Question: What happens if Trump doesn't leave?

[11B4V]

This is sort of bothering me.  What if 4 years from now Trump runs again for President and loses then refuses to vacate the office claiming the election is illegitimate and he will not recognize the results?  How do you make him leave?

He would be an enemy of the constitution and dealt with accordingly.

By the Tea Party organizing a parade in his support?

By refusing to leave he would be an enemy of the constitution. Quit being twatty.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem in 1860 had nothing to do with the integrity of the electoral system though.  I don't think there was much argument that Lincoln had been elected.  It's just that the fact of his election prompted the people in the states that didn't like him to start an insurrection and attempt to break away.

Legally and constitutionally, the transition of power happens automatically.  The Electors meet, they vote, and whoever gets a majority "shall be the President."  Period, end of story.  The only hitches I can see are:
1) The President orders some or all Electors to be seized so they can't vote, or blocks the transmission of the certified state electoral votes to the Senate. 
2) The President of the Senate (i.e. Pence unless replaced in this scenario) either refuses to open the certified results or - in combination with the Senate, counts and certifies the wrong result.
3) The EC process works as designed, but the prior President nonetheless attempts to continue to direct the machinery of the federal goverment, and some subset decides to follow him

I believe all these scenarios are without precedent and there is no particular procedure in place for them.

[Jacob]

In the aftermath of WW2, Americans learned 2 lessons.  First, that easy toleration of "trains run on time"-style authoritarianism was dangerous.  Second, that in an international system with a dominant power, it is in the self-interest of the dominant power to spend resources to bolster weaker powers, whether directly (like the Marshall Plan) or indirectly (through security guarantees, tolerance of undervalued D-Mark, etc).  We didn't always keep the the first lesson (thanks Jeanne Kikpatrick and Dulles Bros) although ultimately Reagan made that fully bipartisan; the second element stayed intact and bipartisan through the Cold War and well beyond.

We are now in our third generation since the war and the lessons are being forgotten.  One of the most incredible things for me personally about the last election cycle was Trump's adoption of the "America First" name, a late 30s era organization tainted by pro-German leanings and outright infiltration by Nazi agents.  When Pat Buchanan used the name in connection with his 2000 Presidential run, running on a platform eerily similar to Trump's, he was widely derided, and got less than 1% of the vote.  Times are different now.

As for America's international role, Trump's break is a watershed.  For the first time, America has a Commander in Chief that views the nation's alliance system in purely transactional terms.  It's possible the Artful Dealer will extract some marginal economic concessions from the likes of Japan or South Korea.  But at what cost? There's historical precedent here - there are various reasons why the Athenians lost the Peloponnesian war so catastrophically but one contributor was the transactional nature of their empire.  Athens had fine rhetoric about fellowship between democracies and their protective embrace, but in reality they ran their alliance system in a Trumpian, imperial fashion, using their dominant position to extract large contributions and bully their "allies" politically.  It worked for a time; Athens was able to fund lavish building programs while challenging the Spartans for hegemony, but it all ended in tears.  The "allies" came to see little benefit in the Athenian system, and Athens increasingly bore the heavy and increasing burden of the war on its own. 

Anyway, WW2 is quickly retreating into history non-memory, hanging on on a pastiche half-life of Hollywoodization and video game tropes.  The blood sacrifice gave us 70 years of wisdom.  But no more.

Yeah. While the upcoming Trump presidency is worrisome on its own terms, it's the larger implications that are truly troubling - especially since similar dynamics seem to be playing out across the West.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't think it's likely that Trump would do this, but I don't consider it out of the question he would do so, and that's not something you could say about any previous president, even Nixon.

[grumbler]

So, I guess the question is:

how confident are you in the health of American democratic and constitutional institutions to resist Trump's seemingly anticonstitutional and antidemocratic impulses?

But here's the thing.  Raz's hypothesis is a full on coup d'etat - that Trump just flat-out ignores the election result.  That's quite extreme.

We've seen in countries as varied as Hungary, Turkey, Venzuels and even Russia how authoritarian leaders can come to power, and maintain that power, while nominally playing within the constitution.

The wild part about Raz's scenario is his assumption that, if the election is a fraud, Trump remains president forever.  That is simply not so.  If the office doesn't get filled y an election, that doesn't mean the office is filled by the incumbent.  It means the office is vacant.  There are no circumstances under which Trump could get himself declared the election winner based on a claim that he lost in a fraudulent election.  Even with all the alt-right government officials lined up to support Trump, the Speaker of the House still assumes the office until things get sorted out and an election result is certified.

[derspiess]

I don't think it's likely that Trump would do this, but I don't consider it out of the question he would do so, and that's not something you could say about any previous president, even Nixon.

lol

[Monoriu]

This is sort of bothering me.  What if 4 years from now Trump runs again for President and loses then refuses to vacate the office claiming the election is illegitimate and he will not recognize the results?  How do you make him leave?

Say if he loses an election but doesn't leave.  That means there must be a legitimate winner somewhere.  I, as a civil servant, will obey the boss, but only the real boss.  The real boss can give me orders, regardless whether he is physically present in front of his official desk or not. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The wild part about Raz's scenario is his assumption that, if the election is a fraud, Trump remains president forever.  That is simply not so.  If the office doesn't get filled y an election, that doesn't mean the office is filled by the incumbent.  It means the office is vacant.

That's correct, it's a four year term and when the term is up, it's up.  So simply impeding electors isn't enough.  One way or another you'd have to issue orders to the executive branch without any legal authority and hope they get obeyed. I.e. a coup, and one that would only work if lots of other people went along 100%.

[mongers]

Damn, this is going to be a Long four years.   

[Valmy]

Damn, this is going to be a Long four years.   

Technically it hasn't even started yet

But remember we will already be starting the next election campaign half way through 

[Razgovory]

Thanks for your advice, but I think I will continue to post in whatever threads I like. Even yours, when the mood suits me, and I won't worry about whether or not you consent to be mocked.

Funny that 100% of the responses to you in this have been 100% consistent, but it is only mine you get all uber enraged over. You are still pissed off about being labeled a liar, aren't you?

You happily shit on me for two days when you thought you caught me in an untruth.  When the you claimed I said something that I did not you shut the fuck up and scurried off like a rat.  The thread is still out there, you can clarify the situation if you want.  Nobody is stopping you from setting the record straight.  Remember?  It was the one where you claimed a woman who lied to get refugee status (and thus preventing someone who may have actually needed it from escaping a dangerous place) was " a near perfect example of a true hero".  When confronted with her illiberal statements about suppressing speech and religions she doesn't like Berkut handwaved it off as unfamiliarity with western democracy, which is odd since she an elected official on the Netherlands.  Do you remember the thread, Berkshire Hunt?

I am a bit curious why you bother to respond to me. Grumbler told you not to do so, you don't bother reading what I wrote, and nothing you say is particularly interesting.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't think it's likely that Trump would do this, but I don't consider it out of the question he would do so, and that's not something you could say about any previous president, even Nixon.

lol

For some one who didn't vote for Trump you sure seem to have a lot of Trust in him.

[Valmy]

I don't think it's likely that Trump would do this, but I don't consider it out of the question he would do so, and that's not something you could say about any previous president, even Nixon.

lol

For some one who didn't vote for Trump you sure seem to have a lot of Trust in him.

He is just laughing at all of us freaking out. To be fair he said that would be the only positive he could see about a Trump presidency.

[Berkut]

Thanks for your advice, but I think I will continue to post in whatever threads I like. Even yours, when the mood suits me, and I won't worry about whether or not you consent to be mocked.

Funny that 100% of the responses to you in this have been 100% consistent, but it is only mine you get all uber enraged over. You are still pissed off about being labeled a liar, aren't you?

You happily shit on me for two days when you thought you caught me in an untruth.  When the you claimed I said something that I did not you shut the fuck up and scurried off like a rat.  The thread is still out there, you can clarify the situation if you want.  Nobody is stopping you from setting the record straight.  Remember?  It was the one where you claimed a woman who lied to get refugee status (and thus preventing someone who may have actually needed it from escaping a dangerous place) was " a near perfect example of a true hero".  When confronted with her illiberal statements about suppressing speech and religions she doesn't like Berkut handwaved it off as unfamiliarity with western democracy, which is odd since she an elected official on the Netherlands.  Do you remember the thread, Berkshire Hunt?

I am a bit curious why you bother to respond to me. Grumbler told you not to do so, you don't bother reading what I wrote, and nothing you say is particularly interesting.

Sometimes it amuses me to point out how ridiculous you are, other times it does not. Shrug.

As far as the thread is concerned, I am pretty happy where it was all left off. Nothing really needs much illumination in my view, and I am content to stand by everything I've said, unlike you.

You got caught in a lie, and you are still very upset about it, I understand. It is tough being caught out like that, at least I would imagine it to be so for someone like you.

[Ed Anger]

I don't think it's likely that Trump would do this, but I don't consider it out of the question he would do so, and that's not something you could say about any previous president, even Nixon.

lol

For some one who didn't vote for Trump you sure seem to have a lot of Trust in him.

He is just laughing at all of us freaking out. To be fair he said that would be the only positive he could see about a Trump presidency.

I know I'm laughing and I voted for Egg McMuffin(no cheese)