4 ms·

Thanks for clarifying. I think your example is perfect: Your conspiracy theory is not based facts, law, or well-established interpretations of either and yet y

Thanks for clarifying. I think your example is perfect: Your conspiracy theory is not based facts, law, or well-established interpretations of either and yet you're fully bought in and sharing it. I see how that could be dangerous, but I think silencing you would be worse for you personally and society as a whole. Just don't threaten violence and we're good.

jariel 6y ago
Answer the question: 'Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed - or - if the results provided by the states were 'rejected' by a congressional vote. ? Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us. Also, irrespective of what the legal outcome might be, what would most US citizens actually believe? Would the losing faction have enough faith in the institutional decisions such that they do not revolt? After all, we just saw a fair election in which ~30% of the electorate 'do not believe' the results. You do see the 20 000 soldiers out there for inauguration? Why do you suppose they are there? Finally - here is some background material to help figure out who wins in the end [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed [...] Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us. Nancy Pelosi. Amendment XX: “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January [...] If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified." 3 USC § 19(a)(1): “If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.”
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    ^ Exactly. There are lots of unclear and open to interpretation areas of law but this isn't one of them. We have a well-established process with clear steps which apply in good times and bad times, whether any of the players like them at the moment or not. It's not tough but people have to discard their conspiracy theories in favor of facts, laws, and reason.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It's not tough but people have to discard their conspiracy theories in favor of facts, laws, and reason. OTOH, one should not ignore conspiracy theories if one is trying to explain the actions of Q cultists. Just because there is a clear reality doesn’t mean that every actor is motivated by that rather than a distorted, conspiracy-theory driven one on which fringe or outright untenable theories of law are among the basic operating premises.
      - caseysoftware 6y ago
        I'm thinking less about interpreting others' actions and motivations and more about understanding what is possible, what is likely, and what is real.
    - jariel 6y ago
      There is no 'conspiracy theory' in the clear and obvious observation of an insurrection on Capitol Hill wherein many attempted to thwart the Jan 6 validation of votes. Despite Dragon's decent response, it is far from clear what the outcome would be where the vote to have been stopped. It's also false to suggest that the laws are clear enough to disambiguate these situations. At very least, there would be a constitutional legal war the likes of which the country has never seen. But most importantly - the issue is one of populism: if 1/3 of the country does not believe the results of what was by all accounts an unambiguous outcome - and were capable of literally stopping the process - then it 'doesn't matter what the law is' because already the system will have gone beyond objective reality and due process. It's Game of Thrones then.
  - 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

Answer the question: 'Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed - or - if the results provided by the states were 'rejected' by a congressional vote. ? Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us. Also, irrespective of what the legal outcome might be, what would most US citizens actually believe? Would the losing faction have enough faith in the institutional decisions such that they do not revolt? After all, we just saw a fair election in which ~30% of the electorate 'do not believe' the results. You do see the 20 000 soldiers out there for inauguration? Why do you suppose they are there? Finally - here is some background material to help figure out who wins in the end [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed [...] Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us. Nancy Pelosi. Amendment XX: “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January [...] If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified." 3 USC § 19(a)(1): “If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.”
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  ^ Exactly. There are lots of unclear and open to interpretation areas of law but this isn't one of them. We have a well-established process with clear steps which apply in good times and bad times, whether any of the players like them at the moment or not. It's not tough but people have to discard their conspiracy theories in favor of facts, laws, and reason.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It's not tough but people have to discard their conspiracy theories in favor of facts, laws, and reason. OTOH, one should not ignore conspiracy theories if one is trying to explain the actions of Q cultists. Just because there is a clear reality doesn’t mean that every actor is motivated by that rather than a distorted, conspiracy-theory driven one on which fringe or outright untenable theories of law are among the basic operating premises.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      I'm thinking less about interpreting others' actions and motivations and more about understanding what is possible, what is likely, and what is real.
  - jariel 6y ago
    There is no 'conspiracy theory' in the clear and obvious observation of an insurrection on Capitol Hill wherein many attempted to thwart the Jan 6 validation of votes. Despite Dragon's decent response, it is far from clear what the outcome would be where the vote to have been stopped. It's also false to suggest that the laws are clear enough to disambiguate these situations. At very least, there would be a constitutional legal war the likes of which the country has never seen. But most importantly - the issue is one of populism: if 1/3 of the country does not believe the results of what was by all accounts an unambiguous outcome - and were capable of literally stopping the process - then it 'doesn't matter what the law is' because already the system will have gone beyond objective reality and due process. It's Game of Thrones then.
- 6y ago