What are the chances that Donald Trump will end up in prison?

[wareyin]

Again short of the guillotine what's our third (or forth depending on exactly how you want to look at it) option?

You need political power for a political solution. The Dems don't have it right now.

You need to win elections for political power. That's not for another 1-3 years minimum depending how the elections play out.

I mean I guess getting enough Republicans to the table is... a Hail Mary. I mean there's been some distention in the ranks and we have seen at least one person... if not cross the aisle at least decide the stand in the middle.

Can we get enough Republicans for it to matter on a timescale that matters? I reaaaalllllyyyy doubt it but... maybe. I mean we are living in the age of "Weirder Things Have Happened."

You said the Dems haven't tried everything within the system against Trump. Right now, your only solutions is to wait til Trump isn't in office anymore. I'm not saying we go French Revolution, I'm saying your solution isn't helpful at all.

 

[Giz]

The time for the "let's be civilized" speech is before the barbarian horde is burning your city and chopping you to pieces.

It is totally reasonable to view trump as a reprehensible person and an embarrassment of a president. It is ridiculous to compare him to a “barbarian horde is burning your city and chopping you to pieces.”. If you really believed that, why aren’t you in open revolt?

Unless of course it was proposterous hyperbole so that you could excuse advocating extreme undemocratic measures that would set a terrible precedent.

For the long term health of the republic, better a bad president than a bad precedent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You said the Dems haven't tried everything within the system against Trump. Right now, your only solutions is to wait til Trump isn't in office anymore. I'm not saying we go French Revolution, I'm saying your solution isn't helpful at all.

It's politics in a democracy. I didn't think "Win the next election" would be seen as some radical outside the box plan.

And people keep saying "I don't want to go French Revolution" but... if we aren't waiting until the next election what are we doing exactly?

Everybody is "Totally not saying this or that" so much that aren't saying a whole lot.

I'm saying a concentrated political effort to make gains in 2020 and beyond is the only real solution. We need either the Presidency or the Senate, we need to make gains on the state level, and we need more then anything to not lose another seat on SCOTUS.

 

[JoeMorgue]

For the long term health of the republic, better a bad president than a bad precedent.

I like that.

It won't go over well with the "As long as it gets rid of Trump it's a win" crowd, but I like it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh balls.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Everett_branch

Hard to determine which Everett was more creative, father or son. I've read more of the sons works, tbh.

 

[Venom]

BTW if Trump is re-elected in 2020, the odds of one of his political opponents winding up in prison by the end of his second term is about... 1 in 10 I'd say.

Maybe they will be arrested for sexual assault or something. That's more likely than Trump ordering or influencing their imprisonment.

 

[wareyin]

It's politics in a democracy. I didn't think "Win the next election" would be seen as some radical outside the box plan.

And people keep saying "I don't want to go French Revolution" but... if we aren't waiting until the next election what are we doing exactly?

Everybody is "Totally not saying this or that" so much that aren't saying a whole lot.

I'm saying a concentrated political effort to make gains in 2020 and beyond is the only real solution. We need either the Presidency or the Senate, we need to make gains on the state level, and we need more then anything to not lose another seat on SCOTUS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you brought up the whole guillotine thing. Anyway, if your advice is "do what you're already doing" after you say "you aren't trying everything possible against Trump", that's neither outside the box, nor consistent with your position.

 

[Belz...]

We need to win some elections.

What level of gerrymandering would you need to agree that winning elections is no longer a viable option? Entirely hypothetically, of course.

 

[Segnosaur]

The time for the "let's be civilized" speech is before the barbarian horde is burning your city and chopping you to pieces.

It is totally reasonable to view trump as a reprehensible person and an embarrassment of a president. It is ridiculous to compare him to a “barbarian horde is burning your city and chopping you to pieces.”.

Of course Trump is nothing like a barbarian horde...

The barbarians would have at least been honest about what they were doing.

And they'd probably be better at their job than Trump.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is totally reasonable to view trump as a reprehensible person and an embarrassment of a president. It is ridiculous to compare him to a “barbarian horde is burning your city and chopping you to pieces.”. If you really believed that, why aren’t you in open revolt?

Unless of course it was proposterous hyperbole so that you could excuse advocating extreme undemocratic measures that would set a terrible precedent.

For the long term health of the republic, better a bad president than a bad precedent.

The metaphor was meant to express the futility of handwringing "we don't want to start trouble" speeches when the trouble is already underway. I could as well have used "closing the barn door after the horses already ran away" but I knew that would trigger five pages of wrangling over whether horses stay in barns and whether they can open a door. I was not suggesting the Republicans are currently an attacking barbarian horde. Had I used the barn metaphor I wouldn't have been suggesting they were horses, either.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The metaphor was meant to express the futility of handwringing "we don't want to start trouble" speeches when the trouble is already underway. I could as well have used "closing the barn door after the horses already ran away" but I knew that would trigger five pages of wrangling over whether horses stay in barns and whether they can open a door. I was not suggesting the Republicans are currently an attacking barbarian horde. Had I used the barn metaphor I wouldn't have been suggesting they were horses, either.

Why do you hate horses?

 

[theprestige]

The metaphor was meant to express the futility of handwringing "we don't want to start trouble" speeches when the trouble is already underway.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that insisting that the trouble has already started, and now is the time to ESCALATE! is a pretty standard tactic in revolutionary rhetoric.

The harder you have to work to convince the public that the time for talk is over and the time for violence is now, the more likely it is that the time for violence has not yet come.

 

[TragicMonkey]

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that insisting that the trouble has already started, and now is the time to ESCALATE! is a pretty standard tactic in revolutionary rhetoric.

The harder you have to work to convince the public that the time for talk is over and the time for violence is now, the more likely it is that the time for violence has not yet come.

But I'm not saying it's time for violence. I'm just saying it's no longer the time for the Democrats to be any more cooperative and conciliatory than the Republicans are. I think they should employ every tactic the Republicans have. Taking the high road achieves nothing now.

 

[wareyin]

But I'm not saying it's time for violence. I'm just saying it's no longer the time for the Democrats to be any more cooperative and conciliatory than the Republicans are. I think they should employ every tactic the Republicans have. Taking the high road achieves nothing now.

Agreed. The whole thought process of 'don't do what the Republicans are doing, or the Republicans will do it, too!' just doesn't compute to me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you brought up the whole guillotine thing. Anyway, if your advice is "do what you're already doing" after you say "you aren't trying everything possible against Trump", that's neither outside the box, nor consistent with your position.

No by rejecting everything that is within the system, the metaphorical guillotine is all that's left, but people want to dance around that.

Our "in the system" options are:

1. Use political power, which has been rejected because the other side hold the power / a majority in all the places that it matters.

2. Gain political power, which has been rejected by the people in power have rigged the system.

If those two things are off the table, what is on the table that isn't revolutionary?

 

[theprestige]

But I'm not saying it's time for violence. I'm just saying it's no longer the time for the Democrats to be any more cooperative and conciliatory than the Republicans are. I think they should employ every tactic the Republicans have. Taking the high road achieves nothing now.

Ah, gotcha. Fair enough. See you at the polls!

 

[wareyin]

No by rejecting everything that is within the system, the metaphorical guillotine is all that's left, but people want to dance around that.

Our "in the system" options are:

1. Use political power, which has been rejected because the other side hold the power / a majority in all the places that it matters.

2. Gain political power, which has been rejected by the people in power have rigged the system.

If those two things are off the table, what is on the table that isn't revolutionary?

I don't know, you're the one who said there was something left on the table that the Democrats aren't trying/doing. To stay within your framework:

1: How do you propose Democrats use political power, given that they do not hold the Senate?

2: How do you propose the Democrats gain political power in order to use it against Trump, given that gaining that political power would almost surely also put a Democrat in the Presidency as well?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know, you're the one who said there was something left on the table that the Democrats aren't trying/doing. To stay within your framework:

I'm very well within my framework, thank you.

I haven't rejected "Winning more elections." Other people have because the Republican "don't play fair."

 

[wareyin]

I haven't rejected "Winning more elections." Other people have because the Republican "don't play fair."

How many elections do we have before 2020?

Given the seats in play, if the Democrats win the Senate, that will be more of a blue wave than last time. Such a wave would wash Trump out of office. Also, do you seriously think they aren't trying to win elections?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How many elections do we have before 2020?

I didn't know "We have to wait until 2020" disqualified something as "a win."