Pelosi is worried Trump won't step down voluntarily if 2020 is a close race.

[Jub]

On the other hand - I am convinced that if we did not have the bill of rights we would have had a surveillance/police state long ago.

How is every nation without that exact document getting by then, or do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?

[houser2112]

On the other hand - I am convinced that if we did not have the bill of rights we would have had a surveillance/police state long ago.

How is every nation without that exact document getting by then, or do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?

I don't think she's saying that other nations need a Constitution like ours to prevent a police state, but that the US in particular would be a police state without it. I'm inclined to agree. Our government has a long history of trying to push the boundaries of privacy.

Some aspects of the UK I'd consider police state-ish, yes.

[Jub]

I don't think she's saying that other nations need a Constitution like ours to prevent a police state, but that the US in particular would be a police state without it. I'm inclined to agree. Our government has a long history of trying to push the boundaries of privacy.

Some aspects of the UK I'd consider police state-ish, yes.

You do realize that US intelligence agencies often still place themselves above the law when it comes to gathering data and wiretapping citizens? Do you really feel like the constitution has done very much to prevent that sort of thing?

I love how a few cameras in public places is seen as more invasive to Americans than their own citizens being wiretapped, no-knock warrants, stop and frisk, etc. Clearly, the constitution is doing its job...

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You do realize that US intelligence agencies often still place themselves above the law when it comes to gathering data and wiretapping citizens? Do you really feel like the constitution has done very much to prevent that sort of thing?

I love how a few cameras in public places is seen as more invasive to Americans than their own citizens being wiretapped, no-knock warrants, stop and frisk, etc. Clearly, the constitution is doing its job...

Given that the world has changed significantly in terms of technological context, it would probably be sad to say that things that would be considered a Police State to our ears would be the only way forward in the future. Especially since a NATO report/handbook (FM9) has details on Russian information warfare capabilities.

[houser2112]

I don't think she's saying that other nations need a Constitution like ours to prevent a police state, but that the US in particular would be a police state without it. I'm inclined to agree. Our government has a long history of trying to push the boundaries of privacy.

Some aspects of the UK I'd consider police state-ish, yes.

You do realize that US intelligence agencies often still place themselves above the law when it comes to gathering data and wiretapping citizens? Do you really feel like the constitution has done very much to prevent that sort of thing?

I love how a few cameras in public places is seen as more invasive to Americans than their own citizens being wiretapped, no-knock warrants, stop and frisk, etc. Clearly, the constitution is doing its job...

Taking your statement as given for the sake of argument, how does that invalidate what I said? If we lacked the Constitution, we'd have become a police state even earlier.

Regarding the UK, I made no comparison to the US. I was just citing the cameras as an example of a police state in response to your question "do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?"

[Jub]

Taking your statement as given for the sake of argument, how does that invalidate what I said? If we lacked the Constitution, we'd have become a police state even earlier.

I've shown where they've violated their own laws already. For example, I'm sure Rodney King and millions of other minority US citizens are and have been so glad to be equally protected under the law.

The burden of proof falls to you to show that the constitution has done jack shit to prevent further abuses of police power. So show me exactly which abuses of power have been prevented by your constitution?

Regarding the UK, I made no comparison to the US. I was just citing the cameras as an example of a police state in response to your question "do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?"

I don't consider public cameras to make a place into a police state so find a decent example or concede.

[Broomstick]

On the other hand - I am convinced that if we did not have the bill of rights we would have had a surveillance/police state long ago.

How is every nation without that exact document getting by then, or do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?

I don't think she's saying that other nations need a Constitution like ours to prevent a police state, but that the US in particular would be a police state without it. I'm inclined to agree. Our government has a long history of trying to push the boundaries of privacy.

What houser said.

[Broomstick]

You do realize that US intelligence agencies often still place themselves above the law when it comes to gathering data and wiretapping citizens?

Yes.

Do you really feel like the constitution has done very much to prevent that sort of thing?

Yes. Without it things would be even worse.

[Jub]

Yes. Without it things would be even worse.

In which specific ways?

[Broomstick]

Right now the authorities usually go to the trouble of getting things like search warrants, which means convincing a judge there is some reason to toss someone's home looking for shit and/or confiscating it. Without the 4th amendment they wouldn't even have that leash. Because, frankly, as bad as the Feds can be, and are, in many ways I fear the locals more. You'd have the cops doing regular fishing expeditions and/or using it as an intimidation tactic. As just one example.

The first keeps the place from turning into a theocracy, which some folks would openly like to have happen. Also allows for dissenting views without threat of legal penalty, which there certainly would be if that amendment didn't exist, for two more examples.

Sure, all of those get violated at times, but without there would be no bar for that sort of behavior. You want conduct to be perfect but it never will be because there are bad and rotten people in the world. It's not that the document makes the US wonderful, it keeps it from being worse. The remarkable thing is that it exists because by and large the Founding Fathers weren't nice people - smugglers and slavers, basically. There was a definite criminal element in the colonial era government.

[houser2112]

Taking your statement as given for the sake of argument, how does that invalidate what I said? If we lacked the Constitution, we'd have become a police state even earlier.

I've shown where they've violated their own laws already. For example, I'm sure Rodney King and millions of other minority US citizens are and have been so glad to be equally protected under the law.

The burden of proof falls to you to show that the constitution has done jack shit to prevent further abuses of police power. So show me exactly which abuses of power have been prevented by your constitution?

I'm not going to take the time to research all of the court cases with consitutional implications, but I'll give you probably the most commonly known: Miranda v. Arizona, the court case that brought us "You have the right to remain silent", which hinged on the Fifth Amendment.

Regarding the UK, I made no comparison to the US. I was just citing the cameras as an example of a police state in response to your question "do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?"

I don't consider public cameras to make a place into a police state so find a decent example or concede.

Cameras on every street corner is a very overt display of surveillance. So, because cameras are less sneaky than wiretaps, that makes them not contributing to a police state? I don't buy it.

[Batman]

At least everybody knows those cameras are there. Wiretaps? Not so much. And in public places you don't really have a right to privacy. You do in your own home.

[Solauren]

Personally, I'm in favor of cameras in public.

In addition to security, they can be used to do things like catch careless drivers (i.e photo radar), as well as help in legitimate police investigations.

However, survilliance in someone's home? Without a warrant, not at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally, I'm in favor of cameras in public.

In addition to security, they can be used to do things like catch careless drivers (i.e photo radar), as well as help in legitimate police investigations.

However, survilliance in someone's home? Without a warrant, not at all.

This, provided that public surveilance footage is publicly available under freedom of information, rather than the cops holding all the keys to the kingdom.

[Gandalf]

On the other hand - I am convinced that if we did not have the bill of rights we would have had a surveillance/police state long ago.

How is every nation without that exact document getting by then, or do you consider other nations like the UK to be a police state?

I've been ruminating on this for a bit. If you assume that the Constitution only exists to protect the rich mob who wrote it, it sort of makes sense. The Holy Constitution prevented people from stifling Jefferson's speech, religious beliefs, property rights, and so on. Not so much for the people he owned, or helped conquer.

It's like the rest of their capitalist system, where people are sold on the promise of its ideas, while in reality not seeing too much of its purported benefits.

[Solauren]

Personally, I'm in favor of cameras in public.

In addition to security, they can be used to do things like catch careless drivers (i.e photo radar), as well as help in legitimate police investigations.

However, survilliance in someone's home? Without a warrant, not at all.

This, provided that public surveilance footage is publicly available under freedom of information, rather than the cops holding all the keys to the kingdom.

Agreed, so long as they can lock down tape used in an investigation until after the fact.

[Aether]

Prove this. Cite actions and credible non-partisan sources that agree with you.

What would you consider a non-partisan source? But for a start:

-Ordering subordinates to ignore all Congressional subpoenas, blocking Congress's lawful role as a coequal branch of government charged by the Constitution with exercising oversight on the Executive.

-Declaring a state of emergency to do an end run around Congress's Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

<snip>

Ok, now finish this.

All I see are offenses of a coward building up evidence for (hopefully) impeachment. Too bad I am not well versed in Watergate, because I do not believe there is a great difference between the obstruction, obfuscation, and lies between the Nixon Administration and Trump's Administration. It didn't happen then, so what makes it so damn sure now?

As Jub has stated, link some sources that opine on Trump and a "substancial" voting block desire to march down the path of claiming power and installing a dictatorship. If it is just about Trump thinking privately then .

As an aside, is this not the very reason we have the Second Amendment? If people *truly* believe Trump and allies are seeking to install a dictatorship then is it not time to pick up arms against that very same government?

[The Romulan Republic]

Prove this. Cite actions and credible non-partisan sources that agree with you.

What would you consider a non-partisan source? But for a start:

-Ordering subordinates to ignore all Congressional subpoenas, blocking Congress's lawful role as a coequal branch of government charged by the Constitution with exercising oversight on the Executive.

-Declaring a state of emergency to do an end run around Congress's Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

<snip>

Ok, now finish this.

All I see are offenses of a coward building up evidence for (hopefully) impeachment. Too bad I am not well versed in Watergate, because I do not believe there is a great difference between the obstruction, obfuscation, and lies between the Nixon Administration and Trump's Administration. It didn't happen then, so what makes it so damn sure now?

What's happening now is if anything worse and more clear-cut than Watergate. More action isn't being taken because Trump is very good at manipulating public opinion, he has a loyal toady in William Barr, the Senate Republicans are pretty much lock-step behind him, and a certain number of Centrist Democrats, including the Speaker, seem obsessed with the (ill-supported) idea that any impeachment without bipartisan support will inevitably lead to election defeat.

As Jub has stated, link some sources that opine on Trump and a "substancial" voting block desire to march down the path of claiming power and installing a dictatorship. If it is just about Trump thinking privately then .

He doesn't just think it privately, you dip shit- he has publicly opined that his term limits should be extended because two years of his Presidency were "stolen" from him by investigation. Polling has also shown half of Republicans are on board with postponing the 2020 elections.

And he just gave William Barr sweeping powers to declassify anything he wants (in other words, selectively declassify things that can be spun out of context to make the Democrats and FBI look guilty) as part of his investigation into the investigation- of people like Mueller and Comey who Trump has outright accused of "treason" (a death penalty charge) for... doing their job and investigating him. In short, he has redefined loyalty to the country as loyalty to him personally, and trying to hold him accountable as an act of war against America.

How much more do you actually need? Will nothing short of him actually declaring himself President for life and outlawing the Democratic Party suffice, or will you still ask for "proof" even then?

As an aside, is this not the very reason we have the Second Amendment? If people *truly* believe Trump and allies are seeking to install a dictatorship then is it not time to pick up arms against that very same government?

Not yet, because the alternatives to a second civil war that would probably kill millions have not yet been entirely exhausted.

But this is telling about the thinking of 2nd. Amendment advocates in general- they will excuse or downplay any violation of freedom, as long as they have the 2nd. Amendment. You are willing to sacrifice all safeguards but the most extreme, as long as you comfort yourself that a rag tag militia can totally beat the US military if push comes to shove.

What is your point here? "If you're not willing to start the Second Civil War, you must be lying and Trump must be innocent?"

[Broomstick]

Prove this. Cite actions and credible non-partisan sources that agree with you.

What would you consider a non-partisan source? But for a start:

-Ordering subordinates to ignore all Congressional subpoenas, blocking Congress's lawful role as a coequal branch of government charged by the Constitution with exercising oversight on the Executive.

-Declaring a state of emergency to do an end run around Congress's Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

<snip>

Ok, now finish this.

All I see are offenses of a coward building up evidence for (hopefully) impeachment. Too bad I am not well versed in Watergate, because I do not believe there is a great difference between the obstruction, obfuscation, and lies between the Nixon Administration and Trump's Administration. It didn't happen then, so what makes it so damn sure now?

A key difference (so far) is that Nixon resigned before he was impeached, specifically to avoid impeachment. I have a LOT of trouble imagining Trump resigning.

For all of Nixon's flaws there was a certain inner core of actually giving a damn about the country and the people in it. Nixon seems to have justified, in his own mind, that his resignation was for the best interests of the nation as opposed to an impeachment that most likely would have removed a sitting president (the US has impeached presidents before, but never removed one because of impeachment). There's a lot to argue there, about whether or not the impending impeachment would have succeeded or have that result, but on a certain level Nixon's resignation was seen as a selfless (as well as selfish get-out-of-consequences) act.

Trump doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself. He is never going to resign, because that would mean, on a certain level, admitting he's wrong and in his mind he's never, ever wrong - you're wrong, they're wrong, the facts are wrong, physics is wrong, math is wrong, but TRUMP is never wrong.

That is just for starters. Since the Nixon administration was well documented feel free to avail yourself of on-line resources about it, including the Watergate scandal. Wikipedia is a good starting summary for both Nixon and Watergate.

[Gandalf]

As something of an idle thought; Nixon with Twitter would have been neat to see. I wonder how Kissinger would manage that part of him?

[Broomstick]

Unlike some people, Nixon had self-control. That's why he was never caught swearing on TV or the radio, even if in private (and his tape collection) he reportedly had a very foul mouth.

Nixon would have handled Twitter just fine.

[Gandalf]

He also got drunk, called the Pentagon, and tried to order nuclear strikes against the DPRK. Thankfully Kissinger interceded on the side of sanity.

So his self control is... arguable.

[Broomstick]

The thing is, I can imagine Trump doing exactly the same thing... except we have no Kissinger this time around.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, except Trump wouldn't need the alcohol (he's actually a notorious non-drinker- almost his only virtue).

We did have people in high places who could act as a check (there's a widely-reported story of Trump announcing plans to strike Syria/assassinate Assad, and then as soon as he was out of the room Mattis basically saying "We're not doing that").

Unfortunately, a lot of the saner people in the administration have now been purged (Mattis among them, who resigned in protest of Trump's actions).

[Aether]

Blah blah blah, I am a whackaloon.

Ok, for the third time start posting links for us all to discuss that supports your mindless fear mongering that D.T. himself, a LOL "substancial" block of the electorate, and perhaps even the government will allow D.T. to retain the Presidency if he loses by a slim margin.

Else you are an arm flailing, fear mongering, nut job. I could care less of your beliefs and suspicions. Back it up or shut the fuck up.

See you in 2020, or worse case 2024 bro. I will mark this on my calendar.