Will the United States of America experience a coup in 2020?

[crazy canuck]

Yep, you have been over this Grumbler.  Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.

[grumbler]

Yep, you have been over this Grumbler.  Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.

People who want to believe in scary stories for the thrill of being scared, yes.

My trust is in logic and evidence, not in peoples' gut feelings that something bad is going to happen.  I know that seems a bit naive to the emo crowd, but I can live with that.

[Malthus]

Yep, you have been over this Grumbler.  Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.

People who want to believe in scary stories for the thrill of being scared, yes.

My trust is in logic and evidence, not in peoples' gut feelings that something bad is going to happen.  I know that seems a bit naive to the emo crowd, but I can live with that.

I think the problem is that many, including myself, have been taken by surprise and proven wrong about what we thought we knew about the US political situation over the last few years. So we are genuinely unsure about what could happen and shaken in faith in the robustness of the system.

In my case, I'm willing to defer to those who know more about it and who are closer to the facts. Plus, I'd be delighted if the system proves, despite the last few years, robust.

[DGuller]

Yep, you have been over this Grumbler.  Problem is a lot of people find your trust in American political institutions at this moment in time a bit naive.

People who want to believe in scary stories for the thrill of being scared, yes.

My trust is in logic and evidence, not in peoples' gut feelings that something bad is going to happen.  I know that seems a bit naive to the emo crowd, but I can live with that.

I don't think people are disagreeing without out of emo necessarily, though I imagine it's possible that some are.  I think the point of disagreement is the different degree of expectation that legalism would hold up when the shit hits the floor.

[grumbler]

I think the problem is that many, including myself, have been taken by surprise and proven wrong about what we thought we knew about the US political situation over the last few years. So we are genuinely unsure about what could happen and shaken in faith in the robustness of the system.

There's no question but what there have been any number of unpleasant surprises, but from the legislative branch (where Lindsey Graham went from calling trump a disaster to cravenly kissing his ass and choosing to serve Trump rather than his own oath of office.  There have been judges who have made the wackiest, lest-legally-sound judgement I can recall, like ruling that the House can only subpoena documents from suspected criminals if the suspects agree.

Yet, many of the wacky Trump policies and pronouncements either simply died out without action, or are tied up in the courts (where he has generally lost).  Not a mile of his wall has actually been built.  Trump's claim of immunity against the emoluments clause has been rejected.  His tax records will be opened, despite his claim that he is immune to investigation.  So there's some life left in the ol' Constitution, after all.

In my case, I'm willing to defer to those who know more about it and who are closer to the facts. Plus, I'd be delighted if the system proves, despite the last few years, robust.

I am perfectly willing to discuss realistic possibilities in terms of Trump shenanigans, but just can't accept the idea that Trump will be able to overturn an election because reasons that are so obvious they can't even be articulated.

[grumbler]

I don't think people are disagreeing without out of emo necessarily, though I imagine it's possible that some are.

My statement was that the emo ones are the ones saying that the evidence-based logical approach is "naive," not the ones disagreeing with me.  It is possible to argue against a point without making your argument about the author of the point.

I think the point of disagreement is the different degree of expectation that legalism would hold up when the shit hits the floor.

And I think that there could be an interesting intellectual discussion of a plausible scenario where Trump hijack the election, if it is possible for anyone to actually create such a scenario.

[Josephus]

We've gone over this.  Trump refuses to concede and refuses to leave the WH, and then the Secret Service ejects or maybe even arrests him.  It's not like he has any power just because he says so.  Even a compliant judiciary isn't going to let him remain president when he isn't legally entitled to do so.

I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.

[DGuller]

And I think that there could be an interesting intellectual discussion of a plausible scenario where Trump hijack the election, if it is possible for anyone to actually create such a scenario.

If such a scenario plays out, it may not sound plausible until it happens.  It would be definition be "holy fuck, I didn't believe that this could actually happen here".  But I do get your point that we can't just throw out every implausible-sounding scenario out there, because then there is just nothing substantial to debate.

[grumbler]

I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.

I just think you can't come up with an actual plausible scenario, so simply repeat that something bad could happen over and over to cover the lack.  There's no point discussing this until you have an argument that foes beyond "maybe the bad man will do something bad."

[Grey Fox]

Why is Jos scenario not plausible?

[Barrister]

I just think you're being naive. If Trump argues that the election was "rigged" and "unfair" and "unlawful" he very well may have the judiciary agreeing with him. And don't forget if he loses, he is still presdient until January, giving him plenty of time to rally support. The impeachment trial has totally emboldened him.

I just think you can't come up with an actual plausible scenario, so simply repeat that something bad could happen over and over to cover the lack.  There's no point discussing this until you have an argument that foes beyond "maybe the bad man will do something bad."

I've mentioned it before - I think the scenario goes something like this.

Trump is defeated: broadly in the popular vote, but more narrowly in the electoral college.  Trump goes on an epic rant about how the election was fraudulent and stolen.  One or two states are dominated by Republicans, but narrowly go for Biden.  The Secretary of State refuses to ratify those results, citing Trump's claims of fraud.  The state legislature then meets and passes a Trump slate of electors.  This actually happened in Florida in 2000, but became moot when Bush v Gore came out.  This would in fact appear to be constitutional, although wildly undemocratic.  It gets challenged in the courts, but in a USSC with a conservative majority, it's upheld.

And there you go.  That's how Trump steals the election.  It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.

[garbon]

And there you go.  That's how Trump steals the election.  It's probably not exactly a coup as it would appear to be constitutional, but it's pretty close.

So not at all what has been raised as a concern then.

[grumbler]

Why is Jos scenario not plausible?

Because it isn't a scenario, it is just "Orange Man Bad."  A scenario describes a specific possibility, not "suppose Spartacus had a Piper Cub."

[Grey Fox]

Ok, so you are looking for details of a conspiracy.

[DGuller]

One thing I can say about this topic is that I'm less skeptical now than I was a week ago of the possibility of Maidan here in US in case GOP pushes their democratic legitimacy to the breaking point.  Hopefully Roberts and his ilk get the same impression, before they do anything stupid.