leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, njbuff said: Trump knew that there were holdovers from the Obama administration that would love nothing more but to take Trump down by any means if they were kept on. Trump should have fired all of the holdover bozos and start from scratch. We gotta give Trump some blame on that front. Acknowledging Trump's weaknesses is fair game to be sure. However, it seems that it would be nearly impossible to sweep the floor clean and empty the septic tank under the best of circumstances, and given what he had dealt with since day one, there are only so many moles you can whack. 1
njbuff Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Acknowledging Trump's weaknesses is fair game to be sure. However, it seems that it would be nearly impossible to sweep the floor clean and empty the septic tank under the best of circumstances, and given what he had dealt with since day one, there are only so many moles you can whack. I understand that Trump was probably up against it, but it also shows the Deep State is MUCH BIGGER than any of us thought. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, njbuff said: I understand that Trump was probably up against it, but it also shows the Deep State is MUCH BIGGER than any of us thought. I think the challenge is that by the very nature of self-preservation, virtually every person who works in government has skin in the game and most of Trump's policies go counter to their instincts. That includes well-intentioned people of all political leanings who when push comes to shove, are at best apathetic to targets on Trump's agenda.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I think the challenge is that by the very nature of self-preservation, virtually every person who works in government has skin in the game and most of Trump's policies go counter to their instincts. That includes well-intentioned people of all political leanings who when push comes to shove, are at best apathetic to targets on Trump's agenda. So if there was a wide scale purge of the government led by Trump, you'd be all for that right?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Capco said: So if there was a wide scale purge of the government led by Trump, you'd be all for that right? Backed by evidence w due process, yup. 1 1
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Backed by evidence w due process, yup. Where would you draw the line (or like the line to be drawn) with respect to treason specifically? What kind of acts amount to treason? If entire organizations are to blame for treason, at what point in their hierarchy do the punishments in this purge stop falling downhill? Is "I was just doing my job" going to be a good enough defense for a basic intel analyst, for example?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, Capco said: So if there was a wide scale purge of the government led by Trump, you'd be all for that right? define wide scale, define purge, and let me know what you think i meant by well-intentioned people. i'll be happy to reply.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: define wide scale, define purge, and let me know what you think i meant by well-intentioned people. i'll be happy to reply. I'm really not trying to play that kind of "put words in your mouth" game with the question. Honestly. As wide as you like, with punishments that you see fit. It's your dough to play with. I wasn't really referring to "well-intentioned" people in any event and intention is subjective by nature so I have no idea what you actually meant. If I had to guess I would assume you referred to people who followed their conscience or moral/inner compass.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 18 minutes ago, Capco said: Where would you draw the line (or like the line to be drawn) with respect to treason specifically? What kind of acts amount to treason? If entire organizations are to blame for treason, at what point in their hierarchy do the punishments in this purge stop falling downhill? Is "I was just doing my job" going to be a good enough defense for a basic intel analyst, for example? How did the Nuremberg trials go again? Exactly. We live in a nation of LAWS, not MEN. If people break the law, regardless of their position or status, they should face the same legal consequences as anyone else would. We live in a country whose leaders have been stealing from us, poisoning our food and water, spying on us, and draining our natural and financial resources for their own gain for our entire lives. They've been allowed to continue their operations because they're "above the law". No more. 4
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: How did the Nuremberg trials go again? I wrote that to be similar to "I was just following orders" on purpose. But I'm not 100% clear on your answer to that part of my question. In Nuremberg, the defense "I was just following orders/doing my job" wasn't a legitimate defense. At the same time, not every single war criminal who participated in actual war crimes was present at Nuremberg. A guard at Auschwitz might have been on the same rung in the hierarchy as the "basic intel analyst" from my example above. None of the run-of-the-mill guards guilty of war crimes at Auschwitz were present at Nuremberg, yet they each played a part in these crimes against humanity. Only key members of leadership were charged with crimes during these trials. So are you just referring to the notion of illegitimate defense? Or are you also saying that a basic intel analyst from the organization guilty of treason ought to be held to account in the same way that organization's leadership would be held to account as they were at the Nuremberg trials? That's what I was looking for when I asked "where would you draw the line?" Edited February 8, 2020 by Capco
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Capco said: I wrote that to be similar to "I was just following orders" on purpose. But I'm not 100% clear on your answer to that part of my question. In Nuremberg, the defense "I was just following orders/doing my job" wasn't a legitimate defense. At the same time, not every single war criminal who participated in actual war crimes was present at Nuremberg. A guard at Auschwitz might have been on the same rung in the hierarchy as the "basic intel analyst" from my example above. None of the run-of-the-mill guards guilty of war crimes at Auschwitz were present at Nuremberg, yet they each played a part in these crimes against humanity. Only key members of leadership were charged with crimes during these trials. So are you just referring to the notion of illegitimate defense? Or are you also saying that a basic intel analyst from the organization guilty of treason ought to be held to account in the same way that organization's leadership would be held to account as they were at the Nuremberg trials? My reference was to the fact that it wasn't just the big wigs and leaders who were tried. They were tried first, but then after them we had trials for the judges, the guards, lawyers and cops who were "just following orders". Some were found innocent, some found guilty, but all faced judgement (but for the ones the US and Soviets kept hidden -- but that's a different topic). That's how we got the Nuremberg principles, which the UN made into law in case ordinary government jobs became criminal again. We're long overdue for a reckoning of that level within our federal/state/local bureaucracies. 2
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Some were found innocent, some found guilty, but all faced judgement (but for the ones the US and Soviets kept hidden -- but that's a different topic). So, this factually incorrect. Continuing from the Auschwitz example, overall, only 789 individuals of the approximately 8,200 surviving SS personnel who served at Auschwitz and its sub-camps were ever tried, of whom 750 received sentences. http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/news/personal-details-of-ss-men-from-kl-auschwitz-garrison-accessible-to-the-public,1239.html And further, the Nuremburg trials (the famous first one under the international tribunal and the subsequent 12 others under military tribunal) only consisted of charges being brought against a total of 209 defendants. The Nuremberg process initiated 3,887 cases of which about 3,400 were dropped. 489 cases went to trial, involving 1,672 defendants. 1,416 of them were found guilty; less than 200 were executed, and another 279 defendants were sent to life in prison. By the 1950s almost all of them had been released. But thank you for answering that part of the question at least. It helps me understand you better.
Keukasmallies Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Backed by evidence w due process, yup. Such that it have no relation to the "...evidence w due process..." touted during the impeachment cartoon.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: We live in a nation of LAWS, not MEN. If people break the law, regardless of their position or status, they should face the same legal consequences as anyone else would. We live in a country whose leaders have been stealing from us, poisoning our food and water, spying on us, and draining our natural and financial resources for their own gain for our entire lives. They've been allowed to continue their operations because they're "above the law". No more. This doesn't really answer the first part of my question. This is all very vague and general. Could you be a little more specific?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, Capco said: So, this factually incorrect. It is correct -- hence my parenthetical.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: It is correct -- hence my parenthetical. The US and the Soviets kept over 7,000 SS personnel from Auschwitz "hidden"?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Capco said: This doesn't really answer the first part of my question. This is all very vague and general. Could you be a little more specific? It does indeed answer it. If laws are broken, they should be treated the same as you or I would be if we were to have done the same. No one is talking about a "purge" without evidence or due process, that's not in our best interest as a republic. But what we also are not talking about is letting people slide on criminal offenses simply due to the position they hold in government.
Keukasmallies Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 22 hours ago, Gavin in Va Beach said: You gotta wonder why the Dems let this idiot go on TV. Every time she speaks they must lose a handful of voters. Imagine the people who elected her....
Recommended Posts