2020 Election Thoughts

[Danny Dravot]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Why are you protecting the only one was has access to power and providing a direct plan to do so?

I’m protecting both.

Anyways, fine, let’s call it a coup. What do YOU want done?

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

 

Michael Flynn holds no official position or authority and he lives in disgrace. He's not much different than those protesters in Denver. I'm not personally concerned that those protesters are going to get their way (I've repeatedly told greg to calm down about it) and I feel the same way about Flynn.

You desperately want to call certain things a coup. Well, what would you like to do about it? When a coup happens elsewhere, the plotters get crushed. Do you want Michael Flynn thrown in jail because of his words? Do you want idiotic Republican congressmen to be removed from the House and their voters to be disregarded in an undemocratic fashion?

You don't like it? Fine. I don't like it either. But I'm not going to turn into an authoritarian because of speech.

He was meeting yesterday with the President about his proposal to send in the army to force re-elections in swing states that voted the wrong way. The meeting also included discussion of having DHS seize voting machines to hunt for fraud evidence and appointing Sidney Powell as a special counsel to investigate the 2020 election results. I hope when I live in disgrace I get regular meetings at the White House.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

3 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

I’m protecting both.

Anyways, fine, let’s call it a coup. What do YOU want done?

So it is your contention that former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, LT GENERAL Michael Flynn, calling for the military to rise up against a Biden Presidency carries the same weight as some "protest"?  And that because no one has seemingly taken him seriously as of yet, that it should be OK?  You reallze that just talking about harming the President is a crime.  That talking about overthrowing the American government, and trying to organize plans to do so is a crime, and that former member of our military and national security apparatus is trying to get people to do so.  But that is somehow the same thing as a protest?  My god.

[Danny Dravot]

54 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So it is your contention that former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, LT GENERAL Michael Flynn, calling for the military to rise up against a Biden Presidency carries the same weight as some "protest"?  And that because no one has seemingly taken him seriously as of yet, that it should be OK?  You reallze that just talking about harming the President is a crime.  That talking about overthrowing the American government, and trying to organize plans to do so is a crime, and that former member of our military and national security apparatus is trying to get people to do so.  But that is somehow the same thing as a protest?  My god.

So what do you want to do? You still haven’t said. Should Michael Flynn be jailed? Should the people of TX-2 be disenfranchised and their representative jailed because he espouses viewpoints that you dislike? If you just want to label it a coup so you can panic about it on here and Twitter, then fine, go ahead and we can just end this debate now. But if you want to call this a coup so that we can dispose of it as the entire world disposes of coups, and bring the force of the US government down on those responsible (including the most awful of Flynn’s suggestions- deploying the military), then no, I disagree.

I maintain my position. This is idiotic and even dangerous speech. But even dangerous speech is still free.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Danny Dravot said:

So what do you want to do? You still haven’t said. Should Michael Flynn be jailed? Should the people of TX-2 be disenfranchised and their representative jailed because he espouses viewpoints that you dislike? If you just want to label it a coup so you can panic about it on here and Twitter, then fine, go ahead and we can just end this debate now. But if you want to call this a coup so that we can dispose of it as the entire world disposes of coups, and bring the force of the US government down on those responsible (including the most awful of Flynn’s suggestions- deploying the military), then no, I disagree.

I maintain my position. This is idiotic and even dangerous speech. But even dangerous speech is still free.

Absolutely Michael Flynn should be jailed and charged with every single crime he has committed here.  Dangerous speech is NOT free speech.  That is quite literally the dividing line as what is free and what is not.  

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

So what do you want to do? You still haven’t said. Should Michael Flynn be jailed? Should the people of TX-2 be disenfranchised and their representative jailed because he espouses viewpoints that you dislike? If you just want to label it a coup so you can panic about it on here and Twitter, then fine, go ahead and we can just end this debate now. But if you want to call this a coup so that we can dispose of it as the entire world disposes of coups, and bring the force of the US government down on those responsible (including the most awful of Flynn’s suggestions- deploying the military), then no, I disagree.

I maintain my position. This is idiotic and even dangerous speech. But even dangerous speech is still free.

The fact that Michael Flynn was at the WH speaking with Trump yesterday and Trump floated using the military with his advisors should scare the shit out of everybody. Allegedly, he was told the military wouldn’t carry out his orders. It is time to use the 25th amendment. It is not worth seeing this last month through. He almost hired Sidney Powell yesterday as a special counsel to look at voter fraud. 
 

Not all speech is free. He has crossed the line. He should already be in jail for his admitted crimes. This is another.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Dick Allen

[Danny Dravot]

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Absolutely Michael Flynn should be jailed and charged with every single crime he has committed here.  Dangerous speech is NOT free speech.  That is quite literally the dividing line as what is free and what is not.  

Ok, agree to disagree.

[Danny Dravot]

7 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The fact that Michael Flynn was at the WH speaking with Trump yesterday and Trump floated using the military with his advisors should scare the shit out of everybody. Allegedly, he was told the military wouldn’t carry out his orders. It is time to use the 25th amendment. It is not worth seeing this last month through. He almost hired Sidney Powell yesterday as a special counsel to look at voter fraud. 
 

Not all speech is free. He has crossed the line. He should already be in jail for his admitted crimes. This is another.

Correct. The military would not carry out those orders.

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Correct. The military would not carry out those orders.

The military does NOT need to carry out the orders for a crime to have been committed.

[Dick Allen]

And now POTUS finally says something about the big cyber attack, and he comtradicts his intelligence, and his SoS, says it was overblown, it wasn’t that big, and it was probably China, not Russia. 
 

Putin is going to miss comrade Trump.

[Danny Dravot]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

The military does NOT need to carry out the orders for a crime to have been committed.

I’m genuinely curious how you’ve established your line here.

Can I rant about our need for a military coup on Twitter? Or am I safe? Why? You don’t care that some protesters want the downfall of the USA. Fine, but why? Because we’re all nobodies? Is that the difference maker?

[Soxbadger]

13 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I’m genuinely curious how you’ve established your line here.

Can I rant about our need for a military coup on Twitter? Or am I safe? Why? You don’t care that some protesters want the downfall of the USA. Fine, but why? Because we’re all nobodies? Is that the difference maker?

Short answer, yes.

Actually being able to commit the crime is a well established part of criminal law.

Which is why if they catch a mobster on a wiretap saying he is going to have the President murdered it is much different than If I say the same thing on a random message board.

[southsider2k5]

48 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I’m genuinely curious how you’ve established your line here.

Can I rant about our need for a military coup on Twitter? Or am I safe? Why? You don’t care that some protesters want the downfall of the USA. Fine, but why? Because we’re all nobodies? Is that the difference maker?

A false whatboutism isn't justification nor an equivlancy for what we are seeing an actual military general advocate for an attempt to organize.

[NWINFan]

1 hour ago, Danny Dravot said:

Correct. The military would not carry out those orders.

Thank god for small favors. Right now the Defense Department is not cooperating with the Biden Transition Team. Regardless of whether mere threats of overthrowing the government is a crime or not, we have a lunatic in the White House. And media continues to wonder of his chances in 2024. January 20 can't come fast enough. All of this is just another of how this mope abuses the power of the presidency and has done so for his entire term. His enablers only make excuses for him.

[CentralChamps21]

Trump knows he's leaving office on January 20. He's known it since a couple days after the election. Everything he's done since then has been geared towards getting as many people as possible to buy so hard into the idea that Biden is illegitimate that they don't notice when their lives get better while he's President.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

And now POTUS finally says something about the big cyber attack, and he comtradicts his intelligence, and his SoS, says it was overblown, it wasn’t that big, and it was probably China, not Russia. 
 

Putin is going to miss comrade Trump.

There was zero chance we would get through a lame duck period without another attempt to protect Russia as they damage the USA. 

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

Short answer, yes.

Actually being able to commit the crime is a well established part of criminal law.

Which is why if they catch a mobster on a wiretap saying he is going to have the President murdered it is much different than If I say the same thing on a random message board.

TBH, both would get investigated by the secret service. If you were on soxtalk and said that, they would investigate whether you had an actual plan to do so and the means to carry it out. Ditto a mobster. 

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Danny Dravot said:

I’m genuinely curious how you’ve established your line here.

Can I rant about our need for a military coup on Twitter? Or am I safe? Why? You don’t care that some protesters want the downfall of the USA. Fine, but why? Because we’re all nobodies? Is that the difference maker?

I 90% agree with you on this, Flynn can say whatever he want as he’s out of government. HOWEVER, if he is inciting and leading a protest where a crime is committed, such as the recent DC protest by the “proud boys” where several people were stabbed and the crowd pulled down and burned Black Lives Matter banners from a church (a hate crime), he should face the same rioting and incitement penalties they use to charge black protestors. He was at that one and the leaders of that protest should face the same charges they give to protesting black people.

Shouls they encourage some action that turns more violent, they should face consequences for that violence too.

Finally, as you said earlier, there should be some extra penalty for congresspeople who undermine democracy. That doesn’t apply to Flynn, but congresspeople should have some standard of supporting the existence of democracy if they want committee assignments.

[Danny Dravot]

@Soxbadger @southsider2k5 @Balta1701 I am still a free speech absolutist- I see Balta’s comment about pulling a BLM banner off a church and burning it and that’s more of a property crime to me than anything else (people can freely burn their own BLM and American flags etc). IMO, the concept of hate crimes punishes ideas rather than actions (or exacerbates punishment based on the idea driving the action) and is anathema to a society that respects free expression.

HOWEVER, I have been out of the loop and did not know Flynn was involved in briefings at the White House. I don’t know why he would be, but POTUS being who he is, I am not surprised. I saw him tweeting some lunacies the other day and figured his current ramblings were more of the same and that he was no more than a released prisoner. I took my defense of him far longer than I should have and have no interest in continuing it further.

[pcq]

2 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

Short answer, yes.

Actually being able to commit the crime is a well established part of criminal law.

Which is why if they catch a mobster on a wiretap saying he is going to have the President murdered it is much different than If I say the same thing on a random message board.

It is probably worth being investigated by the Secret Service. Luckily most officials know right from wrong. 

[Soxbadger]

1 hour ago, Danny Dravot said:

@Soxbadger @southsider2k5 @Balta1701 I am still a free speech absolutist- I see Balta’s comment about pulling a BLM banner off a church and burning it and that’s more of a property crime to me than anything else (people can freely burn their own BLM and American flags etc). IMO, the concept of hate crimes punishes ideas rather than actions (or exacerbates punishment based on the idea driving the action) and is anathema to a society that respects free expression.

HOWEVER, I have been out of the loop and did not know Flynn was involved in briefings at the White House. I don’t know why he would be, but POTUS being who he is, I am not surprised. I saw him tweeting some lunacies the other day and figured his current ramblings were more of the same and that he was no more than a released prisoner. I took my defense of him far longer than I should have and have no interest in continuing it further.

No problem.

 

I have an entirely unrelated question. It seems Trump wants to split NSA and Cyber Command. I dont really know the full ramifications, but it seems like an outgoing President shouldn't have the power to make massive security changes unilaterally.

What do you think? It seems like a lot of our historical norms were based on good faith, do you think we maybe need to revisit these ideas basrd on what we have seen the last 30 days?

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

No problem.

 

I have an entirely unrelated question. It seems Trump wants to split NSA and Cyber Command. I dont really know the full ramifications, but it seems like an outgoing President shouldn't have the power to make massive security changes unilaterally.

What do you think? It seems like a lot of our historical norms were based on good faith, do you think we maybe need to revisit these ideas basrd on what we have seen the last 30 days?

I don’t see how he can reformat the DOD or NSA without a vote in Congress. He had to have Congress authorize his space force fantasy. They could get it put into the defense authorization bill currently working its way through Congress, but then it’s Congress agreeing to it.

[Soxbadger]

20 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I don’t see how he can reformat the DOD or NSA without a vote in Congress. He had to have Congress authorize his space force fantasy. They could get it put into the defense authorization bill currently working its way through Congress, but then it’s Congress agreeing to it.

From what I understand all it requires is Milley and Miller based on some 2016 law. Supposedly Milley is not in favor.

But I dont know enough about it.

[The Beast]

21 hours ago, Texsox said:

So who is hoping for a student loan forgiveness program? I've been reading many of the arguments for and against and my gut tells me it would be helpful to a lot of people. 

It’s a nice idea, but how would something like it be implemented and would it be means tested? What were some proposals or arguments that you read on it?

[Texsox]

3 minutes ago, The Beast said:

It’s a nice idea, but how would something like it be implemented and would it be means tested? What were some proposals or arguments that you read on it?

Many Dem leaders believe the President can make it happen by executive order. The numbers mentioned are up to $50,000 with $10,000 getting mentioned the most. 

Several candidates in the primaries talked about it. It's interesting in that it probably would benefit middle to upper middle class families the most. Most debt is held by students that went to graduate school and usually the most capable of repaying the loans. 

Still,  it seems like a good idea to me if it is combined with increased financial aid for students attending community colleges. I'd like to see public education move from 13 years to 15 years free via the community college system.