Good luck with that! I’ll look out for the GoFundMe for the IRS bills.
A lot would depend on how Trump reacts to those protests. If he largely ignores them? Yeah, they’ll probably peter out once most people need to get back to work.
But can Trump ignore them? They’ll be sullying his brilliant win, the bestest win in history. If he orders them crushed, and some people get killed, and a lot more tossed in jail, there’s a chance it could escalate. We almost saw that in 2020, but that was when Trump still had some sensible people trying to hold him back. This time around, he’s already made it clear that “sensible people” will have no role in his government, and so it may escalate without limit.
It won’t be Trump, it will be state and local police and state-controlled national guards.
We are already experiencing prison overcrowding with 0.7% of our population being incarcerated. How could the US court system and prison system function if a significant number of individuals were “tossed in jail”?
If Trump decides to let the normal course of events play out.
You can’t guarantee that with Trump. This whole scenario assumes that Trump has gained the presidency via illicit means. He’ll be looking to make himself look Tough™, like a Troo Leader™, and I doubt he’ll be content to let others take the lead in crushing his opposition. He’ll want to personally give the orders to crack heads, and will demand the most brutal crack down they can manage.
It couldn’t, which is where the Happy Camps come into it. Which is part of what would inflame the protests further.
That’s my whole point - the reaction to the protests will have an outsized influence on how widespread and serious the protests become. Will Trump back off his crack down when he sees it’s not working, or will he double down on it, like he does with everything else?
Handling massive country-wide protests without making everything worse would require a deftness that Trump has never displayed. All he knows how to do is make things worse, and then blame the results on everyone else.
Thanks, yes, there was a lot of hypothetical-fighting.
I was also trying to ask if there was anything Biden could do with his presidential powers to keep Trump out of a presidency that has been clearly stolen for Trump or if Biden can only helplessly sit in the Oval Office and watch it happen.
It terms of the literal reading of the thread title, I think that once the court battles are over and the election is officially stolen, its out of the Democrats hands, and will depend either on the role of individuals in power (i.e. Biden) or more general resistance movements.
As far as how it would turn out, I’ve been reading @Frodo’s thread about the right wing take over of Argentina as a sort of preview of what we can expect.
Only if Democrats have control of both houses of the newly elected Congress. The size of the Supreme Court is not set in the Constitution, but by Title 28, Section 1 of the United States Code, so it would require a law passed by both houses and signed by Biden in order to change it. Also remember that the new Congress starts on January 3, and that is in the Constitution (specifically, the 20th Amendment).
With the Republican House majority in this session of Congress, there’s no way that will go through before a new Congress is sworn in on January 3rd.
And expanding the court is just the first step.
After that law is passed (making it through a Senate filibuster?), the (lame duck) President would have to nominate four new Supreme Court justices, all of which would have to make it through Senate confirmation and take their seats on the court, and then the new court would have to take up an appeal - probably a very similar one to the one that’s been tried before - and overturn a previous ruling.
All in 17 days between January 3rd and 20th.
That’s a pretty tall order. I mean, people gotta sleep from time to time, you know?
And all of this would be happening in the context of Congress having met on January 6th and proclaiming Trump the winner on electoral college votes. Alternately, if the Congress did not find an electoral winner, instead kicking it to the House, Trump would have been proclamed winner shortly thereafter.
Yeah, but no. If there are protests, DJT is unlikely to ignore them. We already know he considered invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 during the BLM protests. I have no doubt he would invoke it if there were major protests to him stealing the election.
Shit would get violent very quickly. For those who don’t know or can’t be bothered to read a link invoking the Act allows a President to deploy US troops and federalized National Guard troops domestically. That won’t go so well in my estimation. Will US troops fire on citizens who are protesting and even being violent? Will the military establishment support this type of action over what are basically political protests?
I hope we never find out the answer to this but it would undoubtedly be the opening of a 2nd American Civil War.
Yup, that too.
Both of those are valid examples but they are 54 and 92 years ago respectively.
If there are violent clashes between the military and citizens breaking out in multiple locations at the same time over a stolen election I see the potential for widespread civil conflict spreading nationwide.
I’m sure the minister of national defence is blowing the dust off Defence Scheme Number 1 and all will be fine.
I just can’t see it. Ugly urban warfare where the US military would have to use artillery and drone strikes to take out apartment buildings and daycare centres? Ain’t gonna happen. Too many folks know how to use asymmetrical warfare in dense urban centres.
Too many folks got their info from the internets and will panic when reality kicks them in the ass.
Oh a vast majority, yes. But killing a bunch of unarmed protesters or blowing up an apartment block with children “collateral damage” will focus a few minds. 0.25% of a city of 2 million is still 10,000 angry motivated armed people. Who will not be marching in a column to get shot. Many will infiltrate, sabotage and blow shit up.
I know the numbers are merely illustrative and not relevant for the argument, but I must point out that 0.25% of 2,000,000 is 5,000, not 10,000.