Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Algernon Moncrieff
Algernon Moncrieff's Journal
Algernon Moncrieff's Journal
January 18, 2021
Maybe it's just me: Armed protests, by definition, aren't "peaceful"
When people show up at a protest openly carrying firearms, there is an implied threat that those firearms will be used. The desired effect is intimidating the unarmed. It's bullying, and it needs to stop.
January 7, 2021
I doubt it will have much impact, but I've asked my Senators and Rep to support 25A
I urge you all to do the same.
For the record, all three (in my case) are R's, but all voted to certify the election. I couched the request as asking them to do something "distasteful but necessary" by supporting the elevation VP Mike Pence to Acting President under the 25th Amendment because "yesterday's events have cast grave doubt on the ability of the current President to continue to lead."
I kept it civil and tried to couch it in terms that might not immediately have me dismissed as a LWNJ.
I'm not in love with the idea (like many here, I'd prefer impeachment), but consider this: the moment Pence were to be named Acting President, the transition could begin in earnest, and Pence could refocus governmental efforts on things like vaccine distribution. It would put an adult in the room for the next two weeks in the event an adversary tries to take advantage of this situation. Elevating Pence to Acting President would also reaffirm the rule of law and the commitment to the democratic norms.
Just my .02.
January 7, 2021
Armed protesters occupied the steps of the Washington capitol building in Olympia
https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/armed-protesters-olympia-occupy-capitol-steps-governors-mansion-lawn
Armed Protesters gathered outside the GA Secretary of State office.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/01/06/georgia-election-secretary-of-state-evacuated
Proud Boys and left wing protesters clashed in Salem Oregon
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954124446/states-also-see-protests-and-angry-responses-to-d-c-violence
Meanwhile, on the West Coast, the Washington Governors Mansion was stormed
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/protesters-break-through-gates-governors-mansion-olympia/C5EC7W2MCZBKRA6RFCEJMSRYCE/Armed protesters occupied the steps of the Washington capitol building in Olympia
https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/armed-protesters-olympia-occupy-capitol-steps-governors-mansion-lawn
Armed Protesters gathered outside the GA Secretary of State office.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/01/06/georgia-election-secretary-of-state-evacuated
Proud Boys and left wing protesters clashed in Salem Oregon
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954124446/states-also-see-protests-and-angry-responses-to-d-c-violence
January 5, 2021
DUer Miles Archer posted about his MAGA Sister. His short post, as well as the responses-- especially about politics and family -- got me thinking about what I'd read in this article.
...
So I see two possibilities tomorrow: the election is certified after a lot of sound and fury, or the election is "overturned" by Vice-Presidential fiat, and then the SCOTUS will weigh-in (most likely in favor of Biden). Nevertheless, this won't be over tomorrow, and this won't be over on January 20th, and (as has been pointed out in other threads) if the very gerrymandered house weren't controlled by the Dems, Trump would be getting a second term - and possibly overtime beyond that.
The enormity of Biden's task cannot be overstated. He'll assume the office against the backdrop of a pandemic, a shaky economy, a very divided congress (even if we win the two seats in Georgia) and an ex-President screaming that he was robbed in a fraudulent election to anyone who'll listen. Joe will have to figure out how to shore up our democratic (little D) underpinnings, and how to insure that the next President doesn't install him/herself as dictator. He will need to somehow convince people that facts do matter, even if we disagree on how to process those facts.
To be sure, I've seen bitter division before. I came into awareness just after the worst of the Civil Rights battles. RFK and MLK died when I was too young to remember. But I remember Vietnam protests in the early 70s, and I remember ugly, ugly protests against bussing. I remember a lot of bitterness by WWII vets against the draft dodgers. But the division of families now - like what Miles Archer describes - reminds me of reading about divisions within families prior to and during the Civil War. Brothers, sisters, parents, children not speaking to one another.
Questions I have:
- What are we likely to see Trump do to make Biden's life more difficult before January 20th? Bombing Iran? I could see that as a desperate attempt to argue that he can't turn over "in a time of war!" (note: war will not have been declared and war didn't stop Nixon or Obama from taking office)
- Can Joe do anything to help heal the National wounds from the past four years? If so, what?
- Does Joe "forgive and forget" the last 8 weeks/4 years? Does he appoint a Special Prosecutor? Will prosecuting make things worse? Will not holding people accountable make things worse?
- How do we make Russia accountable for their role in events? For their hack of our government computers?
- Gomert advocated violence? Is he held accountable?
- Is it time to regulate militias? I seem to recall 2A saying something about regulated militias.
- Realistically, can Joe do anything substantive on Climate change? One thing I've noted about Trump supporters is that they universally believe Climate Science is bunk and that this is (pick one) God's will or a cycle that takes place every few thousand years.
- How can we make facts matter again? At least make them matter more than they do now?
- Can we avoid Civil War? Not the kind we had with states seceding and opposing armies, but the kind of thing you saw in the former Yugoslavia or in South America - with roaming militias, terror attacks, and/or death squads
- Can Biden do anything to streamline/speed up COVID vaccine delivery?
- Are we to a point at which Blue State America and Red State America have no use for one another? Is it time to call the attorneys and split up? What about the little purple kids?
- Since the Presidential MOF is being given out like Cracker Jack prizes, should Biden give his first two medals to two Republicans - Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger? I agree that folks like Muller and Vindeman are also deserving, but I admire Kemp and Raffensperger actually showing backbone and defending the democracy - even if it means a President they oppose.
- Will Scotland's refusal to allow Trump to enter lead to a disruption in the Scotch Whiskey supply? I need to know because it is what is getting me through this political season.
A long, rambling post - So, how does this end?
From "How Biden Can Rebuild a Divided and Distrustful Nation" - Foreign AffairsDUer Miles Archer posted about his MAGA Sister. His short post, as well as the responses-- especially about politics and family -- got me thinking about what I'd read in this article.
The failure of Trump’s base to accept his defeat is the latest manifestation of a new identity politics driven by both culture and economics. The United States’ two political parties are sorting into distinctive groups based on who they are rather than on their policy preferences. Republicans tend to be religious, rural, native-born, older, male, and less educated. They are overwhelmingly white and working class.
...
Because partisan sorting is no longer primarily about one’s policy views but instead about one’s deepest values or identity, the “other party” is no longer just the opposition but the enemy; and politics is no longer about finding compromises that can address common problems but about winning a war for one’s own side.
...
Long before the 2016 election, the sociologist Arlie Hochschild found that white working-class respondents in Louisiana resented immigrants and minorities, whom they perceived to be “cutting in line” for jobs or other privileges. In 2016, most Republicans (overwhelmingly white) agreed with the following statement: “People like me are asked to make too many sacrifices that benefit people of another race.”
The tilt toward nationalism and nativism—not only in the United States, as it happens, but in other advanced countries as well—is geographically rooted in the small towns and rural areas hit hardest by deindustrialization. The loss of jobs, stagnant wages, and the attendant effects on the social fabric have clearly played a role. That said, purely economic analyses fail to capture the whole story. One cannot explain in purely economic terms the politicization of mask wearing, the growing concern that one’s child might marry someone from the opposing party, yawning partisan gaps in attitudes about race, or the strong support for Trump from the evangelical community. As the political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck put it, “These growing divisions between the Democratic and Republican Parties threaten to make political conflict less about what government should do and more about what it means to be an American. . . . This is the American identity crisis, and it is getting worse.”
So I see two possibilities tomorrow: the election is certified after a lot of sound and fury, or the election is "overturned" by Vice-Presidential fiat, and then the SCOTUS will weigh-in (most likely in favor of Biden). Nevertheless, this won't be over tomorrow, and this won't be over on January 20th, and (as has been pointed out in other threads) if the very gerrymandered house weren't controlled by the Dems, Trump would be getting a second term - and possibly overtime beyond that.
The enormity of Biden's task cannot be overstated. He'll assume the office against the backdrop of a pandemic, a shaky economy, a very divided congress (even if we win the two seats in Georgia) and an ex-President screaming that he was robbed in a fraudulent election to anyone who'll listen. Joe will have to figure out how to shore up our democratic (little D) underpinnings, and how to insure that the next President doesn't install him/herself as dictator. He will need to somehow convince people that facts do matter, even if we disagree on how to process those facts.
To be sure, I've seen bitter division before. I came into awareness just after the worst of the Civil Rights battles. RFK and MLK died when I was too young to remember. But I remember Vietnam protests in the early 70s, and I remember ugly, ugly protests against bussing. I remember a lot of bitterness by WWII vets against the draft dodgers. But the division of families now - like what Miles Archer describes - reminds me of reading about divisions within families prior to and during the Civil War. Brothers, sisters, parents, children not speaking to one another.
Questions I have:
- What are we likely to see Trump do to make Biden's life more difficult before January 20th? Bombing Iran? I could see that as a desperate attempt to argue that he can't turn over "in a time of war!" (note: war will not have been declared and war didn't stop Nixon or Obama from taking office)
- Can Joe do anything to help heal the National wounds from the past four years? If so, what?
- Does Joe "forgive and forget" the last 8 weeks/4 years? Does he appoint a Special Prosecutor? Will prosecuting make things worse? Will not holding people accountable make things worse?
- How do we make Russia accountable for their role in events? For their hack of our government computers?
- Gomert advocated violence? Is he held accountable?
- Is it time to regulate militias? I seem to recall 2A saying something about regulated militias.
- Realistically, can Joe do anything substantive on Climate change? One thing I've noted about Trump supporters is that they universally believe Climate Science is bunk and that this is (pick one) God's will or a cycle that takes place every few thousand years.
- How can we make facts matter again? At least make them matter more than they do now?
- Can we avoid Civil War? Not the kind we had with states seceding and opposing armies, but the kind of thing you saw in the former Yugoslavia or in South America - with roaming militias, terror attacks, and/or death squads
- Can Biden do anything to streamline/speed up COVID vaccine delivery?
- Are we to a point at which Blue State America and Red State America have no use for one another? Is it time to call the attorneys and split up? What about the little purple kids?
- Since the Presidential MOF is being given out like Cracker Jack prizes, should Biden give his first two medals to two Republicans - Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger? I agree that folks like Muller and Vindeman are also deserving, but I admire Kemp and Raffensperger actually showing backbone and defending the democracy - even if it means a President they oppose.
- Will Scotland's refusal to allow Trump to enter lead to a disruption in the Scotch Whiskey supply? I need to know because it is what is getting me through this political season.
December 30, 2020
If you have a Republican Senator
...contact them immediately and DEMAND that they replace McConnell. COVID relief is too important. This should have been approved by unanimous consent.
December 29, 2020
David Corn - Kelly Loeffler's Conflict of Interest Is Even Worse Than Reported
Mother JonesThe CFTC is highly important for ICE. As the firm’s annual report put it, several of its exchanges are “subject to extensive regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.” The Wall Street Journal noted that the CFTC’s “rule-making agenda can have a major impact on the company’s operations.” While a senior exec at ICE, Loeffler criticized the CFTC for proposing “excess regulation.”
One particular conflict was rather obvious. In 2018, Loeffler left the ICE corporate team to become head of Bakkt, a new federally regulated market for trading Bitcoin that ICE launched. A short time later, when she was a senator overseeing the CFTC, ICE was concerned that Bakkt could be severely hurt by CFTC regulations. ICE pointed this out in a filing it submitted to the Securities and Exchange Committee in February 2020. The filing noted that the “CFTC has designated bitcoin as a commodity…subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction and enforcement powers.” It stated that if the CFTC pursued an aggressive approach to this exchange, “it may have a significant adverse impact on Bakkt’s business and plan of operations.” ICE pointed out that CFTC activity—or the lack thereof—was crucial for the future prospects of the venture Loeffler once headed: “Ongoing and future regulatory actions may impact the ability of Bakkt to continue to operate, and such actions could affect the ability of Bakkt to continue as a going concern.” (In March 2020, the CFTC issued a major decision affecting cryptocurrency markets.)
And Loeffler had a direct financial interest in Bakkt. In early 2019, she was awarded a $15.6 million stake in a company that owned a chunk of Bakkt—about half of which she cashed out at the end of that year when she left the firm, in an arrangement criticized by corporate governance experts.
One particular conflict was rather obvious. In 2018, Loeffler left the ICE corporate team to become head of Bakkt, a new federally regulated market for trading Bitcoin that ICE launched. A short time later, when she was a senator overseeing the CFTC, ICE was concerned that Bakkt could be severely hurt by CFTC regulations. ICE pointed this out in a filing it submitted to the Securities and Exchange Committee in February 2020. The filing noted that the “CFTC has designated bitcoin as a commodity…subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction and enforcement powers.” It stated that if the CFTC pursued an aggressive approach to this exchange, “it may have a significant adverse impact on Bakkt’s business and plan of operations.” ICE pointed out that CFTC activity—or the lack thereof—was crucial for the future prospects of the venture Loeffler once headed: “Ongoing and future regulatory actions may impact the ability of Bakkt to continue to operate, and such actions could affect the ability of Bakkt to continue as a going concern.” (In March 2020, the CFTC issued a major decision affecting cryptocurrency markets.)
And Loeffler had a direct financial interest in Bakkt. In early 2019, she was awarded a $15.6 million stake in a company that owned a chunk of Bakkt—about half of which she cashed out at the end of that year when she left the firm, in an arrangement criticized by corporate governance experts.
December 8, 2020
DECEMBER 8, 2020
LOUISVILLE, KY – This morning Louisville resident Johnetta Carr sued seven current and former Louisville Metro Police Department officers in federal court for framing her for a murder she did not commit. The detectives are accused of coercing witnesses, fabricating statements, withholding exculpatory evidence, and framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
Ms. Carr, and her attorneys, Elliot Slosar, Amy Robinson Staples, and Molly Campbell, of the civil rights law firm Loevy & Loevy, will speak at a 1 PM news conference today, Tuesday, December 8, 2020 via Zoom.
Johnetta Carr, at the time a 16-year-old, was framed by Louisville Police Officers in spite of significant evidence implicating alternate suspects. Instead of conducting a legitimate investigation, Defendant Tony Finch and other Louisville officers framed Ms. Carr by coercing a false confession from a co-defendant and manufacturing false statements for jailhouse informants. This is the second wrongful conviction lawsuit filed against Defendant Finch in recent years, as Finch was a named Defendant in Kerry Porter v. City of Louisville, et al., a lawsuit that Loevy & Loevy settled in 2018 for $7,500,000. Like Mr. Porter, Ms. Carr was framed for the 2005 murder of Planes Adolphe in spite of mounting evidence against the true perpetrators.
“Johnetta Carr was framed for a murder that she did not commit,” said Slosar, “and as a result was torn from society as a child. The misconduct that stole the formative years of Johnetta’s life is not an aberration, but rather, consistent with the pattern and practice of how Louisville officers operate. When people think of the failed criminal justice system in Louisville, they should say Johnetta Carr’s name just like Kerry Porter, Jeffrey Clark, Edwin Chandler, and all the other innocent men and women framed by a corrupt Louisville Police Department.“
Ms. Carr was wrongfully incarcerated at 16, wrongfully convicted at 18, and released from prison at 20 in 2009. Ms. Carr then languished on parole for the next decade of her life.
“The Kentucky Innocence Project couldn’t have taken on a more deserving client than Johnetta Carr,” said Campbell. “Despite everything Ms. Carr lost over the years, she never lost hope that she would one day be exonerated. Thanks to KIP she realized that dream last year. Nothing can replace the years and life experiences Ms. Carr lost. But she seeks justice that has been long denied, and seeks to bring attention to wrongful convictions and the many innocent individual who, like her, are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.”
Louisville woman framed for murder and locked up at age 16 sues police after recent exoneration
http://loevy.com/blog/wrongfully-convicted-woman-sues-corrupt-louisville-officers-who-framed-her-for-murder/DECEMBER 8, 2020
LOUISVILLE, KY – This morning Louisville resident Johnetta Carr sued seven current and former Louisville Metro Police Department officers in federal court for framing her for a murder she did not commit. The detectives are accused of coercing witnesses, fabricating statements, withholding exculpatory evidence, and framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
Ms. Carr, and her attorneys, Elliot Slosar, Amy Robinson Staples, and Molly Campbell, of the civil rights law firm Loevy & Loevy, will speak at a 1 PM news conference today, Tuesday, December 8, 2020 via Zoom.
Johnetta Carr, at the time a 16-year-old, was framed by Louisville Police Officers in spite of significant evidence implicating alternate suspects. Instead of conducting a legitimate investigation, Defendant Tony Finch and other Louisville officers framed Ms. Carr by coercing a false confession from a co-defendant and manufacturing false statements for jailhouse informants. This is the second wrongful conviction lawsuit filed against Defendant Finch in recent years, as Finch was a named Defendant in Kerry Porter v. City of Louisville, et al., a lawsuit that Loevy & Loevy settled in 2018 for $7,500,000. Like Mr. Porter, Ms. Carr was framed for the 2005 murder of Planes Adolphe in spite of mounting evidence against the true perpetrators.
“Johnetta Carr was framed for a murder that she did not commit,” said Slosar, “and as a result was torn from society as a child. The misconduct that stole the formative years of Johnetta’s life is not an aberration, but rather, consistent with the pattern and practice of how Louisville officers operate. When people think of the failed criminal justice system in Louisville, they should say Johnetta Carr’s name just like Kerry Porter, Jeffrey Clark, Edwin Chandler, and all the other innocent men and women framed by a corrupt Louisville Police Department.“
Ms. Carr was wrongfully incarcerated at 16, wrongfully convicted at 18, and released from prison at 20 in 2009. Ms. Carr then languished on parole for the next decade of her life.
“The Kentucky Innocence Project couldn’t have taken on a more deserving client than Johnetta Carr,” said Campbell. “Despite everything Ms. Carr lost over the years, she never lost hope that she would one day be exonerated. Thanks to KIP she realized that dream last year. Nothing can replace the years and life experiences Ms. Carr lost. But she seeks justice that has been long denied, and seeks to bring attention to wrongful convictions and the many innocent individual who, like her, are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.”
December 3, 2020
CNN: Obama cautions activists against using 'defund the police' slogan
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/politics/barack-obama-defund-the-police/index.htmlWashington (CNN)Former President Barack Obama cautioned young activists against using the slogan "defund the police" to achieve changes in policing practices, instead urging them in a new interview to have a more inclusive discussion to better enact changes.
In doing so, the former president, who still holds enormous influence in the Democratic Party and has voiced support for protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, is taking a strong stance on a contentious phrase that is a dividing point among Democrats, and speaks to the friction between the more liberal wing of the party and President-elect Joe Biden's calls for a moderate path forward.
"If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund The Police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done," Obama told Peter Hamby on Snapchat's "Good Luck America" when asked what his advice is to an activist who believes in using the slogan although politicians are likely to avoid it.
"But if you instead say, 'Let's reform the police department so that everybody's being treated fairly, you know, divert young people from getting into crime, and if there was a homeless guy, can maybe we send a mental health worker there instead of an armed unit that could end up resulting in a tragedy?' Suddenly, a whole bunch of folks who might not otherwise listen to you are listening to you."
In doing so, the former president, who still holds enormous influence in the Democratic Party and has voiced support for protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, is taking a strong stance on a contentious phrase that is a dividing point among Democrats, and speaks to the friction between the more liberal wing of the party and President-elect Joe Biden's calls for a moderate path forward.
"If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund The Police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done," Obama told Peter Hamby on Snapchat's "Good Luck America" when asked what his advice is to an activist who believes in using the slogan although politicians are likely to avoid it.
"But if you instead say, 'Let's reform the police department so that everybody's being treated fairly, you know, divert young people from getting into crime, and if there was a homeless guy, can maybe we send a mental health worker there instead of an armed unit that could end up resulting in a tragedy?' Suddenly, a whole bunch of folks who might not otherwise listen to you are listening to you."
November 25, 2020
Michael Conway Why Biden should pardon Trump -- and we Democrats should want him to
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-biden-should-pardon-trump-we-democrats-should-want-him-ncna1247986Democrats already know what the mirror image of that looks like. When Trump called for the jailing of his political opponents, he was justly condemned as promoting a vendetta characteristic of a banana republic. Despite the efforts of Trump’s Justice Department, no basis was found to prosecute his political rivals. Trump tried anyway; Biden can, and perhaps should, be better than that.
American democracy cannot tolerate the prosecution of political opponents.
But the justification for a pardon can also be grounded in a higher purpose. The 73 million Americans who voted to re-elect Trump two weeks ago will be just as angry about a good faith federal investigation of Trump after he has left office as Democrats were angry about Trump’s baseless chant to lock up his former political opponents.
Right now, even after the Trump presidency that Americans believe was divisive, polls suggest that enormous numbers of Americans still believe that we have more in common with one another than what separates us. There is an opportunity to rediscover our common ground with one another — and the way forward does not involve relitigating the last four years in federal criminal court.
American democracy cannot tolerate the prosecution of political opponents.
But the justification for a pardon can also be grounded in a higher purpose. The 73 million Americans who voted to re-elect Trump two weeks ago will be just as angry about a good faith federal investigation of Trump after he has left office as Democrats were angry about Trump’s baseless chant to lock up his former political opponents.
Right now, even after the Trump presidency that Americans believe was divisive, polls suggest that enormous numbers of Americans still believe that we have more in common with one another than what separates us. There is an opportunity to rediscover our common ground with one another — and the way forward does not involve relitigating the last four years in federal criminal court.
November 22, 2020
Voting corrupt authoritarians out of office feels pretty mother-effing good, as a billion babies that will be churned out across the US precisely nine months from now will attest to. That said, it's not a good idea to get too comfortable after kicking a Mussolini-wannabe to the curb. Just look at Chile, which defeated the dictator Augusto Pinochet via a referendum in 1988 but only managed to get rid of the last remnant of his murderous government ... now. As in, last month. And it was all thanks to a bunch of turnstile-jumping schoolkids and pot-banging old ladies, not the country's politicians.
...
Chile's Protesters Just Changed Their Constitution (Pay Attention, US)
CrackedVoting corrupt authoritarians out of office feels pretty mother-effing good, as a billion babies that will be churned out across the US precisely nine months from now will attest to. That said, it's not a good idea to get too comfortable after kicking a Mussolini-wannabe to the curb. Just look at Chile, which defeated the dictator Augusto Pinochet via a referendum in 1988 but only managed to get rid of the last remnant of his murderous government ... now. As in, last month. And it was all thanks to a bunch of turnstile-jumping schoolkids and pot-banging old ladies, not the country's politicians.
...
Nearly 80% of voters chose to take Pinochet's legacy for a helicopter ride and draft a new, more equalitarian constitution. And that's good, but what the hell took so long? Well, what most feel-good movies about Pinochet's defeat don't mention is that, while he wouldn't have minded staying in power for a couple more centuries or so, he very much left under his own terms and remained involved in government matters until 2002. This was like breaking up with your abusive ex but letting him sleep on the couch and decide what to watch on TV for the next 14 years.
How did he pull that off? By rewriting Chile's constitution like a kid who makes up fake Monopoly rules when he's losing. Pinochet and his henchmen knew that the dictatorship would end one day, so they wrote the 1980 constitution to ensure things wouldn't change too much after they were gone, then forced it on the country via a bogus election (in which government agents were allowed to double or triple dip at the voting urns). The constitution permitted Pinochet, someone who stole millions of dollars from the country while killing and torturing thousands of citizens, to remain as Commander in Chief of the Army until 1988 and become senator-for-life after that.
Speaking of elected officials that nobody elected, the constitution also made it so a third of the senate was made up of "designated senators" handpicked by Pinochet's side to make sure the left-wing parties could never get a majority, even after winning every single election until 2005. And the modern right, despite being alllllll about "freedom" and "democracy," loved it.
How did he pull that off? By rewriting Chile's constitution like a kid who makes up fake Monopoly rules when he's losing. Pinochet and his henchmen knew that the dictatorship would end one day, so they wrote the 1980 constitution to ensure things wouldn't change too much after they were gone, then forced it on the country via a bogus election (in which government agents were allowed to double or triple dip at the voting urns). The constitution permitted Pinochet, someone who stole millions of dollars from the country while killing and torturing thousands of citizens, to remain as Commander in Chief of the Army until 1988 and become senator-for-life after that.
Speaking of elected officials that nobody elected, the constitution also made it so a third of the senate was made up of "designated senators" handpicked by Pinochet's side to make sure the left-wing parties could never get a majority, even after winning every single election until 2005. And the modern right, despite being alllllll about "freedom" and "democracy," loved it.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:49 AMNumber of posts: 5,790