• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,502
The problem we have right now is a corrupt president who has no issues breaking laws to get what he wants and he has a justice department that supports him. That's reality. That's not tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense.
The topic of the thread is "the president cannot stop an election to stay in power forever"

You got people burping out "yeah uh-huh sure whatever you say SHEEPLE." in an unironic and entirely too common act of collective defeatism that has infested this forum for entirely too long

It is not about dealing with realistic problems anymore. Some folks around here have just completely lost their grasp on what is probable
 

Bigwombat

Banned
Nov 30, 2018
3,416
This wouldn't go to the Supreme Court and even if it did they would rule that the speaker would be president.

Y'all are crazy if you think he could pull a Palpatine
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
I wonder how many people referencing the constitution and chain of command have read up on the buisness plot?

its naive to not even acknowledge like minded powerful people consider options like this even if it ultimately never gets enacted

never let a good crisis go to waste
Crazy people make baseless plans that will never work all the time. You can't say this government can be overthrown because in the past at some point some people wanted to do it. So what if they wanted to? They didn't, they didn't even try.
What do you think happened during Bush v Gore?

That was a ratfuck by the RNC, the bush camp and Jeb diwn in florida. Scotus just rolled over and let them skate

I think you're the one who is demonstrating a lack of imagination of how these kinds of anti democratic maneuvers get laundered through institutions.

It's not our job to convince you of this since you seem pretty dead set on your opinion
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
What do you think happened during Bush v Gore?

That was a ratfuck by the RNC, the bush camp and Jeb diwn in florida. Scotus just rolled over and let them skate

I think you're the one who is demonstrating a lack of imagination of how these kinds of anti democratic maneuvers get laundered through institutions.

It's not our job to convince you of this since you seem pretty dead set on your opinion
Bush v Gore was absolutely legal. It was a bad decision by the SC, but it was not unconstitutional, and it is absolutely nothing like the situation proposed in this thread.

The imagination shown here would be great for a pulp political thriller, but since we are talking about the real world, "imagination" has become fantasy.

Again, if I'm wrong, someone please explain to me the actual mechanics of how this coup would work.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
Bush v Gore was absolutely legal. It was a bad decision by the SC, but it was not unconstitutional, and it is absolutely nothing like the situation proposed in this thread.

The imagination shown here would be great for a pulp political thriller, but since we are talking about the real world, "imagination" can go way too far.

Again, if I'm wrong, someone explain to me the actual mechanics of how this coup would work.
if Bush v gore had happened in Canada or the UK it would have been labeled as an coordinated attempt to steal an election.
the fact that it wasn't illegal should be worrying not comforting
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
Should sticky the OP.

So we can laugh at it later? No thanks. I don't want this scadenfraude. I want this guy gone and frankly these rules would only matter to the GOP if they still held the speaker position.

Since they don't they will put in the effort to secure their power if the elections are delayed.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,502
So we can laugh at it later? No thanks. I don't want this scadenfraude. I want this guy gone and frankly these rules would only matter to the GOP if they still held the speaker position.

Since they don't they will put in the effort to secure their power if the elections are delayed.
I'm 100% sure your priorities at the first sign of a complete collapse of a federal election system that has survived two world wars, a great depression and several assassinations will be:

1. Log onto forum and say 'haha told you'
2. Secure food and shelter
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,723
The topic of the thread is "the president cannot stop an election to stay in power forever"

You got people burping out "yeah uh-huh sure whatever you say SHEEPLE." in an unironic and entirely too common act of collective defeatism that has infested this forum for entirely too long

It is not about dealing with realistic problems anymore. Some folks around here have just completely lost their grasp on what is probable
I don't blame people for not grasping what's probable when it was considered probable a handful of years ago that a president withholding aid to an ally for self-interested favors would be booted out of the oval office before the end of their term. Lots of conventions we as Americans considered air tight and infallible for the history of this country are being and for decades have been eroded away under the guise of honest political engagement not just because the GOP forces that erosion but because the response to it from Democrats is too often lethargic and impotent. If that pattern continues I don't think people expecting subversion of political norms on this scale are completely without merit.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,739
I'm sorry, but this is a crock and I'm a bit tired of seeing people post sentiments similar to this. When you make a statement of anything, either you can provide reason and/or explanation of why you feel a certain way. "I just feel that way" doesn't cut it. Hell, you learn this in a basic philosophy class. If all you can offer is emotional arguments based on how you feel, you've made a poor argument. No one should have to feign respect for such arguments either.
I'm basing my feelings on past actions - which is usually a good indication of future behavior.

The topic of the thread is "the president cannot stop an election to stay in power forever"

You got people burping out "yeah uh-huh sure whatever you say SHEEPLE." in an unironic and entirely too common act of collective defeatism that has infested this forum for entirely too long

It is not about dealing with realistic problems anymore. Some folks around here have just completely lost their grasp on what is probable
That's fair. I guess I'm more reacting to people who are too quick to dismiss concerns about fuckery come November - which I have also seen. But we have witnessed these types of things happen in other countries like Russia and China. Brushing it aside as "well that couldn't happen here" especially when we know that's what Trump wants and he has been gutting enforcement and protections wherever he can, feels like we're boiling frogs here.

Bush v Gore was absolutely legal. It was a bad decision by the SC, but it was not unconstitutional, and it is absolutely nothing like the situation proposed in this thread.

The imagination shown here would be great for a pulp political thriller, but since we are talking about the real world, "imagination" is becoming fantasy.

Again, if I'm wrong, someone explain to me the actual mechanics of how this coup would work.
This is an insane sentence. It was legal because the SC said it was legal - that's it. It was based on absolutely no precedent. This is literally the type of behavior I'm talking about. An election was stolen, and you're saying, "well it was legal". It was completely unheard of! Nobody could have predicted the Supreme Court would jump in and decide the election for the country - yet we're all supposed to know every scenario in advance in order to be concerned about what happens when Trump is up for reelection.

I don't blame people for not grasping what's probable when it was considered probable a handful of years ago that a president witholding aid to an ally for self-interested favors would be booted out of the oval office before the end of their term. Lots of conventions we as Americans considered air tight and infalible for the history of this country are being eroded away under the guise of honest political engagement not just because the GOP forces that erosion but because the response to it from Democrats is too often lethargic and impotent. If that pattern continues I don't think people expecting subversion of polical norms on this scale to be completely without merit.
Exactly.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
I don't blame people for not grasping what's probable when it was considered probable a handful of years ago that a president withholding aid to an ally for self-interested favors would be booted out of the oval office before the end of their term. Lots of conventions we as Americans considered air tight and infallible for the history of this country are being and for decades have been eroded away under the guise of honest political engagement not just because the GOP forces that erosion but because the response to it from Democrats is too often lethargic and impotent. If that pattern continues I don't think people expecting subversion of political norms on this scale are completely without merit.
So, he obviously should have been.

But that situation really isn't anything like the one being talked about in this thread. For one, with Ukraine the legal and constitutional process did run its full course. The Senate was under no legal or constitutional obligation to remove Trump from power.

For another, a coup is on a whole other level of insanity than anything Trump has done. It's not even close.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
This is an insane sentence. It was legal because the SC said it was legal - that's it. It was based on absolutely no precedent. This is literally the type of behavior I'm talking about. An election was stolen, and you're saying, "well it was legal". It was completely unheard of! Nobody could have predicted the Supreme Court would jump in and decide the election for the country - yet we're all supposed to know every scenario in advance in order to be concerned about what happens when Trump is up for reelection.
It's not "insane", it's factually accurate. It's obviously a bad thing that Bush v Gore went down the way it did, but that doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.

The constitution does not provide guidance on mediating state election recount procedures, so the SC is free to decide as it did. The constitution is clear on succession. The situations are not the same.
 

Deleted member 37235

Guest
Imagine thinking something being illegal means it's impossible for it to occur. Phew.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Then your sentence made absolutely no sense.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Trump tells people all the time to do things they can't do. They ignore him. If he replaces them, they likewise can't do the same impossible things, and the cycle continues.

When he's no longer President, the cycle will end. There is no order he can give or replacement he can make that will change that.
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
The problem is we don't know if they would. Because as far as we've seen the military has gone along with much of what Trump has done and hasn't tried to resist it. (Once again see Eddie Gallagher.). The military follow its chain of command and with the way its promotion mechanisms are handled there is no reason why a military would deny an order from Trump whether lawful or unlawful.

If there's an attempt to delay this it'll be 100% determined by the SCOTUS and so far I have no hope that norms will be held to thanks to the current republicans in office. Nevermind the amount of work that has to be spend in the next year to get elections ready.

You keep bringing up Eddie Gallagher as proof of why the military would just do whatever Trump tells them. Why? Are you suggesting Gallagher did what he did on Trump's orders or something?
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
Then your sentence made absolutely no sense.

It made perfect sense. His whole point is that once Trump is no longer the Commander in Chief (when his term is over) the only thing he can "try" is giving orders to people who are no longer lawfully bound to carry out his orders, and so they won't. And, since he's no longer president, he can't "replace them with someone who will carry them out" as you suggested.

The entire point that Matt is trying to make is that the notion that the military will assist Trump in what would be a coup is insane, paranoid thinking. And it is.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,739
It made perfect sense. His whole point is that once Trump is no longer the Commander in Chief (when his term is over) the only thing he can "try" is giving orders to people who are no longer lawfully bound to carry out his orders, and so they won't. And, since he's no longer president, he can't "replace them with someone who will carry them out" as you suggested.

The entire point that Matt is trying to make is that the notion that the military will assist Trump in what would be a coup is insane, paranoid thinking. And it is.
He said "like what happens every day" in no fucking way does that suggest he's talking about what happens after his presidency, especially given that the post he was responding to was not specifically about after the election. He's trying to backpedal and make his post make sense.
"No one is going to stop him from trying" in response to a thread called "Trump cannot delay elections" - doesn't equal, after he loses the election he's going to make demands of people.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
He said "like what happens every day" in no fucking way does that suggest he's talking about what happens after his presidency, especially given that the post he was responding to was not specifically about after the election. He's trying to backpedal and make his post make sense.
"No one is going to stop him from trying" in response to a thread called "Trump cannot delay elections" - doesn't equal, after he loses the election he's going to make demands of people.
Seriously what are you talking about and what are you doing.

Trump will give orders that get ignored. Just like today, where he often gives orders that just get ignored. So the idea that Trump giving orders means something will happen is false, even when he is still the President.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Seeing a lot of "well Trump breaks the law all the time" as if the problem isn't that 99% of the bad shit Trump does is perfectly legal under U.S. law. The other 1% is the stuff Republican Senators could have convicted him for but let him off the hook instead, which unfortunately is also something they have perfectly legal authority to do.

Stop acting as if Trump is this black swan event that just happened to us, like we were powerless to stop it and are just as powerless to stop him again. If you wanted Trump to not be the president in 2017, you should have voted for the Democratic nominee in 2016. If you don't want Trump to continue being president in 2021, you need to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020. The system only works if we can be fucked enough to bother to make it work.
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
He said "like what happens every day" in no fucking way does that suggest he's talking about what happens after his presidency, especially given that the post he was responding to was not specifically about after the election. He's trying to backpedal and make his post make sense.
"No one is going to stop him from trying" in response to a thread called "Trump cannot delay elections" - doesn't equal, after he loses the election he's going to make demands of people.

wow

His point was military leaders already often ignore Trump while he's president, so obviously they're not going to listen to him when he's not president. As in, they'll just ignore him, like they do every day already.

This really isn't hard.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
The emoluments clause....but that's so obvious it feels like cheating

I was going to say all the war crimes & Geneva Convention shit given that "kids in cages" is now being reduced to an inane talking point to bash leftists rather than as a shame on the Trump regime and our nation as a whole but this is another great example. There is so much stuff that Trump could constantly be getting impeached over and we don't do it because the Clinton years have scared the Dems into never using any of their controls on accountability. The decision to forgo the impeachment process defended as though the GOP has any compunctions against using these controls on any pretense, or from a belief that democratic norms and casual agreements between those in power are more important than human lives.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Should also point out that Trump saying "I'm still the president" on January 21, 2021 (in the event that he loses and the Electoral College certifies his opponent as the winner) isn't illegal either.

I could go out on the street right now and tell everyone I'm actually the president and list off all my executive orders and declare that these are law, because I'm the president and I said so.

It would mean all of jack shit coming from my mouth, as it would for Trump's.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,739
wow

His point was military leaders already often ignore Trump while he's president, so obviously they're not going to listen to him when he's not president. As in, they'll just ignore him, like they do every day already.

This really isn't hard.
Where the hell are you getting the military specifically ignoring orders from any of this?! It's not in the thread title. It's not in the OP. It's not in the post he's responding to. It's not in his post.

Seriously what are you talking about and what are you doing.

Trump will give orders that get ignored. Just like today, where he often gives orders that just get ignored. So the idea that Trump giving orders means something will happen is false, even when he is still the President.
Yes, he "often" gives orders that just get ignored, but he "often" fires people until he finds somebody who will go through with them. No it's not a guarantee it happens, but you made it sound like his crazy shit just gets ignored and never followed through. Plenty of his crazy unprecedented requests have been acted on. We literally had a whole impeachment about some of it. Some people ignored it, others absolutely did not - hell some of the people who actually did his bidding were fired too because they had the audacity to talk about it.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Where the hell are you getting the military specifically ignoring orders from any of this?! It's not in the thread title. It's not in the OP. It's not in the post he's responding to. It's not in his post.


Yes, he "often" gives orders that just get ignored, but he "often" fires people until he finds somebody who will go through with them. No it's not a guarantee it happens, but you made it sound like his crazy shit just gets ignored and never followed through. Plenty of his crazy unprecedented requests have been acted on. We literally had a whole impeachment about some of it. Some people ignored it, others absolutely did not - hell some of the people who actually did his bidding were fired too because they had the audacity to talk about it.
A lot of his crazy shit DOES just get ignored and never acted upon. Specifically, much of the stuff that is demonstrably illegal or just impossible.

Like orchestrating a coup would be.

The man is a loudmouth moron who is constantly declaring things that will never come to pass. We only hear about a very small percentage of them.
 

sleepnaught

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,538
Trump would escorted out of the White House by secret service the second he even tried. They won't want to be complicit in that shit
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
Where the hell are you getting the military specifically ignoring orders from any of this?! It's not in the thread title. It's not in the OP. It's not in the post he's responding to. It's not in his post.

tenor.gif
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Would he though? I don't feel like those in charge would hit the nuclear button the moment he tried something crazy.
He's not legally allowed to stay in the White House. He would be asked any number of times politely to leave. If he refuses, he eventually will be dragged out, loaded on Marine Two (probably), and asked where he wants to go. If he won't give an answer, he will be taken to his previously designated main private residence.

And if during all of this the USSS feels his irrational and idiotic ramblings raise to the level of an actual threat against the United States or the Office of the President, he will be detained in federal custody.
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
Trump will not stay past his term. But lol at people thinking it's because of words on papers. Like he gives a shit. You're not getting dictator Trump because he's a coward.
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
Would he though? I don't feel like those in charge would hit the nuclear button the moment he tried something crazy.

They wouldn't be hitting any 'nuclear button', they'd be doing their jobs. The Secret Service is not Trump's personal goon squad, they are not appointed by him, they are not responsible only for him, and they are not answerable to him in any capacity the moment his term ends.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
They wouldn't be hitting any 'nuclear button', they'd be doing their jobs. The Secret Service is not Trump's personal goon squad, they are not appointed by him, they are not responsible only for him, and they are not answerable to him in any capacity the moment his term ends.
Also, not that it's really relevant, but most of them personally hate the guy. He treats them like shit and he embarrasses the office they have pledged their lives to every single day.

You know who they love? Joe Biden. Because he's treated them well and with respect for 50 years.

But, that's really all besides the point.
 

Josh378

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,521
I don't know if a president Poloski or Biden would be worse? But I sure know that either one of them are millions of times better than Trump.
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
Can't be arsed to read the legal texts just now but he'd make it impossible to vote through some executive orders under state of emergency, closing down most voting stations under guise of shielding people from epidemic - that could only be challenged through impeachment, right? the SC?
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Can't be arsed to read the legal texts just now but he'd make it impossible to vote through some executive orders under state of emergency, closing down most voting stations under guise of shielding people from epidemic - that could only be challenged through impeachment, right? the SC?
He does not have any authority over elections. He can't stop them.
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,048
I keep seeing that this would require the Senate as if it is supposed to be some kind of justification for why it won't happen.

Has anyone been paying attention the last 3 years? This Senate will do anything they can to please their master... And if that means taking a shit on the Constitution, they'll do it without second thought.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
I keep seeing that this would require the Senate as if it is supposed to be some kind of justification for why it won't happen.

Has anyone been paying attention the last 3 years? This Senate will do anything they can to please their master... And if that means taking a shit on the Constitution, they'll do it without second thought.
Sigh.

Who has said "it" would require the Senate? None of the things stopping this from happening have anything to do with the Senate.
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,048
Sigh.

Who has said "it" would require the Senate? None of the things stopping this from happening have anything to do with the Senate.

People who know what they're talking about?

Article 1 of the Constitution:

'Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary.'
 
May 26, 2018
23,985
People who know what they're talking about?

Article 1 of the Constitution:

'Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary.'

Congress doesn't mean only the Senate. It also means the House.