This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trump has been indicted (again), this time in Georgia, under RICO charges. The charges against him and a large number of co-conspirators relate to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Full indictment here.
We've seen a range of charges laid against Trump in varying jurisdictions, and I think it's fair to say the cases have varying strength. These new charges seem to me to be on the strong end of the spectrum.
Helpfully, the indictment is painfully clear at every point as to what particular acts constitute which particular crimes or elements of crimes. This makes it a lot easier to assess for an uneducated layman like me. On at least some of the charges, it would appear that he's deeply screwed. E.g. "Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer" seems to be open and shut, and carries a minimum 1 year sentence. He also has no capacity to pardon himself if he is elected President, as these are not federal charges.
As far as I can tell Trump's only hope to escape conviction here is jury nullification.
Are you joking or something? There's no way I'm reading a ~100 page indictment, but if that is your idea of a strong charge then the rest of it is probably not worth reading anyways.
Have you listened to the Raffensberger call? It's extremely clear (to me) that Trump is claiming that there are many fraudulent ballots in Georgia (he goes on and on about it, and why he thinks so) -- then asks the people on the call to try to locate some of them. It's right there in the first few minutes.
It may be less clear to you for whatever reasons, but surely this is at least a plausible interpretation of what Trump is trying to say -- and if this were the case, he is definitely not asking anyone to violate their oath. Finding such votes would be required by their oath, surely?
I'm aware that the media has widely reported that Trump was asking R. to fabricate some votes so he could win (probably significantly poisoning the jury pool in the process) but presumably the court will hear the actual call rather than reading Washington Post clippings -- and if you think this interpretation is open-shut I really don't know what to say.
Also included in your quote is the request made to David Ralston, speaker of the house, asking him to convene a special session of the house for the purpose of appointing fake electors.
What's illegal about asking the House to convene for that purpose? It's like saying we have proof Trump illegally ordered a Hawaiian pizza, we even have recordings of him requesting one. Ok -- but what about that is illegal?
Trump is charged under OCGA 16-4-7, which says
The felonious conduct he is accused of trying to solicit from Ralston is under OCGA 16-10-1, which says
The oath taken by Ralston includes swearing to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution of the United States requires that presidential electors are chosen by the manner directed by the state legislatures.
The elector-selection manner directed by the state legislature of Georgia is described in OCGA 21-2-499, which says
The elector appointment method advocated by Trump obviously does not accord with these requirements.
In conclusion, Trump asked Ralston to participate in appointing presidential electors in a manner contrary to Georgia law, which is contrary to the US Constitution, which is contrary to the oath of office Ralston took, therefore Trump is guilty of Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Officer.
He said it on the phone and everything, lock him up!
You're just criminalizing the First Amendment, obviously Trump has a right to ask officials to consider his schemes, this is a crazy reinterpretation of existing norms that would never be tolerated if the target wasn't Trump. Your argument is inherently contradictory, look:
So, if the Georgia state legislature changed the way presidential electors were chosen, what would be unconstitutional about that? What would he incorrect about Trump asking for such if Georgia had actually granted it?
You can Frankenstein together different parts of the law code to create whatever outcome you want, but the result is still a legal abomination. Trump asked for something we decided was illegal, therefore he cajoled officers into violating their oath of office, therefore, jail! If this really impresses you, if this really strikes you as a sound legal and moral argument, I don't know what to say man. This is a blueprint for destroying democracy, because anything could be defined as asking an official to violate their oath of office. Did you protest against the vaccine, when vaccines are in the public interest, and the public interest is in the oath of office? Did your remarks incite hatred by soliciting officials to [...]? You're crazy if you don't see the implication here, and you're sticking your head in the sand if your only counterargument is to cite more laws at me, as if the existence of a statute is evidence in favor of the validity of your interpretation of it.
Give state officials the power to jail federal politicians for making requests of other politicians, and you literally do not have a democracy. It's just rule by lawfare.
Process, my dude. The legislature of Georgia has every right to change their method for selecting electors. They just need to amend the law. And Trump would be entirely in his rights to ask them to do that.
Trump did not ask them to change the prescribed method for choosing electors. He asked them to violate it. The distinction matters. You're allowed to change the law but you're not allowed to break the law.
Which oath of office would that be?
Don't be obtuse, you know what my argument is and you have constructed a technicality that in no way addresses it. Who decides the difference between asking for the law to be broken and the law to be changed? You make it sound as though your problem isn't with anything Trump did, but if only he had worded his request slightly differently, everything would have been fine. Come on, charging Trump with "soliciting" officers to "violate their oaths" is crazy, and the fact that this impresses you makes me question your credibility. Do you really not see any problems with this line of argument? The oath of office is a formality that is never enforced, you aren't worried about any precedents here, any unintended consequences, at all? Not even a little bit?
The difference is very clear. There is a prescribed process for changing the law. You introduce a bill, it gets voted on, it gets signed, it becomes an act. You don't just appoint someone as an elector who has not met the legislated requirements, which is what Trump asked for.
I wouldn't describe it as "slightly" differently, the distinction is large and important in my eyes. It would not have been the same request. But yes, if he had done legal things instead of illegal things, he would indeed have been fine.
If enforcing the law on a criminal sets a precedent, it would be a good precedent to set.
Now, please answer my question. What oath of office includes "the public interest"? I looked and couldn't find one. I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link