> "Some of the reluctance to hold Trump accountable was a function of the same old perverse political incentives—elected Republicans feared a political backlash from their base. But after January 6, a new, more existential brand of cowardice had emerged. One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety. The congressman reasoned that Trump would be impeached by House Democrats with or without him—why put his wife and children at risk if it wouldn’t change the outcome? Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right."
The author of that ridiculous Mastodon post is overcompensating for his history of calling Muslims "vermin" and other assorted hate speech, to the point where he was cited in Anders Breivik's manifesto. Extremely bad faith.
The Secret Service's criteria[0] make it arguable either way.
For example, the polling criteria would argue against him (though I think he's been close): "Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days."
Based on the video, I think he would argue his strongest case is based on the threat assessment criteria: "A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm)."
Either way, a nutter who hopefully falls off the charts early in the primaries.
This is one of those things that's true but not necessarily applicable.
One could also say that you can't have a functioning democracy when elections aren't secure. And yes, that's technically true, but the implication hidden in that statement is that elections aren't safe.
RFKJr is trying to imply he is not safe without directly saying so.
[+] [-] barryrandall|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taylodl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bandyaboot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] help_quanted|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clouddrover|2 years ago|reply
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-ro...
From the article:
> "Some of the reluctance to hold Trump accountable was a function of the same old perverse political incentives—elected Republicans feared a political backlash from their base. But after January 6, a new, more existential brand of cowardice had emerged. One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety. The congressman reasoned that Trump would be impeached by House Democrats with or without him—why put his wife and children at risk if it wouldn’t change the outcome? Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right."
[+] [-] throwaway776291|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] concinds|2 years ago|reply
The author of that ridiculous Mastodon post is overcompensating for his history of calling Muslims "vermin" and other assorted hate speech, to the point where he was cited in Anders Breivik's manifesto. Extremely bad faith.
[+] [-] tomohawk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkarl|2 years ago|reply
For example, the polling criteria would argue against him (though I think he's been close): "Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days."
Based on the video, I think he would argue his strongest case is based on the threat assessment criteria: "A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm)."
Either way, a nutter who hopefully falls off the charts early in the primaries.
[0] https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-20...
[+] [-] bena|2 years ago|reply
One could also say that you can't have a functioning democracy when elections aren't secure. And yes, that's technically true, but the implication hidden in that statement is that elections aren't safe.
RFKJr is trying to imply he is not safe without directly saying so.
[+] [-] keepamovin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|2 years ago|reply
If I had a nickel for every time someone around me said something “nutter” that later turned out to have something to it… I’d have a lot of nickels.
Imagine if just 3 years ago I said anything of the following. “Nutter!”
- Russia will invade Ukraine. Sanctions and stupidity be darned.
- Silicon Valley Bank will go insolvent from overexposure to one of the safest investments on earth.
- There is a real, but small, connection between myocarditis and vaccination in young men.
Etc.
[+] [-] jncfhnb|2 years ago|reply
Edit: I take it back. His request seems pretty reasonable given the context
His pandering to his family legacy is annoying here but whatever