Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[Emily's Cat]

Moving on to the other half, I think almost no one believes Trump is engaged in a coup.

I know you provided a very well-written post, and I'm not responding to most of it simply because I don't disagree with any of it.

But on this particular point, I would like to direct you to the 10-page thread Trump's Coup d'état, in which several of our fellow forumites appear to actually believe Trump is engaged in a coup.

Oddly, it's a thread in which Skeptic Ginger and myself are in agreement that other people are way overreacting... and that sort of agreement between us is exceedingly rare.

 

[Meadmaker]

I thought it was obvious hyperbole, not intended to actually be 100% of the country.

While I didn't take it to be an exact statistical analysis, I took it as more than hyperbole.

I did take what you said to mean, literally, "Just as many people believe Trump is plotting a coup as believe that the election was fraudulent."

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This is beyond disgusting.

Who is ever going to believe that free and fair elections are possible in the US?

 

[gnome]

I know you provided a very well-written post, and I'm not responding to most of it simply because I don't disagree with any of it.

But on this particular point, I would like to direct you to the 10-page thread Trump's Coup d'état, in which several of our fellow forumites appear to actually believe Trump is engaged in a coup.

Oddly, it's a thread in which Skeptic Ginger and myself are in agreement that other people are way overreacting... and that sort of agreement between us is exceedingly rare.

I think the conversation goes beyond literal coup, and is using the term loosely to refer to using their authority to to force the resolution of the election into a manner other than the result of voting. Whether that's a full fledged "coup" is kind of secondary to that it's still a pretty horrifying idea.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not that he is involved in a coup, but his actions and words make it unclear whether he might attempt it, something that we've never had cause to consider before in the entire history of the country. That makes one sit up and take notice, and be prepared for the worst. What has Trump done to make one think, "No, this line is something he would never cross?"

There's a fuzzy line in here somewhere.

Let's take, for example, a five-year-old who is angry and repeatedly says that he is going to kill his mom. If rational adults discount his threat, is it because we don't think the kid actually wants to kill his mom? Or is it because that child's wants are irrelevant to whether or not he could actually succeed in killing his mom?

Or, on the other hand, take the scenario of some of our fellow posters who have, in the past, expressed the desire and intention to do physical harm to people on the other side of their aisle (punch nazis, carve MAGA into people's foreheads, etc.). If we discount their claims, is it because we think that's a line they'd never actually cross, or is it because we believe that realistically, they will never be in a position to competently carry through those desires?

I guess that's where i fall with this. What Trump might want to do is irrelevant to me. I don't care how much he screams and yells. He cannot actually make it happen. It has nothing to do with whether or not he's willing to cross a line, it's whether or not he has the ability to do so. It's the same argument I had when people were all wound up about Trump being the president and starting a nuclear war by calling up the folks in charge of the missiles and ordering a launch. His desire to do so has no value - at the end of the day, regardless of what the technical authority seems to be, it's simply not going to happen. There are other checks and balances in place, and in order for him to actually overthrow US democracy and seize the reigns of power as a dictator (or launch nukes, for that matter) requires a LOT of other people to completely disregard their own duties and oaths to enable that. And the people who need to become outright traitors are exactly the people who are least likely to do so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know you provided a very well-written post, and I'm not responding to most of it simply because I don't disagree with any of it.

But on this particular point, I would like to direct you to the 10-page thread Trump's Coup d'état, in which several of our fellow forumites appear to actually believe Trump is engaged in a coup.

Oddly, it's a thread in which Skeptic Ginger and myself are in agreement that other people are way overreacting... and that sort of agreement between us is exceedingly rare.

While proper people know better than to believe what the president of the united states says. None of it is intended as a factual statement.

And overturning the results of an election are of course never a coup, it is only a with military backing, otherwise it is just normal business one expects in all third world countries like the US or Kenya. This is the new normal with 50% of republicans believing that the election was stolen that is the new normal for the US.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I vaguely remember some Fox talking heads complaining that Obama was trying to be a dictator for life, despite no evidence at all for that assertion.

Now we have Trump flat out saying that he won't abide by the election results and then acting in accordance with his statements, and we are all told to calm down and stop being so dramatic about the constitutional implications of his temper tantrum.

Whether Trump personally abides by the results or not is immaterial. Calm down, because he cannot make it happen, regardless of how much he might wish to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is beyond disgusting.

Who is ever going to believe that free and fair elections are possible in the US?

They already have 50% of republicans knowing that they are not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is this Trump asking for that thing that SG told us Trump wasn't asking for?

I think you meant EC?

Both of us, I believe.

And it's not that he's not asking for it, it's that his ask will not be successful. Actually, whether or not he asks for it really doesn't matter. It's not going to occur, no matter how much he belly-aches.

If I end up being wrong and Trump successfully manages to overthrow the entire US government and military command structure and become a dictator, I will formally place a permanent apology in my signature, and petition the forum pixies to allow each member to berate me once daily on the topic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's a fuzzy line in here somewhere.

Let's take, for example, a five-year-old who is angry and repeatedly says that he is going to kill his mom. If rational adults discount his threat, is it because we don't think the kid actually wants to kill his mom? Or is it because that child's wants are irrelevant to whether or not he could actually succeed in killing his mom?

Or, on the other hand, take the scenario of some of our fellow posters who have, in the past, expressed the desire and intention to do physical harm to people on the other side of their aisle (punch nazis, carve MAGA into people's foreheads, etc.). If we discount their claims, is it because we think that's a line they'd never actually cross, or is it because we believe that realistically, they will never be in a position to competently carry through those desires?

I guess that's where i fall with this. What Trump might want to do is irrelevant to me. I don't care how much he screams and yells. He cannot actually make it happen. It has nothing to do with whether or not he's willing to cross a line, it's whether or not he has the ability to do so. It's the same argument I had when people were all wound up about Trump being the president and starting a nuclear war by calling up the folks in charge of the missiles and ordering a launch. His desire to do so has no value - at the end of the day, regardless of what the technical authority seems to be, it's simply not going to happen. There are other checks and balances in place, and in order for him to actually overthrow US democracy and seize the reigns of power as a dictator (or launch nukes, for that matter) requires a LOT of other people to completely disregard their own duties and oaths to enable that. And the people who need to become outright traitors are exactly the people who are least likely to do so.

Conspiracy to commit murder, I mean really what is that, do they give out a Nobel for conspiracy to commit chemistry!

Really I think we can all agree that the king was blameless when he was only posing a question of "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" that is of course just asking a question and not in any way related to the subsequent murder of said priest.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He surely doesn't believe what he is posting.

I doubt that belief has anything to do with it. He's a heel.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

Breaking news

[IMGw=600]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201118/ba00304e1ea91245dbfae98ff01aff7f.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[Emily's Cat]

While I didn't take it to be an exact statistical analysis, I took it as more than hyperbole.

I did take what you said to mean, literally, "Just as many people believe Trump is plotting a coup as believe that the election was fraudulent."

It was intended more as "lots of people over here and lots of people over there" illustrating the divide.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Breaking news

I rarely like political humor, but that made me laugh out loud. My cat looked at me funny.

 

[ponderingturtle]

. There are other checks and balances in place, and in order for him to actually overthrow US democracy and seize the reigns of power as a dictator (or launch nukes, for that matter) requires a LOT of other people to completely disregard their own duties and oaths to enable that. And the people who need to become outright traitors are exactly the people who are least likely to do so.

Actually it requires people to ignore their duty and act against it to stop him from launching nukes. That is intentional and by design. Now that would be as crazy as US troops obeying orders to torture detainees when they are supposed to have a legal and moral obligation to prevent such actions. Clearly like they stood up against torture they will stand against Trump.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Whether Trump personally abides by the results or not is immaterial. Calm down, because he cannot make it happen, regardless of how much he might wish to.

For me it is bad enough that the sitting President of the United States of ******* America has said that he will ignore the vote of the people and is actually trying to get others to follow his lead. Add on top of these things that he is trying to delegitimize the democratic process where it is to his advantage and it is a playbook for any future aspiring autocrat. Each of these things is something to be upset about, whether he succeeds or not.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Both of us, I believe.

And it's not that he's not asking for it, it's that his ask will not be successful. Actually, whether or not he asks for it really doesn't matter. It's not going to occur, no matter how much he belly-aches.

If I end up being wrong and Trump successfully manages to overthrow the entire US government and military command structure and become a dictator, I will formally place a permanent apology in my signature, and petition the forum pixies to allow each member to berate me once daily on the topic.

I do like to berate people. Make it twice daily and it may be worth losing what is left of our democracy.

 

[Meadmaker]

If I end up being wrong and Trump successfully manages to overthrow the entire US government and military command structure and become a dictator, I will formally place a permanent apology in my signature, and petition the forum pixies to allow each member to berate me once daily on the topic.

Proposed amendment to membership agreement: Each member may violate rule 12 once per day, so long as the violation is directed toward someone who mistakenly said Trump would not successfully appoint himself dictator.


Oh.....and about that coup d'etat thread...

I haven't read much of it, and I don't think I ever responded to anything. Seemed a bit over the top in places. While I think we have a better than average crew for an internet site, we still have people who are a bit more worried than they need to be.

Still, in this case, I think vigilance is warranted, so I'm glad that somebody is paying attention, just in case.

 

[Paul2]

It really is scary how well the last ~50 years of American politics "works" if you look at is as the Right still trying to "get back / get even" with the Left over Watergate.

The Right's slow but steady abandoning of all of its (even bad) morals and standards, the rise of Obstructionism as their primary tactic, how much time they've spent spinning their wheels trying and failing to trap and well known Democrat in their version of Watergate.

Obviously the 60s start a new chapter, but before Watergate you have
Nixon's Southern strategy
Joe McCarthy
the Red scare
fears of socialism and communism during the New Deal
Jim Crow

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I would argue that Trump's coup d'etat is already complete ...
... in that the US is, currently, not a functioning Democracy anymore.

Neither the President, nor his advisers, his party, their supporters believe that cast votes is what should decide who wins the election.
Without trust that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, we might very well perish from the earth.

It doesn't really matter if Trump wins his coup or loses: the next government doesn't have the sufficient democratic legitimacy, either because it got systematically undermined by lies, or because it stole the election.

The next four years will not be peaceful.