Trump's Coup d'état.

[dirtywick]

It is more a question of whether the Trumpists want to keep carrying the fiscal conservative elite constituency than the other way around. That has been fraying for years because populists and plutocrats are not even close to being natural allies.

The angry populists gradually divorcing from the fiscal conservatives and winding up with a coalition with the progressives isn't as weird of an idea as it sounds. Those groups have way more in common with each other than the coalitions they are in now. All it would take is a Trump figure who supports and rams through UHC and some labor/safety net increases for the GOP to build a strong power base because large numbers of progressives would be on board with this because it is easier to deal with explicit racism while basic needs are met than to deal with structural racism while unable to pay bills. White moderates and all that...

opposition to socialism and the welfare state is the thing tying the populist wing of the conservatives together. Even the racism is largely hinged on the fact that minorities and immigrants are an economic burden. They're also rapidly anti union.

the only thing i could see working to bring those groups together in a coalition is a pro 2A progressive

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bush's failure to listen to Clinton's warnings about BinLaden was a bigger issue than any delay in transition.

That would be why the language used was "contributed to", rather than "was the single cause of".

If people want to voice concern about the delay, the pandemic crisis is more than enough to be concerned about.

Yes, you've just quoted me saying that.

 

[Mader Levap]

You still have it dead backwards. Our Democracy can easily withstand this impotent clown show.

I predict this statement won't age well. Though, if everything goet to hell (in long term, not now), I expect you to magically vanish from this forum.

Nothing at all about our system is weakened by watching him try and dismally fail. That would actually be discouraging to an actual wannabe coup. We don't even give it the time of day.

Huh? Trump is given all time of day and then more.

Do tell: what is the disaster? A blowhard tries and abjectly fails. His own party and SCOTUS watch him fail and do nothing.

Exactly. Nothing. In normal democracy this kind of thing would be met with denouncement from every party. But retuglican party pretends nothing bad is happening. You somehow take it as positive sign for murican pseudo-democracy.

Congress does not even dignify this with a charge of treason.

How nice way to say "no one will even try to punish current couper, encouraging future coupers and their attempts".

Eta: avatar bet. You're right, no one actually thinks it will be successful. You guys know damn right well it's a steaming pile and nothing at all will come of it.

Multiple people here repeatedly told you problem is not farce itself, but what it enables in future. Is this your reading comprehension problem or your willfull blindness?

The question is pedantic and has no deeper meaning. Thermal agrees.

I expected semantic squibbles, not complete refusal to answer. Pathetic.

 

[varwoche]

He is attempting to wrest power. Brazenly so. I realize we're all inured, but sometimes it's important to take a step back and get some perspective. The President of the United States is attempting to overturn a free and fair election. And the Republican party is complicit.

That's what I call real **** and then some.

With a few exceptions:

- I suspect that DeJoi was pulling shenanigans
- State, Justice, and Defense used for electioneering
- Vote suppression - the usual GOP stuff

 

[MrFliop]

If all all else fails for Trump and he still refuses to concede what is the worst that can happen? An actual Coup D’etat?

Remember in October 1993 when Russian President Yeltsin, and Putin’s predecessor and appointer, was impeached by the Russian Parliament. And Yeltsin responded by ordering the military to attack the parliament building and arrest the deputies inside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
Could Trump try to pull something like this off with Congress? Probably not. But, then again, anything crazy seems possible with this presidency.

Let’s hope not!

 

[Elagabalus]

If all all else fails for Trump and he still refuses to concede what is the worst that can happen? An actual Coup D’etat?

Remember in October 1993 when Russian President Yeltsin, and Putin’s predecessor and appointer, was impeached by the Russian Parliament. And Yeltsin responded by ordering the military to attack the parliament building and arrest the deputies inside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
Could Trump try to pull something like this off with Congress? Probably not. But, then again, anything crazy seems possible with this presidency.

Let’s hope not!

Wait, what?!!! You tired of Trump, bro?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13304623#post13304623

So? Any regrets? It's all funny haha laugh out loud until someone gets taken away to the re-education camps.


ETA: Didn't see this one.



Good call, Joe!

Gotcha!

 

[MrFliop]

Wait, what?!!! You tired of Trump, bro?

No, never. The last 5 years have been the best political entertainment of my lifetime!

 

[dudalb]

If all all else fails for Trump and he still refuses to concede what is the worst that can happen? An actual Coup D’etat?

Remember in October 1993 when Russian President Yeltsin, and Putin’s predecessor and appointer, was impeached by the Russian Parliament. And Yeltsin responded by ordering the military to attack the parliament building and arrest the deputies inside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
Could Trump try to pull something like this off with Congress? Probably not. But, then again, anything crazy seems possible with this presidency.

Let’s hope not!

The USA is NOT Russia..thank heaven.
For one thing, with Biden clearly having urn the election, the US Military would not obey the order. They are sworn to defend the Constituion, not Donald Trump.

 

[angrysoba]

The USA is NOT Russia..thank heaven.
For one thing, with Biden clearly having urn the election, the US Military would not obey the order. They are sworn to defend the Constituion, not Donald Trump.

True, but this is the bit that gets tricky...

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed

Of course, right now, Donald Trump is the president even with Biden winning the election. So until the time at which Biden takes over, theoretically they have to do what Donald Trump says.

 

[dirtywick]

The USA is NOT Russia..thank heaven.
For one thing, with Biden clearly having urn the election, the US Military would not obey the order. They are sworn to defend the Constituion, not Donald Trump.

To be fair Donald Trump also swore to defend the constitution.

 

[Upchurch]

No, never. The last 5 years have been the best political entertainment of my lifetime!

Wow, that’s pretty sociopathic.

 

[varwoche]

No, never. The last 5 years have been the best political entertainment of my lifetime!

Tell that to the tens of thousands of people who lost family members due to sociopathic ineptitude.

I wonder what Thanksgiving is like for a kid in a detention center who will never be reunited with their parents.

 

[phiwum]

I doubt it. Most of my fellow Americans are 99% full of **** and don't believe half of what they say. Posing and posturing and parroting.

I regard the long delayed transition damage enough. I have always regard Trump's breaking with norms a strongly negative[1] effect from his presidency. The open and baseless claims of fraud are actually believed by some, no doubt, and those people will spend four years feeling a great injustice has been done.

I have one friend who voted for Hillary but has somehow been mightily impressed by Trump and is a firm Trumper now (for reasons which really elude me). I spoke to him the other day, wondering how he viewed the election. He has bought the whole fraud charges, kit and kaboodle. He thinks there's no way that Biden won fairly. I have no reason at all to doubt this man, who has always struck me as quite decent (and which makes his conversion that much harder to get).

The conversation took place last week, before the transition began. No idea what he's thinking now, but I'm confident that his certainty that fraud took place hasn't wavered.

Honestly, I asked his opinion because he always struck me as pretty reasonable. I figured that this guy may support Trump but he'd balk at the wild claims of conspiracy. Instead, when I asked why he thought there was fraud, he sang praises of Sidney Powell and talked about the Dominion conspiracy.

There's a lot less posing and posturing than you think.

I didn't try to argue with him, because it's a casual friendship I like and I just wanted to know his opinion. I can't say that I didn't let my opinion slip through, but I wasn't looking to debate a true believer.

[1] Totally thought the word "strongly" has been abused for several years, but it is the right word here.

 

[phiwum]

I don't take his undemocratic efforts as an immediate threat, but I am very concerned that they have been accepted by so many.

That's my stance.

Think about the fact that Michigan's certification came down to one Republican vote. If that Republican had been more willing to ignore his duty because he bought into the conspiracy theory, the board would not have certified.

Of course, there are remedies, including a suit to require certification or replacement of the members. Those remedies would only make claims of fraud that much more plausible. You'd have two authorities whose concerns were overruled by the heavyhanded action of the Democratic governor or the courts.

Now that claims of fraud have become more normalized, the odds of a state having significant issues certifying next time is greater. Legal remedies only increase the feelings of injustice, setting the ground for escalating claims.

None of this is a certainty, of course. Maybe in four years, Republicans will have come to accept Trump's defeat, but it doesn't seem likely to me.

So, not an immediate threat, but real harm has been done.

 

[Craig4]

What I'm worried about is that now everyone understands all the different choke points in the election certification process, the parties will prioritize getting loyalists in those positions to gum up the next election.

I'm also concerned about the long-term impact of these "stabbed in the back," and "stolen election" ideas. If you were convinced that your cult leader was deposed in a stolen election, what wouldn't you do in the next election to make sure that doesn't happen? We've already had armed mobs show up in places where ballots were being counted.

 

[Thermal]

I regard the long delayed transition damage enough. I have always regard Trump's breaking with norms a strongly negative[1] effect from his presidency. The open and baseless claims of fraud are actually believed by some, no doubt, and those people will spend four years feeling a great injustice has been done.

I have one friend who voted for Hillary but has somehow been mightily impressed by Trump and is a firm Trumper now (for reasons which really elude me). I spoke to him the other day, wondering how he viewed the election. He has bought the whole fraud charges, kit and kaboodle. He thinks there's no way that Biden won fairly. I have no reason at all to doubt this man, who has always struck me as quite decent (and which makes his conversion that much harder to get).

The conversation took place last week, before the transition began. No idea what he's thinking now, but I'm confident that his certainty that fraud took place hasn't wavered.

Honestly, I asked his opinion because he always struck me as pretty reasonable. I figured that this guy may support Trump but he'd balk at the wild claims of conspiracy. Instead, when I asked why he thought there was fraud, he sang praises of Sidney Powell and talked about the Dominion conspiracy.

There's a lot less posing and posturing than you think.

I didn't try to argue with him, because it's a casual friendship I like and I just wanted to know his opinion. I can't say that I didn't let my opinion slip through, but I wasn't looking to debate a true believer.

[1] Totally thought the word "strongly" has been abused for several years, but it is the right word here.

You know, you're right. Some are posing, but may seem to be genuinely lost in some kind of patriotic/conspiracy fantasy world, that Trump has normalized. I hold strong to the belief that if they actually picked up a gun and held it against the US govt, there would be a mass snapping-out-of-it. Reality can be that way sometimes. The well-meaning people who think this is a coup have a foot in that exciting role-play too.

I fully expect Captain Comfy Couch will keep the dream alive, right up to the point of action. And circling back to your original question, is this a bad thing? Hell yes. It's just what a tyrant would want, to have his followers not really understanding what is going on, and be awestruck by the flag- waving and this idea of patrioticly draining the swamp. While of course actually becoming the swamp.

 

[pgwenthold]

What I'm worried about is that now everyone understands all the different choke points in the election certification process, the parties will prioritize getting loyalists in those positions to gum up the next election.

I'm also concerned about the long-term impact of these "stabbed in the back," and "stolen election" ideas. If you were convinced that your cult leader was deposed in a stolen election, what wouldn't you do in the next election to make sure that doesn't happen? We've already had armed mobs show up in places where ballots were being counted.

My impression is that Nevada, for example, has it's election board that contains multiple state supreme court and other judges. I like this. It's not that judges can't be partisan, but that they aren't going to put up with nonsense and baseless claims.

 

[Paul2]

What I'm worried about is that now everyone understands all the different choke points in the election certification process, the parties will prioritize getting loyalists in those positions to gum up the next election.

I'm also concerned about the long-term impact of these "stabbed in the back," and "stolen election" ideas. If you were convinced that your cult leader was deposed in a stolen election, what wouldn't you do in the next election to make sure that doesn't happen? We've already had armed mobs show up in places where ballots were being counted.

We need some professionals or professors to come up with some new laws that will eliminate or minimize the danger of those choke points.

This may be a situation of pushing on one side of the balloon only to have the other side bulge out, I admit, and it's a whole 'nother issue as to getting those laws passed in those very states where the Anti-Democratic party controls the legislature, but that's where we have to start.

 

[slyjoe]

My impression is that Nevada, for example, has it's election board that contains multiple state supreme court and other judges. I like this. It's not that judges can't be partisan, but that they aren't going to put up with nonsense and baseless claims.

In AZ, it's really only the Secretary of State, who signs in the presence of the governor and the attorney general. For a proposition, its an AZ supreme court justice instead of the AG.

 

[Abooga]

We need some professionals or professors to come up with some new laws that will eliminate or minimize the danger of those choke points.[...].

I would prefer if some of that effort would be employed in improving the electoral counting methods so that cheating would be more difficult to do, which would also have the effect that allegations of fraud would be less likely (or more far-fetched). Like getting rid of the electronic voting machines that are used in some states. A well organised use of CCTV in manual counting would also make cheating near impossible. These kind of things. (things that Trump should have tried to do while he was the prez., in order for his allegations to have any merit)

What I mean is, shouldn´t the counting process be so transparent and tamper proof that allegations of fraud would be an almost unthinkable possibility? (something which can never happen with electronic voting, I insist)