Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[loomer]

I'm all for trying it, I just doubt that it would work on someone with decades of entrenched thought-patterns and a delusion that he is always right. If you can prove me wrong I'd be delighted.

I would be too, but I really don't know how we go about deradicalizing and deprogramming this set (other than my usual 'it's a generational issue' spiel, which it is, but, y'know, we have to survive long enough to work on that timescale).

Consequences. Our system is broken, we can agree with that. But we've also see, in horror, what happens if it fails completely with no good alternative being worked on. If people don't face consequences for further breaking the State in such a way as to flirt with fascism and loot the State, then the next set who may or may not be smarter, will have an easier job of it.

And these consequences should involve suffering?

Partially, it's for the same reason that the name of man who killed John Lennon is never mentioned. To deny him what he wanted most.

So, spite. Fair enough, I can get behind a good bit of spite - but there is a difference between the goal of denying him fame and wanting him to suffer.

Partially, it's to send a message.

For the term of his presidency, and for who knows how long before that, Trump has acted as if the law didn't apply to him.
That not only was he above it, that he in fact was the law.
He's encouraged some of the most vile behavour in people, and causes a resurgence in groups that promote that kind of behavior.

Trump acted in that way because it was true. In what way does desiring his suffering serve to address this issue?

This has caused alot of people to lose hope.

By holding him fully accountable for everything it's been proven he's done or encouraged, you may restore hope to those people. You begin the process of cleaning up Trumps garbage, and show that no one is above the law. That people can be held for their actions. That wealth and power are only a delay.

And restoring hope to the people requires suffering and a slow, miserable death?

Trump may not be the only symptom of the kind of corruption he represents, but someone of his stature, his profile, facing justice, that's a big step in starting on getting that corruption cleaned up.

So, his slow, miserable death in prison is justice? Can you define justice for me?

Trump is not my enemy. (Hell, I'm Canadian. Trump is a bad joke up here).
Trump is, however, someone that has negatively impacted people I know, people I care about, and indeed, the entire world.


He deserves punishment, and I think the world needs to see that his crap is not, will not, and should not be tolerated.

Trump is my enemy, and I'm not an American either. He has negatively impacted people I know too, and as you say, the entire world. That makes him my enemy. But it does not necessarily follow from that fact that he 'deserves punishment.' The urge to punish and the urge to see justice done are only compatible if we accept retribution as a legitimate goal of justice (and admittedly sometimes it can be - particularly in IHL matters - but even there it is a very bitter pill to swallow), and I remain unconvinced that the desire to see him suffer a slow, miserable death is anything other than the desire for raw vengeance.

And it needs to be done in such a way, that the people with the resources to try to do what Trump has done, at any level, stop and reconsider it, and hopefully decide to do something actually useful and productive for society and the world at large.

Will public safety, deterrence, or any improvements be immediately achieved by him facing justice? No.
But it's a damn good start.

As previously mentioned, it's very hard to actually create a deterrence effect when it comes to national leadership, and I'm confused now. You expressly name deterrence as a factor in the first part here, but then say that 'justice' - by which I assume you mean 'Trump dying in a place he hates after a long misery' - will not achieve it. Is it your intent to argue that vengeance in and of itself is a social good necessary to create the conditions for public safety/deterrence/'any [other] improvements'?

Because, once again - just to be crystal clear - it is the glee at the prospect of his prolonged suffering that I am questioning, not whether there is a legitimate case to imprison him on public safety/deterrence grounds. What does his suffering add to the deterrence or public safety grounds?

Indeed. Whether literally insane or not, Trump's election and especially his actions once in office and the fact that there were many americans who insisted he was actually doing a good job (not to mention the failed insurrection) shot any credibility America may have had left.

The staggering number of people who think the attack on the capitol was antifa is really cementing it, too. We've known for some time Americans were unmoored and utterly propagandized, but witnessing in real time an organic, self-generated 'we have always been at war with eastasia' moment unfold over just a few hours made the sheer extent to which it has been internalized undeniable.

[Solauren]

Trump being exposed as insane could be the start of recovering some of the credibility the United States lost. Follow that up with some political reform, (i.e qualifications needed to hold the office of the President including Mental Fitness check, Background check, full release of all tax returns, and having previously held an acceptable elected public office) might get them some credibility back.

Acceptable public offices would include 2 terms as a Congressmen, Senator, Governor. In other words, people have to have put them in office twice already. The acceptable public officers would also require the same qualifications.

[Ralin]

full release of all tax returns, and having previously held an acceptable elected public office) might get them some credibility back.

Acceptable public offices would include 2 terms as a Congressmen, Senator, Governor. In other words, people have to have put them in office twice already. The acceptable public officers would also require the same qualifications.

Why do you believe this is a good idea or consistent with democracy?

Mental Fitness check

By who? And why should this person be trusted to decide who is and isn't fit to hold elected office? According to what standard?

[Broomstick]

Trump being exposed as insane could be the start of recovering some of the credibility the United States lost. Follow that up with some political reform, (i.e qualifications needed to hold the office of the President including Mental Fitness check, Background check, full release of all tax returns, and having previously held an acceptable elected public office) might get them some credibility back.

Acceptable public offices would include 2 terms as a Congressmen, Senator, Governor. In other words, people have to have put them in office twice already. The acceptable public officers would also require the same qualifications.

Abraham Lincoln would have failed your list of requirements on more than one point (insufficient number of your qualifying terms in prior listed offices, mental illness). Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't have made that cut, either (again, not enough prior terms in listed offices - he was governor of New York only one term, and if you start making that sort of checklist some people will use physical disability to disqualify). There are probably others, those were just the first two that came to mind.

Slightly more qualifications than "over 35" might be a good idea, but you don't want to eliminate good candidates. Also, it might be time to revisit the "must be born a citizen" requirement - time, society, and circumstances have changed a lot since 1789.

[Lord Revan]

Trump being exposed as insane could be the start of recovering some of the credibility the United States lost. Follow that up with some political reform, (i.e qualifications needed to hold the office of the President including Mental Fitness check, Background check, full release of all tax returns, and having previously held an acceptable elected public office) might get them some credibility back.

Acceptable public offices would include 2 terms as a Congressmen, Senator, Governor. In other words, people have to have put them in office twice already. The acceptable public officers would also require the same qualifications.

Abraham Lincoln would have failed your list of requirements on more than one point (insufficient number of your qualifying terms in prior listed offices, mental illness). Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't have made that cut, either (again, not enough prior terms in listed offices - he was governor of New York only one term, and if you start making that sort of checklist some people will use physical disability to disqualify). There are probably others, those were just the first two that came to mind.

Slightly more qualifications than "over 35" might be a good idea, but you don't want to eliminate good candidates. Also, it might be time to revisit the "must be born a citizen" requirement - time, society, and circumstances have changed a lot since 1789.

There's also the matter that "mental illness" is a really broad category in and of itself, not mention rife for abuse, seeing as being LGBTQ+ was consider a mental illness here in Finland until 1981 (legally that is), also I don't think Trump has any diagnosed mental illness (being a selfish jerk isn't one after all), so he wouldn't be disqualified thru that. Also there's loads of different mental illnesses some which might be worked around by the president (say for example if the president had minor case of public anxiety, that's not likely cause them to start WW3).

Also there's matter that "must have certain number of terms" at certain public office (or heaven forbid all 3 mentioned) could easily be used to create a ruling class.

I'll refrain from commenting as to what I think would be of benefit as my knowledge of US politics is limited at best.

[loomer]

A quick test for capacity vs illness could be a feasible compromise - perhaps with yearly rechecks, though it creates the possibility of political abuse. As for the prospect of introducing a no-joke cursus honorum... Well, I think for that you'd want a system of government that was actually functional first, no? Ditto for adopting a French-style compromise. Now, the background check requirement is interesting - do we mean just a background check with the results being publicized, or for that background check to automatically disqualify if it finds any history of wrongdoing?

[Solauren]

Okay, 2 terms in office is not that hard a thing to achieve. However, expanding it to include state level elected positions might be a good idea, as well as military service. The point is to do something for the country, and being able to be evaluated how you held a public office, before being in the position to run for the highest office.

I don't care that previous presidents might not have qualified. The US, and the world, has changed radically since the days of FDR and Lincoln.

For the background check, I'd want the results publically released, but automatic disqualification occuring only for a few serious criminal issues. (i.e theft, murder, etc).
Outstanding warrants for serious crimes would be an automatic disqualification. (Then again, you'd have to be an idiot to want to run for public office when there was an outstanding warrant for your arrest for murder within that country).

As for mental fitness, I was thinking more from a medical point of view. I agree, that one could be very hard to clarify and enforce.

[loomer]

Introducing military service into the equation as a suitable elected office is both nonsensical and antidemocratic. No military office is elected in the US, at least as far as I know.

[Crazedwraith]

Plus pre-trump, there was a growing problem with career politicians. You couldn't tell by Trump of course but it could be considered good to have real world experience before going into politics. Rather than having your whole career be political in some nature.

This would prevent that, or at least enforce the trend for the highest offices being populated by the old and out of touch.

[loomer]

Introducing state positions also introduces the issue of comparable experience and different term lengths - in 12 states the proposed period of service would require only 4 years, while in 31 it would require 8. Two states would allow governors to qualify after 4 years, the rest would require 8.

[Vendetta]

Plus pre-trump, there was a growing problem with career politicians. You couldn't tell by Trump of course but it could be considered good to have real world experience before going into politics. Rather than having your whole career be political in some nature.

This would prevent that, or at least enforce the trend for the highest offices being populated by the old and out of touch.

Trouble is the sort of people you end up with then don't have "real world" experience. They are people like Trump. People who are rich enough to be able to afford entryism into politics.

[Crazedwraith]

Plus pre-trump, there was a growing problem with career politicians. You couldn't tell by Trump of course but it could be considered good to have real world experience before going into politics. Rather than having your whole career be political in some nature.

This would prevent that, or at least enforce the trend for the highest offices being populated by the old and out of touch.

Trouble is the sort of people you end up with then don't have "real world" experience. They are people like Trump. People who are rich enough to be able to afford entryism into politics.

Very true, one gets the impression the number 1 thing you could do to improve US politics is get that barrier to entry out there, so candidates don't have to either be independently rich or beholden to sponsors and lobbyists.

We're not perfect in the UK but we're a lot closer to that. The barrier to standing to the UK being a few signatures and £500 deposit. (Campaigning effective though is another matter)

[Rogue 9]

Trouble is the sort of people you end up with then don't have "real world" experience. They are people like Trump. People who are rich enough to be able to afford entryism into politics.

Very true, one gets the impression the number 1 thing you could do to improve US politics is get that barrier to entry out there, so candidates don't have to either be independently rich or beholden to sponsors and lobbyists.

We're not perfect in the UK but we're a lot closer to that. The barrier to standing to the UK being a few signatures and £500 deposit. (Campaigning effective though is another matter)

Any jackass can throw his hat in the ring in the United States too; campaigning effectively is almost the entire expense. There are scores of nonviable independent candidates that nobody's ever heard of running every election cycle; almost none of them manage to even get the petition signatures to be more than a write-in (and if nobody knows you're even on the write in list, good luck with that).

[Ralin]

As noted not so long ago, being in Congress does very little to prepare you for the presidency or show you have the skills to do be an effective president.

[Vendetta]

Plus pre-trump, there was a growing problem with career politicians. You couldn't tell by Trump of course but it could be considered good to have real world experience before going into politics. Rather than having your whole career be political in some nature.

This would prevent that, or at least enforce the trend for the highest offices being populated by the old and out of touch.

Trouble is the sort of people you end up with then don't have "real world" experience. They are people like Trump. People who are rich enough to be able to afford entryism into politics.

Very true, one gets the impression the number 1 thing you could do to improve US politics is get that barrier to entry out there, so candidates don't have to either be independently rich or beholden to sponsors and lobbyists.

We're not perfect in the UK but we're a lot closer to that. The barrier to standing to the UK being a few signatures and £500 deposit. (Campaigning effective though is another matter)

Not really. The social and educational background of people who actually get to be MPs is still wildly unrepresentative of the actual real world (gross overrepresentation of private schooling, oxbridge, etc. Those who come in from prior employment it's usually relatively well paying professions (finance etc.). Not from the actual labour force, manual or service. That's why we're being yanked around by people whose ancestors should have felt the edge of a guillotine.

[Broomstick]

Okay, 2 terms in office is not that hard a thing to achieve. However, expanding it to include state level elected positions might be a good idea, as well as military service. The point is to do something for the country, and being able to be evaluated how you held a public office, before being in the position to run for the highest office.

Oh, good lord - let's not make mandatory military service a thing, or even emphasize it as a qualification. Yes, the US has had some very good ex-military politicians. We've also had crummy ones. Then there are the ex-military involved in last week's coup attempt...

I would like to see SOME experience in a prior elected office, at some level. I think including state level offices is a good move.

I don't care that previous presidents might not have qualified. The US, and the world, has changed radically since the days of FDR and Lincoln.

Let's be honest - the world changed radically just between Lincoln and Roosevelt. With that in mind, let's not etch qualifications into stone. I expect the world will again be different in another 50-100 years.

[Broomstick]

On a slightly different note, this post is about Rosanne Boyland, who gained posthumous fame as the woman who showed up to a coup attempt with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag and wound up trampled to death.

Now that we've all stopped that nervous twittering over the irony there, let's look at the tragedy of a human death.

The New York Times has an article on her death, complete with video. If you haven't used up all your free articles for the month you should be able to read it.

The short version: she was caught in a minor crowd-crush.

We discussed such crowd crush disasters before, which can occur in isolation or as part of something like a fire, when everyone heads for the same exit at once. There is Hillsborough incident, Black Friday at Walmart, Accra Sports Stadium in Ghana, Heysel Stadium, The Station Nightclub fire, and on and on and on.

In the New York Times article they describe how the crowd started to use their own weight and momentum to try to break the police line. They deliberately used the crush/force of a crowd to break that line. There are widely circulated video and images of the policeman crushed against the door during this screaming in pain. Ms. Boyland wound up under that crowd and not just smashed against a wall or door. This is also consistent with smaller and lighter-weight people coming off worst in these situations.

Given the circumstances, we're probably damn lucky more people weren't killed during that rush and crush.

[Ralin]

Oh, good lord - let's not make mandatory military service a thing, or even emphasize it as a qualification. Yes, the US has had some very good ex-military politicians. We've also had crummy ones. Then there are the ex-military involved in last week's coup attempt...

Mandatory, no. But it fits the theme of public office/public service. One of those things was considered a de facto requirement for the presidency pre-Trump because every other president had at least one or the other. Until Trump proved that it wasn't a requirement.

[The Infidel]

Introducing military service into the equation as a suitable elected office is both nonsensical and antidemocratic. No military office is elected in the US, at least as far as I know.

I agree to that. It reminds me of Starship Troopers (mostly the Book), where you couldn't gain citizenship and vote unless you've done military service. It would be a quick way of militarizing the country even more.

[darkjedi521]

Here's a thought, if going for an experience qualification. Choose one of the following: The longer of 4 years or a full term in a elected state executive office, vice president, or cabinet member; the longer of 10 years or 2 full terms in a national or state legislature, the longer of 3 full terms, 8 years, or the term limit if less than 8 years or 3 terms as mayor/chief executive of a city with population greater than the least populated state, or retire from the military at an officer rank that is at least O6 or higher. Mayor of somewhere like NYC should count as much as governor of Alaska.

[Solauren]

To clarify - I would never want mandatory military service to be a qualification for a public office in the United States (except maybe the few cabinant positions that dealt with the military).

However, military service IS a form a public service, and a risky one a that, and should be acknowledged. (Especially given how crappy the US generally treats their veterans)

[loomer]

Except it's not an elected service, nor one that necessarily produces any relevant skills or opportunities to demonstrate how a person will lead a large civilian organization. Further, if we're opening it up to non-elected public servants, why don't we also open it up to senior unelected bureaucrats, and to keep it interesting, tenured academics at public universities?

[Solauren]

Because I don't think someone that served his country for say, 20+ years, risked injury (or was injured) in combat, etc, should be short changed in any way.

Yeah, it was not an elected job.

I suggested elected positions because they are ones that the public can review the record of. One you can go "Holy shit, this guy voted for this crazy stuff?"

You can't do that with most other jobs, (including unelected public servants), with the exception of a military career. (I'm not even sure you can do that with law enforcement).

[loomer]

So we can sum up your military exemption as basically just that the military - any military - deserve a shortcut into leadership, because they sacrificed and undertook dangerous service. You can't do full unclassified, public reviews of most military careers, so that claim falls short, which leaves only 'well, they fought for us' as a sound rationale.

You say that to deny them a shortcut into leadership is to 'shortchange' them. How would it do so? The basis for your reform is that a, you should have sound experience in government before being eligible for higher office, and b, that experience should be publicly reviewable. B falls short for military, and A does too - unless you restrict it to the senior NCOs and officer class, the mass leadership and governance experience the reforms are meant to guarantee will be lacking, and even if you do, that experience is not in governing a large civilian organization but military matters, which require a different skillset than, say, understanding legislation that is to be passed or setting diplomatic policy.

This being the case, in what way are they, in your basically meritocratic reform proposal, shortchanged if they are told 'we're sorry, but your skills don't transfer over in the same way that a senator's or governor's do'? They are simply treated as any other citizen whose skills are not immediately applicable to the question of executive authority and leadership. I can see no way that they are shortchanged unless we are embracing military exceptionalism as a fundamental principle of society.

[Lord Revan]

So we can sum up your military exemption as basically just that the military - any military - deserve a shortcut into leadership, because they sacrificed and undertook dangerous service. You can't do full unclassified, public reviews of most military careers, so that claim falls short, which leaves only 'well, they fought for us' as a sound rationale.

You say that to deny them a shortcut into leadership is to 'shortchange' them. How would it do so? The basis for your reform is that a, you should have sound experience in government before being eligible for higher office, and b, that experience should be publicly reviewable. B falls short for military, and A does too - unless you restrict it to the senior NCOs and officer class, the mass leadership and governance experience the reforms are meant to guarantee will be lacking, and even if you do, that experience is not in governing a large civilian organization but military matters, which require a different skillset than, say, understanding legislation that is to be passed or setting diplomatic policy.

This being the case, in what way are they, in your basically meritocratic reform proposal, shortchanged if they are told 'we're sorry, but your skills don't transfer over in the same way that a senator's or governor's do'? They are simply treated as any other citizen whose skills are not immediately applicable to the question of executive authority and leadership. I can see no way that they are shortchanged unless we are embracing military exceptionalism as a fundamental principle of society.

Yeah I'd say that at most the senior flag officers (aka generals and admirals) would any experience that could transfer over to politics. As inexperienced (and otherwise unqualified) Trump was I'd say he would (at least in theory) have more leadership experience that's transferable to politics then you average military officer or NCO would, since politics is all about deals and compromises something a business leader should known well.

On the other hand in all but the highest ranks military is all about obedience and strict hierarchy, you don't question your orders and don't try to make deals, yes technically you aren't suppose to obey illegal orders but I'm talking about the kind of experience a military leader would have.