Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-01-2019, 03:32 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,070
Trump claimed voter fraud when he won the election so he will absolutely claim voter fraud if he loses. The danger isn't in him not physically leaving the White House. The danger lies in his base not accepting the legitimacy of the elections even if the vast majority of Republicans claim that they should. Trump, realizing his real estate licensing scam is now over, will indulge his ego by forming a right wing media company and becoming "the voice of the people.". He'll be almost be as dangerous out of office as he was in it.
  #52  
Old 03-01-2019, 03:59 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
The 2000 election was insanely close, yet the SCOTUS managed to decide it before New Years Day. How big a fustercluck* do you think 2020 is going to be for it not to be settled by Jan. 20.

Whether or not he concedes is irrelevant.


*Thanks, The Punisher
One where Trump gets to put a couple more judges on the Court, but they aren't quite ready to outright fake an election result, but don't want to give it to the Dems either.

I should say I don't think this will happen (sadly, I think Trump will legitimately win), but if he is to lose but not leave, that will be how.
  #53  
Old 03-01-2019, 04:01 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
People said that Presidents Bush and Obama wouldn't leave after their terms in office, too.

IOW, the idea is nonsense.
The slight difference there is neither of them was standing for re-election, and so were not in a position to falsely claim they'd won. There was no chance that either of them would refuse to leave, but there is a small chance that Trump will.
  #54  
Old 03-01-2019, 04:09 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,506
I've never claimed that trump is Hitler. Stylistically he's a lot closer to Mussolini, but whatever. He's unquestionably an authoritarian, with little regard for democracy or the institutions of same. And I'm old enough to remember the "he won't leave" argument being made about Nixon and has been recycled about pretty much every two-term president since. And yes, it hasn't been true but like a lot of things isn't true right up until the moment it is. Don't forget this isn't coming from some lefty loon, but someone who has been active in Republican circles and who has a decade long relationship with the individual (one) in question.
  #55  
Old 03-01-2019, 04:21 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IIRC, on Jan. 3, the new Congress hasn't taken office yet so it would still be a 53-47 Republican majority. I could see a substantial number of Republican senators voting with the blues on this one, though.
Actually, we're both mistaken because the new Congress begins on January 3, and the electoral votes are counted on January 6.
  #56  
Old 03-01-2019, 05:57 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
Actually, we're both mistaken because the new Congress begins on January 3, and the electoral votes are counted on January 6.
That was the point I was trying to make (obviously not very well). While there are no guarantees whatsoever, the Senate in the 117th Congress could be controlled by Democrats — relegating McConnell to a well-deserved irrelevance.
  #57  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:58 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Almost lost in all the meat Cohen has tossed out in his testimony was the warning that if trump loses in 2020 that he will not go peacefully. Most folks are postulating a scenario in which there is a "normal" election, which he loses and then refuses to surrender power, at which point he is escorted from the Oval Office kicking and screaming "fake news". Well, there is another, more ominous, scenario in which trumpees disrupt the election itself, then use that very disruption to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the results. Then, of course, there is also the Riechstag fire scenario. Or a competent MagaBomber. I can think of half a dozen ways that could be pulled off. ...
One way would be to facilitate Russian interference in the 2020 election---this time to the point of actually changing vote totals in the machines.

It's well-documented that the Trump Administration has declined to fund (or actively de-funded) efforts to protect our elections:

Quote:
... current and former officials tell NBC News that 19 months into his presidency, there is no coherent Trump administration strategy to combat foreign election interference — and no single person or agency in charge.

...If any evidence was needed that the Russians haven't been deterred, a Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, said Thursday she was the target of an unsuccessful Russian hacking attempt. A Microsoft official says that company has also observed attempted Russian hacks against two other unnamed candidates. ...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...no-one-n895256

Though that's from July, I'm not seeing any evidence that the situation has changed in favor of 'protecting US elections,' and plenty of evidence that Trump is continuing to communicate with Russians and keeping those communications secret. From a January (2019) report:

Quote:
President Donald Trump hid details of his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, going so far on one occasion as to seize his interpreter’s notes to prevent them from reaching the public, according to a new report published Saturday.

Washington Post reporter Greg Miller outlines how Trump went through “extraordinary lengths” to conceal the contents of his conversations with the leader of one of America’s biggest adversaries. On at least one occasion, during a meeting with Russian officials and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Hamburg in 2017, Trump asked his linguist to not share details about what had transpired.

Even high-ranking officials within Trump’s own administration were unaware of specifics discussed between the two leaders, The Post reports. ...
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/13/181807...putin-meetings

And of course Trump (or his enablers) may have met secretly with the Russian Foreign Minister, who was present in Vietnam while Trump was there for the talks with KJU:

Quote:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday that the United States had asked Moscow's advice in dealing with North Korea ahead of a summit between President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader.

Mr. Trump and Kim Jong Un were expected to meet Thursday, possibly even the day before, in Vietnam's capital. Their first meeting last summer ended without substantive agreements on North Korea's nuclear disarmament.

Lavrov, who is also visiting Vietnam this week, said in comments carried by Russian news agencies on Monday that Russia believes that the U.S. ought to offer Pyongyang "security guarantees"...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-...ietnam-lavrov/


...In all these meetings with Russian officials, is it possible that plans for getting Russian technicians and/or hackers into the US are being discussed? Is it possible that Trump feels that with Russian help, vote totals that will protect him from facing justice over his various crimes will be obtained?

I'm not sure how we could rule that out. Both parties have shown they have no qualms about such actions, and given the secrecy of Trump's communications with Putin and his deputies, who would bet that the 2020 election isn't part of the arrangements being made?
  #58  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:50 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The election results are certified in a joint session of Congress. I can see McConnell refusing to accept the result of a Democratic victory and somehow prevent the election from being certified.
The saddest thing about this is, if it happened, the reaction from the general population would be a tweetstorm followed by protests the following weekend, IF the weather was nice enough.
  #59  
Old 03-02-2019, 10:16 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
People said that Presidents Bush and Obama wouldn't leave after their terms in office, too.

IOW, the idea is nonsense.
This reasoning is mentioned under "TFTSTHAN" on this webpage or here.

Quote:
Example:

1. Apples and roses aren't orange.

2. Therefore oranges aren't orange either.
  #60  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:07 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
He will also say that he wants to spend more time with his family.
Three years ago, I would have said you're being too harsh.

But now I feel they deserve this.
  #61  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:09 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,466
Not to be a Junior Mod, but shouldn’t threads about warnings go in ATMB?

I’ma report this thread for relocation, then settle back and read it...
  #62  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:11 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
One way would be to facilitate Russian interference in the 2020 election---this time to the point of actually changing vote totals in the machines.
I think there's around a 50/50 chance that Trump will get re-elected in 2020 due to widespread fraud (with or without Russian interference).

But 2024? I don't think even the Republicans will be able to steal a third term.
  #63  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:21 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
This reasoning is mentioned under "TFTSTHAN" on this webpage or here.
Where?
  #64  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:27 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Not to be a Junior Mod, but shouldn’t threads about warnings go in ATMB?

I’ma report this thread for relocation, then settle back and read it...
Okay, nevermind.
  #65  
Old 03-03-2019, 05:29 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think there's around a 50/50 chance that Trump will get re-elected in 2020 due to widespread fraud (with or without Russian interference).

But 2024? I don't think even the Republicans will be able to steal a third term.
If the GOP gets in again in 2020 due to widespread fraud (Russian or otherwise), then the odds that there will be elections at all in 2024 go way down.

Or if there are any, they will be of the banana-republic/Putinesque "95% of votes were for Our Leader" variety.
  #66  
Old 03-03-2019, 07:09 PM
Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,881
I like to think that in the worst case, he would not be hauled out of the Executive Mansion in handcuffs or a straight jacket. I prefer to think if it reaches that level, once the sedation took effect, he'd be hauled out on a gurney to an ambulance to a mental health facility.
  #67  
Old 03-03-2019, 07:17 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
If the GOP gets in again in 2020 due to widespread fraud (Russian or otherwise), then the odds that there will be elections at all in 2024 go way down.

Or if there are any, they will be of the banana-republic/Putinesque "95% of votes were for Our Leader" variety.
I think they're too smart to do away with elections entirely. Folks do love that pageantry of a contest and all that. Too many people focus on the regimes of Hitler and the like and don't realize that what we'd be far more likely to see is "Fascism-American Style" (Sounds like the title for a bad TV series, doesn't it?) in which all the forms are followed but the substance is lacking.

And as far as hacking in 2020 goes, there is the fact that a big fat zero has been done to secure the elections against foreign interference. But once you leave the door open there's no telling who's gonna walk in. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Israelis, the North Koreans, the Albanians, for Christ's sake. You'd thing that folks who are sooooo concerned with "voter fraud" would want to see the American President actually picked by Americans, but nooooooo.
  #68  
Old 03-03-2019, 07:44 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
And as far as hacking in 2020 goes, there is the fact that a big fat zero has been done to secure the elections against foreign interference. But once you leave the door open there's no telling who's gonna walk in. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Israelis, the North Koreans, the Albanians, for Christ's sake. You'd thing that folks who are sooooo concerned with "voter fraud" would want to see the American President actually picked by Americans, but nooooooo.
Americans are hackers too.

Maybe the next president will be decided by a 300 pound guy living in his mother's basement. What's more american than that?
  #69  
Old 03-03-2019, 09:48 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,239
I'm more worried that Trump will actually win re-election -- legitimately.
  #70  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:49 AM
Uncle Jocko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I can see the latter happening.

Maybe this, but thump will not want to take a chance on being seen as a loser.


Thanks to all who played for humoring me on the "will he or won't he?" thing. Geez, we're now officially a banana republic.
Your hypothetical left out perhaps the nuttiest visual of all. If Trump was indeed refusing to leave the White House on January 20, of course he’d set up a mini-inauguration of his own in the Oval Office at noon, competing with the actual ceremony in front of the Capitol (and broadcast on Fox News). And he’d claim his inauguration had far more audience members there in the Oval than there were out on the Mall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IIRC, on Jan. 3, the new Congress hasn't taken office yet so it would still be a 53-47 Republican majority. I could see a substantial number of Republican senators voting with the blues on this one, though.
I believe the new Congress is sworn in and takes office on January 3 every two years. Certification of the election results would be by the new Congress. I’m almost positive about that.
  #71  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:15 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm more worried that Trump will actually win re-election -- legitimately.
Back in July 2016, when Clinton was ahead by close to 20 points in the polls, my wife visited her overwhelmingly "blue-collar-union-member-but-fairly-progressive-on-social-issues" relatives. She came back saying, "Trump could win."

So, yeah, I'm also worried Trump could win re-election because people vote for him, and not just because someone cheats, manipulates, suppresses or whatever.
  #72  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:15 AM
Anny Middon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Now, something I CAN see... if a Democrat wins in November 2020, I can see thump vacating the White House the very next day in a ginormous tantrum. And I can see him ordering everything he installed in the OO and in the family quarters to be removed and hauled off to a dump or maybe burned on the WH lawn (okay, probably not that). Gold curtains, gold bathroom fixtures, etc. I can definitely see that. But I can't see him leaving quietly and with dignity like a grown-up with class.
Why would he stop with the stuff he installed? He's a real estate guy. When there's a tenant/landlord dispute that results in the tenant leaving or being evicted, it's not uncommon for the tenant to totally trash the place before he goes.
  #73  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:20 AM
Anny Middon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The White House is a non-issue. Living in the White House does not make you President. If Trump loses the 2020 election (or is impeached) he will cease to be President on a certain date and somebody else will be President. If Trump is still living in the White House after that, he'll be doing so as a guest. He'll no longer have any authority beyond choosing what he wants for breakfast. He can't issue executive orders and declare national emergencies or veto laws. He'll revert back to being an annoyance rather than a serious problem. If Fox wants to pay him to whine on TV, so what? We already have dozens of people doing that.
(Bolding mine.)

I don't think he'll have even that much authority. Doesn't the White House domestic staff work for the President? I can imagine him waiting for someone to come take his order, and then storming into the kitchen to scream he wants his Egg McMuffin and Diet Coke, only to be met by blank stares and a quiet statement: "We don't work for you."
  #74  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:05 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,558
Robert Reich on the topic what if thump refuses to leave office:
Quote:
Among the most chilling words uttered last month by Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, were “given my experience working for Mr. Trump I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power, and this is why I agreed to appear before you today.”
...

Trump’s emissaries have already seeded the battlefield. Last April, Sean Hannity of Fox News predicted that an attempt to impeach Trump (or presumably remove him from office any other way) would cause “fighting and dividing this country at a level we’ve never seen ... those that stand for truth and those that literally buy into the corrupt deep state attacks against a duly elected president.”

Trump’s former consiglieri, Roger Stone, has warned of “an insurrection like you’ve never seen” and claimed that any politician who voted to oust Trump “would be endangering their own life.”

Just last month, Steve Bannon, another of Trump’s bottom feeders, predicted that “2019 is going to be the most vitriolic year in American politics since the Civil War, and I include Vietnam in that.” He didn’t make a prediction about 2020, but we can guess.

We should take seriously Michael Cohen’s admonition that if Trump is defeated in 2020, he will not leave office peacefully.

Republican leaders as well as Supreme Court justices and civic and religious leaders across the land must be prepared to assert the primacy of our system of government over the will of the man who refuses to lose.
....
"Would be endangering their [sic] own life"?? WTF??
__________________
"It’s not who starts the game, but who finishes it." John Havlicek
  #75  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:29 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,812
“an insurrection like you’ve never seen”

They can claim this type of bullshit all they want. Just keep in mind that the people who would be involved in such an insurrection are the tiki torch douchebags and 4chan trolls. Nothing to fear.
  #76  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:31 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,812
Can't edit. Also, the one's making these claims sure do have a way of going to prison.
  #77  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:35 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 31,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Quote:
Trump’s former consiglieri, Roger Stone,
That makes Roger Stone Trump's Silvio Dante!
  #78  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:39 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
But the Antifa...
  #79  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:55 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Robert Reich on the topic what if thump refuses to leave office:

"Would be endangering their [sic] own life"?? WTF??
What's the [sic] for?
  #80  
Old 03-05-2019, 10:40 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What's the [sic] for?
The sentence appears in the article as
Quote:
Trump’s former consiglieri, Roger Stone, has warned of “an insurrection like you’ve never seen” and claimed that any politician who voted to oust Trump “would be endangering their own life.”
In this part
Quote:
any politician who voted to oust Trump “would be endangering their own life.”
"their" should be "his" or "her" or both, since the antecedent is the singular "any." I know these days we use their (plural) because nobody wants to use the technically correct singular his, but I'm not lettin' Stone get away with anything.
__________________
"It’s not who starts the game, but who finishes it." John Havlicek
  #81  
Old 03-05-2019, 10:42 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,296
There are still some archaics who have not yet accepted that they, their, and them are now singular for genderless use, being less awkward than him or her and the like. That insistence is despite you and your, previously plural only, having taken over from thee, thou, and thine in the second person.

Said poster probably also still uses whom.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 03-05-2019 at 10:44 AM.
  #82  
Old 03-05-2019, 10:48 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post

Said poster probably also still uses whom.
Whom would that be?
  #83  
Old 03-05-2019, 10:52 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,466
What’s supposed to be wrong with “whom?”

Also what’s supposed to be wrong with insisting that 1) number agreement is still a preferred convention in writing that’s worth reading, and 2) words that are inherently plurals exist?

Further, “him or her” (and its variations) may be awkward to certain ears, but they will never be as awkward as the abandonment of the convention of number agreement.
  #84  
Old 03-05-2019, 11:00 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
...Said poster probably also still uses whom.
Only when the objective case is called for.
__________________
"It’s not who starts the game, but who finishes it." John Havlicek
  #85  
Old 03-05-2019, 11:14 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
What’s supposed to be wrong with “whom?”
It's not wrong, yet, but it's quaint.

Quote:
Also what’s supposed to be wrong with insisting that 1) number agreement is still a preferred convention in writing that’s worth reading, and 2) words that are inherently plurals exist?
It's wrong to a descriptivist. Prescriptivism like yours is, well, it's quaint, too.

Quote:
Further, “him or her” (and its variations) may be awkward to certain ears, but they will never be as awkward as the abandonment of the convention of number agreement.
That ship sailed a couple of centuries ago - unless you say thee and thou, and I don't think thou dost.
  #86  
Old 03-05-2019, 11:27 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,466
I didn’t take my English grammar classes until the 1960s, so that is the era that controls what’s the convention. When I run into someone who learned his or her grammar conventions when “thee” and “thou” prevailed, I will show him or her the appropriate degree of deference.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 03-05-2019 at 11:28 AM.
  #87  
Old 03-05-2019, 12:05 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
The sentence appears in the article as In this part"their" should be "his" or "her" or both, since the antecedent is the singular "any." I know these days we use their (plural) because nobody wants to use the technically correct singular his, but I'm not lettin' Stone get away with anything.
Oh. You're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (such as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their
  #88  
Old 03-05-2019, 12:19 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
I didn’t take my English grammar classes until the 1960s, so that is the era that controls what’s the convention. When I run into someone who learned his or her grammar conventions when “thee” and “thou” prevailed, I will show him or her the appropriate degree of deference.
How about deference to those who took English classes just this year?

Defining correctness in reference to yourself is just sophistry.
  #89  
Old 03-05-2019, 04:51 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,590
Surely there is one thing on which we can all agree: no one wants to take Roger Stone as his or her style guide.

And as for the post that began the brouhaha: it's worth noting that Robert Reich is no Chicken Little. He's a rather sober academic.

Also worth remembering: all those military and intelligence officials and former officials who have signed letters stating that Trump is unfit. Those people are likely to be worried about a peaceful transition, too.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Robert Reich on the topic what if thump refuses to leave office:

Quote:
... Trump’s emissaries have already seeded the battlefield. Last April, Sean Hannity of Fox News predicted that an attempt to impeach Trump (or presumably remove him from office any other way) would cause “fighting and dividing this country at a level we’ve never seen ... those that stand for truth and those that literally buy into the corrupt deep state attacks against a duly elected president.”

Trump’s former consiglieri, Roger Stone, has warned of “an insurrection like you’ve never seen” and claimed that any politician who voted to oust Trump “would be endangering their own life.” ...
"Would be endangering their [sic] own life"?? WTF??
That certainly sounds like a threat. Perhaps it will be mentioned in Stone's sentencing (though with so much material to cover, it might get lost in the multitude of horribles).
  #90  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:28 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,558
Okay, it seems that when we’re talking about not having a “peaceful transition of power,” folks here are talking about two things that I think are very different:

1) Trump and his voters kicking up a fuss, causing unrest and possibly violence, either locally or nationally.
2) Trump somehow actually holding onto actual power in the government after he is defeated in reelection or his term expires.

Which one are we actually discussing here? Because I find one a lot more likely than the other,
  #91  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:34 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Okay, it seems that when we’re talking about not having a “peaceful transition of power,” folks here are talking about two things that I think are very different:

1) Trump and his voters kicking up a fuss, causing unrest and possibly violence, either locally or nationally.
2) Trump somehow actually holding onto actual power in the government after he is defeated in reelection or his term expires.

Which one are we actually discussing here? Because I find one a lot more likely than the other,
2# is impossible. Not only will Secret Service just drag Trump out of the White House, but the military, government, and all structure of power will simply ignore Trump once the clock hits noon on Inauguration Day and take orders from the new POTUS. All of Trump's "orders" will land on deaf ears at that point; he won't be paid any more heed by the people with power than any commoner citizen.
  #92  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:40 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
2# is impossible. Not only will Secret Service just drag Trump out of the White House...
Please, please, if that happens PLEASE get video.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #93  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:45 AM
Attack from the 3rd dimension is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 5,800
Exactly. The crux of the question is the period between Election Day and New Year's Day. If there are concerns about the election that are insufficient to cause a Supreme Court case, then it will be sorted relatively quickly. If there is a big enough concern, a la Bush v. Gore, then whatever the Supremes say goes, and outcome will be well defined by Inauguration Day. The transfer of power on election day is not the real issue. The real issue is dirty tricks prior to and after Election Day, especially if the election hangs in the balance, with 'hanging chads ' and other irregularities. That may open up the window for things like the so-called 'Brooks Brothers Riot'. With any luck by then Roger Stone will be wearing a orange jumpsuit - fabulously.
  #94  
Old 03-06-2019, 03:38 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,004
Trump just proved Cohen right , says he can't be beaten in 2020 in a fair election

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/polit...ate/index.html
  #95  
Old 03-06-2019, 04:31 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,812
Oh boy I'm sure he's embarrased to have misspoken like that! Everyone knows that Trump can't WIN a fair election.
  #96  
Old 03-06-2019, 04:33 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
I didn’t take my English grammar classes until the 1960s, so that is the era that controls what’s the convention. When I run into someone who learned his or her grammar conventions when “thee” and “thou” prevailed, I will show him or her the appropriate degree of deference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
How about deference to those who took English classes just this year?
I think "none" is the appropriate degree of deference to whippersnappers.
Quote:
Defining correctness in reference to yourself is just sophistry.
I prefer to think of it as "solipsism."

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 03-06-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #97  
Old 03-06-2019, 10:39 PM
Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 331
With all due respect, a lot of people seem to have really gone out to sea with their demonization of Trump, and what he's capable of. He's... not good in many ways, obviously, but at first glance, reading people talking about some kind of Trumpian loyalist-driven dictatorship, I think some people have bought a little too much into their own imagination.
  #98  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:25 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
With all due respect, a lot of people seem to have really gone out to sea with their demonization of Trump, and what he's capable of. He's... not good in many ways, obviously, but at first glance, reading people talking about some kind of Trumpian loyalist-driven dictatorship, I think some people have bought a little too much into their own imagination.
Well, there's "too much imagination" as over against "being intentionally blind to the evidence of your own eyes and ears." I'll remind you of this post in a year or so. <Makes a note on calendar>
__________________
"It’s not who starts the game, but who finishes it." John Havlicek
  #99  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:59 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Trump just proved Cohen right , says he can't be beaten in 2020 in a fair election
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/polit...ate/index.html
Cohen said in his testimony that Trump will declare the system rigged , and therefore "there will never be a peaceful transition of power".
This sounds scary, because it implies that if the transition is not peaceful, it will be violent.

But the transition doesn't depend on one man's whim. There's a legal system in place, and whole lot of people in uniform (blue, green and black) who keep it working.

By black, I mean the black suits of the Secret Service--thousands of them.
Blue and green are, of course, cops and soldiers--millions of them.
All of whom are your friends and neighbors, who sat next to you in high school. They aren't going to somehow impose a Trumpian dictatorship on us.

I would not be surprised to see Trump stay in bed at the White House till after 12 noon on inauguration day, and then head out to the rose garden to give a press talk.
Except that there wont be any press to meet him there, because to enter the White House, the journalists stop at the door and have to present their ID cards to the guards at the door. And those guards get their orders after 12:00 noon from the new president.

Trump wont even be able to tell the White House chef to a make a cheeseburger.

It could be ugly.
But there won't be a revolution.

There may be a few riots, but no more than the Occupy Wall Street/Antifa type stuff we've seen before. Nothing as bad as,say, the students of the 1960's.
  #100  
Old 03-07-2019, 09:26 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
Cohen said in his testimony that Trump will declare the system rigged , and therefore "there will never be a peaceful transition of power".
This sounds scary, because it implies that if the transition is not peaceful, it will be violent.

But the transition doesn't depend on one man's whim. There's a legal system in place, and whole lot of people in uniform (blue, green and black) who keep it working.

By black, I mean the black suits of the Secret Service--thousands of them.
Blue and green are, of course, cops and soldiers--millions of them.
All of whom are your friends and neighbors, who sat next to you in high school. They aren't going to somehow impose a Trumpian dictatorship on us.

I would not be surprised to see Trump stay in bed at the White House till after 12 noon on inauguration day, and then head out to the rose garden to give a press talk.
Except that there wont be any press to meet him there, because to enter the White House, the journalists stop at the door and have to present their ID cards to the guards at the door. And those guards get their orders after 12:00 noon from the new president.

Trump wont even be able to tell the White House chef to a make a cheeseburger.

It could be ugly.
But there won't be a revolution.

There may be a few riots, but no more than the Occupy Wall Street/Antifa type stuff we've seen before. Nothing as bad as,say, the students of the 1960's.

And how many firearms did those '60 student have? Sure, they could at least make bombs that would actually go off, but not a lot of firepower otherwise.
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 12:34 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