[ExI] deplorables: was RE: Nobody can say we weren’t warned

Sun Oct 23 03:09:42 UTC 2016

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 6:24 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] deplorables: was RE: Nobody can say we weren’t warned

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 5:19 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

>>>… if Trump wins I'm not going to put the Mr. What is Aleppo crowd in my blameless book…

> >…I see.  Does it work the same if Clinton wins and it turns out badly?

>…No because if Clinton's presidency goes south that outcome was not obvious on November 8 2016…

Indeed?  To whom?  It has been obvious to me since 11 September 2012.  It has become steadily more obvious ever since.

>…Come on Spike, imagine what you's say if Romney had won in 2012 and Hillary issued the above proclamation

!...

Nothing.  Had Romney won, Clinton and Obama’s comments would be irrelevant.  They may organize a protest if they wish; I do not object to a protest.

>… And by "this" he meant reverse the election results of the previous day…

A march on Washington would not reverse any election results.

> >…Impeachment, if he does anything illegal. 

>…What good would that do? I can see Trump paraphrasing Stalin (or was it Andrew Jackson?) 

and saying "congress has made their decision, now let them enforce it"…

Andrew Jackson was not impeached, just slapped down.

Once he is impeached, a new president (the former VP) is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.  Then the military looks to him or her for orders.  If Trump is impeached and convicted, his orders cannot be legally carried out.  I would bet on the military not following him into a coup attempt.  We are too well-armed.

>… I keep telling you, the Constipation is a piece of paper not a law of physics, it only has power if people agree it has power…

People do.  Military officers swear to uphold the constitution.  I am betting that they will hold to their vows.  The military guys I have known personally are law and order types.  They take this oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

If a POTUS is impeached and convicted, his or her VP is immediately sworn in by the Chief Justice and becomes the new POTUS.  The vows taken by every military officer now bear true faith and allegiance to carry out the orders of the new POTUS.  The Constitution is more than a piece of paper; it’s the law.

>… and just a few days ago somebody who has one chance in 6 in being the top constitutional officer made it clear he sees no reason to obey the constitution…

He hasn’t taken the vow yet.  Al Gore had taken the vow when he contested the 2000 election, and was at that time the VP.  Even then, I don’t see in the constitution a word about the losing candidate respecting the outcome of the election.  Where is it?  I don’t fault Gore for protesting the election either.  That 2000 incident is why I go on and on about those voting machines.  If there is no way to recount the vote, those things are dangerous.  Think about it: what if we do come down to one state again (very plausible outcome) and there is a big discrepancy between the paper vote and the machine vote?  Then what?

> >…Trump would be waaaay easier to impeach than Clinton. 

>…If Clinton is impeached and convicted she will go because she respects the constitution…

Heh.  What about that part about upholding law?  How about putting all that sensitive information on an unsecured server?  Destroying evidence that had been subpoenaed?  I see no respect for law there.

>…but if Trump is impeached and convicted I don't think he's going anywhere…

He wouldn’t need to go anywhere to have his VP sworn in as the new POTUS.  He can’t maintain the office by refusing to vacate it.

>… just like what he wants to do with Hillary he will "lock up" anyone in congress who voted for his impeachment. Who's going to stop him?

He has to have a charge to have anyone locked up.  What he wants to do is irrelevant, and the current head of the FBI still has nearly 7 years left in his term.  At the advanced stage of senility indicated in her sworn testimony on 13 October 2016, it isn’t at all clear she will still be living when Director Comey is replaced in the fall of 2023.  I suspect he has her back until then.  Alzheimer’s (if that is what caused all those “does not recall” answers in that testimony) advances from that stage to death in about 2 to 5 years usually.

POTUS cannot wave a magic wand and create an instant dictatorship.  Were that possible, it would have been done a long time ago.  These two are not the first power-grabbers going for that office; the tradition goes way back.  Andrew Jackson comes to mind.  Roosevelt (both, particularly the second one) Nixon was one, both Truman and Kennedy committed American troops abroad without consent of congress.  The War Powers Act had to be written to prevent runaway power grabs by a POTUS declaring a war then assuming powers during wartime.  Our system really will prevent this.  It will work even better now that we are alert and watching for it.  I predict either of these front runners will be frustrated at all the things they cannot do as president.

>…It's not important what the Republicans think of Trump today, the important thing is what the army will think about Trump after 4 years of him promoting the people he likes.

I trust the military to uphold the constitution way more than I trust either of these front runners.  John do you personally know any military officers, present or retired?  You should talk to them, share your concerns.  You might worry a lot less if you listen to their take on it.  Military guys are law and order types.  They wouldn’t get very far if they were not.

>…Yep.  People say they want politicians to be straight shooters and tell it like it is, but they don't really want that at all…

I really want that.

>…Hillary told the truth…

Indeed?  I shall alert the media.  

John was she telling the truth when she testified last week she cannot recall, twenty times?  And we jump on Johnson for not recalling Aleppo once?  Do you agree she does not recall the material in her lectures on digital security to the State Department she made in 2011 but did recall details of the 123 Deal in the spring of 2013 after leaving office, but doesn’t recall how to reconcile her congressional testimony to her FBI testimony now?  Does that make sense to you?

>… (except she was being a bit kind when she said only half of Trump supporters were deplorable)

So I ask again, who goes in that basket?

Once we agree on who goes in that basket of deplorables, we can try to assess what percentage of people in that basket support which candidate.  

>…and the voters punished her for it. If telling the truth got votes then politicians would tell the truth, but it doesn't so they don't…

John that is a rather remarkable admission. 

> >…Who goes in that basket?

>…People who are fools and or sociopaths, aka Trump supporters.  John K Clark

OK then, fools and sociopaths go into the basket of deplorables.  These are not the criteria suggested by the originator of the term, but let us run with it.  Are you then making the case that all fools and sociopaths are Trump supporters?  All fools and sociopaths?  Are there no fools and sociopaths who support other candidates?  What percentage of fools and sociopaths support other candidates would you estimate?  Consider for instance those videos just released by James O’Keefe.  The guys organizing violence at Trump rallies, would those guys fall into the deplorable basket, being a fool and/or sociopath?  How about those carrying out the acts of violence?  Fools?  Sociopaths?  Deplorables?  Who do you suppose they support?

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161022/e49f42f3/attachment.html>