8 ms·

What do you think an existential threat to the republic would look like?

temp8964 6y ago
Is Osama Bin Laden really really bad? Yes. Was he an existential threat to the U.S. He wishes. Were the mob capable as Osama Bin Laden? Not even close. Even if they did explode the whole congress building, it is far far far far away from an existential threat to the republic.
paulddraper 6y ago
1. Nuclear capabilities by North Korea or Iran. 2. Snowden-ish conspiracies by unelected, unaccountable intelligence agencies. 3. Large-scale conflict with China. 4. High-fatality disease: SARS or similar (COVID but more deadly) Terrorism, foreign or domestic, doesn't even scratch the list of "existential threats." Terrorist acts don't win heats and minds and unless aided by state actors (dirty bombs, etc) are tiny in the numbers game, even for sometime like 9/11.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  If you were to end the republic without the usual mass murder (nuclear war, pandemics, etc.) How would you do it? If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    It would be a big problem, but I don't think so. It wasn't in the realm of possibility on January 6, but for sake of argument.... Say the entire Sentate and House is wiped out somehow. They are not essential for day to day governance. State Governors would make emergency appointments to replace them as a first response. It would be hugely disruptive and chaotic, but I think the republic would survive. The republic is the states. The people in Washington are just the representatives.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      This could have led to Trump's appointment, depending on how the states were allocated votes (allocated by whom?) That would have been a very bad situation that I wouldn't want to see how it played out.
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      They wouldn't wipe out the entire US House and Senate. They would wipe out only those who didn't agree to object to the certification of the Biden's election. They would eliminate Senators and Representatives until Trump was appointed. Now you have an illegitimate president. As you say, the republic is the states, and I don't see how e.g. the Republic of California continues in the Union at that point. > They are not essential for day to day governance. Remember that states are not allowed to print their own money as the federal government is. States are now spending vast amounts of money to combat Covid. The federal government is funding these efforts by literally printing dollar bills. If the federal government fails to prop up states, you're looking at states unable to fund hospitals, police, teachers, utilities, etc. If the entire House is eliminated, there's no one to vote on federal budgets, and governors cannot just appoint Representatives as they can Senators -- Representatives must be elected in a special election in their districts according to the constitution. Meaning money from the federal government would just dry up without the House. Obviously the framers never anticipated this edge case.
  - paulddraper 6y ago
    A. If assassination is the method to institute change, SCOTUS would be target #1, due to succession rules. (Side note: Pelican Brief.) B. I'm not saying there wasn't any wacko who fantasized about overthrowing the the Government and throning an Emperor. But regime change through force is an impossible task. See: The last 50 years of American foreign policy.
    - true_religion 6y ago
      Regimes do change through force. See for example Ghana or Nigeria or Egypt. However, the impetus has to come from within the country or else the new regime will be seen as a puppet state and face challenges it is unable or unwilling to handle.
    - Nabati 6y ago
      > But regime change through force is an impossible task. Isn't that exactly how most coups are done? Take Iran in '79 as an example.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it? Nope, all of the states would appoint new representatives. There are processes for all of these scenarios. The senate and house are not necessary for the day to day operation if the republic. They aren’t even there all of the time. Killing a bunch of politicians is not a threat to the republic.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      This seems naive - if Senators were executed we would possibly be talking about a full blown transition to an authoritarian Trump regime. In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. The replacements would have no reason to believe that their lives wouldn't also be in danger if they didn't certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 elections. At that point Trump has effectively side stepped the Constitution and usurped power through violence - which is literally the end of the republic.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. But that’s not even close to what happened. The national guard doing nothing would require buy-in from the entire military chain of command, which has never been very supportive of Trump.
        nemothekid 6y ago
        Nobody died, that's what happened. I'm simply answering your hypothetical if the Senators were actually killed. If the Sentors and/or the VP were taken as hostages, or worse killed, it would mean national guard was either complicit or incompetent. However, as we know, the Secret Service sadly had to act with deadly force and managed to secure the legislature.
- awb 6y ago
  I don't think we've ever seen terrorism condoned or encouraged by anyone as admired or as powerful as Trump in the history of the country, save the Civil War. It's not like these are some lunatics, they're obedient fans actively consuming what Trump is feeding them and violently acting on it. Does he have the right to stand in a public park and spout his threats and lies? Absolutely. Does he have the right to demand access to a private company platform to spout his threats and lies? No way. Idiots get kicked out of bars for far less every day.
  - paulddraper 6y ago
    I think you're confused about the topic. It's about Parler and its hundreds of thousands of users being deplatformed from AWS, not Twitter banning Trump. AFAIK Trump doesn't even use Parler.
    - awb 6y ago
      Sorry, you're right I went on a bit of a tangent there. I guess the point I was making was that this violent language wouldn't be spreading on Parler if Trump hadn't have abused his Twitter account to drum up this kind of violent extremism with self-serving lies about a free and fair election. Those hundreds of thousands of users flocked to Parler as a result of Twitter cracking down on this same type of violent speech. So is it really a surprise that AWS cracked down on them too for the same reasons? And Google? And Apple? And Shopify? And others? If you're repeatedly running into bans and suspensions, it could be a multi-company conspiracy to silence you, or it could just be you. I guess that's the debate. The 1st amendment has limits like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or coordinating to murder the VP of the US. This isn't the same free speech debate as a professor refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns or someone publishing racist research or someone touting conspiracy theories or someone blowing off steam. This is about a small number of users using a platform to illegally threaten and coordinate violence on others in very explicit and direct terms and that platform standing by their right to do so. The only thing stopping them from following through is their low numbers. What do we want 2 years from now? Parler letting thousands of people threaten to murder Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Romney or every elected official that doesn't subscribe to their version of reality? No way. History tells us this doesn't end well. "Fall in line or we'll shun you" politics is abhorrent. "Fall in line or we'll harm you" politics is the absolute bottom of group behavior. We have laws against violent speech and conspiracy to commit murder for very valid reasons.
- sanp 6y ago
  Governments is several countries have been toppled with exactly this kind of violence.
  - paulddraper 6y ago
    No. No country has fallen because a few thousand boomers with flags made it past police to the legislative chamber.
  - FFRefresh 6y ago
    What governments are you referring to? Really interested in the comparison in terms of the 'violence' that you're referring to. Particularly around lethal violence (going to probably be easier for head-to-head comparison), and the use of guns to kill from the group protesting against the government.
- legutierr 6y ago
  What about a decapitation strike resulting in the deaths of competing constitutional officers by allies of the president with the intent of subverting the peaceful transfer of presidential power? Would that not qualify as a threat to the republic? In other words, what if the mob had gotten its hands on Pence, Pelosi, Grassley, or others? Don't you think that would have been a bigger deal than what transpired with Snowden? Incidentally, there are reports that a number of Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the president on Wednesday because they feared for the safety of their families. It seems plausible that they might have been influenced by the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol. Legislators voting against their judgement because of extortion seems a significant threat to the democratic order.
  - paulddraper 6y ago
    Multiple politicans have assassinated before, the Republic has carried on. If there were a lot at once...yeah that could be bad. But frankly there's just so little chance of that happening. If there was a chance in hell of that happening, Security Service/Capitol police would have actually done something about the protesters.
    - legutierr 6y ago
      You seem to place a lot of faith in an institution—the Capitol Police—that most would agree failed spectacularly on Wednesday. It was pure luck that the doors of the Senate were locked and barred just two minutes before the mob arrived. What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten there five minutes before they did, when the doors were still ajar? What do you think those men with flex cuffs were intending to do? It seems that one of them was a retired Air Force lt. colonel. What do you think his motivations were?
DonHopkins 6y ago
Orange.
throwaway201103 6y ago
Conducing a fradulent vote count to elect a president that the people didn't really want.
mopsi 6y ago
Having lived through the collapse of the USSR, the key events could be: 1. New leaders emerge. Industrialists, generals, university professors, even shipyard electricians. They obtain enormous influence through their personal charisma, leadership skills and the political platform they advocate for (think Martin Luther King). 2. Local municipal authorities stop recognizing the central government. They establish democratically-elected councils to temporarily run things in the power vacuum. 3. Security apparatus flips - police and military will stand by, do nothing and just wait to see how the situation develops. Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders. 4. Having lost all support and control, the central government collapses under its own weight. They may issue orders, but no-one's following them. 5. A grassroots, national assembly type institution with universal popular support emerges to prepare major legislative reforms such as a new constitution to formalize power transfer to new institutions (new government, new parliament). A referendum or general election seals the deal. In contrast, a bunch of rednecks breaking in for a few hours, taking selfies and stealing minor items is nowhere near this. They have no real leaders, no platform, no support.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  I think this is a good response, but I do urge you to consider that there is not one specific form a failing Republic will take. Also, I would argue that many of these things did take place. America is fortunate there was a competence problem, but I identify many of the items you listed here as having transpired. A failed <thing> is still an attempted <thing>.
- legutierr 6y ago
  > Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders. Well, considering that this is how domestic police and national guard already operate in the US—with police operating under municipal authority, or under the authority of the local elected sheriff, and with national guard operating under the authority of each state governor—I don't think observing this would give you any indication that the republic is under threat. In fact, your points 1, 2 and 3 seem to describe the normal operation of American democracy for the past 200 years or so, with regards to most domestic affairs.

Is Osama Bin Laden really really bad? Yes. Was he an existential threat to the U.S. He wishes. Were the mob capable as Osama Bin Laden? Not even close. Even if they did explode the whole congress building, it is far far far far away from an existential threat to the republic.

paulddraper 6y ago

1. Nuclear capabilities by North Korea or Iran. 2. Snowden-ish conspiracies by unelected, unaccountable intelligence agencies. 3. Large-scale conflict with China. 4. High-fatality disease: SARS or similar (COVID but more deadly) Terrorism, foreign or domestic, doesn't even scratch the list of "existential threats." Terrorist acts don't win heats and minds and unless aided by state actors (dirty bombs, etc) are tiny in the numbers game, even for sometime like 9/11.

three_seagrass 6y ago
If you were to end the republic without the usual mass murder (nuclear war, pandemics, etc.) How would you do it? If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  It would be a big problem, but I don't think so. It wasn't in the realm of possibility on January 6, but for sake of argument.... Say the entire Sentate and House is wiped out somehow. They are not essential for day to day governance. State Governors would make emergency appointments to replace them as a first response. It would be hugely disruptive and chaotic, but I think the republic would survive. The republic is the states. The people in Washington are just the representatives.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    This could have led to Trump's appointment, depending on how the states were allocated votes (allocated by whom?) That would have been a very bad situation that I wouldn't want to see how it played out.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    They wouldn't wipe out the entire US House and Senate. They would wipe out only those who didn't agree to object to the certification of the Biden's election. They would eliminate Senators and Representatives until Trump was appointed. Now you have an illegitimate president. As you say, the republic is the states, and I don't see how e.g. the Republic of California continues in the Union at that point. > They are not essential for day to day governance. Remember that states are not allowed to print their own money as the federal government is. States are now spending vast amounts of money to combat Covid. The federal government is funding these efforts by literally printing dollar bills. If the federal government fails to prop up states, you're looking at states unable to fund hospitals, police, teachers, utilities, etc. If the entire House is eliminated, there's no one to vote on federal budgets, and governors cannot just appoint Representatives as they can Senators -- Representatives must be elected in a special election in their districts according to the constitution. Meaning money from the federal government would just dry up without the House. Obviously the framers never anticipated this edge case.
- paulddraper 6y ago
  A. If assassination is the method to institute change, SCOTUS would be target #1, due to succession rules. (Side note: Pelican Brief.) B. I'm not saying there wasn't any wacko who fantasized about overthrowing the the Government and throning an Emperor. But regime change through force is an impossible task. See: The last 50 years of American foreign policy.
  - true_religion 6y ago
    Regimes do change through force. See for example Ghana or Nigeria or Egypt. However, the impetus has to come from within the country or else the new regime will be seen as a puppet state and face challenges it is unable or unwilling to handle.
  - Nabati 6y ago
    > But regime change through force is an impossible task. Isn't that exactly how most coups are done? Take Iran in '79 as an example.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it? Nope, all of the states would appoint new representatives. There are processes for all of these scenarios. The senate and house are not necessary for the day to day operation if the republic. They aren’t even there all of the time. Killing a bunch of politicians is not a threat to the republic.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    This seems naive - if Senators were executed we would possibly be talking about a full blown transition to an authoritarian Trump regime. In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. The replacements would have no reason to believe that their lives wouldn't also be in danger if they didn't certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 elections. At that point Trump has effectively side stepped the Constitution and usurped power through violence - which is literally the end of the republic.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. But that’s not even close to what happened. The national guard doing nothing would require buy-in from the entire military chain of command, which has never been very supportive of Trump.
      - nemothekid 6y ago
        Nobody died, that's what happened. I'm simply answering your hypothetical if the Senators were actually killed. If the Sentors and/or the VP were taken as hostages, or worse killed, it would mean national guard was either complicit or incompetent. However, as we know, the Secret Service sadly had to act with deadly force and managed to secure the legislature.
awb 6y ago
I don't think we've ever seen terrorism condoned or encouraged by anyone as admired or as powerful as Trump in the history of the country, save the Civil War. It's not like these are some lunatics, they're obedient fans actively consuming what Trump is feeding them and violently acting on it. Does he have the right to stand in a public park and spout his threats and lies? Absolutely. Does he have the right to demand access to a private company platform to spout his threats and lies? No way. Idiots get kicked out of bars for far less every day.
- paulddraper 6y ago
  I think you're confused about the topic. It's about Parler and its hundreds of thousands of users being deplatformed from AWS, not Twitter banning Trump. AFAIK Trump doesn't even use Parler.
  - awb 6y ago
    Sorry, you're right I went on a bit of a tangent there. I guess the point I was making was that this violent language wouldn't be spreading on Parler if Trump hadn't have abused his Twitter account to drum up this kind of violent extremism with self-serving lies about a free and fair election. Those hundreds of thousands of users flocked to Parler as a result of Twitter cracking down on this same type of violent speech. So is it really a surprise that AWS cracked down on them too for the same reasons? And Google? And Apple? And Shopify? And others? If you're repeatedly running into bans and suspensions, it could be a multi-company conspiracy to silence you, or it could just be you. I guess that's the debate. The 1st amendment has limits like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or coordinating to murder the VP of the US. This isn't the same free speech debate as a professor refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns or someone publishing racist research or someone touting conspiracy theories or someone blowing off steam. This is about a small number of users using a platform to illegally threaten and coordinate violence on others in very explicit and direct terms and that platform standing by their right to do so. The only thing stopping them from following through is their low numbers. What do we want 2 years from now? Parler letting thousands of people threaten to murder Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Romney or every elected official that doesn't subscribe to their version of reality? No way. History tells us this doesn't end well. "Fall in line or we'll shun you" politics is abhorrent. "Fall in line or we'll harm you" politics is the absolute bottom of group behavior. We have laws against violent speech and conspiracy to commit murder for very valid reasons.
sanp 6y ago
Governments is several countries have been toppled with exactly this kind of violence.
- paulddraper 6y ago
  No. No country has fallen because a few thousand boomers with flags made it past police to the legislative chamber.
- FFRefresh 6y ago
  What governments are you referring to? Really interested in the comparison in terms of the 'violence' that you're referring to. Particularly around lethal violence (going to probably be easier for head-to-head comparison), and the use of guns to kill from the group protesting against the government.
legutierr 6y ago
What about a decapitation strike resulting in the deaths of competing constitutional officers by allies of the president with the intent of subverting the peaceful transfer of presidential power? Would that not qualify as a threat to the republic? In other words, what if the mob had gotten its hands on Pence, Pelosi, Grassley, or others? Don't you think that would have been a bigger deal than what transpired with Snowden? Incidentally, there are reports that a number of Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the president on Wednesday because they feared for the safety of their families. It seems plausible that they might have been influenced by the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol. Legislators voting against their judgement because of extortion seems a significant threat to the democratic order.
- paulddraper 6y ago
  Multiple politicans have assassinated before, the Republic has carried on. If there were a lot at once...yeah that could be bad. But frankly there's just so little chance of that happening. If there was a chance in hell of that happening, Security Service/Capitol police would have actually done something about the protesters.
  - legutierr 6y ago
    You seem to place a lot of faith in an institution—the Capitol Police—that most would agree failed spectacularly on Wednesday. It was pure luck that the doors of the Senate were locked and barred just two minutes before the mob arrived. What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten there five minutes before they did, when the doors were still ajar? What do you think those men with flex cuffs were intending to do? It seems that one of them was a retired Air Force lt. colonel. What do you think his motivations were?

DonHopkins 6y ago

Orange.

throwaway201103 6y ago

Conducing a fradulent vote count to elect a president that the people didn't really want.

mopsi 6y ago

Having lived through the collapse of the USSR, the key events could be: 1. New leaders emerge. Industrialists, generals, university professors, even shipyard electricians. They obtain enormous influence through their personal charisma, leadership skills and the political platform they advocate for (think Martin Luther King). 2. Local municipal authorities stop recognizing the central government. They establish democratically-elected councils to temporarily run things in the power vacuum. 3. Security apparatus flips - police and military will stand by, do nothing and just wait to see how the situation develops. Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders. 4. Having lost all support and control, the central government collapses under its own weight. They may issue orders, but no-one's following them. 5. A grassroots, national assembly type institution with universal popular support emerges to prepare major legislative reforms such as a new constitution to formalize power transfer to new institutions (new government, new parliament). A referendum or general election seals the deal. In contrast, a bunch of rednecks breaking in for a few hours, taking selfies and stealing minor items is nowhere near this. They have no real leaders, no platform, no support.

TameAntelope 6y ago
I think this is a good response, but I do urge you to consider that there is not one specific form a failing Republic will take. Also, I would argue that many of these things did take place. America is fortunate there was a competence problem, but I identify many of the items you listed here as having transpired. A failed <thing> is still an attempted <thing>.
legutierr 6y ago
> Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders. Well, considering that this is how domestic police and national guard already operate in the US—with police operating under municipal authority, or under the authority of the local elected sheriff, and with national guard operating under the authority of each state governor—I don't think observing this would give you any indication that the republic is under threat. In fact, your points 1, 2 and 3 seem to describe the normal operation of American democracy for the past 200 years or so, with regards to most domestic affairs.