Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's sort of the rub, though. Most people who could indict a candidate have a vested interest in preventing that from happening.

No they really dont.  This is like those "oh but the scientists make so much money off global warming" theories.  It's the chance to be the next woodward and bernstein but in the public spotlight...  Who doesn't want to go down in history as a hero?

You wouldn't be a hero. If the evidence was irrefutable you'd start a civil conflict and probably end up in jail yourself. If it was anything less but something you'd have to gouge out your eyes to ignore, then you'd lose your career.

Do you seriously believe that arresting one of the two realistic candidates for the Presidency, in any election, would not result in strife? Their serious supporters would lose their fucking minds and call it the betrayal of the democratic process. I thought you were supposed to be the realpolitik guy here, not me. What bizzaro world did I just step into?

[misko27]

That's sort of the rub, though. Most people who could indict a candidate have a vested interest in preventing that from happening.

No they really dont.  This is like those "oh but the scientists make so much money off global warming" theories.  It's the chance to be the next woodward and bernstein but in the public spotlight...  Who doesn't want to go down in history as a hero?

You wouldn't be a hero. If the evidence was irrefutable you'd start a civil conflict and probably end up in jail yourself. If it was anything less but something you'd have to gouge out your eyes to ignore, then you'd lose your career.

Do you seriously believe that arresting one of the two realistic candidates for the Presidency, in any election, would not result in strife? Their serious supporters would lose their fucking minds and call it the betrayal of the democratic process. I thought you were supposed to be the realpolitik guy here, not me. What bizzaro world did I just step into?

The same world where candidates regularly lose elections for these sort of things, like former Gov. of Virginia Bob McDonell, man of infamous name Anthony Weiner.

Being indicted. alone,  of course, is not enough to lose you the election. Menendez and former governor Rick Perry have demonstrated that being indicted does not necessarily mean you drop everything and leave. Being found guilty, though, is far away and enough for most voters and politicians to call for you to drop out or resign; voters because it's disgusting, politicians from the other party because they are from the other party, and politicians from your party because you make them look bad.

[Baffler]

That's sort of the rub, though. Most people who could indict a candidate have a vested interest in preventing that from happening.

No they really dont.  This is like those "oh but the scientists make so much money off global warming" theories.  It's the chance to be the next woodward and bernstein but in the public spotlight...  Who doesn't want to go down in history as a hero?

You wouldn't be a hero. If the evidence was irrefutable you'd start a civil conflict and probably end up in jail yourself. If it was anything less but something you'd have to gouge out your eyes to ignore, then you'd lose your career.

Do you seriously believe that arresting one of the two realistic candidates for the Presidency, in any election, would not result in strife? Their serious supporters would lose their fucking minds and call it the betrayal of the democratic process. I thought you were supposed to be the realpolitik guy here, not me. What bizzaro world did I just step into?

Nixon got away with literal treason because of this, and the (now indisputable) fact that he sabotaged the peace talks in Vietnam became a 'conspiracy theory' for the next several decades.

[mainiac]

Do you seriously believe that arresting one of the two realistic candidates for the Presidency, in any election, would not result in strife? Their serious supporters would lose their fucking minds and call it the betrayal of the democratic process. I thought you were supposed to be the realpolitik guy here, not me. What bizzaro world did I just step into?

I dont believe that it would result in strife if real evidence was presented.  There would be decades of conspiracy theories for sure but not a civil war.  But the simple fact of the matter is that the democratic and republican party establishments aren't particularly interested in aiding and abetting crime.  Trump may somewhat screw with this because he's well... different.  But someone like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush?  Absolutely.

I dont think you mean realpolitik (which is cynicism applied to diplomacy).  But I tend to be the wet blanket because people love to say "OH MY GOD SUCH A BIG DEAL" and I like to rain on their parades when they do.

Trumped up charges of a felony against a major presidential candidate is usually a red flag that a democracy is swirling the drain.  But usually when a politician commits a felony and the evidence mounts up, their party isn't too interested in protecting a criminal.  Look at Dennis Hassert and John Edwards.

[Rolepgeek]

I'd really rather not have to crash course Japanese and move if American democracy dies.

That's part of why I hate people who falsely accuse people of serious crimes for personal gain at least as much as the people actually committing those crimes.

That said, there was a blog post I read (just so you can assign your own credibility rating) where it talked about the idea that the effect of scandals are the result of the politician's power/support and allies, rather than scandals diminishing their support and allies. Symptom, rather than a cause; enemies will make it out to be this huge deal that means they can't possibly run for office while allies and friends make it out to be a trifle that their opponents are being ridiculous over. Case in point they used, Clarence Thomson versus Bill Clinton. Or the email 'scandal' Hillary had, that nobody on the left who didn't already hate her seemed to care about(though I haven't paid too much attention on that end so I could be wrong, mainiac could probably correct me).

What do you guys think?

[SalmonGod]

A party may not be interested in protecting a criminal, but that doesn't change how this country is perceived as the type of authoritarian that punishes people for rocking the boat. 

I mean someone can film police murdering someone as they beg helplessly for their life, and authorities can then get away with openly retaliating against the person who did the filming.  A political party may not be the police, but when those issues blow up and politicians get involved, you'll often see mayors, congressmen, etc throwing their weight in behind the police in those cases.  It effects how the entire political and enforcement authority structure is perceived as a whole.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, even if you're right and they shouldn't be, anyone would be nervous about taking the lead on damaging the image of someone who is deeply embedded in the nation's authority structures.
I mean we have a guy on this very forum who has spoken candidly about how he successfully took on high level corruption and it ruined his career.

[Frumple]

... folks, the scenario being discussed was a candidate openly physically attacking another on live TV. More'n half of both parties would be calling for their arrest if something like that happened.

There wouldn't be some kind of singular person risking their career or whatev'. There'd be a campaign ending within 24 hours.

[SalmonGod]

Ah.  I thought it was the stupid Clinton e-mails stuff re-surfacing again.

[mainiac]

where it talked about the idea that the effect of scandals are the result of the politician's power/support and allies,

It's an idea.  It happens to be a very stupid idea.

What you are talking about is essentially a conspiracy theory.  It's not quite a conspiracy theory but it has the essential element.  A huge number of people would need to be keeping mum.

The Watergate hotel conspiracy had like under 20 people and it couldn't even stay under wraps for 4 years.  The typical domestic terrorist cell has someone turning states evidence around the time it hits 10 members.

The world just doesn't work this way...

[martinuzz]

A victory for democracy.

The voter ID law in NC was struck down by the the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals following a similar occurrence in WI yesterday.

I don't see the problem with having to show photo ID for voting. Over here in the Netherlands you have to bring your official passport / EU ID card. WHich has photo and fingerprint.

It's good for democracy to force the use of a document that's very hard to forge. It's bad for democracy if you can just come vote with a document without photo. Too easy to fraud.

[Lord Shonus]

A huge number of Americans, a large percentage of this group is low-income and/or minority) have no form of photo ID whatsoever. Nowhere in the US are you required to posess a photo ID in the first place. The only common form of such is a driver's license, which many inner-city people don't bother to get. You can also get a state ID if you choose to, this is only useful for purchasing age restricted products such as alcohol or tobacco, or entering age-restricted businesses such as a casino.

[SalmonGod]

Tens of thousands of people had the same level of classification access as Manning, but it took years for someone to reveal the blatant war crimes and lies to the public that he finally revealed.
NSA shit was going on forever before Snowden blew that open.
Remember the forum's initial response to ACTA?  The guy who first made a thread about it was openly mocked as a conspiracy theorist for a long time by other forum members.

I have a hard time swallowing the "conspiracies can't exist in the modern world" line.

[Teneb]

Conspiracies exist. It's just that most of the theories that go around are completely outlandish, and often involve aliens or new world order or whatever else.

[martinuzz]

A huge number of Americans, a large percentage of this group is low-income and/or minority) have no form of photo ID whatsoever. Nowhere in the US are you required to posess a photo ID in the first place. The only common form of such is a driver's license, which many inner-city people don't bother to get. You can also get a state ID if you choose to, this is only useful for purchasing age restricted products such as alcohol or tobacco, or entering age-restricted businesses such as a casino.

Oh okay, it makes sense in that case. We all have a mandatory passport / ID here.

[Flying Dice]

A victory for democracy.

The voter ID law in NC was struck down by the the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals following a similar occurrence in WI yesterday.

I don't see the problem with having to show photo ID for voting. Over here in the Netherlands you have to bring your official passport / EU ID card. WHich has photo and fingerprint.

It's good for democracy to force the use of a document that's very hard to forge. It's bad for democracy if you can just come vote with a document without photo. Too easy to fraud.

As Lord Shonus said, a substantial portion of our population has no photo ID, and they are disproportionately poor minorities. It's a blatant attempt at disenfranchisement, and as far as I'm aware there have been 31 recorded cases of voter fraud (in the form of one individual impersonating another--gerrymandering, disqualified ballots, and other forms of institutional fraud are another matter) in the past fifteen years in the U.S. despite that being the supposed impetus for these laws. The total potential count is less than five thousand votes nationwide through that entire time period, if one assumes that every single suspicious vote is fraud (rather than an error in documentation &c.)

It's no coincidence that they're enacted by strongly Republican assemblies, given that they directly target the Democratic base in major cities. No state flatly required a photo ID to vote prior to the early 2000s except for (IIRC) Texas. Two or three have required one since the late '70s if you voted in person. Almost all were passed in the aforementioned fifteen year period, during which the hypothetical maximum number of fraudulent votes is still more than an order of magnitude below the number of valid ballots discarded solely in the Florida districts which had recounts in the 2000 election. Just one more example of the shameless electioneering that the parties engage in basically without fear of reprisal.

e: ninja'd