Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-22-2019, 10:38 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,109

The response of opposition party if a presidential election is absolutely jobbed


Spinoff of the many "what if Trump does not accept defeat" threads:


Suppose that Biden absolutely crushes it on Election Day (wins popular vote by double digits, wins Electoral College 400-138) but Trump, through some sort of political machination, somehow manages to get certified as the winner prior to Inauguration Day (can't cook up a scenario in my mind but I'm sure a Doper can help us come up with something plausible) - and the Supreme Court helps Trump out at every turn by a 5-4 vote.

In other words, this far surpasses Florida 2000 (which was not a stolen election, despite the rhetoric) and the Comey letter or Russia in 2016.


Now, thread question is......what would the opposition party (in this case, the Democrats) do as a result of getting absolutely jobbed? Call for revolution? How? Would they try to mobilize many thousands of supporters to charge the White House? Impeaching Trump would probably be futile, and even if it did, it would just mean President Pence. Resort to terrorism?

(Question also applies if a Democratic incumbent president did this to a Republican challenger)
  #2  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:34 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,428
It won't matter what the Democratic Party does, the country will be in revolt and they will either join us to put down the illegitimate government or they will be considered part of it. This won't take long because not even a majority of the traitors and fools in the Trump base will abide the destruction of the country.

Luckily this can't happen as you describe. What can happen is that Democratic house decides the election for <not Trump> and the country splits down the middle, the Union will be broken once again. We have to pray that the members of the military hold to their oaths.
  #3  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:23 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Now, thread question is......what would the opposition party (in this case, the Democrats) do as a result of getting absolutely jobbed?
Becoming the political face of the insurgency is one strong option...if they even have that much freedom. Think of Sinn Fein's role in The Troubles in Northern Ireland. You've described a situation where the Constitutional checks and balances clearly and obviously failed. There's no good reason to assume what follows will have any recognizable constitutional basis.

Quote:
Call for revolution? How?
Do you want a full reading list about intrastate warfare and insurgencies in their various forms? Part two (Chapters 4 and 5) of FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 (Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies) provides a pretty good intro in a short read. One of the phrases floating around the Army in the back half of my career was that counterinsurgency is the graduate level of war. It's a complicated subject.
  #4  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:34 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It won't matter what the Democratic Party does, the country will be in revolt and they will either join us to put down the illegitimate government or they will be considered part of it. This won't take long because not even a majority of the traitors and fools in the Trump base will abide the destruction of the country.

Luckily this can't happen as you describe. What can happen is that Democratic house decides the election for <not Trump> and the country splits down the middle, the Union will be broken once again. We have to pray that the members of the military hold to their oaths.
Famine, violence, or fear of death are prerequisite for revolution, not political malarkey. The only good hope would be that a few R Senators suddenly develop a conscience, or that Clarence Thomas, or one of the other repugnant Justices, decides to go down in history as the Man who Saved Democracy.

Don't expect the House of Reps to help. If you're referring to Article II, Section 1 clause 3, recall that the single Rep from Wyoming has as much power as 53 California Reps added together.
  #5  
Old 05-22-2019, 03:00 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Famine, violence, or fear of death are prerequisite for revolution, not political malarkey.
Violence and fear of death are predictable results if the Republicans overthrow the legitimate government. Starvation won't take long because importation and transportation of food ceases quickly.

I don't know where you get the idea the House could help, they are more likely to cause the problem.
  #6  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:22 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
If you are talking about Democratic politicians, who knows?

If you are talking about Democratic voters, there would be a shitload of tweets. I don't know why you would expect them to do any more than what they're doing now. We're getting frog-boiled as it is, every day is a new bottom, stealing the election would just be raising the temp one more degree.
  #7  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:53 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It won't matter what the Democratic Party does, the country will be in revolt and they will either join us to put down the illegitimate government or they will be considered part of it.
But that's what I'm asking - it's easy to say, "There will be revolt if X or Y happens" - it's considerably less likely that it actually would happen. It is much harder to organize or get going nationwide than just saying, make it happen.
  #8  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:58 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But that's what I'm asking - it's easy to say, "There will be revolt if X or Y happens" - it's considerably less likely that it actually would happen. It is much harder to organize or get going nationwide than just saying, make it happen.
I disagree. It's not really a revolt, it's the loyal citizens who believe in the Constitution deposing an illegitimate government. Just because you're willing to stand by and watch the destruction of freedom doesn't mean everyone else will.
  #9  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:17 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose that Biden absolutely crushes it on Election Day (wins popular vote by double digits, wins Electoral College 400-138) but Trump, through some sort of political machination, somehow manages to get certified as the winner prior to Inauguration Day (can't cook up a scenario in my mind but I'm sure a Doper can help us come up with something plausible) - and the Supreme Court helps Trump out at every turn by a 5-4 vote.
We had the same questions in 2012 and 2016 about Obama. We had the same questions in 2008 and 2004 about Bush. And Clinton before that. And Bush and Reagan.

If the Democrats win in November 2020, Trump will stop being President in January 2021.
  #10  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:39 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose that Biden absolutely crushes it on Election Day (wins popular vote by double digits, wins Electoral College 400-138) but Trump, through some sort of political machination, somehow manages to get certified as the winner prior to Inauguration Day [SIZE="1"](can't cook up a scenario in my mind but I'm sure a Doper can help us come up with something plausible)
Can anybody? Because I sure can't.
  #11  
Old 05-22-2019, 08:38 PM
Hari Seldon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,968
As I have pointed out in another thread, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Republican legislatures of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, ... from deciding to abort the results of the vote and put in their own slate of electors. So it could happen. But it won't.
  #12  
Old 05-23-2019, 01:58 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
As I have pointed out in another thread, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Republican legislatures of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, ... from deciding to abort the results of the vote and put in their own slate of electors. So it could happen. But it won't.
Cite? Just for the final sentence. We already see the criminal party defying subpoenas, planning to rig the census, torturing children and probably practicing treason. The Mueller report shows that Trump committed obstruction so DoJ will now ... investigate Mueller. It certainly isn't shame that would stop these criminals from more crimes. And their crimes would be fancied up; they'd tell everyone on Fox&Friends that they were the aggrieved party, that it was the Ds who'd cheated in Pennsylvania, and they were just undoing that cheating. By the time their propaganda machine got through there'd be calls to cancel the 2024 election for fear the Ds would keep cheating.
  #13  
Old 05-23-2019, 05:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Spinoff of the many "what if Trump does not accept defeat" threads:


Suppose that Biden absolutely crushes it on Election Day (wins popular vote by double digits, wins Electoral College 400-138) but Trump, through some sort of political machination, somehow manages to get certified as the winner prior to Inauguration Day (can't cook up a scenario in my mind but I'm sure a Doper can help us come up with something plausible) - and the Supreme Court helps Trump out at every turn by a 5-4 vote.

In other words, this far surpasses Florida 2000 (which was not a stolen election, despite the rhetoric) and the Comey letter or Russia in 2016.


Now, thread question is......what would the opposition party (in this case, the Democrats) do as a result of getting absolutely jobbed? Call for revolution? How? Would they try to mobilize many thousands of supporters to charge the White House? Impeaching Trump would probably be futile, and even if it did, it would just mean President Pence. Resort to terrorism?

(Question also applies if a Democratic incumbent president did this to a Republican challenger)
I can't imagine a scenario in which Trump stays if the official results show Biden winning with 400 electors and upwards of 10-15%+ in the popular vote. For one thing, it would almost certainly be the case that a lot of Republicans would go down with Trump. Most of the apocalyptic scenarios that have been discussed (AFAIK) have hypothesized what would happen if the elections were close and appeared to show either suspicious results in favor of Trump or a close set of races that initially go to Biden but through procedural hacking end up going to Trump.

But if Trump is on the wrong end of 400-138 or something like that, Trump's out. and he'd probably resign and ask for a pardon from Pence long before then.
  #14  
Old 05-23-2019, 06:59 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
We had the same questions in 2012 and 2016 about Obama. We had the same questions in 2008 and 2004 about Bush. And Clinton before that. And Bush and Reagan.

If the Democrats win in November 2020, Trump will stop being President in January 2021.
You appear to be pointedly ignoring the hypothetical. The question isn't "will this happen", it's "what would happen in the highly unlikely event that it did?"
  #15  
Old 05-23-2019, 07:04 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
As I have pointed out in another thread, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Republican legislatures of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, ... from deciding to abort the results of the vote and put in their own slate of electors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Constitution, Article One, Section 10, Clause One
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Emphasis added.

Regards,
Shodan
  #16  
Old 05-23-2019, 08:05 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Florida 2000 (which was not a stolen election, despite the rhetoric)
Please don't say things like this unless you know what you're talking about. I've still got copies of papers presented at JSM in 2001 and 2002 that say otherwise.
  #17  
Old 05-23-2019, 08:27 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
JSM isn't the deciding legal authority in cases like that. The US Supreme Court is, and they say differently.

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 05-23-2019, 08:28 AM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Emphasis added.

Regards,
Shodan
The ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws.
  #19  
Old 05-23-2019, 08:40 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Please don't say things like this unless you know what you're talking about. I've still got copies of papers presented at JSM in 2001 and 2002 that say otherwise.
Question, please. What is JSM?
  #20  
Old 05-23-2019, 08:56 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
The ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws.
AFAICT the exceptions to the ex post facto clause were in criminal cases. The case I am thinking of was for retroactive requirements for sex offenders.

I am not aware of any exception that was made for federal elections. Maybe you know of some - I haven't researched it much. Do you know of any case where the courts have ruled it OK to change the rules of an election after the election was held? That isn't what happened in Florida in 2000 AFAIK. There, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that they could not change the rules for counting ballots/timelines/certification after the fact.

Regards,
Shodan
  #21  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:02 AM
Mundane Super Hero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 143
I'd propose a counter scenario.


What if the military code of conduct, the belief in the constitution, and the love of America was so firmly impressed on both the junior and senior officers in the Pentagon that they decided that the destruction of America needed to be stopped at all costs?
I'm sure that if several infantry, mechanized, and/or air cav divisions suddenly decided on an impromptu tour of the White House, the gate wouldn't exactly be able to stop them.

Personally, I'd be heart broken... and while shaking my head I'd probably ask most poignantly, "...would you like more wine, Dear...?"
  #22  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:04 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
As I have pointed out in another thread, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Republican legislatures of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, ... from deciding to abort the results of the vote and put in their own slate of electors. So it could happen. But it won't.
I very much doubt it would be legal according to the state constitutions for any state to change its mind in the middle of an election as to how it would select its electors.

But even if so, that wouldn't meet the thread's hypothetical; because that presumes Biden wins the electoral college. In your hypothetical, he'd be prevented from doing so.
  #23  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:10 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,850
Another election to look at for parallels was 1876, when the Democrats essentially gave the election to the Republicans in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. Tilden won the popular vote by a large margin, but 3 states had disputed results. In the end a political compromise was arranged under controversial conditions, a true backroom deal.
  #24  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:12 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Question, please. What is JSM?
Possibly this.

I believe RTFirefly is a professional mathematician/statistician/something like that.

I am assuming it's not this one.

Regards,
Shodan, BS, PTA, BYOB, TLDR, LS/MFT
  #25  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:28 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Possibly this.

I believe RTFirefly is a professional mathematician/statistician/something like that.

I am assuming it's not this one.

Regards,
Shodan, BS, PTA, BYOB, TLDR, LS/MFT
If that's it, you are 100% correct.

The JSM is not the deciding legal authority. Or any legal authority, for that matter.
  #26  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:48 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Some of the answers seem to pursue the question of what is proper and/or legal. Why?

The present-day Republican Party has turned from extreme mischief and malice to blatant criminality. Trump and his enablers are already illegally refusing Orders of Subpoena. They held up judicial appointments under Obama and hurried to help Trump pack the courts with judges expected to go easy on their crimes. Most of the American public is ignorant or confused about all this. Mueller — the highly respected former FBI Director — finds that Trump obstructed justice? The DoJ launches an investigation into ... Mueller, Comey and Hillary; and the Senate goes along.

The country is being run for the benefit of big corporations, the super-rich, and specific criminal friends of well-connected Gopsters. This isn't just a few multi-billion-dollar deals we're talking about: the stakes riding on the occupation of the W.H. are enormous. The 2017 tax cut represented a transfer to the super-rich in the amount of, believe it or not, several Trillions of Dollars. With four more years they expect to get much more. The stakes are enormous. If they think they have a decent shot at stealing the election, they will.

OP understands all this. With the GOP sinking to new depths of depravity every day, a cheated election is not an unlikely result. He asks What will the Dems do about it?

I think there will be huge anger from many Dems, but the Fox Potatoes will all laugh in unison. What will citizens think? The average American never was very smart, and is getting stupider every day. Soldiers will do as they're told. With 65% of white males supporting Trump, I wouldn't count on help there.

If RBG is still alive, Chief Roberts might vote for democracy. But with trillions of dollars at stake there's probably already a bounty on RBG's head. I expect there to be five despicable scum on Scotus by December 2020.

Last edited by septimus; 05-23-2019 at 11:52 AM.
  #27  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:13 PM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Some of the answers seem to pursue the question of what is proper and/or legal. Why?
Because the scenario in the OP posited that the Supreme Court upheld whatever it was. I.e. it was legal according to the highest court in the land.
Quote:
I expect there to be five despicable scum on Scotus by December 2020.
Then I guess you're screwed.

If the Supreme Court gets to decide, even if they are making it up as they go along, and it doesn't matter what the Constitution says but only what the Supremes think it should say, then them's the rules. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Of course none of this will happen - it's all hysterics. Trump has probably better than a 50-50 chance of re-election, although it's early days. But
  • Biden wins in a popular landslide,
  • Bid wins the electoral college in a landslide,
  • mumble mumble,
  • The Supreme Court rules that mumble mumble was legal,
then the logical next step is
  • wait for the Democratic heads to finish exploding
and then impeach.

If enough Democratic heads are left in the House.

Regards,
Shodan
  #28  
Old 05-23-2019, 04:32 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,173
Well, if y'all flee north, don't expect to crash at my place.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #29  
Old 05-23-2019, 06:48 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Some of the answers seem to pursue the question of what is proper and/or legal. Why?
.
Because, bad as things are, they're not that bad. It'd take more than four years to ease the USA into a place where it's possible to be as blatantly illegal as you're positing. Yes, there's an awful lot of crap going on; but while it's in new versions, it's not new crap. It's the same old crap coming around and around again. It may kill the country eventually, but it hasn't done it yet. So let's get out and vote, instead of deciding that it's useless. (And, in the meantime, demand paper ballot backups if your area hasn't got them already.)

Plus which, if it does get that bad, Biden or whoever still won't win the popular vote and the electoral college both in a landslide, with everyone or even any significant number of people allowed to know that he did so, but then be stopped at that point. He just wouldn't be allowed to win; or wouldn't be allowed to run in the first place. There are genuine things to worry about; but the particular scenario you're positing isn't one of them.
  #30  
Old 05-23-2019, 07:56 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,527
Back in the early 1960s there was a ton of political thrillers about this or that person double-crossing some other person and someone uncovering a vast plot to take over the government of the United States of America. You may have heard of the Manchurian Candidate, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

I suggest everyone with one of these wild conspiracy theories start here and then go through every "Customers who viewed this item also viewed. . ." until they find their question fully discussed.
  #31  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:08 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
AFAICT the exceptions to the ex post facto clause were in criminal cases. The case I am thinking of was for retroactive requirements for sex offenders.

I am not aware of any exception that was made for federal elections. Maybe you know of some - I haven't researched it much. Do you know of any case where the courts have ruled it OK to change the rules of an election after the election was held? That isn't what happened in Florida in 2000 AFAIK. There, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that they could not change the rules for counting ballots/timelines/certification after the fact.

Regards,
Shodan
Nitpick. There is a federal law (cite available on request) that is called the Safe Harbor Provision for electoral votes. If a state assigns its electors based upon its state law in effect at the time of election day and certifies its results, then that result is binding upon Congress and any debate about the validity of those EVs are out of order.

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held (in part) that the Florida recount procedure was a change in law by the state judiciary taking it outside the Safe Harbor provision, and struck it down as it was contrary to the intent of the people who wished to take advantage of the Safe Harbor Provision.

Still, there is nothing that would prevent any state legislature from simply declaring, after the state popular vote didn't go the way it wanted, that it would appoint the electors for its preferred candidate. Then that state would be outside the Safe Harbor provision and a challenge to those votes would be in order during the Senate certification of votes.

But the problem with the OP is the undefined "can't cook up a scenario." If it gets 5 votes from the Supreme Court, it cannot be that frivolous of an argument.
  #32  
Old 05-24-2019, 02:24 AM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,081
The scenario was cooked up in several Election threads after the 2016 Election: Faithless Electors.
  #33  
Old 05-24-2019, 10:36 AM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
AFAICT the exceptions to the ex post facto clause were in criminal cases. The case I am thinking of was for retroactive requirements for sex offenders.

I am not aware of any exception that was made for federal elections. Maybe you know of some - I haven't researched it much. Do you know of any case where the courts have ruled it OK to change the rules of an election after the election was held? That isn't what happened in Florida in 2000 AFAIK. There, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that they could not change the rules for counting ballots/timelines/certification after the fact.

Regards,
Shodan
Again, the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal cases. That is why the only modern litigation over exceptions to that clause involve whether something is a criminal prohibition or not (e.g., sex offender registry). There is no plausible argument that the relevant election laws are criminal laws.

There may well be other constitutional problems with changing the outcome after the election, such as an equal protection problem (which was the basis for the ruling in Bush v. Gore). But it is not an ex post facto problem.
  #34  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:08 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Is there a ruling that the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal cases, or a ruling on a non-criminal case that was allowed to stand even though it was ex post facto? Or has the question never been asked?

Regards,
Shodan
  #35  
Old 05-24-2019, 02:29 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Soldiers will do as they're told.
(heavily snipped)

This is the part I wonder about -- told by whom?

Seeing as how the POTUS is the commander in chief, what's to stop him from commanding the military to suppress any effort to remove him from power, regardless of the election results? And what could an aggrieved citizenry do about it?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #36  
Old 05-24-2019, 03:23 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
JSM isn't the deciding legal authority in cases like that. The US Supreme Court is, and they say differently.
They got to rule on whether the Florida recount got to continue or not.

To the best of my knowledge, they didn't issue an opinion on whether they helped steal an election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Question, please. What is JSM?
The annual Joint Statistical Meetings.

I figured that if Velocity had to ask, there was a great deal of evidence he hadn't been exposed to concerning his assertion, which was the reason for my omission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Possibly this.
You win the gold star.
Quote:
I believe RTFirefly is a professional mathematician/statistician/something like that.
Been both at various times. Been a professional statistician for slightly longer than I've been on this board.
  #37  
Old 05-24-2019, 03:33 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Cite? Just for the final sentence. We already see the criminal party defying subpoenas, planning to rig the census, torturing children and probably practicing treason. The Mueller report shows that Trump committed obstruction so DoJ will now ... investigate Mueller. It certainly isn't shame that would stop these criminals from more crimes. And their crimes would be fancied up; they'd tell everyone on Fox&Friends that they were the aggrieved party, that it was the Ds who'd cheated in Pennsylvania, and they were just undoing that cheating. By the time their propaganda machine got through there'd be calls to cancel the 2024 election for fear the Ds would keep cheating.
This. There is absolutely no question in my mind that they have already stolen an election. Without Comey and the Russians, Trump would not have won, and the GOP specifically aided both of these illegal interventions. (And continues to obstruct any attempt to keep them from happening again.)

Donald Trump is not currently the legitimate President. What have the Dems done? Absolutely freaking nothing.

Last edited by TimeWinder; 05-24-2019 at 03:34 PM.
  #38  
Old 05-24-2019, 09:06 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Is there a ruling that the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal cases, or a ruling on a non-criminal case that was allowed to stand even though it was ex post facto? Or has the question never been asked?

Regards,
Shodan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
  #39  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:58 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
That's not quite on point. Is there a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the clause applied only to criminal cases, and not to elections?

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:33 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,109
If I may junior-mod a bit, the thread was not at all about the likelihood of such a stolen election happening - it's highly unlikely that an election could be taken away from a candidate who's got 400 EVs and a double-digit lead in the popular vote. My question was - if it happened, what would or could the party that got jobbed, do about it?


(We've debated alien invasions from space and zombie apocalypses on this message board before, so please don't say "I won't debate hypotheticals that are too far-fetched")
  #41  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:23 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
(heavily snipped)

This is the part I wonder about -- told by whom?

Seeing as how the POTUS is the commander in chief, what's to stop him from commanding the military to suppress any effort to remove him from power, regardless of the election results? And what could an aggrieved citizenry do about it?
This entire thread is predicated on nonsense to begin with, but having said that, do you really think the military is make up of mindless automatons that just do what they are told, without any thought what so ever? They are the same people that you went to high school with, that your sister dated in college.

I guess you do, and if you think so, I supposed this entire thread is for you.
  #42  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:56 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
This entire thread is predicated on nonsense to begin with, but having said that, do you really think the military is make up of mindless automatons that just do what they are told, without any thought what so ever? They are the same people that you went to high school with, that your sister dated in college.

I guess you do, and if you think so, I supposed this entire thread is for you.
Beyond that, the military's ultimate loyalty is to the Constitution, not the President, and they spend a lot of effort on legal vs. illegal orders, etc...

An order from a President who was refusing to relinquish power would almost certainly be considered an illegal order and against the Constitution.

An interesting question would be whether they're honor-bound to then move against said President... ("...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...") since he's clearly acting in a way counter to the Constitutional provisions for orderly transfer of power.
  #43  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:37 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
An order from a President who was refusing to relinquish power would almost certainly be considered an illegal order and against the Constitution.
Comments like this assume that the Rs would send out their simplest stooges. The risk is that master liars and lawyers would take over. Fox News viewers would be sure that it was the Democrats who were cheating; many police would be eager to defend the patriots they would view as victim to Democratic shenanigans.

Again, think about recent events. Mueller's report accuses Trump of felony obstruction and regrets that sitting Prezes can't be indicted. Yet a large portion of white Americans think the Mueller report exonerates Trump, and want those who empowered Mueller investigated! Fake videos are being circulated, etc.

Some of you seem nostalgic for the Cronkite era where Facts were often agreed upon. But Cronkite was succeeded by Rather, who was driven from his post by clever frauds probably orchestrated by Karl Rove. If the election is lopsided there may be a more-or-less agreed-on set of facts Nov. 4, 2020. But if Trump loses narrowly, the forces of evil will foment great confusion.
  #44  
Old 05-29-2019, 08:03 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,257
Maybe, but in that event, the military would likely view it as a matter for law enforcement, which is something they're expressly forbidden to participate in.

So really, the only event of this nature that I could see the military actually getting involved in, would be some sort of rebellion, a-la the Civil War, or some other sort of breach of the Constitution.
  #45  
Old 05-29-2019, 08:25 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Maybe, but in that event, the military would likely view it as a matter for law enforcement, which is something they're expressly forbidden to participate in.
Why do you think this matters at all?
  #46  
Old 05-29-2019, 09:24 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, if y'all flee north, don't expect to crash at my place.
I actually got a house with two extra bedrooms here in Edmonton- just in case I need to offer relatives a place to stay if the US goes too far to the Reich.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #47  
Old 05-29-2019, 09:52 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Why do you think this matters at all?
Because my experience with members of the military is that they mostly all support the rule of law and take that sort of thing seriously.
  #48  
Old 05-30-2019, 08:52 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Because my experience with members of the military is that they mostly all support the rule of law and take that sort of thing seriously.
Exactly. WWII hammered home to the military the need to distinguish between legal/illegal orders, and our military has always been grounded on the notion that the military follows the rule of law and legitimate civil authority.

And the officer corps is, in my experience with separated/retired officers, a surprisingly reflective and insightful group of people, and very aware of the moral/philosophical aspects of their jobs.

So thinking that the military would blindly follow Trump if there were widespread and serious concerns about the legitimacy of the election, just because he was President beforehand is a stretch in my opinion.

My guess is that they'd sit it out until the Supreme Court, or some sort of convocation of the States were to make a decision, and then declare for that person. But even then, they're de jure limited in what they can do domestically, and they'd pay scrupulous attention to that as well.
  #49  
Old 05-30-2019, 10:00 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
This. There is absolutely no question in my mind that they have already stolen an election. Without Comey and the Russians, Trump would not have won, and the GOP specifically aided both of these illegal interventions. (And continues to obstruct any attempt to keep them from happening again.)

Donald Trump is not currently the legitimate President. What have the Dems done? Absolutely freaking nothing.
A more important question is, what have the people of this country done? Absolutely freaking nothing except reward corrupt Republicans with more and more power, which is another argument against impeachment: there's really no point in having the congress fix the presidency if the people aren't willing to invest their time and energy to making better decisions about who runs their government.

Last edited by asahi; 05-30-2019 at 10:02 AM.
  #50  
Old 05-30-2019, 10:09 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,870
My best guess wouldn't lead to outright war between the states - though I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of Balkanization occurred in that scenario - but the aforementioned insurgency. I think you'd see a surge in bombings and assassination attempts against government officials from people on both sides of the aisle.

Lefties would begin bombing and far-right-wing people who are afraid of government acting so capriciously would start their own movements.

That would bring police and the National Guard into it - not the Army unless Posse Comitatus is somehow rescinded - and that would harden resistance. I'm not really aware of any military that has ever completely wiped out a violent insurgency. At least not one where outright genocide is precluded for PR reasons.

In short, it'd be a bloody, painful mess. The Union is founded on the belief that elections are relatively fair and abided by because even if you lose, there's always next time to work toward. Take that away, especially in some blatantly unfair way, and that'll be it for peace and prosperity.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017