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

[shuttlt]

God's Trump's homie. He keeps walking up to him saying, sir, how do you know so much about the Bible? I divinely inspired the thing and I don't know half as much as you do! You've done more for me and my faith than any other president in history! Etc.

You need a few more typos and the sentences are too long. Otherwise, that does sound kind of Trumpian.

 

[turingtest]

Probably.


This is an opinion rather than a fact.


This is an opinion rather than a fact.


This is an opinion rather than a fact.


This is an opinion rather than a fact.


I suspect this is an opinion rather than a fact. It is also looks a lot like a hyperbolic exaggeration of the "this is the greatest X ever" variety that, were Trump to say it, many people would call it a lie. It doesn't matter anyway, since his appeal isn't based on him being a choir boy who never took advantage of a sucker.


Trump supporters look at Democrat attacks on Trump and frequently see them as being dishonest - like claiming he said neo-Nazi's were good people for example (I really don't care whether you think he said that, they think he didn't). Telling me that I should support your guy, who I believe just lied about my guy, because you tell me my guy is a liar is not a persuasive argument.


Good for you. You are one of the few. I tip my hat to you. I just skimmed the Carter Page section of the senate report and wasn't particularly blown away. Have you found a smoking gun anywhere in it, or is it more like what I said with lots of small interconnected facts that on their own don't prove anything?

The word you're looking for here is "consilience"- it is a thing, and it's the principle that they are interconnected that makes it a valid thing. If a "smoking gun" is always what's required to prove something, then, like a good conspiracy theorist, you'll never accept any proof or reach any conclusion.

JMO, but it's the fact that it's the President of the US (I hope you won't contest this as a fact) proactively casting doubt on the processes and institutions used to select our leaders that's worrisome. It's one thing for Democrats as a group to do no more than, in the aftermath, wonder aloud, as it were, if Trump had some help winning his election, with the worst possible result being that a Republican would still be president; it's quite another when Trump, with no more evidence than he has shown (i.e., zero), and with the only stated justification being that (paraphrased) it's the only way he would lose, irresponsibly throws shade on the democratic process our Republic uses, and needs to continue to use.

 

[shuttlt]

If you've been paying attention you might have noticed this is not something Roberts would do. He's big on preserving the institutions of US government.

I know little about Roberts, but are you confident that he will agree with you about what constitutes "preserving the institutions of US government"? Presumably it is going to come down to a decision like when to stop rechecking rejected ballots, or whether a particular set of votes should be counted, or whether a particular irregularity is enough to throw out the result. I really doubt it is going to be clear cut decision where "preserving the institutions of US government" is on one side and "destroying the institutions of US government" is on the other. If the situation is bad enough to end up being a Supreme Court decision almost certainly all their options are going to smell bad.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree. It is hardly accepting the result though.

Nonsense. It's not being happy about the results. No one has said that it actually changed the results.

The typical claim is very obviously and very clearly that the various investigations and impeachments were the democrats looking for ways to undo the election result.

Again, nonsense. The investigation and impeachment were due to the actions of various people before, during, and after the election, including Trump. Possibly criminal actions.

Had they been in a position to mount an immediate legal challenge, in the manner of hanging chads, are we claiming they wouldn't have done?

Are you saying that if they had been in a position to do so, they should not have done so? I would think that any election for which there was evidence of it being fraudulent would be challenged. I repeat for which there is evidence.

Your reading comprehension failed you.

Your post failed the logic test.

 

[Bob001]

Were that to happen, they will almost certainly claim some kind of justification - like that the election was unfair in some way. Are the Democrats not going to do the same and use every means at their disposal like they did last time?

What do you think you mean by this? Clinton conceded the morning after the 2016 election, and there were no Democratic challenges in any state.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know little about Roberts,

Your post shows that.

but are you confident that he will agree with you about what constitutes "preserving the institutions of US government"?

Yes, and it's a no brainer what preserving the institution means.

Presumably it is going to come down to a decision like when to stop rechecking rejected ballots, or whether a particular set of votes should be counted, or whether a particular irregularity is enough to throw out the result. I really doubt it is going to be clear cut decision where "preserving the institutions of US government" is on one side and "destroying the institutions of US government" is on the other. If the situation is bad enough to end up being a Supreme Court decision almost certainly all their options are going to smell bad.

The SCOTUS decision that installed GW Bush (and had its own horrendous consequences) is not what the discussion was about. It was about Trump refusing to accept the election outcome and trying to challenge the results.

In case you need a reminder, the chads had to do with the election recount in FL. It wasn't about a sitting POTUS challenging the entire election outcome. I'm sure Trump imagines himself doing that. He's probably even been consulting his little sycophant Bill Barr about what his options will be when he loses if Barr's and McEnany's non-committal answers in press conferences are any indication.

Trump always does that. But he caves in the end. Hopefully the election won't be close so Trump won't have a leg to stand on challenging the outcome.

 

[acbytesla]

Probably.

No ABSOLUTELY.

This is an opinion rather than a fact.

No, its a fact

This is an opinion rather than a fact.

Again, it is 100 percent FACTUAL

This is an opinion rather than a fact.

Again, it is 100 percent FACTUAL

This is an opinion rather than a fact.

100 percent FACTUAL.

I suspect this is an opinion rather than a fact. It is also looks a lot like a hyperbolic exaggeration of the "this is the greatest X ever" variety that, were Trump to say it, many people would call it a lie. It doesn't matter anyway, since his appeal isn't based on him being a choir boy who never took advantage of a sucker.

Who are you trying to persuade, you or me?

No out and out fabrications such as what he said he didnt say to President Zelensky. What he said to Robert Mueller. Lies about voter fraud. He lied about how much he is worth. How much his businesses made where he lied to either to the government or to the banks. Or both. Both of which are crimes btw. He said he received only one million dollars from his father. Yet that was a lie since he started to receive huge sums from his father before his tenth birthday. We know he received more than 400 million from his father. He said he was worth 10 billion dollars and then sued the reporter who reported that Trump may not even be a billionaire. He lied on the stand in that case. Eventually saying the real value of his company was its brand and that varied with his feelings. He lied about his charitable foundation using it as a slush fund. He lied about releasing his taxes and why he didn't.

Let's see, he lied to his first wife, his second wife and his present wife, cheating constantly on all of them. He lied about Stormy Daniels. He first lied that he didn't know her he lied he didnt pay her off. He lied about healthcare such as the fact that no one would be thrown off their health insurance. He called Colonel Vindman a liar when he knew Vindman was telling the truth. I'm sure I can come up with many, many, many, many more. And any help from the crowd would not be discouraged.

Well, we didn't get a choirboy, that's for certain. We got a liar and a bully, a grifter who would cheat anyone from his family to his employees to his business investors to contractors to busboys and to his country.

Trump supporters look at Democrat attacks on Trump and frequently see them as being dishonest - like claiming he said neo-Nazi's were good people for example (I really don't care whether you think he said that, they think he didn't). Telling me that I should support your guy, who I believe just lied about my guy, because you tell me my guy is a liar is not a persuasive argument.

Really, that's what you're pointing to as proof that people are exaggerating Trumpspeak?

What Trump said "is that there were good people on both sides", one side being "the Unite the Right" protesters. The protesters were carrying banners that cited Nazi rhetoric and were wearing symbols including swastikas, Nazi SS lightning bolt symbols and helmets and shields and other imagery straight from the Third Reich. Now basic deduction that when Trump says there were very good people on both sides, mean he was referring to them.

I'd say people are damn fair and Trump supporters if they point to this as some kind of Press dishonesty they should really look in the mirror.

Good for you. You are one of the few. I tip my hat to you. I just skimmed the Carter Page section of the senate report and wasn't particularly blown away. Have you found a smoking gun anywhere in it, or is it more like what I said with lots of small interconnected facts that on their own don't prove anything?

Of course you weren't. 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 in your world. I think there are multiple smoking guns, but I want to finish the entire report, compile my notes and post it to another thread as I don't want to derail this thread

 

[acbytesla]

@acbytesla, yes I added Calley but hadn't seen that you referred to him already.


Posts that cross in the ... intertubes, I guess.

I thought that was funny. I was responding to your original post but your addition beat my reply.

Any way...great minds.

 

[shuttlt]

The word you're looking for here is "consilience"- it is a thing, and it's the principle that they are interconnected that makes it a valid thing. If a "smoking gun" is always what's required to prove something, then, like a good conspiracy theorist, you'll never accept any proof or reach any conclusion.

I didn't know the word, so thank you for that. I'm not arguing that a smoking gun is required for proof, but the more the argument comes down to a consilience, the more demands it places on the public if we are going to have an educated opinion.

JMO, but it's the fact that it's the President of the US (I hope you won't contest this as a fact) proactively casting doubt on the processes and institutions used to select our leaders that's worrisome.

Perhaps. But again the last election is supposed to have been won by cheating. That seems like a worrisome claim. Are claims about voter suppression and gerrymandering delegitimizing of the process, and therefore worrisome? If Trump believes, rightly or wrongly, that the push for mail-in voting like this is part of a Democrat plot to do the same in 2020, should he let it happen for the sake of the institutions? It's in the future, so necessarily any fears are unproven.

If Trump wins, but a lot of votes get rejected, or some other issue occurs, will Democrats not complain to preserve the institutions?

It's one thing for Democrats as a group to do no more than, in the aftermath, wonder aloud, as it were, if Trump had some help winning his election, with the worst possible result being that a Republican would still be president; it's quite another when Trump, with no more evidence than he has shown (i.e., zero), and with the only stated justification being that (paraphrased) it's the only way he would lose, irresponsibly throws shade on the democratic process our Republic uses, and needs to continue to use.

You have to see this from a Trump supporters perspective. The way they will see it is that Democrats were trying to use the institutions of government to get rid of Trump since before he got into office, they have lied, they have called all Trump supporters racist and all sorts of other vile stuff.... tone policing at this point isn't going to work. If the Democrats had spent the past 3 years going high, people might care. Trump isn't going to go high, because he's Trump.... but the Democrats don't get to wallow in the mud with him and then suddenly act all concerned about decorum.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow, how often does that bloke's name get mentioned twice in a day in 2020?

I made a post featuring him 2 1/2 hours before you, in a different forum.

https://www.skepticalcommunity.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=50495

And I can even use him to segue back on topic, because Calley will forever remind me of Edward R Gallagher, who stands at the tail end of the slippery slope of vigilante actions.

That would be three times. Pretty bizarre. I don't think i have thought about him for decades.

 

[shuttlt]

No ABSOLUTELY.

No, its a fact

Again, it is 100 percent FACTUAL

Again, it is 100 percent FACTUAL

100 percent FACTUAL.

There is no point debating this. You think your opinions are facts. Other people don't. This can't go anywhere and illustrates the point.

Who are you trying to persuade, you or me?

I know you aren't open to persuasion on this. Your list of 100% facts would convince me of that if I didn't know it already.

No out and out fabrications such as what he said he didnt say to President Zelensky. What he said to Robert Mueller. Lies about voter fraud. He lied about how much he is worth. How much his businesses made where he lied to either to the government or to the banks. Or both. Both of which are crimes btw. He said he received only one million dollars from his father. Yet that was a lie since he started to receive huge sums from his father before his tenth birthday. We know he received more than 400 million from his father. He said he was worth 10 billion dollars and then sued the reporter who reported that Trump may not even be a billionaire. He lied on the stand in that case. Eventually saying the real value of his company was its brand and that varied with his feelings. He lied about his charitable foundation using it as a slush fund. He lied about releasing his taxes and why he didn't.

Let's see, he lied to his first wife, his second wife and his present wife, cheating constantly on all of them. He lied about Stormy Daniels. He first lied that he didn't know her he lied he didnt pay her off. He lied about healthcare such as the fact that no one would be thrown off their health insurance. He called Colonel Vindman a liar when he knew Vindman was telling the truth. I'm sure I can come up with many, many, many, many more. And any help from the crowd would not be discouraged.

I didn't doubt, and I continue not to doubt that you can produce lists of things that Trump said that were false, or misleading or didn't turn out like he said. I don't doubt that for some/many of them he knew better at the time. I am thoroughly convinced that were I to look into that rambling list in detail I would find that you and I differ radically on our analysis. Since I already accept that Trump does say provably false things pretty regularly, I don't see the point.

Well, we didn't get a choirboy, that's for certain.

Indeed, and yet people continue to attack him and expect the attacks to land as if everybody thought he was a choirboy and will be shocked that he isn't.

We got a liar and a bully, a grifter who would cheat anyone from his family to his employees to his business investors to contractors to busboys and to his country.

Blah, blah, hyperbole and opinion.

Really, that's what you're pointing to as proof that people are exaggerating Trumpspeak?

What Trump said "is that there were good people on both sides", one side being "the Unite the Right" protesters. The protesters were carrying banners that cited Nazi rhetoric and were wearing symbols including swastikas, Nazi SS lightning bolt symbols and helmets and shields and other imagery straight from the Third Reich. Now basic deduction that when Trump says there were very good people on both sides, mean he was referring to them.

I know you aren't going to change your mind about any of these quotes. Read what I said. I was talking about what Trump supporters believe. Even if I was talking to somebody who I thought was open to persuasion, I wouldn't think that just stating what Trump supporters believe would cause you to be won over.

What I was explaining to you was why you asserting what a liar Trump was as a "fact", just didn't matter one way or the other even if one accepted your opinion as fact since they already had the "fact" that your candidate was a liar. Probably they would also believe that you were a liar for claiming that Trump said that neo-Nazis were good people. You calling Trump a liar in those circumstances is useless.

Of course you weren't. 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 in your world. I think there are multiple smoking guns, but I want to finish the entire report, compile my notes and post it to another thread as I don't want to derail this thread

Go right ahead. I look forward to finding out what the important sections are. As much as I may think your judgement is way off, I do commend your efforts to read the report and will read what ever thread you may start with interest.

 

[Belz...]

There is no point debating this. You think your opinions are facts. Other people don't.

And again this is a post-fact thinking. That some people disagree with the facts does not make opinions that agree with the facts just as incorrect as they are.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no point debating this. You think your opinions are facts. Other people don't. This can't go anywhere and illustrates the point.

What I was explaining to you was why you asserting what a liar Trump was as a "fact", just didn't matter one way or the other even if one accepted your opinion as fact since they already had the "fact" that your candidate was a liar. Probably they would also believe that you were a liar for claiming that Trump said that neo-Nazis were good people. You calling Trump a liar in those circumstances is useless.

And again this is a post-fact thinking. That some people disagree with the facts does not make opinions that agree with the facts just as incorrect as they are.

It staggers me the level of intellectual dishonesty some people will commit for their tribe. I see some of on the far left so it is not limited to Trump supporters. But Trump supporters keep proving over and over again that if Trump said his bowel evacuations consisted of Dutch chocolate they would be chowing down like a Mississippi woman eating Miss Minnie's pie.

 

[shuttlt]

And again this is a post-fact thinking. That some people disagree with the facts does not make opinions that agree with the facts just as incorrect as they are.

I'm not at all sure that is what I argued.

I was talking about the difficulty of coming to firm opinions about all this because typically we are presented with opinions and that getting a firm understanding of the facts was very difficult. Acbytesla then presented his opinions as facts. Acbytesla's opinion could even be correct, but they still aren't facts that we can all look at and agree on as common ground. Otherwise, should I start saying that Biden having dementia is a 100% fact? It's just not helpful to call our conclusions "facts" in conversation with people who disagree with us.

 

[crescent]

This article seems relevant:

Where the System May Break

The bottom line: There do exist outer legal boundaries to the mischief that can be done by even the most corrupt president.

The bad news is that there is a lot of mischief that can be done within the legal boundaries by a determined president, especially with the compliance of the attorney general and enough political allies in the state capitals.

The worst news is that, faced with presidential lawlessness, few of the participants at the Transition Integrity Project found effective responses. The courts offered only slow, weak, and unreliable remedies. Street protests were difficult to mobilize and often proved counterproductive. Republican elected officials cowered even in the face of the most outrageous Trump acts. Democratic elected officials lacked the tools and clout to make much difference. Many of the games turned on who made the first bold move. Time after time, that first mover was Trump.

And even in the scenarios in which Biden’s team eventually won—that is, secured possession of the White House at noon on Inauguration Day, 2021—Team Trump by then had thoroughly poisoned the political system.

If the link to that article is paywalled, Vox has similar coverage of the same "war game". How to avert a post-election nightmare

From that article:

They simulated four scenarios: a big Biden victory, a narrow Biden win, an indeterminate result à la the 2000 election, and a narrow Trump victory. In every scenario but a massive Biden blowout, things went south.

“We anticipate lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests drawing people from both sides,” TIP writes in a post-exercise report summarizing their findings. “The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.”

Nils Gilman, the vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute think tank, is one of the project’s co-founders. In his view, the exercise highlighted key flaws in our electoral system, ranging from the rickety 18th-century design of the presidential election system to our modern plague of hyperpartisanship. These problems, Gilman says, make the electoral system particularly vulnerable to a catastrophic collapse in 2020 — and some of them could still be addressed before it’s too late.

Essentially, mess with the electoral college. I can see that happening. A state with a GOP governor goes narrowly Democratic? - then Governor declares all mail-in votes suspect and invalidates them. Orders election workers to look more closely for spoiled ballots - starting in Dem districts. Its not about creating fake votes, that's too hard. But it is easy to throw away valid votes.

There have even been scenarios proposed where a single state sends two conflicting delegations to the EC - one from a governor, one from the legislature. And the legal remedies to that are not all that clear cut.

I keep thinking of Texas. Many Republicans love Texas, they imagine a state filled with well-armed big men named "Hoss" and "Bubba", who drive big trucks. They feel that Texas is pure GOP territory, I think they can't imagine Texas voting Dem - but it could happen. (Personally, I don't think it will, not yet, but for the sake of argument we'll imagine it does as some models suggest is possible.) One could imagine the state GOP machine kicking into overdrive to ensure that the EC from Texas stays Republican - it has to. It is their state, their Republican state, no election can change that. So they mess with the EC somehow.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, expect the lame duck Senate to try to impeach RBG by claiming she is no longer mentally competent. Regardless of how the election goes, Mitch McConnell will still be the Senate Majority leader until inauguration day. I he thinks he needs to get rid of Dem SC Justice, he'll try, he's shown himself to be partisan to the point of immorality.

Remember that if anything happens, it will all be couched in very legalistic terminology. It won't be Trump crying and whining and throwing a tantrum. It will be lawyers citing laws, citing the constitution as reasons for throwing away votes, for sending EC delegations that don't match a given state's popular vote. Lots of legal cites of state laws and constitutions are they relate to appointing EC delegates and determining how those delegates vote.

If things go really, really south (which I don't actually expect), then one would expect Trump (or Pence) to cite this or that portion of the Constitution as the justification for suspending certain other parts of the Constitution and inconvenient laws. Look at most third-world coups, that's how they often do it, citing the legal national charter as the justification for suspending that charter. For example, they could make claims about threats to the Second Amendment as justification for this or that - enough rabid militia and Qanon gun nuts would accept any justification if it is coached as a defense of the 2nd.

Don't expect the military to do squat. They'll mostly sit it out, a surprising number of civil wars feature a national military watching from the sidelines until things are more advanced. Some military people may take action, but the big assets will just sit and watch.


I mostly don't think any of that will actually happen - but I would be much happier if I felt more certain of that. Things are pretty bad. We'll have a nice clear winner and peaceful inauguration of the winner. I think.

 

[phiwum]

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..

I was with you all the way up to "[Trump] is planning..."

Can't see Trump planning.

 

[Belz...]

I was talking about the difficulty of coming to firm opinions about all this because typically we are presented with opinions and that getting a firm understanding of the facts was very difficult.

Only if you refuse to look at the actual facts behind these opinions. Of course if you listen to one person saying "The earth is flat" and another saying "the earth is round" it may sound like two competing, equal opinions, but if you bother to check, you'll quickly dismiss the former. You can't just say "well I can't be bothered to search for the actual data so there's no way to know which one is more true!".

 

[acbytesla]

I was with you all the way up to "[Trump] is planning..."

Can't see Trump planning.

Fair enough.

 

[shuttlt]

It staggers me the level of intellectual dishonesty some people will commit for their tribe. I see some of on the far left so it is not limited to Trump supporters. But Trump supporters keep proving over and over again that if Trump said his bowel evacuations consisted of Dutch chocolate they would be chowing down like a Mississippi woman eating Miss Minnie's pie.

You are referring to me here, when I agreed that Trump frequently says things that aren't true? Sure, I lap up everything Trump says?

Anywho, back to what you said:

What Trump said "is that there were good people on both sides", one side being "the Unite the Right" protesters. The protesters were carrying banners that cited Nazi rhetoric and were wearing symbols including swastikas, Nazi SS lightning bolt symbols and helmets and shields and other imagery straight from the Third Reich. Now basic deduction that when Trump says there were very good people on both sides, mean he was referring to them.

Now over to what Trump said:

- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides

and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

So Trump is under the impression that not everybody there was a neo-Nazi. I don't know. Maybe he's right, and maybe he's wrong. You can believe what you like, but I honestly think the Democrats would be better off if they lent a little less hard on the facts. When Biden says "No, he called all those folks who walked out of that" it just isn't true.

 

[Bob001]

And again this is a post-fact thinking. That some people disagree with the facts does not make opinions that agree with the facts just as incorrect as they are.

I would say that one doesn't agree or disagree with facts. You can like them or not, or even challenge their accuracy. But a rational person doesn't claim that his inaugural attracted the biggest crowds ever when photographs prove otherwise, or that nobody ever heard of pandemics when he himself disbanded the office that was responsible for studying and preparing for them. The Trumpers have perverted the basic concept of facts. They have achieved Steve Bannon's goal of filling the zone with sh-t so nobody believes anything.

Possibly helpful:

Washington (CNN)With six months left on his first term in office, President Donald Trump has said more than 20,000 things that aren't true, according to the Washington Post's Fact Checker team.

Which is stunning -- a mountain of exaggerations, half-truths and outright falsehoods constructed by the President as he seeks to invalidate the very notion of facts and truth.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/politics/donald-trump-fact-checker-lies-t

It took President Trump 827 days to top 10,000 false and misleading claims in The Fact Checker’s database, an average of 12 claims a day.

But on July 9, just 440 days later, the president crossed the 20,000 mark — an average of 23 claims a day over a 14-month period, which included the events leading up to Trump’s impeachment trial, the worldwide pandemic that crashed the economy and the eruption of protests over the death of George Floyd in police custody.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/

In 1,267 days, President Trump has
made 20,055 false or misleading claims
The Fact Checker’s ongoing database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump since assuming office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/