Tiber727
3mo ago
In all honesty, I'd say the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought. Revolution against the government/terrorism is murder, but justifiable against if the government in question is Hitler's Germany. During the civil rights era, sit ins were technically trespassing by refusing to leave. The Underground Railroad was abetting the escape of slaves. I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts are on those illegal activities.
The American Constitution was written by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules. The thing about standing in the town square waving a sign is that most of the time it doesn't work. I think that you know that, based on your comments about getting into politics or accepting that you've lost. So to what extent do you believe citizens are enabled to seek effective political change outside of an election cycle?
According to the latest political poll, 52% of the public disapprove of ICE, 39% approve, and 10% have no opinion. To what extent is the government obligated to respect the wishes of the people? Is there some level of unpopularity to which Trump should change course? Does a citizen have any recourse if he doesn't?
Tiber727
3mo ago
Nothing convoluted about it. It was a mob intent on reaching people whom they know they are not allowed to meet (thus the barricades). The police by virtue of their job have to speculate on bad outcomes because that's their job. A gallows had been put up by someone. A state rep and staff were right there. The shooter was pointing his gun at the wall directly in front of the window and it had been shouted out that a gun was drawn. If someone was willing to still try to get in I'd call it reasonable fear that someone is determined to do something at the cost of their life.
Do you think if a mob of lefties is breaking down a door to get to where they think Trump is, that the Secret Service is engaging in convoluted speculation about their motives? No, they're thinking "My job is to protect someone. They are close to someone I am trying to protect and behaving in an aggressive manner." The speculation that matters is they are willing to commit a crime (breaking down a barricade in a government building) in furtherance of another goal that involves getting close to a VIP.
Tiber727
3mo ago
As much as I dislike Trump, if Trump can make a deal that all parties are happy with to buy Greenland (including not bankrupting America) I'll give him credit.
But thus far I am not seeing any serious attempt to convince Denmark and Greenland to want to make that deal. From the Deal Maker in Chief I mostly hear complain, complain, insist that it's going to happen so they should just get with the program, complain, and make something that could vaguely be interpreted as a threat. I know he's serious about wanting it, but it would take a lot of effort for it to happen and I am seeing very little from Trump to explain his confidence. I know there's long odds that Trump will use force, but with Trump I can never rule anything out and I see more breadcrumbs of evidence that he might use force than I see evidence he's going to charm them into agreeing.
Tiber727
3mo ago
Babbitt was shot at 2:44 PM. At 2:42 some House members were walking through the tunnels. I couldn't find exactly how many people were not evacuated, but Markwayne Mullin saw the shot and says that there was still staff there.
Tiber727
3mo ago
In the Babbitt situation, the concern wasn't what she would do to the officer. The concern was what she and the other people who would likely follow her would do to the lawmakers they were getting close to.
Tiber727
3mo ago
I'd like rich people to give me all of their money, but obviously the people who would need to make that decision are not going to go for it. A one-off joke might be one thing, but it's a bit weird if I repeatedly talk about it like it's going to happen.
Tiber727
3mo ago
Let's say John frequently talks about murdering his wife in a way that suggests he's not going to do it, but he just keeps randomly bringing it back up. Steve asks him if he's actually going to do it and John says his policy is to never confirm or deny anything. Oh and just the other day John beat somebody up that he similarly talked about beating up, but nobody liked that guy (Venezuela).
Is the problem here:
A: Steve for taking John seriously and repeatedly asking him about it. Who would openly talk about murdering their wife? That's crazy. He should know that John is weird, and that he never denies anything.
B: John because talking about murdering your wife is deeply unsettling behavior even if you're not being serious, and there's evidence John does in fact do crazy and possibly illegal things. If asked if you're going to kill your wife, maybe saying that you never confirm or deny anything shouldn't be considered an acceptable answer.
Tiber727
3mo ago
I'm of the opinion that the best way to stop these sort of games is to do random audits and fine the companies violating it 10x the amount of money they saved.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I was going to reply to Soteriologian with somewhat similar. The right phrases it to sometimes sound like a white man will never be hired again. The left will claim this is all made up and point to some really specific stats like programming being overwhelmingly men (women don't even try to go into programming at nearly the same levels) or X% of a field is still white men (even though many got the job before DEI initiatives ramped up). But there definitely is a finger on the scales towards non white man. Success is a spectrum, not a binary. The geniuses of any generation can succeed against a headwind. But for those who are around average talent to somewhat above average, having the resources to get off the ground can be huge. Hollow Knight was made by a handful of people, but in order to do that they need a stable job with time to spare to work on personal projects.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I can't say I agree with your specific interpretation of Trump regarding China. Trump has been pretty insistent that having a trade deficit is bad and wanting to use tariffs as a way to bring manufacturing back. He's been pretty aggressive in trying to tariff China until China flexes that they have similar leverage on us.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I've heard the mockery about wearing shoes inside a few times now, but I don't get it. About the only time I really wear shoes inside is when I'm going in and out repeatedly. It's not really something Americans do all the time, and it's not like we stomp through mud and dog shit and then think it's perfectly fine to wear them inside.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I'd argue that China wins first by having a lot of resources, cheap labor, and a government that is, all commentary aside, stable. They were willing to accept large amounts of pollution to establish themselves. Western stockholders were happy to kill their golden goose to get their money this quarter.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Oh please. Russia has a long history of invading their neighbors under flimsy pretenses and taking effective control over the area for decades. They started on Ukraine in 2014 with Crimea, spent the entirety of 2014-2022 destabilizing the eastern region using plainclothed soldiers and separatist puppets, played "mediator" to try to force Ukraine to stop interfering with the separatists, and finally amped up to war when Ukraine didn't sit by and let the separatists break the agreements while they abide by them.
Trump had 4 years to take a shot at it as well. He sent some weapons, but otherwise was more interested in getting Ukraine to investigate Hunter.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Pretty much agreed. He always had the power to cancel executive orders, rhetoric aside. Canceling pardons is another matter.
Agreed that if someone used Biden's autopen without his knowledge or consent, that would be invalid. The issue is burden of proof. I would imagine that if Trump actually tried to challenge it, it would be assumed Biden signed it unless Trump has proof to the contrary. That strikes me as consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling of absolute immunity for core Presidential acts and privileged communications.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Yes, but that's still Trump's problem. Them not doing their job does not grant Trump authority to do it for them. Which is why a big part of every President's job is to get enough of Congress aligned with him, or vice versa. Trump is trying to skip that step and do everything through the executive, which results in a circus in the courts.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Literally every administration has to contend with the opposing party making it difficult to enact their agenda. Trump has been gifted with a majority of all three branches greater than most administrations ever get. And Republicans have opted for a line where, rather than the legislative branch approving things, the executive simply creates its own mandates while the legislative passively allows him to.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I would imagine on The Motte you could make an effort post about what people would consider a morally acceptable line for either starting revolution or committing political assassinations in a completely abstract sense. Though that does invite people to come up with "hypothetical" scenarios that are thinly-veiled parallels to actual American events.
I am pretty confident you could come up with an explanation which is consistent with non-criminal intent.
There's a reason why criminal prosecutions use the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt." One can always create an explanation how the murder weapon ended up in their possession if they're motivated enough. The stories just end up more and more absurd.
I think they should not be prosecuted unless there is a strong bi-partisan consensus in favor of doing so. Yes, this means that some presidents will get away with wrongdoing. But I think the alternative is worse.
I don't. I don't entirely trust my own party to convict one of their own, and I don't trust the opposing at all. And I think the feeling is mutual. Hell, McConnell hates Trump's guts and reportedly wanted to impeach Trump over J6, but argued that the courts were the right venue since he was leaving office. Why? Because reportedly he thought he could have his cake and eat it too by getting Democrats to punish him and say he had nothing to do with it.
I'd rather live in a world where politicians fear the consequences of their actions than one they don't, even if that power is sometimes misused.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I think you're right that a partisan would not accept the opposing side's arguments. I mean, my strongest argument was that they found literal rooms full of boxes that seemed to have been actively moved around after spending a year and a half getting the run around. Hell, I didn't even mention the audio recording of him showing classified docs and saying he didn't declassify them because the last time I brought it up The Motte said it was just him trying to impress people by claiming to show them "classified docs."
But then we end up in an impasse anyway. Say you genuinely believe the opposing President committed a massive crime. Are you actually going to sit on your hands and do nothing because the opposing party will call it lawfare? That to me sounds like just another way for democracy to die.
Tiber727
4mo ago
As far as I can find, he largely didn't respond for most of 2021. This is the most detailed that I can find covering 2021 (section IV). All I can find of his response was a claim in September that all he had was 12 boxes of news clippings.
After the raid, he claims that during that time:
"I had boxes. I want[ed] to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out. I don't want to hand that over to NARA yet. And I was very busy as you've sort of seen,"
Tiber727
4mo ago
Sure, but extrapolating from that line of reasoning these alleged events wouldn't make sense.
January 17, 2022: Trump turns over 15 boxes to the National Archives. According to the indictment, Nauta and another Trump employee load them into Nauta’s car and take them to a commercial truck for delivery to the agency.
Feb. 10, 2022: Trump’s Save America PAC releases a statement insisting the return of the documents had been “routine” and “no big deal.” Trump insists the “papers were given easily and without conflict and on a very friendly basis,” and adds, “It was a great honor to work with” the National Archives “to help formally preserve the Trump Legacy.”
May 23, 2022: Trump’s lawyers advise him to comply with the subpoena, but Trump balks, telling them, “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes.” Prosecutors, citing notes from one of the lawyers, say Trump wondered aloud about dodging the subpoena, asking his counsel, “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” and ”isn’t it better if there are no documents?”
June 2, 2022: One of Trump’s lawyers returns to Mar-a-Lago to search boxes in the storage room and finds 38 additional classified documents — five documents marked confidential, 16 marked secret and 17 marked top secret. After the search, prosecutors say, Trump asks: “Did you find anything? ... Is it bad? Good?” and makes a plucking motion that the lawyer takes to mean that he should take out anything “really bad” before turning over the papers. ...Prior to the search, prosecutors say, Trump had Nauta move 64 boxes from the storage room to his residence. Of those, 30 were moved back to the storage room, leaving 34 boxes in Trump’s residence and out of the lawyer’s sight.
June 8, 2023: A grand jury in Miami indicts Trump and Nauta. Trump announces the indictment on his Truth Social platform, calling it “a DARK DAY for the United States of America.” In a video post, he says, “I’m innocent and we will prove that very, very soundly and hopefully very quickly.”
If we assume that Trump believed he had every right to own these documents, wouldn't he have responded to the May 6th 2021 request to turn over documents with, "Yes, I took the documents. No I don't need to return them because I declassified them and have every right to keep them." Trump is generally pretty fucking brazen when he thinks he's in the right.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Their claim was that while they were handling the documents they added the papers since there were several boxes haphazardly organized and they wanted a cover letter to keep track of which documents went together, and if you were doing that you'd need to mark them confidential. Then they forgot to remove them when taking pictures. That first sentence seems sensible to me as something you would need to do. The second yes I get is extremely suspicious.
Because quite frankly we have the timeline of events and it involves a year and a half of trying to get Trump to turn over everything. Unless the media and government are making up literally everything, if even half of what was claimed is true it would be plenty to damn anyone else. You can speculate all you want that they would have tried to prosecute Trump if he had cooperated, and hypotheticals are unfalsifiable so I could never disprove that. But the thing is, I don't have to. There are so many things stacked against Trump regarding this issue that even if it were 100% true that Smith staged a falsified photo op intentionally my conclusion would be that Smith is corrupt and did something completely pointless because Trump blatantly tried to hide classified docs. The only facts required to establish the latter is true are that he was asked to return the docs and that a year and a half later they were still finding boxes of documents that would be pretty damn hard to genuinely miss. And Trump's defense wasn't contesting that.
Tiber727
4mo ago
From the Clinton investigation:
Of course, that was Clinton, and I understand the assignment is that many here will say it's because she's a Democrat. Mike Pence cooperated with the search and no charges were brought. Here's a good read about some of the details of prosecution related to John Bolton, though I suppose it depends on if you're willing to believe it.
Looking back, it might be less a gentleman's agreement and more that prosecutors have typically been relying on proving intent. And if you can prove that you've given them several warnings and chances that would clear that bar.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I don't know if this is true or not, but, assuming it's true, and assuming that there was a desire to pursue a lawfare attack against him, he could have been charged for what took place between January 20 and May 5. Agreed?
I did cite my source, and the government thought they had enough of a case that they brought it to court. Though that saga ended because they waited long enough that Judge Cannon arguably dragged the case until right before the election then tossed it under questionable circumstances.
He technically could have been charged for what took place before May 5th. On that I am agreed. However, I argue that there is in fact a gentleman's agreement for high ranking government officials to not prosecute over classified materials. And that gentleman's agreement is that if they tell you to return classified documents and you do, then nothing happens to you. My argument is that unlike Hillary or Biden, Trump tried to fuck with them when they tried to retrieve the documents. My argument is that the classified documents case wasn't lawfare because it wasn't primarily about hating Trump because he makes Democrats mad, it was Trump violating the gentleman's agreement and finding out what happens when you fuck around with three-letter agencies for a year and a half.
I would say that the entirety of America's history has operated on this principle, and it has endured. It came close to failing during the civil war, but Motte pessimism aside, I don't think we're near that level yet. I would argue that the Civil Rights protests is an example of people manipulating the levers of public opinion through civil disruption and some intentional lawbreaking, and not it only did it not tear society apart, it was a pretty significant success.
I would say that your view inherently holds that the state is just, and by just I mean that your highest ideal is order. This represents an inherent trust in authority, which let's say a Russian wouldn't share. America is inherently founded on a certain distrust in authority.
I also have a question about "matters over their pay grade." Right now the scientific consensus is that gender affirmation is good and life saving. Now the general view of the Motte, and one I to some degree with, is that the doctors are ideologically captured. But some places have gone to the level that not affirming your child is legally considered child abuse. So whose pay grade is it to make these decisions? The doctors? The legislators? The parents? And to what degree does the parent have the right to not comply if they believe this is unjust?
More options
Context Copy link