Remember, this is actually a question of what to do about a coup d’etat. Undercutting basic democracy is not a question of law, but a question of who will use force how much force to address it.
Remember, this is actually a question of what to do about a coup d’etat. Undercutting basic democracy is not a question of law, but a question of who will use force how much force to address it.
If I were him, I’d make quiet preparations. Probably he has, because he’s had four years to do so. We know military leaders have discussed the issue, right? Which means POTUS has, too. But what actions taken, that we don’t know.
Thank you a lot for sharing this, because I didn’t know the history at all and this topic comes up south of the border as well. It’s good to have specific things to point to, success stories that we might be able to copy, if we could somehow get enough political willpower. Maybe one of these decades, up there or down here.
If she actually serves 9 years, that’s a massive sentence. If she lives to 77 and gets out, what in the heck will she do with the rest of her life? Getting out of prison after any long sentence is difficult, but I can’t even imagine how one would try to rebuild their life at that age after that many years behind bars.
States have their own murder statutes. Federal law would be irrelevant.
If it’s an official act, yes. It’s not hard to tell a story where it becomes an official act. I I think he could still be impeached FWIW.
Because of Trump’s unhinged tactics, we know that top military leaders and (presumably) TLA bigwigs have discussed what they would do in situations like this. What you’re describing is very close to a coup d’etat, and in a situation where they get ordered to perform such an action, do they do it? What was framed as a question of SCOTUS rulings becomes, in reality, the question, “Am I willing to throw this entire democracy away on this President’s absurd orders?” Every high-up in government knows this… They signed up to serve the people, not a dictator.
Of course we have no idea how each person would act, but my point is that pure legality is only one challenge Biden would have to overcome if he wanted to do such a (horrible) thing.
Your second question has a general answer. Most languages use tones, which means tones change in the course of a sentence. If the tone changes for all sentences, then it also changes for questions. I know that’s not what you were trying to ask, but that’s the answer to the question you did ask.
If you need a way to indicate that something is a question, you could do what English does… You could use question words at the beginning of the sentence. You could change word order. You could add extra words… Which is to say, you’re not dependent on intonation, though you could use it if you want to.
I understand that you want to think that, but all political reporting currently happening is based on the premise that you’re wrong.
Patriotism leads to xenophobia, in the medium run with a large population. Xenophobia leads to racism. That’s not the same thing as fascism, but fascists are happy enough to take advantage of it.
Many of us realized that the simplistic labels don’t apply. We have views on issues, some of those views are quite clear and others less so, but you can’t capture our positions in a few words.
Honestly, you just become more protective of your stuff and things you consider yours as you get older.
Isn’t that plainly false? When I was in college, and just after that, I had almost no money, so I was incredibly protective of my stuff and things I considered mine. Later my income went up, so I didn’t need to worry about it as much. Surely many other people have had similar experiences.
You’re bringing up a good point. People who say we’ll become more “conservative” are usually equivocating on the meaning of the word. It’s not like we’re going to wake up tomorrow and decide that global warming is a hoax, or that we should stop eating cats and dogs. Of course we’ll keep doing those things.
I think this is going to be great. Vance can’t control himself, and with no one fact checking him, he’s going to make up even more ridiculous s***. Just think of all the entertainment we got from the sofas and the cats and dogs. He’s just a walking meme machine.
(Yes, the cats and dogs story did lead to violent racist assholes trying to do bad things, but that was caused by Vance, not by us mocking him.)
I think other people covered the main points, but when I haven’t seen mentioned yet here is the fact that, for the news to catch your attention, it has to be something exceptional. That shouldn’t be true, but many publishers believe it. They compete to have what’s new or different or exciting.
I blame this mostly on the big media companies, and also partly on consumers who believe that consuming news is a passive activity when in reality it’s an active choice. They could go find online websites and create their own RSS feed, for example, and then they wouldn’t be stuck listening to drivel. But it does take some work and some awareness.
For example, and I don’t want to go into details about specific political parties, think about all of the polls about the election. Those are mostly meaningless. We’ll find out exactly what public opinion is on Election Day. It’s not that you couldn’t have a poll, but if you’re posting new polling data every day it’s because you’re desperate to cover up for the fact that you don’t have anything new to say.
To think they found a position that is morally reprehensible from every possible angle, under all interpretations, and also involves bodily fluids, that’s somehow amazing.
In other words, racism was so overt that you don’t even need to mention it.
There are simple and solid answers to this. First of all, dozens of other countries make it work. So there’s nothing magical that needs to be done. Second, the Bill of Rights is there to protect the minority from the majority. It’s also there to protect the people from the government, which is partly synonymous. Third, right now everyone in the minority in a winner-take-all state is being disenfranchised. My vote never mattered, not once in my entire life. I think that’s far more important than rural voters having cool voting power. At least they would still have some voting power, whereas I have none.
I probably wouldn’t describe them as flawed, because the goal wasn’t and couldn’t ever be perfection, so then everything is flawed, but then is it really a flaw? It sounds like more of an issue of what’s useful in what type of situation.
That means you’re not down with OOP.
Why wear a thong for your workout? … Err, what kind of training are you up to, anyway? :-o