What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Sure, a dissapointing, suboptimal expectation.

Defeatist, in other words.

[Admiral Yi]

Defeatist, in other words.

Not if we keep the excessively.

[HVC]

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[Barrister]

The reality is Trump is not a meaningful threat to democracy. He will be a bad President, as he was last time. It says a lot about the Democratic party that between two bad parties, many of us only have the option of voting Republican this year because of the unacceptable things the Democrats have adopted.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but...

How is he not a meaningful threat to democracy?  He tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and continues to this day to say that he was chated of his win.  He encouraged his VP to not certify the election results, which had no basis in law or constitution (something both Mike Pence, and former VP Dan Quayle, agreed the VP had no ability to do so).

He's going to be more than a bad President.  Like hey, I've lived for 9 years under Justin Trudeau - I know a bad leader when I see one.  But there's every reason to think Trump is going to withdraw from NATO once becoming President.  Just think of the catastrophic results of him doing so.  And that's before you get into the weeds of the crazy Project 2025 shit.

So look - I consider myself a hard right-winger.  I obviously don't have a vote in the US (proud Canadian!).  But you definitely have the option of voting Democratic, which "merely" results in a bad President, as opposed to all the crazy shit a Trump 2.0 would bring.

[HVC]

Something something muslims

[Jacob]

Defeatist, in other words.

Not if we keep the excessively.

In what world is "yeah we're all resigned to losing" appropriate from a senior leader, when it comes to an existential fight, it's still pretty close, and the contest is still some time away?

It absolutely is excessive.

[Barrister]

Defeatist, in other words.

Not if we keep the excessively.

In what world is "yeah we're all resigned to losing" appropriate from a senior leader, when it comes to an existential fight, it's still pretty close, and the contest is still some time away?

It absolutely is excessive.

It's an anonymous quote.

I mean yes - I wouldn't want to see Biden say that on the record.  But I'm struggling to see how Biden wins this thing.  Which I think is terrible for the world.

[Jacob]

"We may well lose, but we're not going down without a fight. If we do lose, here's how we're going to minimize the negative consequences so we can keep going. We might want to think about how to best use our resources in this scenario..." = Not defeatism.

"Yeah, me and the guys agree we're going to lose. I don't know if there's much point. So many of the people on our side suck." = Defeatism

One of the key roles of senior leadership is to keep morale up and marshal the available resources to get the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Being "resigned to losing" is not that, and from "senior leadership" it is absolutely excessive.

[Jacob]

It's an anonymous quote.

I mean yes - I wouldn't want to see Biden say that on the record.  But I'm struggling to see how Biden wins this thing.  Which I think is terrible for the world.

You're right. The Democrats might as well give up

[Valmy]

You're right. The Democrats might as well give up

I mean they already did years ago. They saw the likely outcome: right off the cliff. And off they went. To be charitable I think they were hoping for some kind of miracle. Trump's crimes finally tank his popularity, Joe Biden has some big win. I certainly was anxiously hand-wringing hoping for something good to happen that would turn the situation around. But instead we seem to be getting the opposite of that, which was hardly an unlikely outcome from where we sat in 2022.

Anytime they want to stop giving up would be great. But I am not holding my breath. They have seemed pretty cool with complacency. But now that complacency is ripping the party in two. Now donors and key stakeholders are starting to panic. How important is doing nothing? How sacred is complacency in the face of crisis? I guess we will find out.

[Admiral Yi]

"We may well lose, but we're not going down without a fight. If we do lose, here's how we're going to minimize the negative consequences so we can keep going. We might want to think about how to best use our resources in this scenario..." = Not defeatism.

"Yeah, me and the guys agree we're going to lose. I don't know if there's much point. So many of the people on our side suck." = Defeatism

One of the key roles of senior leadership is to keep morale up and marshal the available resources to get the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Being "resigned to losing" is not that, and from "senior leadership" it is absolutely excessive.

We're not debating your hypothetical non defeatist and defeatist.  We're debating the words spoken by a real person.

If your indictment depends on adding in a bunch of verbiage they never said, doesn't that make you question the soundness of your indictment?

[Barrister]

It's an anonymous quote.

I mean yes - I wouldn't want to see Biden say that on the record.  But I'm struggling to see how Biden wins this thing.  Which I think is terrible for the world.

You're right. The Democrats might as well give up

Which is not a thing I ever said. 

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

But I'm not hopeful.  And Biden staying on isn't helping.  At least him resigning in favour of Harris would shake things up and give a new comparison.

[crazy canuck]

Defeatist, in other words.

Not if we keep the excessively.

In what world is "yeah we're all resigned to losing" appropriate from a senior leader, when it comes to an existential fight, it's still pretty close, and the contest is still some time away?

It absolutely is excessive.

It's an anonymous quote.

I mean yes - I wouldn't want to see Biden say that on the record.  But I'm struggling to see how Biden wins this thing.  Which I think is terrible for the world.

But even if they believed that is the probable result, the last thing they should do is say that to a journalist a few months out from an election.  The only rational explanation is they were trying to apply pressure to Biden to step down.  But then why wasn't the quote, that they are resigned to losing "with Biden" running for re-election.

[Legbiter]

The Conscript Fathers have spoken. Obey your elders.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The reality is Trump is not a meaningful threat to democracy. He will be a bad President, as he was last time. It says a lot about the Democratic party that between two bad parties, many of us only have the option of voting Republican this year because of the unacceptable things the Democrats have adopted.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but...

How is he not a meaningful threat to democracy?  He tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and continues to this day to say that he was chated of his win.  He encouraged his VP to not certify the election results, which had no basis in law or constitution (something both Mike Pence, and former VP Dan Quayle, agreed the VP had no ability to do so).

He's going to be more than a bad President.  Like hey, I've lived for 9 years under Justin Trudeau - I know a bad leader when I see one.  But there's every reason to think Trump is going to withdraw from NATO once becoming President.  Just think of the catastrophic results of him doing so.  And that's before you get into the weeds of the crazy Project 2025 shit.

So look - I consider myself a hard right-winger.  I obviously don't have a vote in the US (proud Canadian!).  But you definitely have the option of voting Democratic, which "merely" results in a bad President, as opposed to all the crazy shit a Trump 2.0 would bring.

Here's more of the reality:

1. Court challenges to the 2020 election - These aren't undemocratic. They are "sore loserism", but challenging electoral counts in court is not new, did not start with Trump, and none of the courts (even ones with Trump appointed judges) did anything egregious. They looked at his bad arguments, throw his cases out, and moved on.

2. Pressuring Pence not to certify. Unhelpfully, the Electoral Count Act has a lot of vagueness in it, if you view Pence's certification as a "purely ministerial" duty, he really has no option. But it isn't 100% unambiguous that is the case. So Trump arguing his interpretation and pressuring his VP to do it, IMO, still isn't outside the bounds of democracy. It is "playing dirty" but it is playing dirty inside the parameters of the rules, which themselves are not black and white on this matter. Most analysis I have seen have suggested that due to the ministerial nature of Pence's certification, had Pence gone along with it, Trump still would not have won, either the Senate could have procedurally bypassed Pence, or there would have been a Supreme Court case where most believe it would have found his certification is ministerial and he can't simply choose not to certify.

3. Pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to "find 11,000 votes" and inciting his supporters in DC on 1/6, is definitely anti-Democratic, but both also failed, and neither IMO is a great way to removing democracy. For one, getting a bunch of rioters to attack Congress could not have legally prevented or altered the election. For two, Raffensperger's actions as Georgia SecState are judiciable, if Raffensperger had violated the law to "find" votes, he would have had courts reverse him and been exposed to criminal charges.