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

[JoeMorgue]

It's why they've pushed the "Oh you're just being dramatic" narrative so hard, it lets them shutdown any criticism of somehow who is so out there that it invoked a powerful reaction.

 

[lomiller]

Doesn't matter what he wants. There is explicit legislation that if he loses the vote (or it's undecided) on (Jan 20th?) he's out of the door, with a Secret Service twist to the arm if need be. At that point they are serving the incumbent President, not him.

The people who enforce that legislation work for him. In theory they are all supposed to put their allegiance to the country and the law first, but after decades of Republicans damaging the normal order of government in order to get their way and the extreme acceleration of that damage that has occurred in the last 4, I question what they would really do should he refuse to hand over power.

Republicans are so heavily swayed “sell the controversy” arguments that all it will take for them to stand behind Trump if he refuses to relinquish power is for him to say there is something controversial about the election. The right wing media will repeat it until the sheep believe it, 40% of the US will be adamant that he should stay in power until “it’s settled politically” which it never will be.

IOW, should Trump refuse to relinquish power I would be surprised if people like Chad Wolf didn’t back him up, and within a month all the people right wingers arguing that “he wouldn’t do it” would be insisting he’s doing the right thing by refusing to relinquish power. (Or, just attacking every arguments that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to remain in power while insisting they are just a “skeptic” so he doesn’t need any evidence so long as he never comes out and says what his position actually is. I won’t mention the poster by name, but I probably don’t need to…)

 

[CORed]

I'm afraid it's going to get uglier and uglier.

I'm now more convinced than ever before that Trump is not going to accept the election results if he loses. He will not go gently into that good night. He will be contesting the election results in almost every state relying on his judge to bail him out. If they do, democracy is dead.

This is one reason I am hoping that Trump loses in a landslide. If he loses by a narrow Electoral College margin, with narrow losses in a few swing states, it will be easy for him to challenge it in court. If he gets a good thumping, with say, 40% or less of popular vote and carries only a few states, I anticipate that he will whine about it being rigged, and may inspire some violent action by the more rabid of his supporters, but I expect him to leave office. Probably not gracefully, as that is simply not in his nature, but leave he will. If he loses, though, whether he tries to challenge the results or not, I am concerned about what he will do during the transition period. I think there is a real possibility that he will act maliciously during this time. Empty the federal prisons, repeal more environmental regulations, send the military to the Mexican border with orders to shoot to kill, or some other dangerous idiocy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is one reason I am hoping that Trump loses in a landslide. If he loses by a narrow Electoral College margin, with narrow losses in a few swing states, it will be easy for him to challenge it in court.

They could spin that as well though.

As much as I'd love to see Biden gets some huge landslide, getting back the whole Blue Wall, sweeping all the swing states, maybe even turning a traditional Red state or two Blue, style win (because I agree 100% that it would send the best message that we as a nation have rejected Trump) you're know we're going to hear some variation on "There's no way the Nation's opinion on Trump has changed that much since 2016!"

 

[The Don]

This is one reason I am hoping that Trump loses in a landslide. If he loses by a narrow Electoral College margin, with narrow losses in a few swing states, it will be easy for him to challenge it in court. If he gets a good thumping, with say, 40% or less of popular vote and carries only a few states, I anticipate that he will whine about it being rigged, and may inspire some violent action by the more rabid of his supporters, but I expect him to leave office. Probably not gracefully, as that is simply not in his nature, but leave he will. If he loses, though, whether he tries to challenge the results or not, I am concerned about what he will do during the transition period. I think there is a real possibility that he will act maliciously during this time. Empty the federal prisons, repeal more environmental regulations, send the military to the Mexican border with orders to shoot to kill, or some other dangerous idiocy.

IMO that's not going to happen. He'll get close to 45% regardless, comprising his base and people who are simply voting the GOP ticket.

A half decent campaign, him not doing anything too outrageous in the last 2 weeks of the campaign and the October Miracle I'm expecting and he could well get over 45%

 

[JoeMorgue]

He'll get ~45% of the popular vote within a metaphysical certainty, that's for sure. But the political narrative is more built around the EC win.

 

[Belz...]

IMO that's not going to happen. He'll get close to 45% regardless, comprising his base and people who are simply voting the GOP ticket.

A half decent campaign, him not doing anything too outrageous in the last 2 weeks of the campaign and the October Miracle I'm expecting and he could well get over 45%

Don't forget outside help.

 

[lomiller]

The president doesn't declare elections valid or invalid

Who’s going to stop him?

Once his term is up, it's up. Once the chief justice swears in whoever wins, that is the new president.

Again, who enforces that?

If the concern is that the heads of various departments will follow the rule of law to the letter, and obey an EO, then all the new president has to do is invalidate that EO.

Whether people obey the law or obey their boss is never a sure thing. Ensuring people make the right choice (obey the law) requires a specific organizational culture and that has been under attack for years now.

Again, if Trump singes an EA declaring the election invalid and that he is still president, does Chad Wolf back Trump or does he have his people escort Trump out and back Biden? If he does the former, what does it matter what the law says?

 

[acbytesla]

Who’s going to stop him?

Again, who enforces that?



Whether people obey the law or obey their boss is never a sure thing. Ensuring people make the right choice (obey the law) requires a specific organizational culture and that has been under attack for years now.

Again, if Trump singes an EA declaring the election invalid and that he is still president, does Chad Wolf back Trump or does he have his people escort Trump out and back Biden? If he does the former, what does it matter what the law says?

Chad Wolf isn't in charge of the Secret Service. That would be Mnuchin. But your point is valid. Still, these employees take oaths to uphold the law and the Constitution not their boss.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A huge point is being missed.

If Trump loses the election his lackeys and supporters aren't going to go "Well Trump lost the election, but we'll support him as an illegal usurped Ruler anyway." They'll go "No Trump didn't technically lose the election because (insert some made up, B.S. not even internally logically consistent excuse here)."

That's why getting to a Post-Facts world was so important to Trump's core ideology.

Who's gonna tell Trump that the election was fair and he isn't President? The Lamestream Media with their fake news? His political opponents who are obviously biased against him "Never Trumpers?" They already don't count.

 

[lomiller]

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

That’s because there is no meaningful difference between saying a country is a Democracy and saying it’s a Republic. If you really want to split hairs Republic is the “what” and Democracy is the “how”. A Republic is nation where government is a public matter rather than a private matter of a king or a small ruling class. Democracy is the process by which the public controls government.

In practice every nation that has successfully made government a public matter has been a Democracy of some form, and every country that has successfully implemented a full Democracy has by extension made government public matter and can therefor be called a Republic.

You can conceivably have a system where a small group votes while the public at large has no say, or the public gets to vote but never in a way that goes against the king or ruling group. These are not Republics, but are typically not called full Democracies either. They are more likely to be called flawed or failed democracies.

 

[Trebuchet]

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 continue tweeting about the election being "rigged" and "unfair" and generally rile up his supporters.

Fixed that for you, since he's already doing it!

 

[lomiller]

Chad Wolf isn't in charge of the Secret Service. That would be Mnuchin. But your point is valid. Still, these employees take oaths to uphold the law and the Constitution not their boss.

James Murray is the director of the Secret Service. Murray reports to Chad Wolf, who is still functioning as the Acting Director of Homeland Security in spite of the GAO ruling that he is not eligible to do so.

(The Secret Service hasn’t reported to the Secretary of Treasury since 2003, they fall under Homeland Security now)

 

[lomiller]

A huge point is being missed.

If Trump loses the election his lackeys and supporters aren't going to go "Well Trump lost the election, but we'll support him as an illegal usurped Ruler anyway." They'll go "No Trump didn't technically lose the election because (insert some made up, B.S. not even internally logically consistent excuse here)."

That's why getting to a Post-Facts world was so important to Trump's core ideology.

Pretty much bang on. Maybe we get lucky and Trump departs peacefully, but he’s got the personality type to try and stay, and US institutions are now degraded enough that it’s not inconceivable he would be successful. FWIW I’m not saying this will happen, but even assigning it a 25% change would have been almost inconceivable 10 years ago.

Who's gonna tell Trump that the election was fair and he isn't President? The Lamestream Media with their fake news? His political opponents who are obviously biased against him "Never Trumpers?" They already don't count.

Normally this would be the relevant law enforcement officials, but they all work for DHS Director Chad Wolf who:
- Ran the program to separate children form their families and imprison them
- Came up with the plan to flood US cities with anonymous federal troops
- Is refusing to relinquish his position in spite of the Congressional GAO ruling that his appointment was not legal.

If Trump does refuse to leave office I expect Wolf to support him and it essentially comes down to who in the DHS breaks ranks and follows the law even if it means disobeying their immediate superior.

 

[Belz...]

That’s because there is no meaningful difference between saying a country is a Democracy and saying it’s a Republic. If you really want to split hairs Republic is the “what” and Democracy is the “how”. A Republic is nation where government is a public matter rather than a private matter of a king or a small ruling class. Democracy is the process by which the public controls government.

No, we've had this discussion before. What you are describing here is one of two definitions of the word, namely "not monarchy". I'm refering to the second one, which is "representative democracy".

 

[acbytesla]

James Murray is the director of the Secret Service. Murray reports to Chad Wolf, who is still functioning as the Acting Director of Homeland Security in spite of the GAO ruling that he is not eligible to do so.

(The Secret Service hasn’t reported to the Secretary of Treasury since 2003, they fall under Homeland Security now)

OK, I was wrong.

 

[Cain]

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.

And this is where "large swath" does the heavy lifting. What a fun game. More on this in a moment.

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.

Geez-Louise. Yeah, I got that when you said, "We agree on two, but when I say 'two',' I can actually mean 'four,' so you hafta... " No, no, no, let's initially stick with where there's common ground, then maybe you can see it's just one fraudulent, non-argument supporting another.

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

Fail, indeed. I'll insert lolmiller's post here. I'll also point out that "republic" is not capitalized.

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

In a direct democracy, the people represent themselves, um, directly. So-called direct democracies can be less representative because they're democracies for the few (such as Athens). I dunno if you've ever heard the crazy expression that democracy is "rule by the many."

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

The best freshmen essays begin, "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary..." Please share your dictionary definitions. Embarrass me.

It really seems to sting you that your personal preferences aren't objective reality.

You should really reflect on this comment. Think about how this discussion began. acbytesla made an innocuous remark about democracy and you intervened to "correct" him with your "pet peeve." Several posters have taken the time to say you're mistaken. Who do you think has the problem here? It's a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

The best "objective" argument one can make is that the US is constituted as a federal republic, so it's not supposed to be representative of people; it's supposed to be representative of states. Does that bother me? Yeah, sure. It bothers me because it's non-democratic. If anything, your claims should brighten my day: "Great news, Cain: It's actually democratic."

But here's the thing, the people who WANT a government to be representative of states and the people who want it to be representative of people both recognize you as peddling eye-rolling quackery.

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

Is this the question? Where's your question? I had a question about Democratic super-delegates that went unanswered.

 

[Belz...]

And this is where "large swath" does the heavy lifting. What a fun game.

Are you going to play that game for long, or do you plan on actually having a discussion?

For some reason you respond to someone correcting your use of the word not as an opportunity to learn and discuss, but as an opportunity to belittle and to throw your hands up, as if the mere suggestion that you might not quite understand what the word means is a great affront. I get it, it's hard on the ego, but once it's pointed out to you, you could at least take a step back and check rather than double down.

Geez-Louise. Yeah, I got that when you said, "We agree on two, but when I say 'two',' I can actually mean 'four,' so you hafta... "

Could you quit the hysterics for two seconds and point out where I did anything of the sort? Hint: that you understood a word incorrectly is not on me.

Fail, indeed. I'll insert lolmiller's post here.

Except that I pointed out to him that he's using the other definition of republic.

In a direct democracy, the people represent themselves, um, directly. So-called direct democracies can be less representative because they're democracies for the few (such as Athens).

In some instances, but not necessarily. Athens, for instance, chose its representatives by random lot. It's no big stretch to imagine this applied to our modern societies where the franchise is just as wide as it is today, but with lots instead of elections. It'd still be democratic.

You did not, however, address my point about direct democracies, which is that they are still democraties. You said democracies are representative. I'm pointing out that non-representative (direct) democracies are also democracies, and that therefore this "common understanding" you mentioned is wrong.

I dunno if you've ever heard the crazy expression that democracy is "rule by the many."

You just defeated your own argument there. Notice that you didn't say "majority".

The best freshmen essays begin, "According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary..." Please share your dictionary definitions. Embarrass me.

As you wish, but I note again that you couldn't be bothered to educate yourself. Let's see various definitions:

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. (Google)
-----
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. (Wikipedia)
-----
1a : government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (Merriam-Webster)
-----
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (Dictionary.com)

Notice that though some of these definitions mention that majority is often a feature of democracy, none of them make it essential, and that direct democracies are also mentioned.

You should really reflect on this comment. Think about how this discussion began. acbytesla made an innocuous remark about democracy and you intervened to "correct" him with your "pet peeve."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that my correcting someone's incorrect use of a word is somehow the same thing as you flipping your **** because of said disagreement?

Several posters have taken the time to say you're mistaken. Who do you think has the problem here? It's a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

Did you seriously just argue that I'm wrong because several of you disagree with me?

The best "objective" argument one can make is that the US is constituted as a federal republic, so it's not supposed to be representative of people; it's supposed to be representative of states.

Note that I am NOT disagreeing with you or acbytesla that it would be more desirable if each voter had the exact same weight. I am simply pointing out that "democracy" is an incredibly broad term, and that it does not preclude formulas that we, as individuals, may consider unacceptable.

Is this the question? Where's your question?

Could you not just click twice to get back to my post?

The question was "what in the blue hell are you babbling about?". I don't know why you were talking about normative claims.

I had a question about Democratic super-delegates that went unanswered.

I didn't think it was pertinent to answer; I did answer your wider point however.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trump claims he will order law enforcement to be poll watches.

In a phone interview with Fox New's Sean Hannity Trump when asked by Hannity if the President intended to have Poll Monitors with the "ability to monitor, to avoid fraud and cross check whether or not these are registered voters, whether or not there's been identification to know if it's a real vote from a real American?" Trump responded "We're going to have everything. We're going to have sheriffs and law enforcement and we're going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys, and we're going to have everybody, and attorney generals, but it's very hard."

Federal law prohibits intimidation at the polls and makes it illegal for any "civil" or "military" federal officer to order "troops or armed men" to polling places, unless needed to "repel armed enemies of the United States." but Trump commits 3 or 4 felonies before breakfast and nothing ever happens to him so...

 

[Garrison]

Who’s going to stop him?

Again, who enforces that?



Whether people obey the law or obey their boss is never a sure thing. Ensuring people make the right choice (obey the law) requires a specific organizational culture and that has been under attack for years now.

Again, if Trump singes an EA declaring the election invalid and that he is still president, does Chad Wolf back Trump or does he have his people escort Trump out and back Biden? If he does the former, what does it matter what the law says?

Yeah after 3 and 1/2 years you would think people would have gotten tired of saying the President can't do that, only for Trump to go right ahead and do it anyway. He has exposed how much of the 'checks and balances' were little more than wishful thinking.

It's entirely likely Trump will refuse to concede, claim that 'he's heard' there's been major voting fraud, refuse to accept the result until there's been a full investigation, which his lapdogs in the Senate will go along with and then magnify every trivial anomaly in the system into a major fraud. By the time January rolls round they could create so much FUD that the facts will become irrelevant, its a tactic that's worked for them before.