What should they do, exactly? It's most likely first amendment protected speech to call for the overthrow of the government so long as it's not intended to incite imminent lawless action.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Is Nero fiddling while Rome burns?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9998
Lifer
Sure, there is a "clear and present danger" test. I think the point is arguable here because we've already had one violent insurrection based on the exact same lie that Flynn was telling right before he endorsed a violent coup.
I say put it in front of a judge and jury, and let them decide.
I hear that, although I think there’s a pretty significant downside risk if he’s acquitted.
Linux23
Lifer
because there are zero consequences.
There *is* the option with Flynn of calling him back to active service and trying him under the UCMJ. (Which retired service members are remain subject to.) I can understand why they wouldn't want to go that route and I don't actually expect it to happen. But for anyone seeking a nuclear option ... that's it.
To me this is the most viable and productive route. I really do think it is important for democrats to take this more seriously and send a strong message that this shit is not going to be tolerated. I think the odds of acquittal in first amendment grounds are high for Flynn as a civilian but I suspect there’s a lot they could do to ruin his day as a member of the military.
BoomerD
No Lifer
It will be fine in a couple of months. King Donnie the twice-impeached will be reinstated to the presidency...
www.businessinsider.com
Trump is telling people he thinks he'll be 'reinstated' as president in August
Trump has told people, baselessly, that he "expects he will get reinstated by August," the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted.
www.businessinsider.com
interchange
Diamond Member
Unfortunately, I don't see much hope overall unless someone other than Trump emerges as a conservative moral leader. Only from within can come change. And likely that would require the explicit formation of an alternative party. It is extremely frustrating to be vilified constantly through gross distortion and have attempts at bipartisan action be almost exclusively for show. Yet, trying to convince people of the misdeeds of Republicans does nothing but further isolate the parties.
As to standing up to Flynn, I think people should be calling in to AG Garland's office to advocate for pursuit of charges. Forget political fallout and optics. If the law supports an offense against the US, then prosecution should follow. The consequences of the behavior are already apparent.
I do not think Democrats should be playing along with the false appearance of will to govern in accordance with the structure of our political system. This does not mean they should do the same crap in return. It merely means they should not attempt to play along with the appearance of normal governance when it is demonstrated to be false. Where there are genuine attempts to govern appropriately in the interest of the people, regardless of how rare, hopeless, or insufficient they are, they should be respected entirely on their own without complaint by bringing in counter-example. If it becomes necessary to advocate for the public by using unilateral action, it should be done. But all attention should be toward public interest and exactly none toward politics/appearances.
Are we at risk of violent action to overthrow the Biden administration? I do not believe so. However, the foundation of America is currently crumbling under its own weight. A fantasy that Trump and Trumpism will go away because he is no longer President is not worthy of entertaining, mostly because the line of division had already been crossed (e.g. WaPo article about this during Obama administration highlighting Newt and others, and the host of media personalities [Rush, Tucker, Jones, etc.] who went full on echo chamber).
As to standing up to Flynn, I think people should be calling in to AG Garland's office to advocate for pursuit of charges. Forget political fallout and optics. If the law supports an offense against the US, then prosecution should follow. The consequences of the behavior are already apparent.
I do not think Democrats should be playing along with the false appearance of will to govern in accordance with the structure of our political system. This does not mean they should do the same crap in return. It merely means they should not attempt to play along with the appearance of normal governance when it is demonstrated to be false. Where there are genuine attempts to govern appropriately in the interest of the people, regardless of how rare, hopeless, or insufficient they are, they should be respected entirely on their own without complaint by bringing in counter-example. If it becomes necessary to advocate for the public by using unilateral action, it should be done. But all attention should be toward public interest and exactly none toward politics/appearances.
Are we at risk of violent action to overthrow the Biden administration? I do not believe so. However, the foundation of America is currently crumbling under its own weight. A fantasy that Trump and Trumpism will go away because he is no longer President is not worthy of entertaining, mostly because the line of division had already been crossed (e.g. WaPo article about this during Obama administration highlighting Newt and others, and the host of media personalities [Rush, Tucker, Jones, etc.] who went full on echo chamber).
woolfe9998
Lifer
The consequences of letting this pass and doing nothing are far worse. This isn't some rando on twitter. He's a retired army general and he knew exactly what he was saying. This is Flynn's second time, BTW. He already suggested that Trump employ martial law to use the military to overturn the election results. He is a traitor to his country and an utter disgrace to the US military.
Prosecute him for sedition. Court martial him for conduct unbecoming. Whatever. Just do it. This guy thinks we should do both:
Former WH ethics lawyer: Flynn should be court-martialed - CNN Video
Former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter spoke to CNN's Ana Cabrera about Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn appearing to endorse a Myanmar-style coup in the United States.
www.cnn.com
woolfe9998
Lifer
Hey Beevis, he just used the words "conservative" and "moral" in the same sentence. [queue sounds of stoned laughter]
I agree they need to find some way to not let this slide. He's not just a retired general, he's also formerly (albeit briefly) the head national security official for the United States. The idea that such an individual would call for the violent overthrow of the government needs to be treated harshly.The consequences of letting this pass and doing nothing are far worse. This isn't some rando on twitter. He's a retired army general and he knew exactly what he was saying. This is Flynn's second time, BTW. He already suggested that Trump employ martial law to use the military to overturn the election results. He is a traitor to his country and an utter disgrace to the US military.
Prosecute him for sedition. Court martial him for conduct unbecoming. Whatever. Just do it. This guy thinks we should do both:
Former WH ethics lawyer: Flynn should be court-martialed - CNN Video
Former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter spoke to CNN's Ana Cabrera about Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn appearing to endorse a Myanmar-style coup in the United States.
interchange
Diamond Member
I sure did. And I meant it too.
kage69
Lifer
How does that happen without them forming a new party?
Seems like if a conservative says anything critical about Trump's criminal behavior or war on elections and democracy they are a RINO that needs to be silenced. There has to be voters who still value morals as well.
How do morals make a comeback for Team Treason? Sure as shit don't have any now.
interchange
Diamond Member
A new party sounds like the most realistic way to me. I am not sure it will be too hard to have success. But it can't be half-assed.
sportage
Lifer
This reminds me of my Trumpie Qanon niece who keeps spewing her conspiratorial nonsense about denial of the holocaust, about Trump the messiah, about fake Biden look-alike's, about fake Bill Gates, about blood drinkers.... and she says "you don't need to believe me. Just look it up." And I say WHY WOULD I BOTHER SPENDING TIME LOOKING UP THIS NONSENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
nickqt
Diamond Member
43/50 = 86% of Senate Republicans are in favor of treason if it helps their candidate win the Presidency.
175/211 = 83% of House Republicans are in favor of treason if it helps their candidate win the Presidency.
So, if the 7 Senate Republicans and 35 House Republicans formed a "new" party, how successful do you think it would be? Maybe a better question, what chance do you think those Republicans would have of winning their next election as a member of Party X instead of running as a Republican?
interchange
Diamond Member
This may be debatable, but Congress critters don't elect themselves. If any fraction creating a new party proves more appealing to voters, they will all follow. To test this, it requires a critical mass to commit fully.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
