Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7hr ago
If they don't shape up, the question is just how much abuse bright young cis heterosexual males (of left-discriminated-against racial or ethnic categories) are willing to take before they decide to organize for their own advantage,
So what if "bright young cis heterosexual males" do decide to start organizing for their own advantage? Just cut them off off all avenues of converting such organizing into advantage if you can. And if you can't, then just punish them for organizing in that manner. One can always adjust incentives away from an undesired outcome by shifting the cost/benefit analysis through imposition of costs. If the "abuse" left-discriminated-against-categories are taking is incentivizing them to pursue "organizing for advantage," then you need only provide an offsetting disincentive. People will take any amount of abuse if the consequences for not taking it are even worse. If the punishment for "bright young cis heterosexual males" organizing isn't discouraging them from doing so, then escalate it, harsher and harsher, until it does.
Why "shape up" when you can instead simply destroy the lives of anyone who tries to oppose you?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
14hr ago
Because wide latitude for states to prosecute presidential candidates is going to be extremely chaotic and destabilizing.
Only if both sides are allowed to use it. If it's restricted solely to the Left prosecuting right-wing candidates, then it would be stabilizing, because we'd get nice, stable single-party rule.
to acknowlege that state party operatives are going to abuse this newly validated tool in cynical and destructive ways.
I acknowledge that one side's operatives are going to abuse this newly validated tool in cynical and destructive ways, even as they successfully shut down any attempt by the other side to do the same. When the refs are all siding with one team, the outcome of the game is a foregone conclusion. Bambi Meets Godzilla can only have one outcome.
"Do I want a candidate/party/official I don't like or trust to have this power?" If the answer is "No," then I don't want it for my team, either.
Whereas other people, when they answer the question "no," see the way to deal with that is to make sure only their own side's candidate/party/official can use that power, while forbidding it to those they "don't like or trust". "Rules for thee, not for me," quod licet Jovi non licet bovi, nobles can do what is forbidden to peasants — this has, historically, been a common system. Look up the origins of the term "privilege."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
14hr ago
Defection against the common weal. One's fellow Americans.
Oh, "defection" in the prisoner's dilemma sense, not "defection" in the "Soviet defecting to America" sense. That makes a little more sense.
But I don't see it mattering all that much, except seeing conditions for the average person decline while elites remain insulated from it all. As other people have noted, one can live a fully "first world" lifestyle in even pretty terrible "third world" countries, provided you're rich enough — the latter gets you cheaper servants, even. So plenty of people at the top will see nothing change even while life continues to get even worse for the rest of us.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
14hr ago
There are plenty of red law enforcement under federal employ
None of whom answer (directly) to the Supreme Court. And most cops, regardless of political alignment, are likely to put keeping their jobs and pensions over their personal politics, and the latter means following orders from above. As one put it about why he'd go door-to-door confiscating guns if orders to do so came down "try telling your boss you're not going to do what he's directly told you to do, and see if you still have a job."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21hr ago
naked power was eventually discovered to come from the same place as every other power- growing out the barrel of a gun.
And as history shows, pure quantity of guns quite often matters less than the organization and coordination between those wielding them (see German Peasants' War). And we know which side has more organization, more coordination, more people willing and able to take orders, as opposed to the side of hyper-individualists who insist on going it alone, that they "take orders from nobody but Jesus," and make comments about how anyone who talks about "organizing" is an enemy to be shot on sight.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21hr ago
Nobody except Twitterati resistance libs takes this trial seriously.
Do you include former GOP state governors Asa Hutchinson and Larry Hogan (the latter running as the R candidate for Maryland's Senator) in the "Twitterati resistance lib" category?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21hr ago
except that I find right wing violence highly likely between now and November.
Which will be utterly disorganized and poorly-aimed, cracked down upon harshly, and only serve to further weaken the right and strengthen the left.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21hr ago
Trump will win elections from a jail cell.
Not if they Epstein him first — assuming it's even necessary, given his likely inability to overcome the "margin of fraud" after all the "Party of Law and Order" Republicans refuse to vote for "a convicted felon" just like they did with Stevens.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21hr ago
The state of New York has armed men in their employ, paid specifically to enforce such decisions. The Supreme Court has literally no actual enforcement power whatsoever beyond the willingness of government officials to willingly heed its rulings.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22hr ago
Venue shopping, high level personnel replacements, etc are games that two can play at.
I dispute this. When the opposing team is cheating, trying to "cheat back" does no good when the referees are on the opposing team's side.
And a nakedly political prosecution isn’t going to stop people from voting trump. The ‘but he’s a convicted felon’ brigade wasn’t going to vote for him anyways.
Again, Ted Stevens says otherwise. And even after Stevens's conviction was overturned on appeal, that just changed some people's views from "convicted felon corrupt politician" to "convicted felon corrupt politician who 'got off on a technicality.'"
(Indeed, that's how some people view the entire appeals process — "overturned on appeal" = "scumbag who got lawyers to get him off on a technicality," and if a person were really innocent, they'd never have been convicted in the first place. At least for some, it seems to come down to a mental model of systems accuracy wherein a system can only ever err "on one side" or "on the other" — that is, it either produces only false positives, or only false negatives, never both. And since guilty people obviously go free quite often — that whole "better ten guilty men go free" — thus our justice system is "too lax" — makes false negatives — and so cannot simultaneously be "too harsh" and convict innocents.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22hr ago
Are you Christian?
No, but most of the "normie Republicans" I know are (at least in a nominal "Christmas and Easter" sense). And I'm repeating the arguments some of them give (over and over) for why it's better for Republicans to "stick to our values" and keep losing than to "descend to our enemy's level" by retaliating tit-for-tat. They like to quote Mark 8:36 a lot.
I, personally, am one of those atheist right-wingers that Hlynka claimed doesn't exist.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22hr ago
even John Roberts won't let it go.
Even after Rep Raskin and the Justice Department force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves?
And besides, John Roberts can make his decision, and then let him try to enforce it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22hr ago
It would lay bare for the world to see the motive with zero excuse.
So what? What does it matter if people see "the motive with zero excuse"? Let them see, and get mad, and stew impotently in their anger, doing nothing about it because there's nothing they can do about it.
Get Trump to Florida and say Molon Labe
And when they do indeed "come and take him," drag him back to NY and lock him up?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22hr ago
small well coordinated groups can do a lot of damage
Define "small"
and there are quite a lot of those floating around the US
Not if you exclude the Fed honeytraps, there aren't. Small groups, yes, but meaningful coordination is something us Red Tribers are fundamentally, constitutionally incapable of. If a group is "well-coordinated," it can only be because someone on the Federal payroll is providing said coordination.
Everybody knows how terrorist cells work
Not my experience, given some of the myths I encounter people believing about Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
and America is full of cells
Only if you count a bunch of fat, out-of-shape beer-swilling losers who hang out occasionally as a "terror cell"
currently engaged in beer & fishing type activities
Because those are the only activities they're capable of, and always will be the only activities they ever engage in.
We're completely useless, powerless, and hopeless, and I've yet to see someone provide any believable evidence to the contrary.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
23hr ago
Cops stop enforcing the law, people stop joining the military, that sort of thing.
So you just replace them with people who will.
I'm reminded of when Curtis Yarvin was on the Good Ol' Boyz podcast some time ago, where he first claimed that he "loves the 'chuds'," but then went on to argue that those same Red Tribe chuds are "worse than Morlocks" because the Eloi at least needed the Morlocks to maintain the machinery that supported their comfortable lifestyles, while "you can be entirely replaced with immigrants and automation," and just who do you think he was talking about warehousing in the Matrix in his "Virtual Option"?
And if you stop working, people eventually stop paying you, and then how do you keep your family fed and a roof over their heads?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
23hr ago
Defection may be about to get a lot more popular.
Defection to where, exactly? And why would they want said "defector" anyway?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
23hr ago
certain infrastructure knowledge could cause massive amounts of deaths, infrastructure costs, and/or economic costs
All of which would turn everyone against them and bring further crackdowns upon the entire Red Tribe.
and it only takes a couple highly-reported bad actors for the processes to become Common Knowledge as something that can happen.
And all it takes is making sufficiently severe examples of those bad actors (and their family, friends, and general associates) to make it Common Knowledge as something not worth trying.
not everyone in that field is low-capability.
"Capability" is useless without coordination. The lone actor accomplishes nothing. Only large, well-coordinated groups can get anything done.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
23hr ago
Supremacy clause.
And who enforces that? Through what means?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
23hr ago
There's a scenario I've seen postulated elsewhere, that I'm not sure how plausible it is as a possibility (not enough of an expert on the legal system). Specifically, judges can issue suspended sentences, where a defendant is spared jail time subject to abiding by certain conditions set by the judge. These conditions can include refraining from behaviors, contacts, etc. associated with the crime in question — such as giving someone convicted of a drug crime a jail sentence suspended on the condition they go to rehab, stay clean, stay away from known dealers/drug houses, etc.
Given that the 34 charges for which Trump is being sentenced are related to political campaign finance, the proposed scenario is that Judge Merchan gives Trump serious jail time, but suspends it on the condition that Trump refrain from running or campaigning for political office. That is, give Trump the choice of dropping out and letting the Republican convention four days later name someone else their candidate, or going to jail (where he dies — depending on your views and flavor of the scenario, either from old age after how ever many years, or from getting Epsteined before election day).
Is there some rule about sentencing that prevents this?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
It's a bit of a mental splinter to me that the prosecution never had to really get its story straight, and that Chad and Lori have both been convicted, in part, on the theory that they masterminded the whole thing and the other party was merely a catspaw.
As I understand it, prosecutors are allowed to make inconsistent arguments so long as they're in separate cases — that they claimed "X" in one trial is no bar to claiming "not X" in another trial.
The theory behind broad presidential immunity is that without it any random prosecutor in the US could threaten the POTUS with prosecution after they leave office unless they do what the prosecutor wants.
Yes, and…? What's wrong with that? Particularly if you make sure only prosecutors on one side of the political divide are actually able to follow up on those threats (while the other team's guys get squashed for trying), then the establishment's hold on power gets even stronger, which is of course something the establishment would want.
Courts have given judges and prosecutors broad immunity already.
Courts give court officers broad immunity, huh? That doesn't necessarily mean they'd extend it to the other branches, does it?
There are a lot of broadly written laws that the government uses to go after people who are troublesome. They aren't applied broadly. You need to piss someone off and be enough of an outsider that they think it's safe to go after you.
Exactly. Not a bug, but a useful feature, so why get rid of it?
Politically motivated charges are a civil rights act violation so surely the appeals courts will dismiss them quickly.
As we've seen in other contexts, the Civil Rights Act often means only what the left establishment wants it to mean, and punishing "violations" mostly goes in one direction.
Correcting every error would get them salami sliced as Trump toadies. One broad ruling would prevent them from having to make dozens of smaller rulings.
Or they can cave — to save their own necks/reputation — make no immunity ruling at all.
Edit: Do you still think the court would rule in favor of broad immunity after Alito and Thomas recuse themselves?
Democrats are desperate that Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas recuse themselves from any cases involving January 6, seeing as they're both insurrectionist sympathizers. Rep. Jamie Raskin, who you think would have embarrassed himself enough on the January 6 select committee, has an op-ed in the New York Times Wednesday explaining that recusal is not a "friendly suggestion." He argues that the Department of Justice can force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves.
“This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.”
(More at link.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
if you have a link I'd appreciate it
Afraid not; it was years ago and over on Reddit (which I find terrible to try to search).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
Given how the elections here in Anchorage (~39% of the state's population) just went, how Blue this city has become, how Lisa Murkowski keeps getting reelected, our replacement for the late Don Young…
…well, I won't say it's by any means certain, it's far from impossible.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
The non-RINO Christian Right
A minority, and a shrinking demographic.
sneering subservient RINO elite wannabees
I also object strenuously to the use of the term "RINO" to characterize the GOP establishment. Because there's nothing "in name only" about them. Indeed, it's quite clear to me that — regardless of what GOP voters may want or think the party stands for — they are the Republican Party. Being a "RINO" "sellout" Outer Party fake-opposition is what the Republican Party is, what it has been for a long time. It's populist outsiders like Trump — and the sizable fraction of voters who support them — who are really Republicans "in name only."
it becomes clearer what lawlessness they will embrace to render him powerless, and how trivially they could trample over people like us who don't have a billion dollars and a TV show and buildings with our names on them.
Which is why we're going to lose. They can and will simply "trample over" all of us, and there's nothing we can do about it.
When the alternative is writing a blank cheque to godless, lawless evil
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
I've been told repeatedly that Christians are not promised worldly political victory, but that they will be handed over to be persecuted, that they will be killed, and that they will be hated by all (see Matthew 24:9). That the right must understand that, per Tolkien, history will only ever be "a long defeat" and that the only victory to be had is in the next life, by sticking to our values unwaveringly even unto torture and martyrdom; that one should indeed willingly embrace said martyrdom like so many saints of old.
Back at the old place, Hlynka argued that it was precisely this embrace of "principled defeat" in this life for the sake of the next that defines "right wing" and separates it from the left, and thus only those who believe in an afterlife can be on the right; and that, regardless of their political positions, atheists are all automatically "left wing" by definition.
And if they bring him down
There's no "if" about it.
the only ones left are sneering subservient RINO elite wannabees and a lawless brigade that makes its living destroying the lives and livelihoods of middle class Americans on principle... Well, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.
Yes, I agree with that. That is what's going to happen. It's inevitable, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.
Death is the only escape.
So what? It clearly benefits the people pushing it, and there's nobody remotely powerful enough to make them stop pushing it, so why should they stop?
Again, so what? This is a bad thing, sure, but it's an inevitable badness — there's nothing that can be done to stop it.
Because they know there's no possible consequences for said refusal, since there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop them.
Yes, nothing else will work… which means nothing will work because there is simply no way whatsoever to impose consequences on them. They're too powerful.
Except there is no means available, at all, to do any of those. It's never going to happen.
More options
Context Copy link