Trump is not going to accept election results Rough and ugly transition ahead.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you got it. Trump is not only not going make a concession speech he is going to claim fraud over and over in a attempt to make the results illegitimate. He is planning to stage a coup de etat if he needs to..

Maybe you can answer: with what army?

Bikers, Bundy's survivalists clan, border patrol guards?

He'll leave crying foul, refuse to give a concession speech, maybe piss on the WH carpets and go off to pout with his sycophants in tow.

Unless you have an army in mind????

Trump's not so stupid as to try to stage a coup because he's knows he'll look like an idiot. He has his fantasies but he's not completely delusional that he has lost complete sight of reality.

Unless you have an army in mind????

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe you can answer: with what army?

Bikers, Bundy's survivalists clan, border patrol guards?

He'll leave crying foul, refuse to give a concession speech, maybe piss on the WH carpets and go off to pout with his sycophants in tow.

Unless you have an army in mind????

Trump's not so stupid as to try to stage a coup because he's knows he'll look like an idiot. He has his fantasies but he's not completely delusional that he has lost complete sight of reality.

Unless you have an army in mind????

I agree. Unless Trump has the military behind him, he cannot stage a successful coup. And he doesn't.

 

[shuttlt]

Nice little attempt at equivocation here; because yes, a wacky conspiracy theory is equivalent to a well-supported, concerted effort.

Which theory is wacky depends on who you talk to. I understand you trust the people/sources/narrative you trust. I don't intend that as a passive aggressive dig, we all do it. I certainly haven't read the whole of these 1000 page reports, though I've read a bit.... who has the time?

The impression I've come away with from what I have read of primary sources is that if the Republican's were motivated enough, and had the FBI/Press etc... on their side, they could certainly find something in the 2020 election result to investigate and make a case for the Democrats cheating that people who were motivated to believe them would believe.

Any report the Republican's produced would be too long and dull for almost anybody to read and we'd just have talking heads on Fox telling us how damning it is, and talking heads on CNN and MSNBC saying it was nonsense. There are enough dirty, venal, stupid, boastful, fabulists wandering around politics, that somebody is bound to say something incriminating. There have been enough self-incriminating things said by the people who were investigating Trump that it's not as if Republican's don't have material to string a story about 2016 around.

When people seek to overturn/undo an election, with any degree of popular support, they always feel justified. The Republican's will feel justified if/when they do it, just like you presumably did when Democrats were trying to remove Trump.

My views used to be a lot more like yours. At the root of this, I think you radically underestimate how easy it is to tell a convincing story, regardless of the truth, that dismisses the accusations against Trump, if your audience is positively disposed to him. Similarly, you radically underestimate how easy it is to tell a convincing story, regardless of the truth, that is damning towards Trump, if your audience is negatively disposed to him.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What Democratic attempts were made to overturn/undo Trump's election? You must have something in mind, or you wouldn't continue to make that claim.

 

[Venom]

Would it be possible for some skulduggery by, say, the Russians to make it look like the Dems have been cheating via some kind of electronic ballot hacking? If it looks all but certain Trump will lose, why not pad the Dem vote with obvious enough fraud so that the Repugs can 'legitimately' cry foul?

I can imagine all kinds of rat-******* being worked out as we speak.

This is what I'm afraid of. Perhaps the Russians could try to make Democrats look like the cheaters by "helping" them.

 

[Belz...]

Which theory is wacky depends on who you talk to.

Yes, if you listen to crazy people, demagogues and liars, you get different perspectives. But if you are interested in the preponderance of evidence, and the analyses of actual professionals in the related fields, the conclusion is inescapable.

You can try all you want but you will never get me to agree with the post-fact mode of thinking. Some opinions are worth more than others, and facts are worth more feelings.

I understand you trust the people/sources/narrative you trust. I don't intend that as a passive aggressive dig, we all do it. I certainly haven't read the whole of these 1000 page reports, though I've read a bit.... who has the time?

Sounds like an excuse to short-circuit reason and conclude using magical thinking and tribal allegiances.

 

[Stacyhs]

Which theory is wacky depends on who you talk to. I understand you trust the people/sources/narrative you trust. I don't intend that as a passive aggressive dig, we all do it. I certainly haven't read the whole of these 1000 page reports, though I've read a bit.... who has the time?

The impression I've come away with from what I have read of primary sources is that if the Republican's were motivated enough, and had the FBI/Press etc... on their side, they could certainly find something in the 2020 election result to investigate and make a case for the Democrats cheating that people who were motivated to believe them would believe.

Any report the Republican's produced would be too long and dull for almost anybody to read and we'd just have talking heads on Fox telling us how damning it is, and talking heads on CNN and MSNBC saying it was nonsense. There are enough dirty, venal, stupid, boastful, fabulists wandering around politics, that somebody is bound to say something incriminating. There have been enough self-incriminating things said by the people who were investigating Trump that it's not as if Republican's don't have material to string a story about 2016 around.

When people seek to overturn/undo an election, with any degree of popular support, they always feel justified. The Republican's will feel justified if/when they do it, just like you presumably did when Democrats were trying to remove Trump.

Democrats never tried to remove Trump. This is the second false claim regarding the Dems and the election you've made, the first being that the Dems contested his election.

(Nitpick: Republican's is the possessive. Republicans is the plural.)

ETA: Ah...I think you meant during the impeachment. I understand now.

 

[Stacyhs]

deleted

Wrong place

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

ETA: Ah...I think you meant during the impeachment. I understand now.

Still however, impeachment would put Pence in the hotseat, it wouldn't fit the definition of overturn/undo. Impeachment would never have put anyone else in charge, certainly not Clinton, and it wouldn't cause an election do-over.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Democrats never tried to remove Trump. This is the second false claim regarding the Dems and the election you've made, the first being that the Dems contested his election.

(Nitpick: Republican's is the possessive. Republicans is the plural.)

ETA: Ah...I think you meant during the impeachment. I understand now.

Except for the impeachment.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe you can answer: with what army?

Bikers, Bundy's survivalists clan, border patrol guards?

He'll leave crying foul, refuse to give a concession speech, maybe piss on the WH carpets and go off to pout with his sycophants in tow.

Unless you have an army in mind????

Trump's not so stupid as to try to stage a coup because he's knows he'll look like an idiot. He has his fantasies but he's not completely delusional that he has lost complete sight of reality.

Unless you have an army in mind????

If it's close, there will be some mail in ballot version of hanging chads, and then it will be decided in the courts. No way in hell anything is decided by force. That is an "Anne Heche" or possibly even a "Randy Quaid" on the insanity scale.

 

[Stacyhs]

Except for the impeachment.

Yes, I got that almost immediately after I hit the post button. I was connecting it to his original statement about Dems and contesting the 2016 election (which never happened). My mistake.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Sounds like an excuse to short-circuit reason and conclude using magical thinking and tribal allegiances.

Indeed. "Open minds" and "my truth and your truth" are canards from the altermative medicine community that's sadly also worked its way into politics (especially Russian politics). In a partisan, post-fact world, you have no actual history to base anything on, only different narratives and theories, and endless spin. You-know-who seem to be embracing this mentality, but the rest of us are just deeply concerned.

I also wonder if the trumpkins realise that this works both ways. There is a thousand ways a post-fact environment can hurt them back.

 

[shuttlt]

Still however, impeachment would put Pence in the hotseat, it wouldn't fit the definition of overturn/undo. Impeachment would never have put anyone else in charge, certainly not Clinton, and it wouldn't cause an election do-over.

Since nobody has a magic wand, everybody in the great game is limited to what they have it in their power to get away with. It wasn't possible to directly overturn the election result. Democrats have pissed and moaned about how Trump cheated to win for close to 4 years now. They undo it to the extent that they are able.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Except for the impeachment.

Yes, I suppose that's what they were alluding to, but either way I don't feel that counts. Removing Trump would just have put Pence in charge. Not exactly the coup the trumpkins tried to make it out to be.

 

[The Atheist]

Exactly how did the Democrats contest the election results?

If I recall correctly, a woman cycled up to his motorcade and shot Trump the middle finger.

I'd want to see some evidence that he is compos mentis right now, because I think you're over-rating his sanity.

He is that stupid, and he is that delusional.

 

[xterra]

The oath that US military officers take starts,

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic[.]
​

It says nothing about supporting the PERSON holding the office of President.

The US military has as an institution refused to take part in politics. Individual officers have sometimes gone far beyond this tradition, in some cases all the way to treason. But the institution has not.

I hope that the top officers are honest enough, have enough integrity and enough personal and psychological strength to resist any political pressure put on them by elected or appointed officials.

 

[acbytesla]

We'll see. But nothing surprises me any more. At this point seeing what Trump has been doing with the post office, I'd be more shocked if Trump doesn't inject chos that will cause a national insanity. I still remember how crazy the Florida vote was in 2000.

 

[acbytesla]

The oath that US military officers take starts,

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic[.]
​

It says nothing about supporting the PERSON holding the office of President.

The US military has as an institution refused to take part in politics. Individual officers have sometimes gone far beyond this tradition, in some cases all the way to treason. But the institution has not.

I hope that the top officers are honest enough, have enough integrity and enough personal and psychological strength to resist any political pressure put on them by elected or appointed officials.

The problem is that POTUS is CINC. He gives an order someone is supposed to carry it out.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, if you listen to crazy people, demagogues and liars, you get different perspectives. But if you are interested in the preponderance of evidence, and the analyses of actual professionals in the related fields, the conclusion is inescapable.

You can try all you want but you will never get me to agree with the post-fact mode of thinking. Some opinions are worth more than others, and facts are worth more feelings.

I'm not sure it is a post fact mode of thinking. I believe in facts too. It's more of a facts don't come easy mode of thinking.

The difficulty is that almost all the time, there isn't one single fact, or even a handful of facts, that you can hold in front of you, verify to some level of confidence, and know the truth of what is going on with respect to an important topic. There are too many facts, too many of the facts are interconnected and hard to be sure of, and we interpret those facts based on the stories our sides believe.

Plus, typically we don't get facts.... we get opinion with "facts" sprinkled through them like that meme of the man sprinkling salt.

I don't know who you rely on. Maybe you basically trust the Democrats to be truthful. Maybe you trust CNN or the Washington Post. I used to as well, but then a few things happened, and I started to check up on them and came to the conclusion that the truth wasn't at the top of their list of priorities on all topics. If you assume they are honestly and conscientious doing their best to give you balanced facts, then there is no point in arguing it.

To counteract the downer of all that. Almost nobody actually does any digging, plenty of primary sources are out there. I'm sure in the old days this forum would have been much more interested in picking apart the Mueller report for pedantry's sake alone.

Sounds like an excuse to short-circuit reason and conclude using magical thinking and tribal allegiances.

I'm not tribally aligned. I was on the left. I started to doubt, and started to check the homework, so to speak, of my side. I don't think of myself as right wing, and I'd certainly dispute that I'm tribal right wing. I might be wrong, but I'm not wrong for tribal reasons.