros in the area of the gun charges think it's unusually harsh. No reason given, just guesses. I like this from the LA Times.

'The independent counsel ' operating in an area where so little is law and so much is discretion, is intentionally cut off from the unifying influence of the Justice Department, and from the perspective that multiple responsibilities provide,' the late justice (Scalia) wrote. 'How frightening it must be to have your own independent counsel and staff appointed, with nothing else to do but to investigate you until investigation is no longer worthwhile.'

Although Scalia's constitutional argument didn't carry the day, the policy concerns he expressed led Congress to repeal the independent counsel law. It was replaced with the special counsel structure through Justice Department regulations that were meant to be more aligned with standard policy. But peculiar political events have conspired to put Weiss in much the same insulated position as the independent counsels of yore, with the same toxic results.

As for Hunter Biden, he still has some legal cards to play. His aggressive and able counsel, Abbe Lowell, will no doubt argue that the charges amount to an unlawful vindictive prosecution. And recent appellate court rulings suggesting that even felons retain their 2nd Amendment rights could cast a constitutional shadow on at least one of the gun charges.

So we may have an odd situation here. I looked at influence peddling but I don't think the codes I looked at apply, so I'm off the beam in figuring out what laws apply to Hunter's behavior. I've spent most of this week with my head under a sink. :)

"As another poster commented, that's fine.

Now do Trump."

Has Trump violated any gun laws?

No priors, no history of violence, weapon not used in the commission of a crime, and no reasonable expectation of his being a firearms threat to society.

I'm not too worried. An actual trial will be much different than the trial of the media (news, social media, etc). The latter does not have the same rules and standards as the former. I'm pretty confident he will get what he deserves, and no more than that. And I have no problem with it. As long as Daddy isn't intervening, I'm content to let the courts do their thing.

Though I do find it amusing (and ironic, and a bit hypocritical) that the 'right' is obsessing over Hunter, while saying of the Insurrection "anyone not buried in left wing media has moved on". I don't think we should move on from either story, but rather let the courts run their course. I am more concerned about the Insurrection, but that's because it was a threat to democracy in this country. Falsifying a federal form, while not trivial, isn't a threat to the foundations of this nation.

Because the law on the books is apparently in contradiction to the Constitution.

A double-edged sword. It would be extremely amusing if Hunter got off because of the right-wing position on firearms. OTOH, I support trying to control firearms (even feeble attempts), and wouldn't want that law tossed. But it very well may turn out that way.

I am more concerned about the Insurrection, but that's because it was a threat to democracy in this country. - 1pg

----------------

You see this conclusion often, the J6 insurrection was a threat to our democracy. But how realistic was that threat. The liberals like to stop at the point - J6 = end of democracy or J6 = we will live in a dictatorship, etc. For a liberal, that is a good stopping point because demonizing Trump is a reward unto itself, or condemning republicans to the point of them never winning another election is a worthy achievement even though that by itself is the very definition of the end of our democracy.

But lets make a thought experiment and assume the J6 insurrectionists did take over the capital and held it for one two or six months. What the hell, lets toss in even assassinated a few legislators or Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi. Trump makes a Triumphant return and declares himself president and suspends future elections under Marshall law.

Now these events would be horrific beyond description. But have we really lost our democracy? The liberals seem to assume, Yes.

While all this is playing out, what does our military have to say about it? And all the national guards from the various states? And the citizens themselves. I don't think many would say, "OK fine". So my opinion is, as bad as J6 was, to say it would be the of our democracy is alarmist and pre-mature by a long long shot.

Yes, we discussed that on TMF before they closed the cool-people boards. ;-)

The big thing in our favor was that Trump was incompetent. He was incompetent as a POTUS, and he was incompetent as a would-be coup leader. As albaby said, they didn't really have a follow-up plan after stealing the election.

But the danger isn't Trump, or at least it isn't only Trump. He is a moron, and couldn't run a coup to save his life. The problem/danger/threat is that he had LOTS of people trying to make it happen (i.e. for a partial list, just check the recent indictments), and a mob of people willing to storm the Capitol and assassinate Pence, Pelosi, and others. And still more people that weren't there, but supported it. Those folks now are saying "get over it...nothing to see...move on".

The difference between them and me (and probably you) is that I can accept an election result. I hated that Trump won in 2016, but I accepted that in our EC system, he did win. Fast-forward to 2020, and roughly 1/3 of the nation didn't accept it, and some fraction of that wanted Republicans to take over everything and make the election say what they wanted it to say. THAT is a threat to democracy. And that's what we need to be concerned about, especially the next time the election doesn't go as the Trumpies (or Desantis-ies, or whomever) want.

some fraction of that wanted Republicans to take over everything and make the election say what they wanted it to say. THAT is a threat to democracy. - 1pg

-----------------

I guess then it boils down to the size of that fraction versus the size of the fraction that would stand in opposition. I think that pro coup fraction is a lot of talk and is very tiny when it comes to actually forcing it on the population.

I think the opposition would overwhelm the would be insurrectionists. And quickly too. No contest.

You see this conclusion often, the J6 insurrection was a threat to our democracy.

It very much was a threat to our democracy. Anytime a sitting President decides to pull a self coup - that's a threat.
(A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from the Spanish: autogolpe), or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.)

But lets make a thought experiment and assume the J6 insurrectionists...
No. First, saying something is a threat to our democracy is not the same thing as saying we lost our democracy. I think most people can see the distinction.

Second: Let's stick with the dumb not well thought out loose plans that seemed to exist. One is the alternate slate of electors is presented, now let's say all of the state legislatures in question throw in with the scheme and they are presented to Pence, and Pence accepts. Chas ensues. If this happens would you call this a threat to our Democracy? I would. I think most people would. Where are we? I think to the USSC.

Then another loose plan was enough chaos would be generated that somehow the election would be tossed into the 12th Amendment. I've looked and I don't see how, but let's say that did occur and a vote was taken and Trump wins. Is this a threat to our democracy? I think so. Where are we? I think to the USSC. Would this be a threat to our democracy? Yes.

So if an attempt to rob a bank fails, moronic or not, there was no threat to the bank?

I haven't heard a liberal say we've lost our democracy yet - just warnings. I have heard - if Trump gets elected in 2024 we've lost our democracy.

Make no mistake Mike, Jan 6 was a coup attempt, there were insurrectionist elements in the crowd and we've imprisoned some.

Make no mistake Mike, Jan 6 was a coup attempt, there were insurrectionist elements in the crowd and we've imprisoned some. - Lapsody

-------------------

Make no mistake Mike, Jan 6 was a coup attempt - some would say,

there were insurrectionist elements in the crowd - yes and

we've imprisoned some - yes

Were we even close to losing our democracy - No

Were we even close to losing our democracy? - No

Mike, what would have to happen for you to say that we did in fact lose our democracy?

>>Were we even close to losing our democracy? - No<<<

Mike, what would have to happen for you to say that we did in fact lose our democracy? - g01

-----------------------

The elimination of elections or its ugly cousin, single party rule.

And the successful suppression of the citizens uprising resulting from the attempt.

The elimination of elections or its ugly cousin, single party rule.

And the successful suppression of the citizens uprising resulting from the attempt.

What if the attempt to use the alternate slates of electors and/or have Pence declare Trump the winner in the last election had occurred, and it wasn't overturned by the supreme court. Democracy lost - at least temporarily - or no?

What if the attempt to use the alternate slates of electors and/or have Pence declare Trump the winner in the last election had occurred, and it wasn't overturned by the supreme court. Democracy lost - at least temporarily - or no?

Jumping in for a moment, this isn't something that had any reasonable chance of happening.

While some of the alternate slates of electors were utterly fraudulent, enough of them (like the ones from Nevada and Pennsylvania) were qualified on their face that they would only be effective if a court ruled that Trump had one the election. And Pence had already declared - correctly - that his role in certifying electors was ceremonial, not substantive. Nor would this scheme even have worked if Pence had gone the other way, since there really is no legal framework for state legislators to change their election laws after an election has taken place.

I think the point BHM is making - and I agree with him - is that whatever the plans were of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they had no actual real-world chance of allowing Trump to retain the Presidency. They're still guilty of plotting to overthrow the government - but their plot was so foolish that it couldn't have worked. It's like a group of bank robbers who plan to bust open a nigh-impenetrable vault using a crowbar (which we postulate is physically impossible) - the valuables in the vault were never in danger, but they're still guilty of plotting a bank robbery.

What if the attempt to use the alternate slates of electors and/or have Pence declare Trump the winner in the last election had occurred, and it wasn't overturned by the supreme court. Democracy lost - at least temporarily - or no?

It was never going to be successful.
The lack of understanding of America's institutions on this board is astounding.

It very much was a threat to our democracy
No it wasn't. If you think that then you don't understand the inertia behind our system.
Read albaby's post. left wingers never understand the "Now what?" question.

Let's say they got Pence to "overturn the election". Meanwhile, the states say - individually - Screw you, the Constitution delegates authority to the states to conduct federal elections, who are you to say anything one way or the other about it?

What would happen after that? Was Trump going to just keep being President? You think the country was just going to sail along like that?

The chances of Trump holding on to the Presidency in 2020 are roughly equivalent to my quarterbacking the Cleveland Browns to the Super Bowl championship this year. As in, less than zero.

As such, I find all the wailing and rending of garments performative and lacking in real substance.

And to follow up:
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-e...

During the ABC interview, reporter Martha Raddatz asked Milley if Trump ordered him to use the military to remain in office after the 2020 election.

'I argued the case at various times for alternative courses of action, never received an illegal order,' Milley answered.

Milley is a #woke idiot and a miserable excuse for a Joint Chiefs Chair, but he at least gets this right:

'I am confident that the United States, the democracy of this country will prevail and the rule of law will prevail," he stated. "I'm absolutely confident of that. And these institutions are built to be strong and resilient, and to adapt to the times and I'm 100 percent confident we'll be fine."

I think the point BHM is making - and I agree with him - is that whatever the plans were of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they had no actual real-world chance of allowing Trump to retain the Presidency.

Ok, I guess I agree with that.

I think the point BHM is making - and I agree with him - is that whatever the plans were of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they had no actual real-world chance of allowing Trump to retain the Presidency.

It still constitutes a threat, but BHM goes further and claims liberals say we lost our democracy, which I have never heard. Why overstate the claim?

The next step in this gambit is to claim there never really was a threat to democracy - there was a threat and still is. We were fortunate in that Trump is incompetent, as 1pg pointed out. But from what I've read recruiting in the Proud boys is up. We still have a large chunk of the population that thinks the election was rigged.

I really think understating Jan 6 is a disservice.

...whatever the plans were of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they had no actual real-world chance of allowing Trump to retain the Presidency.

By themselves, no. But they weren't by themselves. They had people in government trying to move some levers. Trump himself called state officials (most famously in GA) saying "find me 11000 votes". In this particular instance, he had no chance. He hadn't put in place enough lackeys to do his bidding. He had insulted the Pentagon, so he couldn't rely on military support (which would violate posse comitatus, though if there was a coup then I suspect they wouldn't respect posse comitatus). He hadn't done all the stuff that would have facilitated his illegal seizure of power. But I do believe it is naive to think it couldn't happen here. So he was threatening our democracy, and his actions will linger for years. I was hoping we'd have more convictions before next year to put a chill on anyone trying something like this again. We've got a few Proud Boys, but we need some of the bigger wheels (like Sidney Powell, and several of the other higher-ups that were indicted). As you say, just because they weren't successful doesn't mean they aren't guilty of the attempt (and conspiracy surrounding the attempt).

Because he almost certainly is going to be the Republican nominee. We need people to be terrified of tampering with the election so that he can't pull anything shady again. People will be too afraid to be complicit. Trump won't be scared. He's too dumb, and narcissistic. If we continue to have disruptions to the peaceful transfer of power, eventually we may not have a peaceful transfer of power.

I guess then it boils down to the size of that fraction...

Nah. That's quibbling.

Whether on the street soliciting, in a car negotiating, or engaging in the act, a hooker is a hooker.

$50.00 or $5000.00, whether the act results in 'satisfaction' or not, the booking will list prostitution.

If you solicited a cop, you're guilty of soliciting prostitution even though it wasn't actually a prostitute.
----------------------------------------------------
Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.A rising up; uprising.The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

It still constitutes a threat, but BHM goes further and claims liberals say we lost our democracy, which I have never heard. Why overstate the claim? - Lapsody

-----------------

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was disputing the liberal notion that had the J6 protesters prevailed, our democracy would have been lost.

It's like a group of bank robbers who plan to bust open a nigh-impenetrable vault using a crowbar (which we postulate is physically impossible) - the valuables in the vault were never in danger, but they're still guilty of plotting a bank robbery.



Those charges will be made against the the prybar crew that entered the bank, AND also the lookout guy on the rooftop across the street, AND the getaway driver waiting at the curb even though they never entered the premises of the vault.

Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.A rising up; uprising.The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

Yeah, but...Webster isn't usually the basis for law. Somewhere it will have been defined in legal terms, and that definition will be referenced throughout the statutes. So it has to come up to the legal standard to be applied.

>>I guess then it boils down to the size of that fraction...<<

Nah. That's quibbling.

Whether on the street soliciting, in a car negotiating, or engaging in the act, a hooker is a hooker.

$50.00 or $5000.00, whether the act results in 'satisfaction' or not, the booking will list prostitution.

If you solicited a cop, you're guilty of soliciting prostitution even though it wasn't actually a prostitute. - sano

----------------

You are entirely missing the point I was making.... The relative size of the two factions has everything to do with the odds of a successful coup. If 1/10 of the population supports Trump's assertion and 9/10's are opposed, then Trump is not likely to succeed. Since we discussing the likelihood of losing our democracy, that ratio is important.

I was disputing the liberal notion that had the J6 protesters prevailed, our democracy would have been lost.

OK...gotta ask...

What would "prevailed" look like? Their objective was to install Trump as POTUS/dictator. If they had prevailed in that, we would not now be in a democracy. If they prevailed in killing some senators, then probably not. I would assume the former as "prevailed", but perhaps you had something else in mind.

Since we discussing the likelihood of losing our democracy, that ratio is important.

A little bit of history here. And, yes, I realize the structure of the Weimar Republic was different. But...flying from memory, only about 32% of the people supported the National Socialists. By implication, that means about 68% opposed. They still managed to seize power (with some other machinations I won't get into), and it took a coordinated global effort to destroy them. The 68% of Germans couldn't do it by themselves.

That's not your number of 1/10, but the point is that a minority can seize and hold power.

We also saw the same thing in Iraq. Hussein and his Sunnis were a minority, and they oppressed the Shiite majority for decades.

What would "prevailed" look like? Their objective was to install Trump as POTUS/dictator. If they had prevailed in that, we would not now be in a democracy. - 1pg

--------------------

Far from it.

Our democracy would only be lost if the resulting litigation, chaos, civil disobedience, and organized resistance were successfully defeated by the Trump dictatorship.

By themselves, no. But they weren't by themselves. They had people in government trying to move some levers. Trump himself called state officials (most famously in GA) saying "find me 11000 votes". In this particular instance, he had no chance.

Which is the point.

No one is saying that the U.S. is immune from coups. We have a very strong democracy, and one where a coup is unlikely - but given that humans are fallible, it can never be ruled out.

But in order for a coup to work, you need to do a lot more than just "people in government trying to move some levers." Trump never did that.

And he wasn't ever going to do that, TBH. In order to stage a coup, you have to be willing to risk everything - because if you try and fail, you're going to jail for the rest of your life (or are going to be shot for treason). Trump wasn't going to do that. He wasn't going to take the real risk between power and dying in a cell.

Now, he was too clever by half. He thought that he could let other people take that risk for him - that he could sit back and say, "Well, if you people are certain that I'm still supposed to be President, go out there and bring me that crown!" But he cut it too close, so now he's in the hotseat for conspiracy

So no, we weren't in any danger of Trump remaining in office on January 6th. There was nothing in play that could have prevented Biden from taking office.

Does a failed effort to retain power unlawfully (whether by the Proud Boys alone or including Trump) damage democratic institutions? Of course. But I don't think it's fair to say that we were in any danger of Trump remaining in power.

That's not your number of 1/10, but the point is that a minority can seize and hold power

That was the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make.

Once the seeds are planted, there's a better than 0 chance others will flock to the movement. The beer hall putsch failed but it was a seed, a step in the direction that resulted in the eventual success of the Nazi party to thwart an election.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/...

"Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.A rising up; uprising.The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion."

So why were those in Seattle who set up the autonomous CHOP zones within the city not condemned by the press and charged with Insurrection by law enforcement?

So why were those in Seattle who set up the autonomous CHOP zones within the city not condemned by the press and charged with Insurrection by law enforcement?

Does Washington have a provision on insurrection in its criminal code? I couldn't find one....

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=9A

So why were those in Seattle who set up the autonomous CHOP zones within the city not condemned by the press and charged with Insurrection by law enforcement?

And before some lib claims tHaT's ToTaLlY noT tHe sAmE tHiNg: the CHAZ/CHOP group declared themselves completely autonomous and helped boot the police and other city government agencies OUT.

"And before some lib claims tHaT's ToTaLlY noT tHe sAmE tHiNg: the CHAZ/CHOP group declared themselves completely autonomous and helped boot the police and other city government agencies OUT."

Exactly, Because it is just another example of the two tiered justice system and journalistic system we are unfortunately living with in the US today.

And before some lib claims tHaT's ToTaLlY noT tHe sAmE tHiNg: the CHAZ/CHOP group declared themselves completely autonomous and helped boot the police and other city government agencies OUT.

Again - is there a provision of the Washington state criminal code that governs that type of behavior, making it subject to criminal enforcement?

Given that noo ne was ever charged for wanton destruction of property etc it is clear that they had no interest in prosecuting anyone ...for anything and the press had no interest in pursuing the legal irresponsibility of the local government. My point was that these CHOP/CHAZ folks actually performed acts of insurrection and have been dismissed while the leftists here are just fine with hanging that label and responsibility on all of those who were at the Capitol on Jan 6.

Given that noo ne was ever charged for wanton destruction of property etc it is clear that they had no interest in prosecuting anyone ...for anything and the press had no interest in pursuing the legal irresponsibility of the local government.

That's incorrect.

https://www.kuow.org/stories/who-faces-criminal-ch...

The folks who engaged in "wanton destruction of property" and other violent acts were charged.

Albaby

"he folks who engaged in "wanton destruction of property" and other violent acts were charged."

Oh really, How about those that barricaded the police inside the police station and then set it on fire, or those openly carrying fire arms and declaring themselves to be the lawful authority of the autonomous zones. Sorry Albaby but you cannot be serious here..

Again - is there a provision of the Washington state criminal code that governs that type of behavior, making it subject to criminal enforcement?

You mean besides obstructing justice, interfering with first responders such as fire and ambulance from accessing victims, blocking critical right of ways and all that?

How about those that barricaded the police inside the police station and then set it on fire, or those openly carrying fire arms and declaring themselves to be the lawful authority of the autonomous zones. Sorry Albaby but you cannot be serious here..

Yep, them too:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/alaska-man-ch...

To borrow from an argument made in another thread, you're not going to see these cases mentioned on news outlets that are trying to argue that there were no charges filed in connection with the unrest in Seattle. And I suspect that you didn't really try to see if any such charges were filed, since that took only a single Google search to find - which a person who was trying to be "serious here" might start with.

That's incorrect.

https://www.kuow.org/stories/who-faces-criminal-ch...

The folks who engaged in "wanton destruction of property" and other violent acts were charged.

A *subset* of folks were charged. There were instances of people handing out AR-15s to CHOP "Security" from the trunk of a car who never were even investigated:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/...

Raz Simone is an erstwhile rapper and the self-proclaimed "warlord" of CHOP who was handling "security" for the autonomous zone. There was quite the scandal when then-Mayor Jenny Durkan deleted thousands of her texts...some of whom were rumored to be with this guy.

A *subset* of folks were charged.

Of course. It's hard to charge people just for protesting - when only a *subset* of a very large group of people are engaged in actual criminal activity, you're going to end up with that.

And even of the subset that engaged in criminal behavior, they weren't doing it in so obviously provable and identifiable ways as the hundreds of folks walking around in the Capitol. Set aside the fact that they're committing their crimes in full view of all the many news networks and other journalists who were there to cover the event - they're all carrying around their own cell phones, taking pictures and video of themselves (and fellow rioters), dressing up in ways to call attention to themselves, and posting their stuff on Facebook. When merely being in the Capitol during that specific time is evidence that you've broken the law to get there, that makes prosecution pretty easy.

Most of the folks who used the protests as cover to commit crimes were not so foolhardy. And even when they do something foolhardy (like Simone posting a FB Live), it's still not going to support a prosecution. With just a nighttime video of a Simone handing something that appeared to be a long gun? What could you charge him with? If you don't know the person he gave it to, or identify the weapon and who it belonged to, or even whether it was in fact an actual weapon....you'd never get that to stand up in court. You'd have to at least offer some evidence that it was a gun and that the person he was handing it to wasn't the lawful owner - which is hard if you don't know who that person was. Whereas if someone's taking selfies of themselves in the Capitol building (with GIS metadata and time stamping and all the other rioters in the background)...well, that's a bit of a slam dunk.

"Yep, them too:"

Really , I would hope that the voice of reason here and TMF know better than this. You claim that these CHOP/Chaz folks faced the law and justice for their insurrection but, we the folks , and hopefully you know that just never happened, in the law or in the press. I would really be interested i seeing ...any... verification that .. any..of these insurecectionists or would be police BBQ'ers were ever brought to justice.

"And even of the subset that engaged in criminal behavior, they weren't doing it in so obviously provable and identifiable ways as the hundreds of folks walking around in the Capitol. Set aside the fact that they're committing their crimes in full view of all the many news networks and other journalists who were there to cover the event - they're all carrying around their own cell phones, taking pictures and video of themselves (and fellow rioters), dressing up in ways to call attention to themselves, and posting their stuff on Facebook. When merely being in the Capitol during that specific time is evidence that you've broken the law to get there, that makes prosecution pretty easy."

Kind of like CHOP/CHAZ I guess

You want verification?

There were at least three names in the link albaby provided. A quick google revealed one of them got 2 years. I didn't check the others, but you can if you wish.

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/isaiah-th...

If you know albaby as the "voice of reason", then you should know he doesn't post without verifying things.

Just saws this Mike:

Were we even close to losing our democracy - No

1. Was there a threat to democracy Mike?

2. Was there an attempt by Trump to remain in power that didn't really pay too much attention to whether it was legal or not?

Now, as far as your question? No, I don't think so, but we may have just been lucky. We count on a lot of norms, procedures, arcane bits of law subject to interpretation, checks, balances, and people actually caring about the doing the right thing. I've been unpleasantly surprised by how easy it is to ignore norms with nothing happening, how procedures can be ignored, etc., etc., etc.

Just the other day I read about Project 2025 by Heritage Foundation. It reads like the old PNAC (Project for a New American Century) but for conservatives in the White House. They want to have 50,000 vetted, able, trained crew ready to take over the administration and eliminate the deep state. Pie in the Sky, right? Now Biden is somehow making some new rules to thwart this possibility. Really? Yes.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/biden-plan-aims-to...

I'm fairly sure Trump won't be President in 2024, and he'll be convicted of 75-80% of the charges and 80-90% of those will survive appeals.

I agree Trump won't be POTUS again, unless something crazy happen in the next 14 months (e.g. a Depression). Too many people will be motivated to vote against him, just like in 2020. His base will show up, of course. Just like they did in 2020.

He may not survive to do any jail time. The courts move slowly, and apparently in GA, even more so. He could die of old age before seeing the inside of a cell. He's already pretty old.

Given the care in crafting charges that they can support with evidence, I tend to think your numbers are reasonably accurate (even if not all counts...it is my understanding that they slap a count for every element of the crime, but they seldom get all counts). Maybe a tad high. But if he lives long enough, he will be convicted of at least a few of the charges.

"There were at least three names in the link albaby provided"

Wow, three people ... charged for the insurrection and damage that was CHOP/CHAZ. By that measure then 3 people should be charged for Jan 6 I guess.

So the Heritage Foundation is now some revolutionary organization?

"But if he lives long enough, he will be convicted of at least a few of the charges. "

Trump's 'Meet the Press' interview was one long defensive evasion session. He said he doesn't think about the outcome of the cases he faces.
As usual, he's lying. A fraudulent narcissist, he thinks about himself and his defensive tactics constantly.
His incessant posting is evidence of that. He wakes up in the middle of the night to post, fer cryin' out loud.
All that defensive lying has got to be taking a severe toll on what little mental health he ever had.

By that measure then 3 people should be charged for Jan 6 I guess.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I'm sure they charged whomever they could prove broke any laws. I am not familiar with this incident. You challenged "us" to find anyone who had been punished. It only took a few seconds for me to find one. If I bothered to dig more, I'd probably find more. But if you can't be bothered, neither can I.

Just like I really can't be bothered to look up all the people charged/convicted for Jan 6. I know several people have been convicted, and at least three Proud Boys are doing some serious jail time. Largely because those people were stupid enough to think that social media was somehow private, or inadmissible. So the authorities have LOTS of incontrovertible evidence about who was there, and what they were doing. (Pro tip: don't film yourself in the commission of a crime, nor confess to a crime -with pride!- on Facebook or some other social media outlet. Oh...and another tip...deleting a post does no good, because once you post it, it's forever.)

So the Heritage Foundation is now some revolutionary organization?

That's your call. I haven't thought about it. Just noting there's a threat recognized by the Whitehouse so they are making it more difficult to sweep career civil servants out of the government.

That's your call. I haven't thought about it. Just noting there's a threat recognized by the Whitehouse so they are making it more difficult to sweep career civil servants out of the government.

Does it occur to you that there might be a viewpoint out there that says, "The government could be run more efficiently and more effectively by replacing some of these career chair-moisteners"?

That's what the Heritage program is about.

Biden and crew want to cement these mid-level bureaucrats in place because as we've seen, they're a terrific way to continue democrat policies even when democrats get voted out of office. That's what this is about.

The government, Federal and State, for many years has become the employer of last resort for many low capability individuals. It has been said that a decrease of personnel would result in an increase of productivity. It might be interesting to find out if this is true.

Does it occur to you that there might be a viewpoint out there that says, "The government could be run more efficiently and more effectively by replacing some of these career chair-moisteners"?

No. It looks like a fascist conservative viewpoint of installing Trump as an authoritarian. Possibly by the end of his reign voting will not be necessary. Read on:

An exhaustive manifesto for the next conservative US president produced by Project 2025, an initiative led by the hard-right Heritage Foundation, uses 'dehumanising language' about LGBTQ+ Americans too extreme even for candidates currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination, a leading advocate said.

In the words of Paul Dans, its director, Project 2025 is 'systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponised conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state'.

...that 'army' has produced something solid: Mandate for Leadership: the Conservative Promise, a 920-page document that sets out policy wishes across the breadth of the federal government.

implementation of many Project 2025 recommendations would rely on broad acceptance of unitary executive theory, a contested vision of strong presidential power, from a compliant Congress and supreme court.

Implementation of 'Schedule F', a plan formulated by extreme Trump allies to purge the federal bureaucracy of officials deemed insufficiently loyal, would also likely be needed,

The Project 2025 manual ' purges the civil service of all (perceived) political 'enemies' [and] advises to ignore checks and balances of the constitution. Pass it on.'

And this is just one article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/15/proj...

Yeah, purges are bad. The Leninists did it (and continued to do it through at least Stalin). The National Socialists did it (including some of their own...the Brown Shirts...they didn't just disappear, they were purged). Totalitarianism purges "disloyal" people -which includes political rivals-, and also purges intellectuals (because they, ya know, can think).

As I recall, Lenin/Stalin purged a lot of their military; which they then paid for about 20 years later.

It is very telling that conservatives** in this country would propose purging "political enemies", and want to get rid of checks and balances.



**think tanks and leadership...I seriously doubt people like Dope and BHM would agree with those actions, but they aren't -to the best of my knowledge- anywhere near the leadership.

ME: It very much was a threat to our democracy
Dope: No it wasn't. If you think that then you don't understand the inertia behind our system.
Read albaby's post. left wingers never understand the "Now what?" question.

I addressed your "now what" with were off to the USSC.

Albaby and I were talking two different things. Albaby is saying was there a chance Jan 6 would succeed? The answer to that is no. What I am talking about is a threat to our Democracy, not chance of success. It fits the definition of an attempted self coup.

And 1pg pointed out the people in government pulling levers, but there were many players to this. Powell and Giulian are only a couple of non-governmental people - what about Ginni Thomas? There were a lot of players in and out of government working on this and in different ways. That's a threat. But that so many people would follow Trump down that rabbit hole of a fraudulent election, a major chunk of the Republican party, that's a threat.

Polls show that 69% of Republican voters believe that Biden is an illegitimate President. Is that at least 50-55 million people? It's still here, hasn't gone away. I don't think convicting Trump will lower those numbers.

The fact that Trump is going to be the Republican nominee is a threat now. Look at your Project 2025.

Now I don't think Trump will get elected.it's very important that we defeat him in the election. But he'll cry fraud again and some 50-60 million people will believe him. These are abnormal times and we have to take Trump out.

Yep. Stalin was famous for removing people from pictures that he purged. The Nazis with Crystalnacht? Stalin purged all educators and engineers. Engineers was a big mistake.

It's disturbed me how much our government operates on norms, etc. I'm not sure Dope and BHm can't be carried away with the fervor. There was good resistance to Trump last time, and some good people sacrificed their jobs. The polls show Biden and Trump are neck and neck now. I hope this election isn't a cliffhanger.

I addressed your "now what" with were off to the USSC.

And that would have been the end of it?

That's a threat. But that so many people would follow Trump down that rabbit hole of a fraudulent election, a major chunk of the Republican party, that's a threat.

And now we finally get to the meat. So the GOP itself and Republican voters THEMSELVES are a "threat to democracy", eh?
What's the plan?

Going to have the vans show up at people's houses and drag them away because they disagree with you? Or how about just suspend their Constitutional rights because you don't like what they're saying?

Those are excellent and time-honored ways to "preserve democracy". Ask any Generalissimo or strongman in history.

Look at your Project 2025.

So recruiting people to work in bureaucrat jobs in D.C. is a threat to the nation. Are you even listening to yourself?

These are abnormal times and we have to take Trump out.

By any means necessary, right?

It's disturbed me how much our government operates on norms, etc. I'm not sure Dope and BHm can't be carried away with the fervor.

Now you've gone 'round the bend. It's pretty clear where your head is, and I'll be the one to point this out to you. That accusatory finger you're pointing at us? Nah, bruh. That's all you.

This is how your pathology is going to evolve.

First you'll see somebody in a MAGA hat passing by on the street and you'll mutter something under your breath that you want them to hear. Free speech, right?
Then next maybe it'll be a campaign sign for some Republican that you'll deface or steal. Why should they be allowed to post a hate message?

Then perhaps you'll go to a place where you know a Republican is speaking and wait for people to come out. They're all fascists, so you're perfectly justified in screaming at some little old lady who's walking back to her car. So what if she's intimidated? You didn't tell her to threaten democracy.

Oh, yes. I could go on.

Trump supporters are a threat to democracy, just as NAZI supporters were a threat to the Weimar Republic. That is because they don't revere democracy, they revere a single (autocratic) figure.

Take out Trump? Sure. In the election. Hopefully he will be humiliated next year. Very few people on the left would advocate violence to eliminate Trump from the election. Heck, he's the left's best shot at winning next year because he will motivate people to vote against him. Biden doesn't really excite people, but Trump does. Especially the left, in horror and dismay. They dynamics would change radically if Trump lost the primaries, and Biden had to face a not-Trump candidate.

Trump supporters are a threat to democracy, just as NAZI supporters were a threat to the Weimar Republic. That is because they don't revere democracy, they revere a single (autocratic) figure.

Again. Are you guys listening to yourselves?

"Trump supporters are a threat to democracy, just as NAZI supporters were a threat to the Weimar Republic. That is because they don't revere democracy, they revere a single (autocratic) figure."

Yet another Godwins law example.

Yet another Godwins law example.

They seem to have bought into the "If we lose the election, democracy is lost" BS that Biden is fronting. They don't seem to realize the mental trap they've all fallen for.

Yep. The question is, have YOU been paying attention to the demagogue your "side" supports? Because he is a demagogue, and his supporters support him over the democratic process. Or at least many of them do. Hence them being "OK" with his efforts to subvert the election results. Even you have said (in effect) "nothing to see here, move along".

Step back and really look. You'll see I'm correct about this. You just don't want to believe it because it's your "side" that's doing this (at this point in history). Maybe someday my "side" will behave similarly, but not today. If they ever do, I'll abandon them. So far, at least, they don't.

Not unlike Catholics not wanting to believe their priests have pedophiles among them, and actively protect those priests. I get it...it's hard to admit that to yourself when such devotion is involved. So are you going to turn a blind-eye, or protect the kids? I vote to protect the kids.

Next year I'll vote for Biden (since Trump is almost assured of a primary victory) to protect our democracy. Hopefully you guys will get some reasonable Republicans in the future. Right now, you're losing them. McCain died, Romney is quitting, several others quit around the 2016 election. Your current stable is mostly a bunch of Trump-wannabes, and Chris Christie. Christie is probably the most reasonable guy you have (not that I support his positions on most things).

They seem to have bought into the "If we lose the election, democracy is lost" BS that Biden is fronting. They don't seem to realize the mental trap they've all fallen for.

I'm sure that's what ~30% of the German people thought in 1932.

You're generalizing. I said "TRUMP". If Christie were to win, for example, democracy would not be lost. He respects the process. I may not like him, but he won't tank our democracy. Trump will, or at least will try. If you were to win, democracy would not be lost. I disagree with you about a lot of stuff, but we've already established that you (and I) respect the process of democracy, and the peaceful transfer of power every four years.

So, no, if we lose the election, democracy is not -necessarily- lost. But it will be in peril if Trump wins. It very much depends who wins, not just some general Republican winning.

And now we finally get to the meat. So the GOP itself and Republican voters THEMSELVES are a "threat to democracy", eh?
What's the plan?

As discussed, get the vote out. This is a democracy, dontcha know. Only Trumpees send insurrectionist elements to the capital, give clerical functions enormous hypothetical discretion on elections, and create theory names to disguise seizing power.

As far as I know, no rightee in this forum has ever admitted that Jan 6 was an attempt by Trump to remain President with little regard for the law or election process. And you don't like Jan 6 so now it was instigated by the FBI and Homeland security.

Now you've gone 'round the bend. It's pretty clear where your head is, and I'll be the one to point this out to you. That accusatory finger you're pointing at us? Nah, bruh. That's all you.

This is how your pathology is going to evolve.

Naah. I'm not sure of my brother, either. You are fascist light, possibly a beige shirt instead of a brown shirt. Not too far gone. Not SS yet, but you could be ASS, the precursor. There's proto-fascist talk on the far right, but if it coalesced, it would be mainstream; there's enough that's mainstream on the right that it's concerning.

Trump supporters are a threat to democracy, just as NAZI supporters were a threat to the Weimar Republic. That is because they don't revere democracy, they revere a single (autocratic) figure. - 1pg

----------------

That is a grossly unfair exaggeration. Do all Democrats want to turn the USA into a socialist state?

Yep. The question is, have YOU been paying attention to the demagogue your "side" supports? Because he is a demagogue, and his supporters support him over the democratic process. Or at least many of them do. Hence them being "OK" with his efforts to subvert the election results. Even you have said (in effect) "nothing to see here, move along".

Step back and really look. You'll see I'm correct about this. You just don't want to believe it because it's your "side" that's doing this (at this point in history). Maybe someday my "side" will behave similarly, but not today. If they ever do, I'll abandon them. So far, at least, they don't.

Don't make it personal by inserting me into this. I can just as easily point to example after example of outright ridiculous things the DOJ and government apparatus is doing and that's all by folks YOU support.

Next year I'll vote for Biden (since Trump is almost assured of a primary victory) to protect our democracy.

Biden's weaponized the state organs against ordinary citizens. He claims to protect it, but does the exact opposite. The man and the party he represents are a toxic sludge of corruption and abuse of the Constitutional rights. They can't be swept from power fast enough.

You are fascist light, possibly a beige shirt instead of a brown shirt. Not too far gone. Not SS yet, but you could be ASS, the precursor. There's proto-fascist talk on the far right, but if it coalesced, it would be mainstream; there's enough that's mainstream on the right that it's concerning.

LOL.
You're the guy labeling everyone you see as an enemy. Pretty soon you'll be onboard with Whatever It Takes to win.

But thanks. It's been a while since some PA'er called me a Nazi. Glad to see that the argumentative skillz are just as strong now as they were back in the day.

Victoria Spartz lays it all out:
https://twitter.com/RepSpartz/status/1704606198018...

As someone who grew up in the Soviet Union, I'm disturbed by the fact that so many hardworking Americans'including my constituents'are afraid of political persecution by our own government.

Unfortunately, it does not seem like AG Garland is.

The fascists are already in power.

Dope: "This is how your pathology is going to evolve. First you'll ....

.. pure nonsense. FTZWS

Do all Democrats want to turn the USA into a socialist state?

No. But those who supported Debs did. I didn't say "all Republicans". I said "Trump supporters". That's a subset. Any Dems that want the USA to go socialist aren't going to support Biden, because that's not what he wants or plans or aspires. Trump supporters are part of a cult of personality. That personality is a demagogue who does not respect democracy, as he demonstrated repeatedly during his time in office (and, most notably, during his exit from office). That never leads to anything good, historically.

You responded to me with "are you guys listening to yourselves". What I said was no more personal than that. And I believe I avoided ad-hom. I was talking to YOU. Just like we were across a table having lunch somewhere. You ask if we are listening to ourselves, and I ask if you realize what you are supporting. No ad-hom at all, just pointed questions. No insult intended on my part, and I assume on your part, also.

I won't represent the Dems as "pure as the driven snow". Hardly. Right now, it's a question of the least sludgy. And that's the Dems (at this point in history). Wasn't always the case (Daley's Machine, Boss Tweed). But, at this moment, it is.

If you want to sweep them from power, give a credible alternative. One that doesn't threaten the very foundations of our democracy. You have a few in the primaries, but your front-runner isn't one of them.

You ask if we are listening to ourselves, and I ask if you realize what you are supporting.

Are you aware - perhaps you're not - that I don't intend to vote for Trump in the primary?

If he's the nominee...we'll see. Biden is a corrupt old man who isn't physically or mentally up for the job of President.

And that's the Dems (at this point in history). Wasn't always the case (Daley's Machine, Boss Tweed). But, at this moment, it is.

Highly debatable. For all the complaints about J6, I never saw Trump's FBI label parents who were concerned about their kids being assaulted in bathrooms "domestic terrorists". I also never saw his DOJ pull guns and roll in heavy on pro-abortion activists the way that Biden's goes after pro-lifers.

If you want to sweep them from power, give a credible alternative. One that doesn't threaten the very foundations of our democracy. You have a few in the primaries, but your front-runner isn't one of them.

I don't want Trump as the nominee. I want DeSantis.
Joe Biden, however, is doing more damage to the Constitution that I ever imagined.

Are you aware - perhaps you're not - that I don't intend to vote for Trump in the primary?

No, I wasn't. That is good to hear (read), but you are still in the vast minority in your party. According to fivethirtyeight, Trump leads in primary polling at 55%. That means he beats all other contenders combined. Second place is Desantis at 14.2%. Barring something dramatic, Trump will be your nominee next year.

Biden is a corrupt old man who isn't physically or mentally up for the job of President.

I'm not sure if he's any more corrupt than any other senator with his long tenure. I tend to agree that he is too old for the job, but then so is Trump. Plus he is psychologically unfit, IMO. Romney called for some young blood, and I agree with him (one of the few things I agree with Romney about). And I wouldn't mind seeing more women toss in their hats. Tired old white guys is mostly what we get to choose from lately.

Not limited to the POTUS, either. Pelosi doesn't want to stop. McConnell doesn't want to stop. Feinstein. The list goes on. The SCOTUS is off balance in part because Ginsburg didn't step down while there was a good chance a liberal justice would be appointed to replace her. What is it about people in those positions that they don't want to give it up? They have more than enough money, and there are political calculations to be made (e.g. Ginsburg). (I wish there weren't, but I'm just being realistic.)

I quit/retired when I had enough money saved, and before I started getting crappy at my job (which is inevitable for everyone if they live long enough).

Joe Biden, however, is doing more damage to the Constitution that I ever imagined.

Could you give one or two examples? I know the tuition forgiveness is one that he champions, that has not survived judicial challenge. Is it unconstitutional? Maybe. I think that's still being argued by the lawyers/judges. Can you provide a clear-cut example of damaging the Constitution?

But thanks. It's been a while since some PA'er called me a Nazi.

Haven't called you a NAZI, just poked fun at you. Listen, the big thing that none of you address is when are you going to recognize that Trump attempted to stay in power of the Presidency in a way that showed little regard for the Constitution, our Democracy, and the voting processes and will of the American people?

when are you going to recognize that Trump attempted to stay in power of the Presidency in a way that showed little regard for the Constitution, our Democracy, and the voting processes and will of the American people

Your assumptions don't count for anything.

LM: Your assumptions don't count for anything.

Those "assumptions" are coming home to roost on Trump.

BHM: Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was disputing the liberal notion that had the J6 protesters prevailed, our democracy would have been lost.

Never heard that liberal notion. At first we were watching videos of people staying between velvet ropes, and were wondering who zip tie guys were. Then the crazy videos and it still wasn't clear what was going on, but I don't think anyone in the press knew what was going on. Then the scheme with the elector slates came out, and why they wanted to hang Mike Pence. But from the git go no one ever thought that wold work, and I read a lot of junk about it until finally some good analysis came out. But I don't recall any analysis stating we almost lost our democracy. I inferred that if there had been a problem we end up in the USSC. Then the 12th Amendment was referenced. But if you read the 12th and it's uses, etc., it doesn't apply - it was just BS that by chaos we would get thrown into the 12th and the House votes with each state getting a vote. So you knew there was an attempt that failed, but who were all of these people? What were the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers doing there? What was this scaffold?

Then slowly the mosaic gets put together and it becomes clear the extent to which Trump tried to stay in power. It also becomes clear that the FBI, etc., had been asleep. After we got used to it, it just seemed to take forever to get cases off the ground - disheartening. Look at all the people involved who compromised their morals or didn't have any and may go to prison, the huge number of people who think the election was stolen, and these strange militant groups going to prison for Trump. Good thing Trump was incompetent.

This is a continuing threat to our democracy, it hasn't gone away.

Those "assumptions" are coming home to roost on Trump.

Likewise for snort and sniff....and they are not assumptions, they are fact.

Those "assumptions" are coming home to roost on Trump.

Likewise for snort and sniff....and they are not assumptions, they are fact.

This is an unintelligible response. It's OK. The "assumptions" coming home to roost for Trump regardless of your response.

Trump supporters are a threat to democracy, just as NAZI supporters were a threat to the Weimar Republic. That is because they don't revere democracy, they revere a single (autocratic) figure. - 1pg

----------------

That is a grossly unfair exaggeration. Do all Democrats want to turn the USA into a socialist state?


All Democrats? That's not the parallel. 1pg's comment specifically cited Trump supporters, not all Republicans.

More on selective prosecution
Looks like a very legitimate claim if this is true. Doesn't matter to Trumpees because they prefer innuendo anyway.

emptywheel@emptywheel
So Trump's admin was coordinating with a foreign agent to seek dirt on Hunter. We're getting to game, set, and match on selective prosecution.

avi scharf @avischarf
New revelations: 'Biden whistleblower', Israeli Gal Luft, was hiding in Turkey as early as 2020, during Trump admin, was being pressured by Trump NSA O'brien (National Security Advisor) to meet to discuss dirt on Hunter before Nov elections, even b4 laptop surfaced
https://www.themarker.com/weekend/2023-09-22/ty-ar...

Partially translated page:
"Shelter in Turkey and pressure from the Trump administration": the catch of the Israeli witness in the Hunter Biden case

Gal Luft, the Israeli who presents himself as a "corruption whistleblower" in the investigation of President Biden's son, got into trouble with American law and escaped to Turkey in 2020. In the conversations he had with his associates on the eve of the US elections, he told how he found himself in the middle of a tangle of political and political interests: his hosts, he said, including the one who has since been appointed as the head of Turkish intelligence, rejected demands from the Trump administration to meet with him, in order to reveal information that would harm the rival candidate Joe Biden

In recent months, Lt. Col. Gal Luft has been good at branding himself in right-wing circles in the US as a "corruption whistleblower" against the son of the country's president, Hunter Biden. According to him, the Biden administration is so determined to take revenge on him for the incriminating information he gave to the authorities against the young Biden, that he opened a criminal case against him. However, conversations Luft had with his associates in 2020 ' whose schedule was revealed by The Marker ' show that Luft knew about the investigation that was being conducted against him, even before Joe Biden was elected to the position. At the same time, he complained about the pressures exerted on him, according to him, from the direction of Donald Trump administration.

All Democrats? That's not the parallel. 1pg's comment specifically cited Trump supporters, not all Republicans. - sheila

---------------

Agreed. I should have said all Biden supporters, not all Democrats.

All Democrats? That's not the parallel. 1pg's comment specifically cited Trump supporters, not all Republicans. - sheila

---------------

Agreed. I should have said all Biden supporters, not all Democrats. - BHM

Naah, Bernie Bros are Democratic socialists, but if you look at what's going on in the Nordic states, most of the economy is market driven. So the most successful countries have a blend of socialism and capitalism. We really should come up with a new name for that. We have social security and medicare, but if you look at Sweden, last I checked some 40% of the corps were government owned/run. Norway owns 60% of Equinor, big oil in the North Sea, runs chains of gas stations, etc. Works pretty good and everyone benefits. The problem is Socialism is a talking point and youth is now more acquainted with the blends of socialism and capitalism in democracies. They have to wait for boomers to die off.

Agreed. I should have said all Biden supporters, not all Democrats.


Better. But still not comparable. There's far more of a shared focus and emotion among Trump supporters than among those who support Biden. There's substantial ambivalence among many who will vote for Biden as the best of the options. The ambivalence doesn't relate to what Biden has accomplished or to his continuing goals, but to concern about diminishing sharpness, and about Kamala Harris as the person who would succeed him. He is still extremely capable, though not consistently at the level that used to characterize him. And there's no way of knowing if he'll remain pretty stable or not. And he's a terrible public speaker.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.