Legal "assassinations": Crazy enough to work?

Author: Savant

Posts

Hot
Total: 64
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,637
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
49 Japanese patriots who have United States citizenship.
How would the Japanese patriots benefit from this? How would they know who the Manchurian candidate is yet no one else does?

the Manchurian candidates when in power can just release them
Well, someone could go to jail to remove the Manchurian candidate from office.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,185
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
How would the Japanese patriots benefit from this? How would they know who the Manchurian candidate is yet no one else does?
The citizens wouldn't need to know they would just need to be in constant communication with those in the Japanese embassy

Well, someone could go to jail to remove the Manchurian candidate from office.
This assumes two things

1. Whites are just as willing to be kamikazes as the Japanese, I think WW2 is a hint as to how true that is

2. That this isn't well timed and no immediate takeover that can subvert the rule of law occurs. Once they have complete power then it's over. Maybe you could offset this with lifetime judge appointments that can overrule decisions but then you are back to a bunch of the swamp just taking olup for each other and nobody ever gets removed. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,752
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Savant
and what? Threaten to put somebody in jail for life? :)
Put them in jail but keep the politician in office, yeah. That ruins the blackmail.
Not in general. A party/community will use code words to indicate that they're threatening.

It happens right now and it would happen even more when there is a 100% chance of success.


So suppose a certain group calls themselves zeta.

They have about a hundred thousand members spread relatively evenly throughout the country. They can't win any elections, but they have a very high 'radicalization' quotient, that is most of them are convinced that they are being brutally oppressed and 10% of them are willing to go to prison to change things. If assassination would change things instead of turning the public against them, they would certainly assassinate.

If you think such a group is unrealistic, I beg to differ, I think there are 20 such groups right now.


That's 10,000 vetos in their arsenal, and they have no way to win elections.

They don't need to convince the public or a party or even the candidate lineup. All they need to do is convince the current leader that someone in their group will take them out.

So they will use weasel words, dog whistles, and coded language.

"If you don't, people will not stand for it" (wink wink nudge nudge)
"This is intolerable, it's worse than life in prison" (wink wink nudge nudge)

You can't throw anybody who uses such language in prison, and even if you did; that means they can use that power to protect a candidate. Want someone to be immune from "assassination"? Just threaten to "assassinate" them.


You think you can lineup 10,000 candidates and not one would give in? That is absurd. The only reason they might not give in would be because they know if they did, somebody else would "assassinate" them because you can't make everybody happy (so long as somebody is irrational).

Then it's not a game between the candidate and the public, it's a game between the groups that hate each other's policies, a game of sacrifice, and we know what that game looks like: it's called war.

Politics is war by other means and this is form of war that gives the advantage to those most convinced that they're right, not the unselfish.
ultramaximus2
ultramaximus2's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 28
0
0
2
ultramaximus2's avatar
ultramaximus2
0
0
2
It would be necessary to have another election after that. Too much time and money spent on elections. Also old people who are gonna die in a few months anyway (eg terminal cancer) can just push the button without much cost to their life experience whereas young people would have to pay a much higher price (eg 40 years+)