I post drunk better than you could ever post sober; but no, I haven’t had an alcoholic drink in about a week–and it’s been longer than that since I’ve had any intoxicants at all, unless you count coffee.
That wry, devil-may-care joie de vivre you are detecting just comes naturally; and I pity the fool that can’t naturally vibrate on that frequency, without biochemical enhancement, because it’s loads of fun to have a limited supply of fucks to give.
Organized force would not be used. The military would not act to overthrow Trump.
Any political leader who suggests armed insurrection against the United States would be instantly removed and arrested.
I am a Republican. I despise the idea of a Trump Presidency as much as you do, and I would have preferred Romney or Ryan over almost any other candidate in 2016. The idea of installing either of them in a coup is one to which I, and every other Republican, and every other Democrat, responds with an instant and unequivocal No. Followed, if necessary, by gunfire. You think BLM is causing trouble? You ain’t seen nothing.
Now stick your treasonous suggestions back up where you got them. This is the USA.
Regards,
Shodan
Mind you, the Democrats will likely want to drag the proceedings out as long as possible in order to gain an advantage at the next election and to tar Pence as much as possible with the same brush. But that’s just politics as usual.
I’m not sure “Trump could potentially be responsible for massive violations of the US Constitution so we’d better massively violate the US Constitution first” is a constructive approach for the military or anyone else looking to stop Trump assuming an office he was legally elected to.
The only potential scenario in which I can envision Trump being prevented from taking office is if proof emerges of widespread tampering with votes (e.g. hacking voting machines across several states) on a scale that could put the result in doubt. And even then I don’t know what provisions are in place to rectify such a scenario.
Horse apples.
Case in point.
There it is: the American exceptionalism I was talking about. Do you believe the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God? Serious question.
We’re not sidestepping it. There’s nothing there to sidestep.
Lincoln was elected. Lincoln took office. Lincoln was the President.
So what does that have to do with this fantasy about overturning an election?
Oh dear, I’m afraid you don’t seem to understand what the phrase “case in point” means. I would need to have composed the comment you responded to while under the influence of alcohol for that to make any sense at all. (It would still be wrong, mind you; but at least it would employ the phrase coherently in the process of making that inaccurate assessment of our respective abilities.)
Hey, this is fun. I stand by my statement that it was total horseshit to move the thread to the Pit to begin with; but now that we are unjustifiably here, at least it’s good for a few chuckles.
Take a gander at this: http://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma
There is admittedly some grist for your side in there as well. But the real fantasy is that we as a nation have been assiduously following the Constitution for 240 years and what I am proposing would be the first deviation from the righteous path.
Have you guys watched the newer *Battlestar Galactica *series? A similar issue was raised on that show.
No.
Are you a moron, or a troll? Serious question.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah, the old “have you stopped beating your wife?” type question. Clever. Whatever shall I do? Good sir, you have me trapped, betwixt Scylla and Charybdis. Mercy, I beg of you!
Not Shodan, but if I could answer, I’d say no, but the US does have a pretty vibrant civil society, freedoms of speech and the press, and a tradition of respecting the results of elections. Is it impossible that a Trump election could result in a coup against him? Aure. But it’s not likely, especially because there’s no tradition in the US of coups, and a pretty strong tradition of respecting electoral results.
You think the military and police lean left?
So troll then - thanks for clarifying.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s possible to be both a troll and a moron!
Here’s something I think you guys are missing with all your high minded abstract rhetoric. How would it be any worse to live under an extraconstitutional presidency, or even a military dictatorship, than to live under the chaotic and quixotic rule of an electorate who would actually be willing to make Trump president? Democracy is not good in and of itself. If the majority of people voting are seriously bad people, then democracy is not so good in that scenario and I would prefer to have things run by some intelligent and rational military officers and civil service bureaucrats.
The fact that you and I and everyone else in this thread of all political persuasions are in agreement that his position is ludicrous does tend to support this interpretation.
But as noted, he could **also **be a moron.
Hey, thanks for weighing in with evidence for the “moron” side of the argument.
The system as it stands, for all its dysfunctionality, still contains enough checks and balances to keep the country from completely self-destructing before a dangerous demagogue can be removed or neutralized. Once you throw out the system, not only do you get rid of those checks and balances you open the door for far greater abuses to creep in.
Churchill’s dictum that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” applies here. Stating that a dictatorship is preferable to a democracy - no matter how irrational the voting public may be - is ridiculous; the solution to the problem is far, far worse in every respect to the one being solved. You might as well say that you’re worried that your cat is going to scratch the furniture so you’re going to set your sofa on fire instead.
And with your proposed approach you eventually end up with someone like Trump in charge without term limits or restrictions on power. Which would easily qualify as “worse”.
Given an electorate willing to vote for Trump, those checks and balances aren’t safe either. Ultimately all of it is run by voters one way or another. That’s the real irony, given that a lot of people in the Trump camp, as well as in the Bernie Sanders camp, believe that the people don’t have the power. They actually do, which can be kind of scary. (On this as with many other things, I am in agreement with Bill Maher.)
Of course he would take office. You think there would be consensus in the Permanent Government and the Economic Establishment to risk creating such a precedent? Their assumed mandate is to put up the façade of democratic mandate and smooth transition so the masses don’t take to the streets, while working like crazy behind the scenes to thwart any change that’s contrary to their interests. Destabilizing the constirutional forms is Bad for Business.
Nothing in the constitution mandates sitting only virtuous rulers. SCOTUS itself has often ruled that the righteousness or wisdom or lack thereof of an act does not make it unconstitutional or illegal. Until he is elected and inaugurated, Trump’s one more civilian citizen whose asshat statements are not actionable.
Heck, the FBI just wound up with egg on its face over internal factions clashing as to whether to make Clinton look bad before or after the election or even before or after getting actual evidence. I don’t see the security/law enforcement apparatus coming together to form an anti-Trump concerted front a to prevent his sitting, if they did not do so before to prevent his election in the first place.
Try this thought experiment. It’s 1964 and Southern white folk make up the vast majority of the American population. Maybe in this alternate history, more of the North ended up in Canada, or maybe there was a nuclear war in which the Soviet Union targeted Northern and West Coast cities and industrial areas, and left the South relatively unscathed. The exact reasons aren’t as important as the general idea. There’s no reason in principle you couldn’t have a country where Southern white folks were a distinct majority, just like they would have been in the Confederacy if they had not lost the war.
So is a democratically elected government good in that scenario? I hardly think so. The government is only as good as the people who elect it.
If we have a decent electorate, we don’t have to worry about this scenario. If we don’t have a decent electorate, then our democracy is not worth saving. Kind of solves itself.