Recently pardoned Flynn calling for martial law

[willdup]

General Flynn continuing to demonstrate his vow to defend the Constitution was abandoned long ago. Now that Trump didn't win we need to "temporarily suspend the Constitution," impose martial law and "silence the destructive media."

I appreciate the fact that current circumstances have forced Trumpists to continue to show us exactly who they are and what their true feelings are about democracy and the Constitution. We are listening and where people are falling on this issue will be remembered.

 

[stray]

"We are listening and where people are falling on this issue will be remembered." Just curious who is making the lists and what they plan on doing with it.
This is some of the scariest language ever posted on the chat and I would hope you would retract that. I know plenty who are trying to seize power now have made these statements, but if you study history this is how genocides and wars begin.

 

[willdup]

"We are listening and where people are falling on this issue will be remembered." Just curious who is making the lists and what they plan on doing with it.
This is some of the scariest language ever posted on the chat and I would hope you would retract that. I know plenty who are trying to seize power now have made these statements, but if you study history this is how genocides and wars begin.

I actually majored in history at UGA and I should have chosen different language. I believe the American people are watching and will remember who stood in defense of democracy and the constitution (Chris Krebs is a good example) and who didn't. Flynn is no patriot, i believe he represents Trump's views and part of the reason so many people voted in this election is because the stakes are clear and this election was not about policy differences. It is very clear at this point that Trump would do exactly what Flynn and others are suggesting if he thought he had enough support and could get away with it. Thankfully our institutions are holding, this time. If the election had been closer we would have been screwed.

Scary language notwithstanding, what are your thoughts on what Flynn and others are promoting?

 

[stray]

I actually majored in history at UGA and I should have chosen different language. I believe the American people are watching and will remember who stood in defense of democracy and the constitution (Chris Krebs is a good example) and who didn't. Flynn is no patriot, i believe he represents Trump's views and part of the reason so many people voted in this election is because the stakes are clear and this election was not about policy differences. It is very clear at this point that Trump would do exactly what Flynn and others are suggesting if he thought he had enough support and could get away with it. Thankfully our institutions are holding, this time. If the election had been closer we would have been screwed.

Scary language notwithstanding, what are your thoughts on what Flynn and others are promoting?

It's not just scary language, it is a not so subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance against those who you disagree with politically.

Here's the problem with the Flynn part of your post. You suggest he is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution by bringing up Martial Law, but suspension of Habeas Corpus is IN the constitution. Suspension of Habeas Corpus has happened many times in the US for various reasons. Ultimately, this is his personal opinion that this is a situation that may require it. My opinion is that people should be able to disagree and debate ideas but there is a loud minority of people who will not tolerate any view different from theirs. Please don't be misled by these people my brother.

 

[WGrovedawg]

It's not just scary language, it is a not so subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance against those who you disagree with politically.

Here's the problem with the Flynn part of your post. You suggest he is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution by bringing up Martial Law, but suspension of Habeas Corpus is IN the constitution. Suspension of Habeas Corpus has happened many times in the US for various reasons. Ultimately, this is his personal opinion that this is a situation that may require it. My opinion is that people should be able to disagree and debate ideas but there is a loud minority of people who will not tolerate any view different from theirs. Please don't be misled by these people my brother.

It is ok when they do it, a lot of do as I say not as do on the board lately

 

[randawg91]

It's not just scary language, it is a not so subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance against those who you disagree with politically.

Here's the problem with the Flynn part of your post. You suggest he is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution by bringing up Martial Law, but suspension of Habeas Corpus is IN the constitution. Suspension of Habeas Corpus has happened many times in the US for various reasons. Ultimately, this is his personal opinion that this is a situation that may require it. My opinion is that people should be able to disagree and debate ideas but there is a loud minority of people who will not tolerate any view different from theirs. Please don't be misled by these people my brother.

Honestly disagree with you here—I don’t see what he wrote as a “subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance” in the menacing sense you seem to want to paint it, although I understand that some could mean it that way. It’s pretty simple, if there’s someone who is willing to go to these extreme measures to subvert our democracy, absent any tangible proof (which at this point is simply irrefutable), then that absolutely should be remembered and brought up next time they pretend to be a patriot or care about our democracy. There’s nothing in his post that suggests violence.

 

[BeachDawg]

Honestly disagree with you here—I don’t see what he wrote as a “subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance” in the menacing sense you seem to want to paint it, although I understand that some could mean it that way. It’s pretty simple, if there’s someone who is willing to go to these extreme measures to subvert our democracy, absent any tangible proof (which at this point is simply irrefutable), then that absolutely should be remembered and brought up next time they pretend to be a patriot or care about our democracy. There’s nothing in his post that suggests violence.

Yeah, Flynn is actually calling for martial law, suspending the constitution, and the silencing of the media... and its the guy who says this will be remembered that scares him??? Crazy times.

 

[stray]

Honestly disagree with you here—I don’t see what he wrote as a “subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance” in the menacing sense you seem to want to paint it, although I understand that some could mean it that way. It’s pretty simple, if there’s someone who is willing to go to these extreme measures to subvert our democracy, absent any tangible proof (which at this point is simply irrefutable), then that absolutely should be remembered and brought up next time they pretend to be a patriot or care about our democracy. There’s nothing in his post that suggests violence.

You can disagree if you want but if he had suggested a "final solution" we would all know where that language came from and what it meant. I think Willdup used it without considering the complete meaning or the historical intent behind it. Maybe he did, but I view Willdup as a reasonable guy on the other side of the argument and wanted him to reconsider.

Article 1, section 9 allows for suspension of habeas corpus. It's LITERALLY in the Constitution so all of the hyperbole about it subverting or democracy or undermining the Constitution makes no sense and is just a talking point. It has happened dozens of times over history and our Democracy and Constitution still exist.

 

[Troubadawg]

Yeah, Flynn is actually calling for martial law, suspending the constitution, and the silencing of the media... and its the guy who says this will be remembered that scares him??? Crazy times.

indeed. I'm ready for Jesus to get back.

 

[BeachDawg]

You can disagree if you want but if he had suggested a "final solution" we would all know where that language came from and what it meant. I think Willdup used it without considering the complete meaning or the historical intent behind it. Maybe he did, but I view Willdup as a reasonable guy on the other side of the argument and wanted him to reconsider.

Article 1, section 9 allows for suspension of habeas corpus. It's LITERALLY in the Constitution so all of the hyperbole about it subverting or democracy or undermining the Constitution makes no sense and is just a talking point. It has happened dozens of times over history and our Democracy and Constitution still exist.

If you think invoking Article 1, Section 9 just because we have a president throwing a temper tantrum over a lost election is appropriate then I think its your line of thinking that people should be afraid of. That article was not meant to be used on so carelessly on a whim to sooth a grown man who's lost his pacifier.

 

[shonuff253]

You can disagree if you want but if he had suggested a "final solution" we would all know where that language came from and what it meant. I think Willdup used it without considering the complete meaning or the historical intent behind it. Maybe he did, but I view Willdup as a reasonable guy on the other side of the argument and wanted him to reconsider.

Article 1, section 9 allows for suspension of habeas corpus. It's LITERALLY in the Constitution so all of the hyperbole about it subverting or democracy or undermining the Constitution makes no sense and is just a talking point. It has happened dozens of times over history and our Democracy and Constitution still exist.

Article 1
Section 9
Clause 2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Constitution does not allow it just because the POTUS is having a temper tantrum

 

[randawg91]

You can disagree if you want but if he had suggested a "final solution" we would all know where that language came from and what it meant. I think Willdup used it without considering the complete meaning or the historical intent behind it. Maybe he did, but I view Willdup as a reasonable guy on the other side of the argument and wanted him to reconsider.

Article 1, section 9 allows for suspension of habeas corpus. It's LITERALLY in the Constitution so all of the hyperbole about it subverting or democracy or undermining the Constitution makes no sense and is just a talking point. It has happened dozens of times over history and our Democracy and Constitution still exist.

I really don’t understand your argument here. How is saying that the people that would go to these extremes will be remembered in any way comparable to using “final solution” language? That’s an incredibly inappropriate comparison and clearly a red herring. To say that holding people accountable for their actions is meaningfully similar to Nazi Germany is honestly shameful.

As to your other point, there are all kinds of things that are allowed for under the constitution that can absolutely be dangerous to democracy if used inappropriately. And besides, no U.S. president has ever unilaterally (without Congress’ approval) declared martial law. The fact that you’re suggesting this is in any way appropriate in this case is actual insanity and absolutely anti-democratic. Are you saying that you would support this happening in any election where the losing side claims fraud without any legal support for such a claim? Also, I’m assuming that you’re extremely anti-states’ rights? The hypocrisy here goes on and on.

 

[willdup]

Article 1
Section 9
Clause 2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Constitution does not allow it just because the POTUS is having a temper tantrum

Here is the root of at least one of our current challenges. Flynn, like his lawyer Sidney Powell, new congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and several others within the Republican party either believe that we are under threat of cannibal, pedophile, communist democrats or they say they believe it for cynical and self serving reasons. Either way, if you are signed up for QAnon than literally any action is justified.

There have always been insane people out there. Unfortunately, the republican party has made a calculated decision to embrace the insanity. Much as we saw with the disastrous Ronna McDaniel event last weekend in Marietta, a rabid dawg will eventually bite its owner once it is unleashed.

 

[willdup]

I really don’t understand your argument here. How is saying that the people that would go to these extremes will be remembered in any way comparable to using “final solution” language? That’s an incredibly inappropriate comparison and clearly a red herring. To say that holding people accountable for their actions is meaningfully similar to Nazi Germany is honestly shameful.

As to your other point, there are all kinds of things that are allowed for under the constitution that can absolutely be dangerous to democracy if used inappropriately. And besides, no U.S. president has ever unilaterally (without Congress’ approval) declared martial law. The fact that you’re suggesting this is in any way appropriate in this case is actual insanity and absolutely anti-democratic. Are you saying that you would support this happening in any election where the losing side claims fraud without any legal support for such a claim? Also, I’m assuming that you’re extremely anti-states’ rights? The hypocrisy here goes on and on.

From "We are listening and where people are falling on this issue will be remembered" to the Final Solution seems a mighty far rhetorical stretch to me but hopefully I have now clarified what I meant.

 

[stray]

Article 1
Section 9
Clause 2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Constitution does not allow it just because the POTUS is having a temper tantrum

This has been used multiple times in the past for things that don't fit that definition such as natural disasters etc. That being said let me present a premise and if you follow I think you will get me point.

What if we found out that a foreign actor had infiltrated our elections and changed them for their own benefit. We had concrete evidence. Does this fit the definition above?
*I am not saying that is what has happened but this could be the argument he is making. If he is, then this would be a legit use under that premise. I know you disagree with that but under this premise the legitimacy holds.

 

[VHDawg53]

You can disagree if you want but if he had suggested a "final solution" we would all know where that language came from and what it meant. I think Willdup used it without considering the complete meaning or the historical intent behind it. Maybe he did, but I view Willdup as a reasonable guy on the other side of the argument and wanted him to reconsider.

Article 1, section 9 allows for suspension of habeas corpus. It's LITERALLY in the Constitution so all of the hyperbole about it subverting or democracy or undermining the Constitution makes no sense and is just a talking point. It has happened dozens of times over history and our Democracy and Constitution still exist.

You claim habeas corpus has been suspended many times - that is false. Suspensions of habeas corpus are very rare and only related to wars and large scale terrorism. Suspension of habeas corpus also requires congressional approval per prior Supreme Court case law.

It's almost unbelievable someone would even consider this measure

Seriously - which historical suspension is a relevant precedent to support this measure?

If Trump actually tries to do this (remote chance), I hope he would end up in prison for treason

 

[willdup]

This has been used multiple times in the past for things that don't fit that definition such as natural disasters etc. That being said let me present a premise and if you follow I think you will get me point.

What if we found out that a foreign actor had infiltrated our elections and changed them for their own benefit. We had concrete evidence. Does this fit the definition above?
*I am not saying that is what has happened but this could be the argument he is making. If he is, then this would be a legit use under that premise. I know you disagree with that but under this premise the legitimacy holds.

Interesting scenario to contemplate. I think the key questions is what is the mechanism for overseeing the burden of proof of the concrete evidence. Which branch of government plays what role? Reversing the apparent outcome of a presidential election is as great a challenge as we could face as a country short of total war. The obvious first answer is the SCOTUS but it is far from that simple.

 

[stray]

From "We are listening and where people are falling on this issue will be remembered" to the Final Solution seems a mighty far rhetorical stretch to me but hopefully I have now clarified what I meant.

This is what people have said in the past as a precursor to truth and reconciliation commissions such as in South Africa and Rwanda. They drug people in front of "courts" to make them answer for their actions with the goal of creating peace but of course they never end there. They lead to revenge and mass murder of those people perceived as doing something wrong. Some had done wrong but that doesn't justify the vigilante justice. Of course, untold numbers of people were killed that were innocent too.

Democrats in this country have already brought up the same idea here.

Like I said, you are generally reasonable and I hoped you didn't mean them the way they sounded. We should all be careful because things in this country can go south in a hurry. And we can't blame that on one guy. There is too much of this rhetoric on both sides and it has escalated.

 

[randawg91]

This is what people have said in the past as a precursor to truth and reconciliation commissions such as in South Africa and Rwanda. They drug people in front of "courts" to make them answer for their actions with the goal of creating peace but of course they never end there. They lead to revenge and mass murder of those people perceived as doing something wrong. Some had done wrong but that doesn't justify the vigilante justice. Of course, untold numbers of people were killed that were innocent too.

Democrats in this country have already brought up the same idea here.

Like I said, you are generally reasonable and I hoped you didn't mean them the way they sounded. We should all be careful because things in this country can go south in a hurry. And we can't blame that on one guy. There is too much of this rhetoric on both sides and it has escalated.

It’s next level crazy to me that his innocuous statement (which is allowed under the constitution by the way) offends you because of some ridiculous mental gymnastics tying it to courts in Rwanda, but you’re totally cool with the idea of militarizing our elections and taking away our constitutional rights simply because one side isn’t happy they lost.

To be clear, I think that you may have a rational side based on your posts, but your argument here is absolutely an extremist view.

 

[VHDawg53]

It’s next level crazy to me that his innocuous statement (which is allowed under the constitution by the way) offends you because of some ridiculous mental gymnastics tying it to courts in Rowanda, but you’re totally cool with the idea of militarizing our elections and taking away our constitutional rights simply because one side isn’t happy they lost.

To be clear, I think that you may have a rationale side based on your posts, but your argument here is absolutely an extremist view.

the president having the ability to declare martial law and invalidate an election on a whim is how you end up in a situation like South Africa

tearing down checks and balances and limits on government power because the incumbent doesn't want to relinquish power is among the worst solutions I can think of to ensure a stable democracy

wild, wild stuff

 

[willdup]

the president having the ability to declare martial law and invalidate an election on a whim is how you end up in a situation like South Africa

tearing down checks and balances and limits on government power because the incumbent doesn't want to relinquish power is among the worst solutions I can think of to ensure a stable democracy

wild, wild stuff

It is by definition a direct attack on the foundations of democracy itself.

 

[BamaDawg62]

It's not just scary language, it is a not so subtle threat of retaliation and vengeance against those who you disagree with politically.

Here's the problem with the Flynn part of your post. You suggest he is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution by bringing up Martial Law, but suspension of Habeas Corpus is IN the constitution. Suspension of Habeas Corpus has happened many times in the US for various reasons. Ultimately, this is his personal opinion that this is a situation that may require it. My opinion is that people should be able to disagree and debate ideas but there is a loud minority of people who will not tolerate any view different from theirs. Please don't be misled by these people my brother.

Uhm, have you not read or heard anything that most of the hardest Trump supporters have been saying? They've been saying thing that makes this guys comment look like a kindergarten playground threat.

 

[oldmandawg]

I actually majored in history at UGA and I should have chosen different language. I believe the American people are watching and will remember who stood in defense of democracy and the constitution (Chris Krebs is a good example) and who didn't. Flynn is no patriot, i believe he represents Trump's views and part of the reason so many people voted in this election is because the stakes are clear and this election was not about policy differences. It is very clear at this point that Trump would do exactly what Flynn and others are suggesting if he thought he had enough support and could get away with it. Thankfully our institutions are holding, this time. If the election had been closer we would have been screwed.

Scary language notwithstanding, what are your thoughts on what Flynn and others are promoting?

Amazing how Trump is criticized for things he might do. Yet he never does those things.

 

[willdup]

Amazing how Trump is criticized for things he might do. Yet he never does those things.

Trump has been using highly inflammatory language to accuse a wide array of institutions and individuals of working to steal an election from the american people and he has been doing it multiple times a day. His team has presented nothing in some forty court cases to support his claims. He posted a forty five minute video just yesterday. There is nothing theoretical about any of this.

 

[BeachDawg]

Amazing how Trump is criticized for things he might do. Yet he never does those things.

Like not firing people that take issue with his incorrect comments?
Like not taking a pandemic seriously?
Like trying to subvert and American election for the first time in American history and undermine the will of the people and sow doubt in the very principle of democracy?

Are those the things he never does that he's getting criticized for?

 

[albanyga]

General Flynn continuing to demonstrate his vow to defend the Constitution was abandoned long ago. Now that Trump didn't win we need to "temporarily suspend the Constitution," impose martial law and "silence the destructive media."

I appreciate the fact that current circumstances have forced Trumpists to continue to show us exactly who they are and what their true feelings are about democracy and the Constitution. We are listening and where people are falling on this issue will be remembered.

View embedded media

Is that a threat commie.

 

[willdup]

Is that a threat commie.

The degree to which my comments serve as a rorschach test is fascinating. Regardless, you are late to the "Trumpists being triggered by a perceived threat of violence that only they see" discussion. Read prior comments in this thread for an exhaustive exploration of this topic. My suggestion was limited to non-violent outcomes such as future election and employment opportunities but I should have been explicit.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

Like not firing people that take issue with his incorrect comments?
Like not taking a pandemic seriously?
Like trying to subvert and American election for the first time in American history and undermine the will of the people and sow doubt in the very principle of democracy?

Are those the things he never does that he's getting criticized for?

What is Biden going to do about the pandemic, besides drool? He’s not going to do anything because we have a Constitution that’s says we don’t have to do anything Washington tells us, for better or worse. So shut the hell up about Trumps handling of the virus.

 

[BeachDawg]

What is Biden going to do about the pandemic, besides drool? He’s not going to do anything because we have a Constitution that’s says we don’t have to do anything Washington tells us, for better or worse. So shut the hell up about Trumps handling of the virus.

No... Trump's handling of the virus has been pathetic. Its why he lost the election. If he had at least acted like he cared even a little he might have won.

Even now, in the ultimate "Let them eat cake" moment for him he is planning Christmas parties at the White House while the rest of the country grapples with a pandemic... some leader we have there... and again, no, I won't shut the hell up about it.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

No... Trump's handling of the virus has been pathetic. Its why he lost the election. If he had at least acted like he cared even a little he might have won.

Wow, I must have been dreaming when Trump sent the Mercy to NY or added temp hospital beds as well as mass produced vents.

 

[Boom MFer Dawg]

I actually majored in history at UGA and I should have chosen different language. I believe the American people are watching and will remember who stood in defense of democracy and the constitution (Chris Krebs is a good example) and who didn't. Flynn is no patriot, i believe he represents Trump's views and part of the reason so many people voted in this election is because the stakes are clear and this election was not about policy differences. It is very clear at this point that Trump would do exactly what Flynn and others are suggesting if he thought he had enough support and could get away with it. Thankfully our institutions are holding, this time. If the election had been closer we would have been screwed.

Scary language notwithstanding, what are your thoughts on what Flynn and others are promoting?

Remember when Trump came back from N Korea and Trump talked about how everyone stood up and respected Kin Jung Un when he entered the room and how he would love that? That’s all we needed to know about Trump. If you don’t stand, respect or even have pic of him in your house you’re murdered. Talk about a tyrant, and all Trump could see was the “respect”!

 

[blackpug6]

Remember when Trump came back from N Korea and Trump talked about how everyone stood up and respected Kin Jung Un when he entered the room and how he would love that? That’s all we needed to know about Trump. If you don’t stand, respect or even have pic of him in your house you’re murdered. Talk about a tyrant, and all Trump could see was the “respect”!

eh?
who be first?
you or me?

Mathematics reveal it's secrets
only to those who approach it
with pure Love,
for it's own Beauty!

Archimedes....


I know a little about love..



Try Me.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

No... Trump's handling of the virus has been pathetic. Its why he lost the election. If he had at least acted like he cared even a little he might have won.

Even now, in the ultimate "Let them eat cake" moment for him he is planning Christmas parties at the White House while the rest of the country grapples with a pandemic... some leader we have there... and again, no, I won't shut the hell up about it.

BS