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

[Leftus]

I doubt Trump will try to hang onto power - he hasn't enjoyed Presidenting much anyway - but he won't concede. He's already said very plainly that a Biden win would be proof of a rigged electon, and his Trumptrash cult will follow that line. Trump can go back to what he does enjoy, which is rallies and fawning interviews on Fox and OAN. He will leave the White House in unimaginably bad grace and get deeper into Q-Anon along with about 40% of the population and the entire Republican Party.

As to the legal process, I doubt Trump has any concept of his jeopardy. He's got through life with apparent impunity, and since Barr came on the scene actual impunity, and he'll expect to skate on everything again because he's a winner.

I would agree he isn't going to follow the traditions of keeping his mouth shut during the following administration, but I really don't see the machinery of the federal government bending to his will once certain markers are passed. Specifically, once the chief justice swears in whomever wins. Most of the people are career political types, or career staff and who have been through the transfer of power a few times.

The idea that he will be dragged out in cuffs is political porn fantasies.

He will do what he does. File numerous court filings. But as those get shot down, he will tweet, but the idea he will be physically removed from the WH? Pure fantasy.

 

[acbytesla]

I would agree he isn't going to follow the traditions of keeping his mouth shut during the following administration, but I really don't see the machinery of the federal government bending to his will once certain markers are passed. Specifically, once the chief justice swears in whomever wins. Most of the people are career political types, or career staff and who have been through the transfer of power a few times.

The idea that he will be dragged out in cuffs is political porn fantasies.

He will do what he does. File numerous court filings. But as those get shot down, he will tweet, but the idea he will be physically removed from the WH? Pure fantasy.

I pretty much agree with much of this. What worries me is the ability to throw shade at the credibility of the election. It all depends IMV on the closeness of the elction. If it comes down to say a one state majority. If Trump is able to point to actual irregularities and not stuff he pulled from his backside.

 

[Belz...]

I pretty much agree with much of this. What worries me is the ability to throw shade at the credibility of the election. It all depends IMV on the closeness of the elction.

The real threat that Trump and his presidency represent is indeed much more insidious than some of out more cinema-worthy scenarios. It's the rotting effect he and his ilk have on the democratic systems of the US and the world around it that is really frightening. It's going to have lasting impact.

 

[Bob001]

Guilty in the eyes of the law, yes. A pardon is a grant of clemency for one's acts, period. While it does remove consequences of a conviction, the conviction remains FOREVER on record.

The President can issue a pardon, but he may not overturn a conviction.

Pardon and commutation are different.

.... A pardon constitutes total forgiveness by the state, makes the crime as if it never happened and allows a job applicant to deny he was ever convicted of the crime without worry of any sanction.

A commutation is for the reduction of a prison or parole sentence currently being served by an applicant. ....

You can't turn back the clock. But a pardon is as close to it as the law allows. By your definition, even someone whose conviction is overturned on appeal must still be guilty. After all, that was the verdict.

 

[acbytesla]

Pardon and commutation are different.

You can't turn back the clock. But a pardon is as close to it as the law allows. By your definition, even someone whose conviction is overturned on appeal must still be guilty. After all, that was the verdict.

But has to be overturned on appeal. At that point the conviction will be expunged. But not before then.

It's important to note that in all cases of clemency, pardon or otherwise, the person's conviction is not overturned or removed from the public record. In fact, some people feel that accepting a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Those seeking to remove a criminal record will need to pursue expungement or having their record sealed. When a conviction is expunged, it is as if it never happened. There is no need for any kind of clemency because the crime is deleted from the record. This is obviously the ideal situation, and it happens more commonly than one might think. For many first offenses, even felonies, expungement is a real option.
http://www.clearupmyrecord.com/pardon-vs-celemency.php

.

You have to seek expungement in Court. A pardon is not enough.

 

[smartcooky]

But has to be overturned on appeal. At that point the conviction will be expunged. But not before then.

.

You have to seek expungement in Court. A pardon is not enough.

Furthermore, if you have been pardoned, and then later, charged with another crime, and found guilty, the prosecutors are allowed use your the guilty verdict for the crime for which you were pardoned in their sentencing recommendation, and the sentencing judge can take the same into account when sentencing.

 

[Cain]

What's funny is that fail of yours right there. You're confusing "mass" with "majority". I assure you, they are not the same. Your entire argument collapses from there. Maybe you should read for comprehension next time, as you look much more foolish trying to mock someone when you can't even get the basics right.

That's an excellent point. I should have known "masses" refers to the minority. So you're now reduced to altering two words. I would call this a "massive" fail, but you probably wouldn't understand. Please continue to amuse me by talking about comprehension.

The concept of democracy is in opposition to the rule of one, or of a small, elite class. It doesn't mean that the "demos" are the majority, or that they have equal say in government. I don't know why it's so ******* hard to just say "it's not the kind of demoracy I want" rather than twist words to try to fit objective reality to your own preferences.

Democracy, as commonly understood, is representative. That's not what I want it to mean; that's just what it means. You can argue for a system that is not representative, but you're not arguing for democracy per se.

In the Democratic nominating system, especially in previous years, extra votes are accorded to so-called "super-delegates." Would you consider that a democratic system? Are you suggesting it's "incoherent" for reformers to try to make the process "more democratic"? The super-delegates are a small, elite class, but the people have a significant say. It'll be fun to see what you make-up-as-you-go-along in your hodge-podge of half-baked ideas "supported" by semantic fretting.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

Something out of your depth, apparently.

 

[Belz...]

That's an excellent point. I should have known "masses" refers to the minority.

You're just not listening. "Masses" CAN refer to the majority, but not necessarily. Athens' democracy was minority rule even though it was available to a large swath of the population. Idem for republican Rome, etc. Just because you have a personal concept of what democracy is or should bee doesn't mean that this personal concept encompasses all of the actual meaning.

Please continue to amuse me by talking about comprehension.

As you wish: you again did not comprehend what you read. At this point I believe it is deliberate on your part, since my post was very clear NOT that "masses" refered to the minority, but that it wasn't synonymous with majority. It seems to anger you to discover that your use of language is incorrect, so you lash out at the person who corrected you rather than double-check to see if your earlier understanding was accurate.

Democracy, as commonly understood, is representative.

No, you are describing a Republic here. Another fail.

By your earlier logic, would this not mean that direct democracies are less democratic than representative ones? Wouldn't that be kind of ridiculous?

That's not what I want it to mean; that's just what it means.

Why don't you consult a dictionary before you continue to embarrass yourself?

And EVEN if you had been correct, it would still say nothing about equal weight of votes. Hell, some democraties didn't even have voting.

Something out of your depth, apparently.

It really seems to sting you that your personal preferences aren't objective reality. For someone who loves to mock the opposition with heavy sarcasm you sure can't seem to be able to handle such a low level of adversity.

How about you answer my question rather than weakly attempt to insult me?

 

[psionl0]

Another way the nation could get screwed again. 50,000 voters in Wyoming will be worth as much as 40 million in California.

Wyoming has a population of about 578,000. California has a population of about 39.510,00. Wyoming has 1 Congressional delegate. California has 53. Adding 2 Senators to each and you have the total number of votes each has in the Electoral College. 55 to 3.

I was out by 2 reps for California but you were out by a factor of more than 10 for the Wyoming population.

In a contingent election where the House votes and each state is equal to every other state regardless of the population it is grotesquely undemocratic. In that situation All of California is equal to all of Wyoming. That means 1 citizen of Wyoming is equal to 68 Californians.

I already conceded that point:

Except he isn't talking about the EC. Hes talking about the situation where each state gets 1 vote.

OK, that makes sense. It does seem anomalous. One might have supposed that a joint sitting of both houses would be more appropriate.

I am already on record that the EC system is stupid and undemocratic. Vote weighting is less so in a Federation and I don't see it as handing victory over to Trump (unless the House of Representatives has the final say).

 

[CapelDodger]

He will do what he does. File numerous court filings. But as those get shot down, he will tweet, but the idea he will be physically removed from the WH? Pure fantasy.

Apart from anything else, resistance would be too much like hard work for Trump. He might still be saying "We'll see" up to inauguration day, then pop up at a rally to upstage Biden's acceptance speech (and lie about the ratings later). What he won't do is greet the incoming President, nor will he concede. His sole concern is not to look like a loser, and by denying he lost to the loud agreement of his Trumptrash following and Fox he'll believe he won't be looking like a whining loser.

 

[varwoche]

Apart from anything else, resistance would be too much like hard work for Trump. He might still be saying "We'll see" up to inauguration day, then pop up at a rally to upstage Biden's acceptance speech (and lie about the ratings later). What he won't do is greet the incoming President, nor will he concede. His sole concern is not to look like a loser, and by denying he lost to the loud agreement of his Trumptrash following and Fox he'll believe he won't be looking like a whining loser.

Indeed. Plus he's a coward. Not a chance he will need to be physically removed from the White House as is frequently speculated. He'll avoid that.

It's not like he actually has convictions about anything. Just ego preservation.

 

[Belz...]

Indeed. Plus he's a coward. Not a chance he will need to be physically removed from the White House as is frequently speculated. He'll avoid that.

It's not like he actually has convictions about anything. Just ego preservation.

Right, he'll just complain about it on Twitter and sow dissent.

One way or another, howver, his utterances will continue to damage the system.

 

[llwyd]

Indeed. Plus he's a coward. Not a chance he will need to be physically removed from the White House as is frequently speculated. He'll avoid that.

It's not like he actually has convictions about anything. Just ego preservation.

Yeah, he is a charlatan, a snake oil salesman - so not a credible fascist for example: he has no ideology but his fragile ego. The problem is that his brand of snake oil incites his customers towards actual, real fascism. And many of them will take his rhetoric seriously and literally. So, if he loses we could see some really ugly scenes.

 

[varwoche]

Yeah, he is a charlatan, a snake oil salesman - so not a credible fascist for example: he has no ideology but his fragile ego. The problem is that his brand of snake oil incites his customers towards actual, real fascism. And many of them will take his rhetoric seriously and literally. So, if he loses we could see some really ugly scenes.

I'm sure you're right.

I'm also sure that if he wins, it will be a lot uglier. There isn't an ice cube's chance in hell that people will believe it's legit. The country will unravel. Quickly.

Ironically, it won't matter if he pulls it off legitimately. His words and actions have created this situation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I recently listened to a podcast in which one of the commentators said the opposite - that actually if you look at his track record, when something is going badly, Trump just ***** off out of it. Take his casinos, for example. He had no problem whatsoever dropping them and walking away once it got past a certain stage. Or look at the huge number of lawsuits that he's settled when it became clear he was going to lose.

He'll probably bitch and moan about it being unfair, but it doesn't seem improbable that if he loses by a landslide he'll just **** off and leave Pence to do the work during the period before Biden's inauguration.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a couple of months ago there were reports that he's been privately floating the idea of resigning before the election. Again - he has a history of not fighting battles he knows he will lose. If he resigns, then he can save face, and still bitch and moan for profit.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trump pulling a last mine "Screw you guys... I'm going home" would (could) still leave us with the same core issue though, a conspiracy minded base that still Trump as the "rightful" President.

Sure the "Deep state ran him out of office" instead of "Deep state cheated him out of office" are slightly different narratives, but Trump's support base has made bigger leaps in logic to put it mildly.

 

[Mike!]

I recently listened to a podcast in which one of the commentators said the opposite - that actually if you look at his track record, when something is going badly, Trump just ***** off out of it. Take his casinos, for example. He had no problem whatsoever dropping them and walking away once it got past a certain stage. Or look at the huge number of lawsuits that he's settled when it became clear he was going to lose.

He'll probably bitch and moan about it being unfair, but it doesn't seem improbable that if he loses by a landslide he'll just **** off and leave Pence to do the work during the period before Biden's inauguration.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a couple of months ago there were reports that he's been privately floating the idea of resigning before the election. Again - he has a history of not fighting battles he knows he will lose. If he resigns, then he can save face, and still bitch and moan for profit.

It's often asked here, "What could Trump do to lose his base?", and I think that's the one answer that could do it. They expect him to be a fighter and go down swinging, and never be a quitter. Him resigning would be a shattering blow to their ego that would leave them fractured beyond repair.

 

[Jerrymander]

Not what I said, if some could see through the orange haze of ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!, you'd realize I was stated they shouldn't be complacent this time. If the exercise repeats itself, it will be on the heads of the complacent.

ORANGE MAN DO NO WRONG.

 

[Belz...]

I love how focusing on a person whom one believes in evil or wrong for the office is currently undesirable, when Hillary was such a boogeywoman just a couple of years ago that conservatives just couldn't stop talking about her EVEN after the 2016 elections and her going largely away.

 

[Monza]

Apart from anything else, resistance would be too much like hard work for Trump. He might still be saying "We'll see" up to inauguration day, then pop up at a rally to upstage Biden's acceptance speech (and lie about the ratings later). What he won't do is greet the incoming President, nor will he concede. His sole concern is not to look like a loser, and by denying he lost to the loud agreement of his Trumptrash following and Fox he'll believe he won't be looking like a whining loser.

I agree. My prediction is that upon a Biden win, Trump will not be present at the inauguration. There is no way he could sit there and watch Biden be sworn in. That would take a level of class he does not posses. On inauguration morning, he will fly to Mar-A-Lago and start tweeting about the election being "rigged" and "unfair" and generally rile up his supporters.

I think it is telling that he really doesn't like, nor want, the job of President. During 2015/2016 he enjoyed the rallies. He likes to campaign. Remember that he officially opened his reelection campaign in early 2017, only months after becoming president. He complained about how hard the job was and all insider comments tell the same story; Trump is not interested in the mundane acts of governance. What he wants most is to be able to hold rallies, moan about how unfair he was treated, brag about his perceived accomplishments, and bask in the adulation of his minions.