What would happen if Donald Trump suspended the Constitution?

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

It is often a mistake to actually believe in the stuff the party throws to the masses to get them riled up.

Very true. For instance:

Democrats are IMO making a mistake, not in spouting this kind of nonsense, but in AFAICT really believing it.

Or also:

'We supported Obama when he acted un-Constitutionally,

You shouldn’t believe the stuff that your party throws at you to get you riled up.

@HurricaneDitka

And by this I mean that it was filled with ignorant stereotyping, which I thought you were against, as well as hyperbole and exaggerations that would embarrass Chicken Little herself.
And when President Trump won the 2016 election, progressives pulled out every trick they could imagine to try to reverse the impact of the voters’ decision: recounts, urging faithless electors, objecting to the certification of the vote, etc.

Heh, talk about counterfactual.

Recounts were called for by the independent in the race, not by hillary or her team. There was some talk amongst the internets that it would be nice if the electoral college did its job and did not confirm a populist demagogue to the presidency, but most of that was couched in having Pence take the lead, not in invalidating the election, and it was still a pretty small minority. The last, your claim of “objecting to the certification of the vote” will need a cite to show that any democrat of actual prominence made any such objection.

As will your etc.'s

If they were so easy to hack you’d think you’d have some proof that they had, you know, actually been hacked.

How would we tell? That’s the whole point. The evidence that we would use to determine if there was tampering was either never created or was erased.

Lets say that we know for a fact that Georgia’s 2016 election was tampered with. How would you go about proving or disproving that, as there are no records of the vote?

We know that they can be hacked. We know that people would like to hack them. And we know that we have no way of telling if they have been hacked.

That’s not as secure a system as you might like to believe.

Of course you offer no evidence of this, just a broad-brush stereotype of what you imagine “MAGA hatters” are like. Your post couldn’t have less credibility if it had been written by Jussie Smollett.

Having met some MAGAts, being surrounded by them every single day, I can say that septimus does not much miss the mark.

But you do notice that, in your effort to take the post out of context so that you would be better able to call it stupid, you would note that he was comparing the MAGAts to brownshirts of the Nazi regime. The way that you created your objection was not to the implication that they were fascists, but more about their competence at being fascists.

You gotta be more careful with context, in order to avoid making stupid posts like that that put both you and the party you are trying to defend in such a negative light.

[k9bfriender]

@Procrustus

What would you suggest a patriotic American due when faced with the prospect of someone like Trump becoming president?

Give him a flag to hump.

Clean it up, without asking any questions.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Procrustus

What would you suggest a patriotic American due when faced with the prospect of someone like Trump becoming president?

Accept that they lost and try harder next time.

[Czarcasm]

@k9bfriender

Give him a flag to hump.

Clean it up, without asking any questions.

What if you aren’t a Republican?

[Procrustus]

@HurricaneDitka

Accept that they lost and try harder next time.

If there is a next time. See thread title.

I’m on record as saying I don’t believe Trump will do this. However, he’s an unmitigated disaster nonetheless. “accepting that we lost” is small comfort as we survey the ruins of our once proud country.

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

… Recounts were called for by the independent in the race, not by hillary or her team. …

Which is why I didn’t mention “hillary or her team”.

@k9bfriender

… The last, your claim of “objecting to the certification of the vote” will need a cite to show that any democrat of actual prominence made any such objection. …

Here you go. Sheila Jackson Lee is a kook, but being a sitting Congressperson is certainly “actual prominence”.

@k9bfriender

… As will your etc.'s …

Try this one: NYT - ‘It Is Over’: Democrats’ Efforts to Deny Trump Presidency Fail

After weeks of fitful grumblings about the long-shot maneuvers that might obstruct Mr. Trump’s path to the White House, the proceedings on Friday appeared to close the book.

Or this one or this one.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

Accept that they lost and try harder next time.

Your loss too.

Putin’s the only real winner here.

@Czarcasm

What if you aren’t a Republican?

Then you can show your disapproval by kneeling while he humps it.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Procrustus

If there is a next time. See thread title. …

The thread title is wildly out of touch with reality. It’s a crazy hypothetical. It’s got nothing to do with actual happenings in the real world. You realize that, don’t you?

[E-DUB]

The belief that all (legal and constitutional) steps should have been taken to prevent a trump presidency is not one that has been undermined by the passage of time.

While I would not have been “happy” to see, say, John Kasich sworn in that outcome would have been acceptable in a way that the current incumbent is not.

The man is not only manifestly unfit for high office, he seems determined to demonstrate that fact on a daily basis.

[k9bfriender]

Shodan had some good advice:

@Shodan

It is often a mistake to actually believe in the stuff the party throws to the masses to get them riled up.

@HurricaneDitka

Which is why I didn’t mention “hillary or her team”.

But who did you mention? Apparently no one at all. If you cannot make the accusation, then don’t make it. This ambiguous “Someone did something wrong” and leave it to your debate opponent to determine what it is that you are talking about is not especially productive.

Do you acknowledge that it was not democratic politicians that called for this recount?

Here you go. Sheila Jackson Lee is a kook, but being a sitting Congressperson is certainly “actual prominence”.

Well, lets look at what she said:

@Jackson Lee

“We thought it was very important that we at least acknowledge the obvious,” Jackson Lee told reporters, “the obvious was that there were absolute violations, absolute failures in the Democratic process in the 2016 election and most hideous and most glaring was the documented intrusion of Vladimir Putin in the 2016 election for one candidate over another.”

Meh, having elections secured from tampering and outside influences is a pretty kooky position, isn’t it?

Try this one: NYT - ‘It Is Over’: Democrats’ Efforts to Deny Trump Presidency Fail

You mean the one where the prominent democrat spoke over the others, and did not allow them to take the floor?

Okay, well, they did not have a senator to sign onto them (so you acknowledge no kookiness in the senate, as a kooky senator certainly would have done so), and their comments were to the effect of

@from your cite

The members spoke of voter suppression, of Russian interference and of the bracing fear consuming many Americans.

and even those comments were not allowed by one of those democrats.

Or this one or this one.

Two highly partisan opinion pieces that present no evidence that their opinion is correct.

Can you say anything that any democrat did against the constitution or the rule of law in making their objections to the results of the election known?

Can you actually quote a politician or person of prominence specifically saying that Trump may not be seated? Or are you just complaining that people expressed their opinions that they would strongly prefer him not to be? Is it okay, in your opinion, for people to express their opinions, and even criticism of govt and elected officials, or is that something that you would rather not see?
(person of prominence can be at least a major news anchor or writer. The reason that I do limit it is because I am sure that there is a blog somewhere that does say these things that you accuse mainstream democrats of saying. And I think that it is fair to disinclude blogs and other social media, or else you become responsible for every utterance of social media from your side as well, not just elected people like Steve King, or people of prominence like Sean Hannity.)

[bobot]

@Czarcasm

What if you aren’t a Republican?

Then humping the flag would be desecration.

[ThelmaLou]

@bobot

Then humping the flag would be desecration.

Ah, you know the flag *wanted *it!

[Procrustus]

@ThelmaLou

Ah, you know the flag *wanted *it!

When you’re famous, the flag lets you do anything.

He added, "I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

[bobot]

Grab it right where the stripe meets the star!
:eek::eek::eek:

[griffin1977]

@Lumpy

IMHO Trump has yet to reach the measure of constitutional illegitimacy that Tiberius Gracchus did. The dividing line is whether he does something that attacks the authority of Congress. We’ll see if Trump does something that gets him impeached, and if so whether the impeachment itself was legitimate or if we’re in the final days of republican Rome.

Also, not a fair comparison IMO (bumping post as I’d much rather discuss Roman republic than our current constitutional clusterf*ck)

Whatever their ulterior motives or lack of them, the Graccii had a very sensible coherent policy platform that would have helped stabilize the republic (many of their policies were adopted after his death), Trump has basically no coherent policy platform except shouting about whatever he heard on Fox News last night (NO serious policymaker in the immigration policy debate, no matter how conservative they are thinks the wall is anything other than boondoggle).

Whether the Gracci were planning to parley the popularity caused among the plebes by that policy platform in usurping the republic is one of the great unknowns of history (we will never know due to the intervention aforementioned blunt end of a senate coffee table leg).

My take away from that bit of history is if you murder your Gracci then you end up with Julii.

[kaylasdad99]

@BobLibDem

I don’t think Republicans in Congress would lift a finger to stop him. Susan Collins would threaten to waver but in the end toe the party line like she always does. About 25% of the public would say something like: “Well, what about Hillary? Something something emails! Hillary lied, people died, Benghazi!”

I’d like to lay my hopes in the military, but what exactly would they do?

Well, I remember when a LOT of those guys joined a group they called “Oath Keepers” or something, which I presume implies that they would Keep the Oath they swore to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

There IS the question of whether they meant ALL enemies of the Constitution, or just the ones with dark skin, of course, but I think we can chance it…

:dubious:

[kaylasdad99]

@Shodan

One point - the articles of impeachment would pass the House 435-0, and the vote to convict and remove from office would pass the Senate 100-0. And this will be true, no matter which party the President who tried this belongs to, or which party controls Congress.

No Republican would go along with Trump if he tried it, and no Democrat would go along with a Democratic, or democratic socialist, or whatever the fuck it might be, President who tried it.

Blah blah, the other side puts party before country. Fuck that noise. This is America.

Regards,
Shodan

Oh, you poor Country Mouse…

[kaylasdad99]

@Shodan

You folks never fail to amuse. In a thread like this one, where Trump supporters are called mindless murderous fat Nazis, you want to talk about how the right wing has poisoned discourse.

Regards,
Shodan

A bunch of us tend to think of truth as being an absolute defense.