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?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn32.sptndigital.com%2Fsites%2Fasia.axn%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fimage_1170x658%2Fpublic%2Fct_movie_f_primary_image%2Fwhite_house_down_-_keyart.jpg&hash=9b8d41ca5e2050099102a90838f5d635bc539bcb)
What happens if you get hit by a bus tomorrow?
I do not anticipate that being a serious problem. It is not like he is a ninja or something.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
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?
That essentially is a coup d'etat. The question is whether the various appendages of government would follow Trump's lead or not. I think they would not.
If he barricades himself in the Oval Office then I guess at some point the Secret Service would physically remove him.
Answer to that is easy: Build a wall around him.
Next President works out the Naval Observatory, and the VP gets Trump Tower.
Quote from: Scipio on November 29, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
What happens if you get hit by a bus tomorrow?
You'll be really sad.
Will trump run for reelection?
He will be really old, and I'm not sold on him wanting to actually do presidential work. I think he is more in it for the status, and he will have that without reelection.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2016, 11:33:39 AM
I do not anticipate that being a serious problem. It is not like he is a ninja or something.
Trump has refused to recognize all the results of the current election, the one that will bring him into power very soon. He has tens of millions of followers who believe the bullshit he says, many of whom demonstrate a tendency toward violence. Do you really think law enforcement will just pull him screaming out of the Whitehouse?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2016, 11:33:39 AM
I do not anticipate that being a serious problem. It is not like he is a ninja or something.
Trump has refused to recognize all the results of the current election, the one that will bring him into power very soon. He has tens of millions of followers who believe the bullshit he says, many of whom demonstrate a tendency toward violence. Do you really think law enforcement will just pull him screaming out of the Whitehouse?
Yes?
Raz, just organize some Social Justice Warriors into formal units and use those to fight Trump and his Trumpenproletariat.
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2016, 12:35:55 PM
Raz, just organize some Social Justice Warriors into formal units and use those to fight Trump and his Trumpenproletariat.
You want me to hang Trump voters? Like yourself?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
He won't legally be in office in your scenario. Only physically in the office.
Not if the election was fraudulent.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
the constitution means only what SCOTUS says it means
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2016, 12:35:55 PM
Raz, just organize some Social Justice Warriors into formal units and use those to fight Trump and his Trumpenproletariat.
You want me to hang Trump voters? Like yourself?
:lol:
Besides, SJWs don't hang people-- they nag them to death and organize boycotts.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
Why can't they be arrested? The President is still subject to civil procedure (thanks Bill Clinton!), so I see no reason why they wouldn't still be subject to criminal law. Mind you I guess a sitting President could pardon himself, but that's different from "can't be legally arrested".
Plus Trump is no longer President once his successor is sworn in no matter what Trump does.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
Why can't they be arrested? The President is still subject to civil procedure (thanks Bill Clinton!), so I see no reason why they wouldn't still be subject to criminal law. Mind you I guess a sitting President could pardon himself, but that's different from "can't be legally arrested".
Plus Trump is no longer President once his successor is sworn in no matter what Trump does.
A President must be impeached first. And like I said, if the election is not valid as Trump would almost certainly say, then what power actuallly forces him? 41% of the population believed that Trump would have the election would be stolen him. How well is that percentage repersented in law enforcement? If they truley believe that the election is stolen they won't believe they are acting illegally by refusing to remove the President.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:59:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
Why can't they be arrested? The President is still subject to civil procedure (thanks Bill Clinton!), so I see no reason why they wouldn't still be subject to criminal law. Mind you I guess a sitting President could pardon himself, but that's different from "can't be legally arrested".
Plus Trump is no longer President once his successor is sworn in no matter what Trump does.
A President must be impeached first. And like I said, if the election is not valid as Trump would almost certainly say, then what power actuallly forces him? 41% of the population believed that Trump would have the election would be stolen him. How well is that percentage repersented in law enforcement? If they truley believe that the election is stolen they won't believe they are acting illegally by refusing to remove the President.
Then you ask what the Armed Forces think because you basically have (like BB mentioned) a coup d'état.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:59:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
Why can't they be arrested? The President is still subject to civil procedure (thanks Bill Clinton!), so I see no reason why they wouldn't still be subject to criminal law. Mind you I guess a sitting President could pardon himself, but that's different from "can't be legally arrested".
Plus Trump is no longer President once his successor is sworn in no matter what Trump does.
A President must be impeached first. And like I said, if the election is not valid as Trump would almost certainly say, then what power actuallly forces him? 41% of the population believed that Trump would have the election would be stolen him. How well is that percentage repersented in law enforcement? If they truley believe that the election is stolen they won't believe they are acting illegally by refusing to remove the President.
that's a big assumption
I making two assumptions. That right actually believes the things it says and Trump has a respect for law and tradition. Those that disagree with me make the opposite assumption.
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2016, 12:20:34 PM
Will trump run for reelection?
He will be really old, and I'm not sold on him wanting to actually do presidential work. I think he is more in it for the status, and he will have that without reelection.
Yes. Considering the odds of him winning a relection... I think he'll take the cowards way out and not even try
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:27:15 PM
I making two assumptions. That right actually believes the things it says and Trump has a respect for law and tradition. Those that disagree with me make the opposite assumption.
I believe that the US government, even Trump's appointees, have a respect for law and tradition. Trump's crazy tweets are one thing, but if he were to make Executive Orders that are painfully, obviously, unconstitutional like ignoring the election results, that no one would follow those orders.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
You believe they would knowingly follow illegal orders?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
Nixon thought the 1960 election was stolen from him (and he was the sitting VP). In the end though he (and the GOP) did not dispute the result.
Gore thought the 2000 election was stolen from him (and again, he was the sitting VP). Though there were court challenges, once the USSC ruled he did not dispute the result further.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:27:15 PM
I making two assumptions. That right actually believes the things it says and Trump has a respect for law and tradition. Those that disagree with me make the opposite assumption.
I believe that the US government, even Trump's appointees, have a respect for law and tradition. Trump's crazy tweets are one thing, but if he were to make Executive Orders that are painfully, obviously, unconstitutional like ignoring the election results, that no one would follow those orders.
Let's assume for a moment the election is stolen from him. Why should he leave office?
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
Nixon thought the 1960 election was stolen from him (and he was the sitting VP). In the end though he (and the GOP) did not dispute the result.
Gore thought the 2000 election was stolen from him (and again, he was the sitting VP). Though there were court challenges, once the USSC ruled he did not dispute the result further.
Not quite. Both conceded the election.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
You believe they would knowingly follow illegal orders?
stolen election doesn't mean the orders to arrest trump for refusing to leave office are illegal. it's a lot more difficult for people to act than to watch and complain
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:39:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
You believe they would knowingly follow illegal orders?
stolen election doesn't mean the orders to arrest trump for refusing to leave office are illegal. it's a lot more difficult for people to act than to watch and complain
Okay, let me turn it around as I did for BB. What if an election is stolen. What is the proper response? Watch and complain?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Okay, let me turn it around as I did for BB. What if an election is stolen. What is the proper response? Watch and complain?
I think the proper response if one suspects state officials of conducting electoral fraud is to request an FBI investigation.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:39:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
You believe they would knowingly follow illegal orders?
stolen election doesn't mean the orders to arrest trump for refusing to leave office are illegal. it's a lot more difficult for people to act than to watch and complain
Okay, let me turn it around as I did for BB. What if an election is stolen. What is the proper response? Watch and complain?
Were you not around in 2000? If you think an election is stolen you challenge the results in court, state by state. There's a whole process to do so. Hell Jill Stein is trying to do so right now on behalf of Hillary.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Nixon thought the 1960 election was stolen from him (and he was the sitting VP). In the end though he (and the GOP) did not dispute the result.
It's a little more complicated than that. The Chairman of the RNC demanded recounts in a bunch of states. Nixon didn't officially support the effort but his personal aides were involved in the recount efforts. There were recounts in several states, but none revealed significant discrepancies. Then a flurry of lawsuits which went nowhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 02:00:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Nixon thought the 1960 election was stolen from him (and he was the sitting VP). In the end though he (and the GOP) did not dispute the result.
It's a little more complicated than that. The Chairman of the RNC demanded recounts in a bunch of states. Nixon didn't officially support the effort but his personal aides were involved in the recount efforts. There were recounts in several states, but none revealed significant discrepancies. Then a flurry of lawsuits which went nowhere.
I was vaguely aware of this - which is why I went with "In the end though he... did not dispute the result".
Respect for the Constitution and tradition doesn't mean you can't file court challenges. Heck the courts are part of the overall constitutional process! But Raz seems to be talking about Trump disputing the election results outside of that constitutional framework.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
I don't get it. If Trump loses in 2020, then the Electors will elect someone else, that person will be inaugurated, and then under the Constitution, that person will be the President and Trump will not. So of course he could be arrested for trespass and other things as well.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:39:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
no, you're also assuming that because they think the election is stolen, they will actively attempt to keep trump in power
You believe they would knowingly follow illegal orders?
stolen election doesn't mean the orders to arrest trump for refusing to leave office are illegal. it's a lot more difficult for people to act than to watch and complain
Okay, let me turn it around as I did for BB. What if an election is stolen. What is the proper response? Watch and complain?
Were you not around in 2000? If you think an election is stolen you challenge the results in court, state by state. There's a whole process to do so. Hell Jill Stein is trying to do so right now on behalf of Hillary.
Uh, yeah. They weren't challenging the result of the election in court, state by state. That didn't happen.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 02:05:21 PM
Uh, yeah. They weren't challenging the result of the election in court, state by state. That didn't happen.
They were challenging the result in Florida. They didn't need to challenge state by state since Florida decided the election.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 12:01:48 PM
Answer to that is easy: Build a wall around him.
Next President works out the Naval Observatory, and the VP gets Trump Tower.
:D
And this time Mexico might offer to pay for that wall.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 02:05:21 PM
Uh, yeah. They weren't challenging the result of the election in court, state by state. That didn't happen.
They were challenging the result in Florida. They didn't need to challenge state by state since Florida decided the election.
So they didn't challenge the result state by state. They didn't even challenge it county by county.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
They were challenging the result in Florida. They didn't need to challenge state by state since Florida decided the election.
And there were no grounds to challenge in other states.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
I don't get it. If Trump loses in 2020, then the Electors will elect someone else, that person will be inaugurated, and then under the Constitution, that person will be the President and Trump will not. So of course he could be arrested for trespass and other things as well.
Agreed. A President would have to create a coup and take over the government but first have enough support of legal entities, military and whatever else to make that happen.
I've heard some people on the other side of politics wonder the same thing about Obama, that there would be some kind of big event where he declares martial law and refuses to leave the WH. I didn't buy into that side either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2016, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Okay, let me turn it around as I did for BB. What if an election is stolen. What is the proper response? Watch and complain?
I think the proper response if one suspects state officials of conducting electoral fraud is to request an FBI investigation.
And if the FBI does nothing? Or if two government offices investigate and come to contrary conclusions?
Our governor spent my tax dollars mobilizing the national guard to thwart Obama's last attempt to seize the nation using martial law.
Because the members of the military are such huge Obama supporters, of course they would go along with it.
Can this thread be merged into the 'Minor Terrorism' thread?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
I don't get it. If Trump loses in 2020, then the Electors will elect someone else, that person will be inaugurated, and then under the Constitution, that person will be the President and Trump will not. So of course he could be arrested for trespass and other things as well.
Yes, if everything works the way it is suppose to.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2016, 02:22:11 PM
Can this thread be merged into the 'Minor Terrorism' thread?
We need a 'Trainwreck Megathread'.
Maybe an "adjust meds" thread. :mellow:
Raz, there are lots of better things for you to be worrying about. You can let this one go. :)
Fine, I'll concede my assumptions. Conservatives, are as a rule, liars. When they say that the election is being stolen they are knowingly lying. There is a good reason to believe this. Many claimed to believe Obama was going to murder them with "Death Panels", but did not act in the manner of a person who was about to be killed. People who believe that someone is coming to kill them tend to react violently, not just sit back and grouse about it. Like wise, Trump is an honest man who does not flout law or tradition in his business life. And despite this remarkable honesty, Trump doesn't actually mean it when he says he won't recognize the results of the election.
Happy?
Quote from: KRonn on November 29, 2016, 02:10:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 12:01:48 PM
Answer to that is easy: Build a wall around him.
Next President works out the Naval Observatory, and the VP gets Trump Tower.
:D
And this time Mexico might offer to pay for that wall.
:D
Heh, you know what I can see the build a wall thing becoming the meme to end all memes on the interwebs over the next four years; it would be good if some even went so far as to build walls in those instances, to make them concrete, so to speak. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
Once someone else is inaugurated, he's no longer in office. Problem solved.
So, on another note, is MoveOn.org going to be a thing again now that there is a nominally Republican President?
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 03:03:36 PM
So, on another note, is MoveOn.org going to be a thing again now that there is a nominally Republican President?
Lots of forces that have been dormant since 2009 are going to be rushing back. What I am really curious about is if the 'Freedom Caucus' are going to be just as narrowly constructionist with such pressure from their own party coming to bear.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 02:25:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
It's never been done before, and the president can't be legally arrested while in office. The assumption in the constitution is that the President is will leave office voluntarily.
I don't get it. If Trump loses in 2020, then the Electors will elect someone else, that person will be inaugurated, and then under the Constitution, that person will be the President and Trump will not. So of course he could be arrested for trespass and other things as well.
Yes, if everything works the way it is suppose to.
?
I don't get it - what else could happen?
I suppose you could have a coup where Trump calls out the Feds or the army the physically restrain the Electors.
If your question is what happens if a sitting President attempts a coup to stay in power, then there's not a lot of domestic precedent or a playbook for what happens next.
I imagine a scenario where Trump claims to be President due to having the election stolen and lots of people believe and support him including those in positions of power. Not sure what the outcome of that is. Maybe nothing gets done because the whole government is split between two governments. Those supporting Trump and those supporting his opposition.
But fine, I'll drop it. Before I do, let me ask you smug bastards one thing. At this time in 2015 how many predicted that Trump would be President-elect?
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?
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
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?
Pretty confident. The system gives the minority lots of tools to fuck up the majority.
If Trump gets weird we can make him chancellor, then he'll mellow.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 03:15:00 PM
Before I do, let me ask you smug bastards one thing. At this time in 2015 how many predicted that Trump would be President-elect?
Clearly, if anyone did not predict Trump would win the election, then we cannot predict that he won't engage in a coup and have the government support him in that coup. Because those two things are equally likely to come about. Indeed, all things that at any point anyone thinks are unlikely, are in fact equally likely.
Lets play a game where we list everything we can no longer claim there isn't a good reason to dismiss since we failed to predict Trump's election!
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
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?
Medium confidence. In the short run a determined executive whose people pursue aggressive positions on executive power can do quite a bit of damage before counterveiling forces come into play.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 29, 2016, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 03:37:21 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
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.
None of those countries have anything evenc approaching the democratic institutions in oplace that the US has - you need to find some examples of where this has happened in mature western democracies. And you won't find any, at least not that I can think of, because by definition they don't allow these kinds of things - the institutions are more powerful than the personalities.
What fucking sucks about this kind of idiotic hysteria is that it masks the real threat that people like Trump (and plenty like him in the past) pose to those institutions. Not in some half mad power grab, but in the insidious, continual, and quiet erosion of actual representation of the principles that underly those institutions.
The chicken littles scream and yell about coup de etat, and when it never happens, it makes it that much easier to dismiss the legitimate concerns about the erosion of actual principles. Like the effective non-existence of the 4th Amendment, as one example.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 03:37:21 PM
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.
I know, but from the conversation that followed, it seemed clear that Raz's concerns were wider than that specific instance, and that people who were answering him were focusing on the technicality of the succession of power. I figured that exchange had run its course, and wanted to ask the more general question.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 03:52:17 PM
What fucking sucks about this kind of idiotic hysteria is that it masks the real threat that people like Trump (and plenty like him in the past) pose to those institutions. Not in some half mad power grab, but in the insidious, continual, and quiet erosion of actual representation of the principles that underly those institutions.
This.
Which is why I have been concerned about ongoing research showing the declining rate of support for democracy in actual western democracies, the rising support for military government (even in the US), etc. (For just an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/opinion/across-the-globe-a-growing-disillusionment-with-democracy.html)
It's something I have seen first hand in my classroom. When I began to teach, I used to force my students to confront arguments in favor of royal absolutism in the 17th century - and it was obvious they had a hard time understanding how it could ever have been supported as a political system. Now, I find myself having to rethink that assignment, as students are increasingly at ease with justifying an absolutist political system, even agreeing, at an unreflexive, gut level, with many assumptions where once that gut feeling was resolutely one of abhorrence.
Even in fiction, I never understood why the whole "murder of the President" thing was such a big deal in TV series. I am even concerned that this, in mass media, has eroded the sense of what democracy is - that is, the American system of government has been equated with its president's physical survival, and thus, anything else below that is unimportant. Were I a patriotic American screenwriter, I would take pride in writing a piece of fiction in which the president is indeed assassinated, and then another guy steps in and takes his or her place, and the system continues. You know, like happened in real life.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 03:52:17 PM
None of those countries have anything evenc approaching the democratic institutions in oplace that the US has - you need to find some examples of where this has happened in mature western democracies. And you won't find any, at least not that I can think of, because by definition they don't allow these kinds of things - the institutions are more powerful than the personalities.
What fucking sucks about this kind of idiotic hysteria is that it masks the real threat that people like Trump (and plenty like him in the past) pose to those institutions. Not in some half mad power grab, but in the insidious, continual, and quiet erosion of actual representation of the principles that underly those institutions.
The chicken littles scream and yell about coup de etat, and when it never happens, it makes it that much easier to dismiss the legitimate concerns about the erosion of actual principles. Like the effective non-existence of the 4th Amendment, as one example.
None of those nations had the democratic history or traditions that the US has, but in terms of the political institutions - they did. They all (well not quite for Russia) thoroughly democratic constitutions and electoral systems in place.
A slide to illiberalism and authoritarianism would be harder to do in the US, but it's not impossible to imagine.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2016, 04:04:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 03:52:17 PM
What fucking sucks about this kind of idiotic hysteria is that it masks the real threat that people like Trump (and plenty like him in the past) pose to those institutions. Not in some half mad power grab, but in the insidious, continual, and quiet erosion of actual representation of the principles that underly those institutions.
This.
Which is why I have been concerned about ongoing research showing the declining rate of support for democracy in actual western democracies, the rising support for military government (even in the US), etc. (For just an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/opinion/across-the-globe-a-growing-disillusionment-with-democracy.html)
It's something I have seen first hand in my classroom. When I began to teach, I used to force my students to confront arguments in favor of royal absolutism in the 17th century - and it was obvious they had a hard time understanding how it could ever have been supported as a political system. Now, I find myself having to rethink that assignment, as students are increasingly at ease with justifying an absolutist political system, even agreeing, at an unreflexive, gut level, with many assumptions where once that gut feeling was resolutely one of abhorrence.
Even in fiction, I never understood why the whole "murder of the President" thing was such a big deal in TV series. I am even concerned that this, in mass media, has eroded the sense of what democracy is - that is, the American system of government has been equated with its president's physical survival, and thus, anything else below that is unimportant. Were I a patriotic American screenwriter, I would take pride in writing a piece of fiction in which the president is indeed assassinated, and then another guy steps in and takes his or her place, and the system continues. You know, like happened in real life.
Indeed. The difference between the US, Canada, the UK, France, etc., etc. etc. and places like Turkey, Russia, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc. is that the institutions are in fact larger than the personalities, and larger than any possible personality, at least in theory.
But when the principles that undermine those institutions erode away, and always, of course, for the best possible reasons (we need to be able to search that phone, or stop that potential terrorist, or make sure everyone gets "equal" results), then in fact we create the facade of the institutions, and the faith that people have in them becomes just as thin as the reality. Then when the next demagogue shows up, their personality is larger than the insitutions, and we have a Putin running things.
Now, using Putin as the example, I don't think there was ever much faith in the Russian democratic institutions to begin with, or even much practical law behind them for that matter.
I think Trump being elected is a sign of the erosion of our faith in democracy, but he was elected in a completely normal manner, in a completely normal election. It didn't take any kind of special changes to the system, he was just elected using the exact same system in place that has elected all the other Presidents. His election is a perversion of the rationality of the electorate, not a perversion of the process.
There is no real worry for me that he won't leave under the exact same process. But I am worried that he will continue to erode civil liberties that have been eroding a long time. When people who presumably want to stop that erosion cannot or will not (Obama), then I am very concerned that someone who could not even comprehend this very post is calling the shots, someone who has displayed not even a disregard for constitutional principles, but complete obliviousness to their existence.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 04:15:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 03:52:17 PM
None of those countries have anything evenc approaching the democratic institutions in oplace that the US has - you need to find some examples of where this has happened in mature western democracies. And you won't find any, at least not that I can think of, because by definition they don't allow these kinds of things - the institutions are more powerful than the personalities.
What fucking sucks about this kind of idiotic hysteria is that it masks the real threat that people like Trump (and plenty like him in the past) pose to those institutions. Not in some half mad power grab, but in the insidious, continual, and quiet erosion of actual representation of the principles that underly those institutions.
The chicken littles scream and yell about coup de etat, and when it never happens, it makes it that much easier to dismiss the legitimate concerns about the erosion of actual principles. Like the effective non-existence of the 4th Amendment, as one example.
None of those nations had the democratic history or traditions that the US has, but in terms of the political institutions - they did. They all (well not quite for Russia) thoroughly democratic constitutions and electoral systems in place.
A slide to illiberalism and authoritarianism would be harder to do in the US, but it's not impossible to imagine.
The systems in place don't mean anything though if they are not backed up by faith in those systems by the people and administers of the system.
It's like noting that India has lots of traffic laws just like the US, so we should expect similar rates of accidents. Well, no - if the people simply do not follow the laws, then the fact that the laws exist don't mean much. The existence of the institutions is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 03:25:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 03:15:00 PM
Before I do, let me ask you smug bastards one thing. At this time in 2015 how many predicted that Trump would be President-elect?
Clearly, if anyone did not predict Trump would win the election, then we cannot predict that he won't engage in a coup and have the government support him in that coup. Because those two things are equally likely to come about. Indeed, all things that at any point anyone thinks are unlikely, are in fact equally likely.
Lets play a game where we list everything we can no longer claim there isn't a good reason to dismiss since we failed to predict Trump's election!
You know, this week I was seriously considering trying to mend the differences between us, and bury the hatchet. Forget the fact you told bald face lies about me, and yet you continue to deliberately misrepresent my positions. My point was not that since you were incapable of predicting Trump would win, you can't make any predictions about politics in the future. My point was that since the conventional wisdom failed to predict Trump falling back on the conventional wisdom to predict his future behavior or the behavior of the of the electorate may not be helpful. But you had to go on and rant and rave and go on about some email group from 20 years ago. Please, stay out of my threads. If I want you to post I'll write "gee, wouldn't it be nice to have the cunt-judge's opinion on this?"
As for the rest, this country is not without electoral problems the most glaring in 1860, but there are several others during Reconstruction. So the idea that people would violently refuse election results is not completely foreign to the US. Nor is there a lack of precedent where one branch of government is hindered or even ignored by another. I don't know if there really is a body of law that sets out strict requirements for an outgoing president or what happens if the President simply ignores it. My impression is that the founding fathers expected Republican virtue to maintain the system, something we've used for over two centuries. I am not confident civic virtue is enough to stop an authoritarian reality-show star and 60 million people he has managed to convince that they've been robbed of an election.
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?
Quote from: viper37 on November 29, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 29, 2016, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
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 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 07:01:08 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2016, 03:37:21 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2016, 07:39:20 PM
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
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2016, 07:44:42 PM
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%.
Damn, this is going to be a Long four years. <_<
Quote from: mongers on November 29, 2016, 08:30:58 PM
Damn, this is going to be a Long four years. <_<
Technically it hasn't even started yet :P
But remember we will already be starting the next election campaign half way through :bleeding:
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 07:16:02 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2016, 07:51:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2016, 07:39:20 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2016, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2016, 07:51:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2016, 07:39:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2016, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2016, 07:16:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2016, 08:48:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2016, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2016, 07:51:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 29, 2016, 07:39:20 PM
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)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2016, 08:57:44 PM
I know I'm laughing and I voted for Egg McMuffin(no cheese)
It is good we can make you smile before Trump nukes Normandy.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2016, 08:57:44 PM
I know I'm laughing and I voted for Egg McMuffin(no cheese)
It is good we can make you smile before Trump nukes Normandy.
French bias! So sad!
I have a sad now.
The French did not listen when I said they had to make Le Bic President. Also they didn't make Nigel Farage ambassador even though he has a French name. From now on every American beverage will be called "champagne".
@TehRealDonaldTrump
3:43am
We must stop French and Italian Islamic lawlessness @FlorenceAndNormandy
More stop and frisk! #LAPD
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2016, 07:01:08 PM
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.
how long did the relationship last?
I think a lot of americans, including people close to trump, still appreciate the importance of our allies, even if he doesn't.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
I think a lot of americans, including people close to trump, still appreciate the importance of our allies, even if he doesn't.
I think you're going to be disappointed with the people close to Trump.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2016, 09:24:52 PM
@TehRealDonaldTrump
3:43am
We must stop French and Italian Islamic lawlessness @FlorenceAndNormandy
More stop and frisk! #LAPD
I laughed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
I think a lot of americans, including people close to trump, still appreciate the importance of our allies, even if he doesn't.
I think you're going to be disappointed with the people close to Trump.
His inaugural buy in. His exbankers and billionaire cronies for cab picks. Draining the swamp alright. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
I think a lot of americans, including people close to trump, still appreciate the importance of our allies, even if he doesn't.
I think you're going to be disappointed with the people close to Trump.
Yeah, I don't think you get close to Trump by telling him unpleasant truths. His will be the post-truth presidency. It's back to Andrew Jackson days.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2016, 09:06:16 PM
I have a sad now.
Eh, they smell of wine and turnips anyhow. No great loss.
:(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 29, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
I think a lot of americans, including people close to trump, still appreciate the importance of our allies, even if he doesn't.
I think you're going to be disappointed with the people close to Trump.
Well. Seedy sure as hell nailed this, didn't he?
Ed and Seedy posts. :(
To be fair, many of the people close to Trump in 2016 have been fired.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 07, 2019, 09:06:29 PM
To be fair, many of the people close to Trump in 2016 have been fired.
To be fair, the close people then and the close people now are on the same level of retardedness.
If Trump doesn't leave, do I still have a job?
You might have too much of one if he doesn't.
Taking control of a country's military to overturn an election result and maintain your rule forcefully, a country with the longest and most stable democratic traditions, in a space of 4 years, would be an immense undertaking requiring probably one of the greatest stateman of world history, and a concentrated effort and a well laid out long term plan.
The idea that Trump would be able to orchestrate such a thing is laughable.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2019, 10:22:36 AM
Taking control of a country's military to overturn an election result and maintain your rule forcefully, a country with the longest and most stable democratic traditions, in a space of 4 years, would be an immense undertaking requiring probably one of the greatest stateman of world history, and a concentrated effort and a well laid out long term plan.
The idea that Trump would be able to orchestrate such a thing is laughable.
:yes: We'll make him chancellor if he gets too uppity. Should slow him down.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2019, 10:22:36 AM
Taking control of a country's military to overturn an election result and maintain your rule forcefully, a country with the longest and most stable democratic traditions, in a space of 4 years, would be an immense undertaking requiring probably one of the greatest stateman of world history, and a concentrated effort and a well laid out long term plan.
The idea that Trump would be able to orchestrate such a thing is laughable.
Well, Trump already controls the military and second I don't think the military needs to do anything at all to help Trump. Law enforcement is sufficient, and Trump has already broken the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Military officers might balk at an unlawful order, how many cops would?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2019, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2019, 10:22:36 AM
Taking control of a country's military to overturn an election result and maintain your rule forcefully, a country with the longest and most stable democratic traditions, in a space of 4 years, would be an immense undertaking requiring probably one of the greatest stateman of world history, and a concentrated effort and a well laid out long term plan.
The idea that Trump would be able to orchestrate such a thing is laughable.
Well, Trump already controls the military and second I don't think the military needs to do anything at all to help Trump. Law enforcement is sufficient, and Trump has already broken the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Military officers might balk at an unlawful order, how many cops would?
Calm down. There is literally zero reason for a soldier to willingly push their country into civil war over keeping Trump in power.
There is every chance Trump will make it a spectacle refusing to leave the White House but as explained earlier, legally speaking he won't be President by then. The USA's prestige will be further diminished as he'll be dragged out of the building on live TV, but there won't be military units, or the police, rallying to his aid.
But, if that makes you feel any better, he is going be re-elected.
I can see Donald saying "Execute Order 66."
My Official Funk Prediction: If Donald loses, he'll have a Twitter meltdown and try to take his supporters to the streets. At which point there will be counter-protests and obviously clashes and injuries and even deaths. Once people start dying after the election is when the GOP will finally fold and dump the Trump.
The idea that Trump can order town cops to seize ballot boxes is laughable. Town cops work for the mayor, and would be fired if they obeyed the president's order over the mayor's. There are far too few federal police-type officers, even if they were willing to engage in a coup, to disrupt a US national election protected by local cops.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2019, 11:01:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2019, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2019, 10:22:36 AM
Taking control of a country's military to overturn an election result and maintain your rule forcefully, a country with the longest and most stable democratic traditions, in a space of 4 years, would be an immense undertaking requiring probably one of the greatest stateman of world history, and a concentrated effort and a well laid out long term plan.
The idea that Trump would be able to orchestrate such a thing is laughable.
Well, Trump already controls the military and second I don't think the military needs to do anything at all to help Trump. Law enforcement is sufficient, and Trump has already broken the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Military officers might balk at an unlawful order, how many cops would?
Calm down. There is literally zero reason for a soldier to willingly push their country into civil war over keeping Trump in power.
There is every chance Trump will make it a spectacle refusing to leave the White House but as explained earlier, legally speaking he won't be President by then. The USA's prestige will be further diminished as he'll be dragged out of the building on live TV, but there won't be military units, or the police, rallying to his aid.
But, if that makes you feel any better, he is going be re-elected.
Uh, I said military doesn't need to do anything. We already have an example of municipal police acting inappropriately because they believed it would benefit the President. We have examples of Federal law enforcement following the orders from Trump that were illegal. I didn't think Trump could corrupt the Justice Department but it happened. He has fired or driven out anyone who stood against him.
We believe our system would prevent the abuses that Trump has committed. It has not. What makes you think that this situation will change?
Quote from: grumbler on October 08, 2019, 11:14:56 AM
The idea that Trump can order town cops to seize ballot boxes is laughable. Town cops work for the mayor, and would be fired if they obeyed the president's order over the mayor's. There are far too few federal police-type officers, even if they were willing to engage in a coup, to disrupt a US national election protected by local cops.
Nobody said that, and mayoral authority differs wildly from place to place. In none of those places does the police work at the pleasure of the mayor.
I'm looking forward to 15 months from now when I can just post a bunch of roll-eyes emojis at the over-worriers or delete all my posts on Languish criticizing Immortan Trump. Whichever.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 08, 2019, 01:06:25 PM
I'm looking forward to 15 months when the great and unmatched leader is re-elected].
Helping you out with a little insurance.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 08, 2019, 01:06:25 PM
I'm looking forward to 15 months from now when I can just post a bunch of roll-eyes emojis at the over-worriers or delete all my posts on Languish criticizing Immortan Trump. Whichever.
Same.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2019, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 08, 2019, 01:06:25 PM
I'm looking forward to 15 months when the great and unmatched leader is re-elected].
Helping you out with a little insurance.
:D
If Trump really went after people who criticized him on social media, I would be very fucked.
No, officer, I have no idea who this "Berkut" fellow is, but he sounds dangerous and seditious.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2019, 10:22:36 AM
Taking control of a country's military to overturn an election result and maintain your rule forcefully, a country with the longest and most stable democratic traditions, in a space of 4 years, would be an immense undertaking requiring probably one of the greatest stateman of world history, and a concentrated effort and a well laid out long term plan.
The idea that Trump would be able to orchestrate such a thing is laughable.
Yeah he's too incompetent.
But looking back on the assertions about US democracy and institutions, I'm not sure they've proven any more inoculated to this sort of leader than Russia, or India, or Israel, or Turkey - or maybe in the future, Italy. I always remember worrying about Putinism as a real exportable threat: corrupt, illiberal, nationalist sort of post-truth democracies.
Also taking a broad view the US is the enormous outlier in a Presidential system lasting this long without a slide to authoritarianism or a military coup. I've said elsewhere I think the blessing is Trump is too self-involved and incompetent. If he had the political nous and discipline of Erdogan or maybe Salvini I think we'd be in a far more threatening situation (not least because they probably would have been cautious on trade, passed a massive infrastructure, not routinely popped off on Twitter and be on about 60% approval rating because of the economy). My fear is Trump's exposed the weakness of a lot of institutions, not least the Republican Party, which someone else will take advantage of - and it'll probably be easier because they'll always turn around and have a precedent in Trump, to explain how they're not behaving that badly.
If Trump was smarter and more competent he probably wouldn't have undermined US institutions as much as he has even if he desired to do so. Trump is succeeding because he does what no sane or competent person would do. He acts so outrageously that he has put rest of the nation in a state of shock. Nobody is certain how to deal with it.
I'm going to invoke Godwin on this one, but Hitler was the same way. He shocked the German public with his wild lies and violent behavior. When he came to power he used the destruction of the Reichstag (some claim he was responsible, but I'm skeptical of this) to seize power. The German political parties were too stunned to resist. He slaughtered members of his own party to appease members of the military then turned right around and used blackmail to cow the Military into submission. In diplomacy he won spectacular victories and annexed significant territory. In war he broke the finest armies of Europe and for a short time control a truly vast amount of territory. All of this looks like the work of a political genius. It wasn't. There was no master plan. While Hitler certainly had natural skill in politics and propaganda, he wasn't much of a strategic thinker. He mostly operated on instinct and frequently acted in response to moves made by other leaders. He showed very little interest in the day-to-day governing of Germany and spent most of the time before the war goofing off in his mountain home. At heart he was still the work-shy high school drop out and crazy hobo he had been before 1914.
Luck and audacity served him well for a while, and he threw the world into chaos by making risky and unwise moves that somehow paid off big. Unfortunately for him, his luck ran out and the rest of the world ceased to be surprised with his insane moves. He ended up on fire in a ditch.
You do make an excellent point Shelf, and it's one I'm afraid of. What Trump has accomplished with audacity and incompetence, could easily be followed up by smarter and better motivated people. This is the reason that impeachment is imperative, to stop both him and dissuade others from following in his footsteps. I fear it may be too late. He has already knocked down a wall in the house of American Democracy and the pests and vermin will exploited the opening.