5 ms·

>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? I'm no historian, so w

>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? I'm no historian, so was there ever a time the killing was instigated by a sitting politician who then was not punished? (Yes, the Senate has yet to decide, but chances are they won't vote for removal or banning from office). Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy.

imgabe 6y ago
> Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy. I don't follow this logic. Assume for the sake of argument that politician A attempts to have politician B killed (also not a historian, but I feel there has to be at least one instance of this happening somewhere, at some point in US history). Based on this event, we now conclude that the entire democracy is fake? How? All of the votes for all other politicians are now invalid? The electoral process (largely out of the control of any single politician) just ... goes away? How do you figure? What's the cause and effect mechanism there?
- slg 6y ago
  Here are some questions based entirely on the procedural process of electing a president. We don't even have to get into any potential illegal actions by Trump. The vice president presides over the counting of electoral college votes. Tradition says this role is largely ceremonial. Trump disagrees. What would a conservative Supreme Court, with 3 justices appointed by Trump, say about this? What were to happen if the VP was murdered by a mob while the president is arguing in bad faith that he won the election and the VP is needed to certify the true winner? Can the president pro tempore take the place of the VP in counting votes? We would likely be back in the Supreme Court to decide. What if they say only the VP can serve this role? Would Trump and Congress be able to agree on a new VP? If no VP is in place, would the election end up in the House? Would they have time to vote before 1/20? Who would they vote for? If we don't have a clear president by 1/20, the line of succession passes to the speaker of the House. What happens if she was murdered too? Would the House vote on a new speaker quick enough or would the line of succession go to the 4th person, the president pro tempore of the Senate? Would this create perverse incentives for the the president pro tempore to reject EC votes if the Supreme Court decided in his favor several steps back in this hypothetical? There are obviously a lot of hypotheticals there, but what they are meant to show is there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong and for the next president to be in doubt. Do you see how this is bad for a healthy democracy? Would you be confident that Trump would sit idly by and wait for this situation to play out without putting his fingers on the scale, inciting more violence, or potentially something even more drastic?
ddxxdd 6y ago
The president's full speech before the protest is here: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27 https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-tr... Can you point to a place where he specifically encouraged trespassing or violence in a way that is more egregious than the ways in which various Congresspeople encouraged violence in Kenosha or Minneapolis?
- mplewis 6y ago
  You sure love to move the goalposts.
  - medntech 6y ago
    Can you explain your comment more? It isn't adding to the conversation.
- erklik 6y ago
  Disclaimer : I am not American, and could care less for your politics. > Can you point to a place where he specifically encouraged trespassing or violence in a way that is more egregious than the ways in which various Congresspeople encouraged violence in Kenosha or Minneapolis? This seems like a weird statement to me. Does it matter what other Congresspeople said or not said? I had a quick read of the speech you linked. Its clear that the whole speech is priming the crowd that their vote has been stolen, and that they need to go their and fight for their votes. > Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. > Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. > Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. > I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. This bit right here is clearly indicating that the people need to walk to the Capitol, to "confront" the egregious assault, to show strength, to "not going to be cheering so much for some of them". Granted yes, he also does state that they will be marching over "peacefully" and "patriotically" but spending paragraphs telling an audience that their votes are stolen, and they must fight those who stole their vote and then throwing in a few words about peacefully doesn't absolve you when that mob does basically what you said. Near the end : > And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. > So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give. Again, clearly indicating that they need to go to the Capitol, to "fight like hell" and ensure that Republicans vote in a certain way. I think anyone reading between the lines can clearly see how a group of people who believe this man quite a bit would get an indication that they need to walk to and into the Capitol.
j16sdiz 6y ago
My question is... where is the due process?
sebmellen 6y ago
With respect, it's clear you're no historian. Don't forget that Alexander Hamilton was fatally shot in a duel with then Vice President Aaron Burr in 1804 [0]. > Few affairs of honor actually resulted in deaths, and the nation was outraged by the killing of a man as eminent as Alexander Hamilton. Charged with murder, Burr, still vice president, returned to Washington, D.C., where he finished his term immune from prosecution. [0]: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slays-hamilton-in-duel https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slays-hamil...
- vharuck 6y ago
  From your source: >In the campaign, Burr’s character was savagely attacked by Hamilton and others, and after the election he resolved to restore his reputation by challenging Hamilton to a duel, or an “affair of honor,” as they were known. Emphasis mine. Burr killing Hamilton had no effect on the outcome of the election, which was already over and decided. Also, Hamilton agreed to the duel. Trump incited the mob to attack people he saw as opponents, which included Mike Pence. He spoke of saving the country from a rigged election, which heavily implies changing the results of the election. And I really doubt the politicians hiding in rooms behind armed security had agreed to dueling an angry mob.

imgabe 6y ago

> Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy. I don't follow this logic. Assume for the sake of argument that politician A attempts to have politician B killed (also not a historian, but I feel there has to be at least one instance of this happening somewhere, at some point in US history). Based on this event, we now conclude that the entire democracy is fake? How? All of the votes for all other politicians are now invalid? The electoral process (largely out of the control of any single politician) just ... goes away? How do you figure? What's the cause and effect mechanism there?

slg 6y ago
Here are some questions based entirely on the procedural process of electing a president. We don't even have to get into any potential illegal actions by Trump. The vice president presides over the counting of electoral college votes. Tradition says this role is largely ceremonial. Trump disagrees. What would a conservative Supreme Court, with 3 justices appointed by Trump, say about this? What were to happen if the VP was murdered by a mob while the president is arguing in bad faith that he won the election and the VP is needed to certify the true winner? Can the president pro tempore take the place of the VP in counting votes? We would likely be back in the Supreme Court to decide. What if they say only the VP can serve this role? Would Trump and Congress be able to agree on a new VP? If no VP is in place, would the election end up in the House? Would they have time to vote before 1/20? Who would they vote for? If we don't have a clear president by 1/20, the line of succession passes to the speaker of the House. What happens if she was murdered too? Would the House vote on a new speaker quick enough or would the line of succession go to the 4th person, the president pro tempore of the Senate? Would this create perverse incentives for the the president pro tempore to reject EC votes if the Supreme Court decided in his favor several steps back in this hypothetical? There are obviously a lot of hypotheticals there, but what they are meant to show is there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong and for the next president to be in doubt. Do you see how this is bad for a healthy democracy? Would you be confident that Trump would sit idly by and wait for this situation to play out without putting his fingers on the scale, inciting more violence, or potentially something even more drastic?

ddxxdd 6y ago

The president's full speech before the protest is here: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27 https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-tr... Can you point to a place where he specifically encouraged trespassing or violence in a way that is more egregious than the ways in which various Congresspeople encouraged violence in Kenosha or Minneapolis?

mplewis 6y ago
You sure love to move the goalposts.
- medntech 6y ago
  Can you explain your comment more? It isn't adding to the conversation.
erklik 6y ago
Disclaimer : I am not American, and could care less for your politics. > Can you point to a place where he specifically encouraged trespassing or violence in a way that is more egregious than the ways in which various Congresspeople encouraged violence in Kenosha or Minneapolis? This seems like a weird statement to me. Does it matter what other Congresspeople said or not said? I had a quick read of the speech you linked. Its clear that the whole speech is priming the crowd that their vote has been stolen, and that they need to go their and fight for their votes. > Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. > Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. > Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. > I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. This bit right here is clearly indicating that the people need to walk to the Capitol, to "confront" the egregious assault, to show strength, to "not going to be cheering so much for some of them". Granted yes, he also does state that they will be marching over "peacefully" and "patriotically" but spending paragraphs telling an audience that their votes are stolen, and they must fight those who stole their vote and then throwing in a few words about peacefully doesn't absolve you when that mob does basically what you said. Near the end : > And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. > So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give. Again, clearly indicating that they need to go to the Capitol, to "fight like hell" and ensure that Republicans vote in a certain way. I think anyone reading between the lines can clearly see how a group of people who believe this man quite a bit would get an indication that they need to walk to and into the Capitol.

j16sdiz 6y ago

My question is... where is the due process?

sebmellen 6y ago

With respect, it's clear you're no historian. Don't forget that Alexander Hamilton was fatally shot in a duel with then Vice President Aaron Burr in 1804 [0]. > Few affairs of honor actually resulted in deaths, and the nation was outraged by the killing of a man as eminent as Alexander Hamilton. Charged with murder, Burr, still vice president, returned to Washington, D.C., where he finished his term immune from prosecution. [0]: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slays-hamilton-in-duel https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slays-hamil...

vharuck 6y ago
From your source: >In the campaign, Burr’s character was savagely attacked by Hamilton and others, and after the election he resolved to restore his reputation by challenging Hamilton to a duel, or an “affair of honor,” as they were known. Emphasis mine. Burr killing Hamilton had no effect on the outcome of the election, which was already over and decided. Also, Hamilton agreed to the duel. Trump incited the mob to attack people he saw as opponents, which included Mike Pence. He spoke of saving the country from a rigged election, which heavily implies changing the results of the election. And I really doubt the politicians hiding in rooms behind armed security had agreed to dueling an angry mob.