Trump related but a question not really a report. Does this logic check out?

[Rukh]

Will find it again. But they changed there rules so that any company that helps someone primary one of their incumbents is automatically blacklisted from the rest of the party and all funding from them.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...508-story.html

So a rule trying to prevent divisive primaries. Do you think AOC will be up protesting it now that its protecting her seat from a moderate primary challenger?

[Fugus]

So a rule trying to prevent divisive primaries. Do you think AOC will be up protesting it now that its protecting her seat from a moderate primary challenger?

You mean a ruling to prevent people from primarying incumbents coincidentally right after they started having Sanders-like people starting to run?

I honestly don't give a fuck what AOC, Pelosi or any of them think in that regard. Let the primaries be fair and open without them fucking around and let the voters decide.

The meaning of this rule change right after what came before it shows what their intent was. And it is one that can actually run off voters as well. Let the voters decide and if you signal to them that you don't want their candidates voting, you are also signaling that you don't want their voters or their donors either. The fact is the DNC shouldn't act like they are owed those voters and pretending the voters have no choice because Trump is on the other side.

They played chicken with that and lost before, we don't need them making that same gamble at the same time Trump and the GOP seem to be queuing up for full on stealing an election.

AFK.

[Rukh]

You mean a ruling to prevent people from primarying incumbents coincidentally right after they started having Sanders-like people starting to run?

I honestly don't give a fuck what AOC, Pelosi or any of them think in that regard. Let the primaries be fair and open without them fucking around and let the voters decide.

The meaning of this rule change right after what came before it shows what their intent was. And it is one that can actually run off voters as well. Let the voters decide and if you signal to them that you don't want their candidates voting, you are also signaling that you don't want their voters or their donors either. The fact is the DNC shouldn't act like they are owed those voters and pretending the voters have no choice because Trump is on the other side.

They played chicken with that and lost before, we don't need them making that same gamble at the same time Trump and the GOP seem to be queuing up for full on stealing an election.

AFK.

Well, it seems like this is protecting progressive incumbents just as much. Sounds like more ways that progressives are attempting to paint themselves as the victim of the evil democrats, even though they benefit. Again, demonizing the democrats aint going to help them in the general if swing voters get the general opinion that progressives are trying so hard to create. Talk about hoisting themselves by their own petard. Conservatives are more than happy to boost this message.

[Lenonis]

We're already halfway down that particular rabbit hole.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

"I'm asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent under the plausible deniability guise of rooting out corruption" is NOT halfway from "I'm cancelling elections and staying in power indefinitely."

The second is an enormous leap that would require a level of support that I think even if the most far-gone congressmen to struggle with. And as corrupt as this administration is and as soulless as the GOP base is I don't think they are that far gone and I refuse to believe so because to believe that this is the case means we've already lost the fight and it's all hopeless.

And I don't think that's the case. I don't believe Congress would install Trump for life. I don't think the courts would support it.

Frankly, I don't even think the GOP base would go for it. I think there are enough people who still believe in at least some transparent semblence of the constitution that they'd refuse to go along with this.

[Endus]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

"I'm asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent under the plausible deniability guise of rooting out corruption" is NOT halfway from "I'm cancelling elections and staying in power indefinitely."

The second is an enormous leap that would require a level of support that I think even if the most far-gone congressmen to struggle with. And as corrupt as this administration is and as soulless as the GOP base is I don't think they are that far gone and I refuse to believe so because to believe that this is the case means we've already lost the fight and it's all hopeless.

And I don't think that's the case. I don't believe Congress would install Trump for life. I don't think the courts would support it.

Frankly, I don't even think the GOP base would go for it. I think there are enough people who still believe in at least some transparent semblence of the constitution that they'd refuse to go along with this.

Unless the base stops voting or starts voting Democrat, they don't matter. Yes, what I mentioned was another step, but it's down the same path we're already treading. Would the base accept that move today? Maybe not. After a few weeks of Trump and co telling them about the Democratic plan to collaborate with the Russians to bring about a new communist America? I'm not so sure.

[Lenonis]

Unless the base stops voting or starts voting Democrat, they don't matter. Yes, what I mentioned was another step, but it's down the same path we're already treading. Would the base accept that move today? Maybe not. After a few weeks of Trump and co telling them about the Democratic plan to collaborate with the Russians to bring about a new communist America? I'm not so sure.

I feel like we're talking past each other a bit.

I'm not talking about interferrence or corrupt shenanigans with trying to sway the election. I'm talking about your scenario of cancelling elections to stay in power indefinitely.

The step that would require is enormous. It would require cooperation from a huge number of people from multiple branches of state and local governments.

I just don't see how that would happen. I get the fear, I get the sense of hopelessness because of the current ratfuckery...but we're talking ending American democracy in a way that you just can't turn a blind eye to...and I don't think that's feasible.

[Endus]

I feel like we're talking past each other a bit.

I'm not talking about interferrence or corrupt shenanigans with trying to sway the election. I'm talking about your scenario of cancelling elections to stay in power indefinitely.

The step that would require is enormous. It would require cooperation from a huge number of people from multiple branches of state and local governments.

I just don't see how that would happen. I get the fear, I get the sense of hopelessness because of the current ratfuckery...but we're talking ending American democracy in a way that you just can't turn a blind eye to...and I don't think that's feasible.

It doesn't require cooperation. Just acceptance of the President's orders, and refusal to abide by the normal rules. They don't have to be complicit in the scheme, just obedient enough to say "well, he's the President, so . . ."

Which they're already doing, and did during the impeachment, with the result that Trump was not held accountable for matters that should have seen him removed from office. They're already taking this stance, I'm just extending it another small step further.

Sure, State officials might say "You can't do that!" and hold elections anyway. So what? Trump's federal government ignores the results, and likely pursues them as traitors. This is how this stuff happens.

And we know this, because it did. Hitler wasn't elected into power; he lost the 1932 election. Then was made Chancellor in 1933, to try and quiet down Nazi unrest within the Weimar Republic. And in 1934, when Hindenburg died, Hitler declared that he was taking on the role of President, and combining it with the position he already held as Chancellor. Was any of this by-the-book? Not at all, under the federal frameworks in the Weimar Republic. Did that stop Hitler? No, because he and his supporters held enough control to prevent any backlash. That's all it takes, and we're already at that point, given the results of the impeachment trial in the Senate.

Oh, and that election in 1932? That was the last real election in Germany until 1949. Because Hitler didn't run elections.

I see history poised on the brink of repeating, and when you say "pff, it can't happen" when it already has, in the past, I can't take that seriously.

[Stormspark]

It doesn't require cooperation. Just acceptance of the President's orders, and refusal to abide by the normal rules. They don't have to be complicit in the scheme, just obedient enough to say "well, he's the President, so . . ."

Which they're already doing, and did during the impeachment, with the result that Trump was not held accountable for matters that should have seen him removed from office. They're already taking this stance, I'm just extending it another small step further.

Sure, State officials might say "You can't do that!" and hold elections anyway. So what? Trump's federal government ignores the results, and likely pursues them as traitors. This is how this stuff happens.

And we know this, because it did. Hitler wasn't elected into power; he lost the 1932 election. Then was made Chancellor in 1933, to try and quiet down Nazi unrest within the Weimar Republic. And in 1934, when Hindenburg died, Hitler declared that he was taking on the role of President, and combining it with the position he already held as Chancellor. Was any of this by-the-book? Not at all, under the federal frameworks in the Weimar Republic. Did that stop Hitler? No, because he and his supporters held enough control to prevent any backlash. That's all it takes, and we're already at that point, given the results of the impeachment trial in the Senate.

Oh, and that election in 1932? That was the last real election in Germany until 1949. Because Hitler didn't run elections.

I see history poised on the brink of repeating, and when you say "pff, it can't happen" when it already has, in the past, I can't take that seriously.

Yep, I've been saying this is going to happen for a couple years. And too many people are going to say "but the constitution doesn't allow that!" until it's too late. It doesn't matter what the constitution allows. The republicans have been wiping their asses with it for years. If Trump decided to declare himself emperor right now, the republicans would go *shrug* "we don't see a problem here". The only way to actually stop him would be a revolution or military coup (the military is STRONGLY against Trump).

[Lenonis]

I'm just extending it another small step further.

Again, no. This isn't a small step. And honestly I'm a little surprised you think so. You normally demonstrate a very logical and deliberate thought process in your posting so I'm surprised you seem to be caught up in the hysteria that Trump can do whatever he wants. There is a leap here you are minimizing that runs completely contrary to some really core American ideals...by someone who isn't exactly known for his stellar approval rating.

And, again, I want to emphasize your claim is that asking a foreign leader to dig up dirt on an opponent under the guise of rooting out corruption is a small step away from cancelling elections to stay in power indefinitely.

You are falling prey to the slippery slope fallacy big time and ignoring that you have a large number of states and at least half the officeholders in power that would be 100% opposed to this being even attempted.

Finally -- let's be real -- November is 9 months away -- that's not going to be enough time to try to pull something like this off. I'm less confident of this 4 years from now because who knows how the elections will go. But if Trump loses in November we'll see a transition of power. It might be loud, obnoxious, and involve some literal dragging out of the white house, but we'll see it.

- - - Updated - - -

If Trump decided to declare himself emperor right now, the republicans would go *shrug* "we don't see a problem here".

This is core to the part I don't buy. I don't think for a minute that if Trump declared himself emperor the GOP would be ok with it. He couldn't even get them to vote down a resolution on Iran....

We should be diligent, we should be loud, we should vote early and often (lulz), but we should also be rational.

[Lenonis]

And this is why Trump will win a second term, and them either run for third or place his kid there, because Trump's opponents keep thinking that the rules apply anymore.

By this logic we should all just give up and not bother voting or running candidates.

Trump will win a second term because people convince others the fix is in and there is nothing we can do and thus why bother voting.

Trump will lose a second term if we get out and vote. Which I said. In the post you quoted.

[Lenonis]

No. You should riot and demand Trump and all his high level supporters resign. The Democrats should pull the emergency break and shut down all governmental actions they can. Why the fuck should anyone keep playing the game like civilized people, when the other side has instituted their team captain as the referee? The other side should take the ball and kick it into the traffic.

I guess the part I don't understand is if people truly think the rule of law has been so broken that Trump can declare himself emperor and no one will lift a finger why protesting or rioting would do anything. What's to stop Trump to just deport/jail/execute all his detractors at that point? Cause let's be real for a moment -- there are a LOT of apathetic people who wouldn't protest even this.

It's the oddly selective nature of the hopelessness that has me a little baffled I guess.

[Endus]

Again, no. This isn't a small step. And honestly I'm a little surprised you think so. You normally demonstrate a very logical and deliberate thought process in your posting so I'm surprised you seem to be caught up in the hysteria that Trump can do whatever he wants. There is a leap here you are minimizing that runs completely contrary to some really core American ideals...by someone who isn't exactly known for his stellar approval rating.

And, again, I want to emphasize your claim is that asking a foreign leader to dig up dirt on an opponent under the guise of rooting out corruption is a small step away from cancelling elections to stay in power indefinitely.

This is wrong. My claim was regarding Congress' continued refusal to hold the President accountable, combined with the legal precedent that prevents the entire Judicial branch from taking steps against him as well. It doesn't matter how small the triggering issues were; what matters is that the House refused to take any steps against the President for years, and even when they were finally pushed to do so, the Senate shut the measure down by a wide margin, preventing any interference in the President's continued rule.
I am not equating the actions of Trump, in the two hypotheticals. I am assuming nothing more than that the Senate (in particular, though the House is not perfect here either) will continue to act as they have already demonstrated they will act. That their conduct to date is predictive of their conduct in the future. That's not a ridiculous assumption.

I You are falling prey to the slippery slope fallacy big time and ignoring that you have a large number of states and at least half the officeholders in power that would be 100% opposed to this being even attempted.

Unless there's enough States to pass an Amendment, which might give the Judicial branch grounds to get involved, there's nothing the States can do. They have no authority whatsoever in this. The best they might do is push to secede from the USA entirely, but there's no legal grounds for that to begin with.

Finally -- let's be real -- November is 9 months away -- that's not going to be enough time to try to pull something like this off.

I wasn't predicting this for 2020, though Trump could certainly declare the 2020 election illegitimate and make the effort. And I'd say that would be a tossup, frankly.

I was predicting it for 2024, should Trump win in 2020.

This is core to the part I don't buy. I don't think for a minute that if Trump declared himself emperor the GOP would be ok with it. He couldn't even get them to vote down a resolution on Iran....

The GOP have demonstrated they'll vote for what's in the GOP's interest. Right now, that's keeping Trump in office. That resolution on Iran apparently wasn't. They're the ones with real power, here; I'm not arguing that Trump has all the power. I'm saying that the only limitation on Trump abusing his powers is Congress, and that's already been shown to be corrupted and incapable of doing so.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess the part I don't understand is if people truly think the rule of law has been so broken that Trump can declare himself emperor and no one will lift a finger why protesting or rioting would do anything. What's to stop Trump to just deport/jail/execute all his detractors at that point? Cause let's be real for a moment -- there are a LOT of apathetic people who wouldn't protest even this.

It's the oddly selective nature of the hopelessness that has me a little baffled I guess.

Oh, people will protest, and take action.

That doesn't mean that will achieve anything. Trump could just ignore them. And yeah; it wouldn't be the first time protestors have been shot and killed in the USA, frankly.

[Halicia]

Because term limits are a function of actual, explicit Constitutional provisions and not the nebulous process that is impeachment.

The Power of the Purse is explicit in the constitution.

Active Duty military on domestic soil is explicit in the constitution.

*LIFE* is explicit in the constitution.

There is a period of time between election day, and inauguration... and according to Senate republicans, it is 100% in the public interest for Trump to simply declare that he won the election and murder any dissidents or political rivals.

- - - Updated - - -

Because if half of the country said fuck this and went on strike, it would cost rich people a lot of money.

Look at the origins of Labor Day. In your proposal, a lot of non-rich people might end up dead, but the rich generally wouldn't suffer.