Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Stormspark]

Team Deplorable strikes again. November can't come here quickly enough. And yet I worry what happens if he loses.

The way I see it there is going to be violence either way. If he loses (which he will if there is a legitimate election), he will refuse to leave, and there will be widespread unrest, but it will be quickly quelled. If he "wins" by way of a fake Russian style show election, then there will be a civil war.

[Twdft]

How exactly would this civil war be fought? Everyone choose a side and wear team colors?

[PhaelixWW]

The way I see it there is going to be violence either way. If he loses (which he will if there is a legitimate election), he will refuse to leave, and there will be widespread unrest, but it will be quickly quelled. If he "wins" by way of a fake Russian style show election, then there will be a civil war.

This has been covered before, though, but how exactly do you think he can "refuse to leave"? The Secret Service will forcefully evict him if need be; they're not sworn to him personally.

[cubby]

The way I see it there is going to be violence either way. If he loses (which he will if there is a legitimate election), he will refuse to leave, and there will be widespread unrest, but it will be quickly quelled. If he "wins" by way of a fake Russian style show election, then there will be a civil war.

I agree, to a certain extent, with both of your conclusions.

If he loses, I could see him refusing to cede power - suing to stay in place, claiming election illegitimacy. Frightening, and dangerously inconclusive - especially because so many more mail-in ballots will be cast, and those take time to count, which delays and lets him tweet away hate and insurrection.

If he wins, I do not see any kind of civil war happening - because those people who would intrical to the event would also follow the rule of law (i.e. the military). Now, if Trump starts issuing blantantly illegal anti-citizen EO/actions, then it would be a different ballgame.

I could, however, see the United States walking down a decades long neo-con/white-supremacist based country. Trump would get at least two more SCOTUS seats, solidifying a dangerous and long-term hold on the rule of law. He would have four more years to take apart regulatory and civil-rights based laws. We would be headed to some bastardized form of Gilead. We would also see wide-spread voter suppression laws enacted and enforced, with SCOTUS in place to uphold them.

Finally, in 2024 we'd start to see Trump pushing to for a third term. Which isn't a laughable thought any more - given he is already not held to any rule of law.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been covered before, though, but how exactly do you think he can "refuse to leave"? The Secret Service will forcefully evict him if need be; they're not sworn to him personally.

He would sue, questioning the legitimacy of the election. There is already a Democratic Task Force set up, ready to counter moves they think he will make. This notion, of him not leaving if he loses, is no longer a laughable one.

[caervek]

Finally, in 2024 we'd start to see Trump pushing to for a third term. Which isn't a laughable thought any more - given he is already not held to any rule of law.

It sounds scary as Trump is the example president, but tbh you guys should have updated your laws to drop the 2 term limit years ago. Hell if you'd done it before Obama left office then Trump would never have become president in the first place and your country wouldn't have 90% of the problems it has now.

[PhaelixWW]

He would sue, questioning the legitimacy of the election. There is already a Democratic Task Force set up, ready to counter moves they think he will make. This notion, of him not leaving if he loses, is no longer a laughable one.

But there's a big difference between not being laughable and being feasible. He could try to sue, but he'd be forced out before it was resolved (unless the resolution was a quick "tough noogies" from SCOTUS).

- - - Updated - - -

It sounds scary as Trump is the example president, but tbh you guys should have updated your laws to drop the 2 term limit years ago. Hell if you'd done it before Obama left office then Trump would never have become president in the first place and your country wouldn't have 90% of the problems it has now.

Meh, term limits are a good thing.

[DarkTZeratul]

It sounds scary as Trump is the example president, but tbh you guys should have updated your laws to drop the 2 term limit years ago. Hell if you'd done it before Obama left office then Trump would never have become president in the first place and your country wouldn't have 90% of the problems it has now.

First, "years ago" is when we amended our Constitution to add a 2 term limit (the 21st Amendment only went into law in 1951). Second, Barack Obama has said that he wouldn't have run for a third term even if he were allowed to do so.

[cubby]

It sounds scary as Trump is the example president, but tbh you guys should have updated your laws to drop the 2 term limit years ago. Hell if you'd done it before Obama left office then Trump would never have become president in the first place and your country wouldn't have 90% of the problems it has now.

That sounds like an easy solution to what seems like an obvious problem. But it's not.

Trump isn't the problem, he's the symptom - he's showing the United States' that we have a major problem that seems to have no current solution - and if there is one, it's rapidly moving away from us.

- - - Updated - - -

But there's a big difference between not being laughable and being feasible. He could try to sue, but he'd be forced out before it was resolved (unless the resolution was a quick "tough noogies" from SCOTUS).

The last time an issue like this went to SCOTUS, the GOP won.

Meh, term limits are a good thing.

Agreed.

[caervek]

First, "years ago" is when we amended our Constitution to add a 2 term limit (the 21st Amendment only went into law in 1951).

So you've had like 70 years to fix that mistake. Most first world countries did away with term limits ages ago because outside of faux dictatorships their counter productive, all they do is limit the publics choice. If people think that X leader is worth keeping they should have that option.

[beanman12345]

Meh, term limits are a good thing.

Yup pretty much this.

[DarkTZeratul]

So you've had like 70 years to fix that mistake. Most first world countries did away with term limits ages ago because outside of faux dictatorships their counter productive, all they do is limit the publics choice. If people think that X leader is worth keeping they should have that option.

I'm not sure what countries you're thinking of, because usually it's the faux dictators that are removing their own term limits.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that Anonymous stuff posted anywhere on these forums or is it too "conspiracy theory" for it to be here? Understandable if it is, given the source, but I was curious what kind of proof they're giving for the claims they're making regarding Trump. Mods, please chime in if it's absolutely unacceptable. Obviously there's already plenty of concrete stuff to be critical of Trump for.

While I could absolutely believe said claims, for my part I'm waiting for at least some semblance of independent verification.

[PhaelixWW]

The last time an issue like this went to SCOTUS, the GOP won.

Put another way, SCOTUS found for the defendant and upheld the initial result.

In the hypothetical "Trump losing but suing" scenario, that finding would play out against the GOP.

[Benggaul]

While I could absolutely believe said claims, for my part I'm waiting for at least some semblance of independent verification.

Ditto, which is why I wanted to see what proof they were offering. So far I'm not seeing much. Not unexpected.

[cubby]

Put another way, SCOTUS found for the defendant and upheld the initial result.

In the hypothetical "Trump losing but suing" scenario, that finding would play out against the GOP.

THAT is a very good point. AND, given the recent history of rulings from SCOTUS on state rights for voting and federal interference, I would say that the ruling of a losing-side Team Deplorable would be against - it's still terrifying, that a legitimate election could be overturned - if that makes sense.

[Acidbaron]

So you've had like 70 years to fix that mistake. Most first world countries did away with term limits ages ago because outside of faux dictatorships their counter productive, all they do is limit the publics choice. If people think that X leader is worth keeping they should have that option.

Why do you believe that a term limit is a bad idea? Honest question because the limit of power in time is considered to be an important key barrier to stop the formation of dictatorships. It's why we as in the democratic west hit the alarm bell every time it happens.

Increasing the term limits or removing it entirely is often one of the first steps a nation makes when it installs a long term "ruler".

I mean i can fully get that how a term limit impacts what a great leader can do as long term plans that are good give the best outcome for said nation but it is a pendulum that swings both ways.

[rayvio]

They trust Trump...

is there any scarier phrase?

[PhaelixWW]

THAT is a very good point. AND, given the recent history of rulings from SCOTUS on state rights for voting and federal interference, I would say that the ruling of a losing-side Team Deplorable would be against - it's still terrifying, that a legitimate election could be overturned - if that makes sense.

I absolutely, fervently hope (I want to say "believe", but... well...) that SCOTUS will refrain from ever, ever, ever attempting to overturn a presidential election result unless the result was unequivocally fraudulent.

It's why I don't have too much of a problem with Gore v. Bush.

The last thing I want is SCOTUS, who are individually nominated by a president, from taking too much of an active hand in deciding who becomes (or remains) president.

[cubby]

I absolutely, fervently hope (I want to say "believe", but... well...) that SCOTUS will refrain from ever, ever, ever attempting to overturn a presidential election result unless the result was unequivocally fraudulent.

It's why I don't have too much of a problem with Gore v. Bush.

The last thing I want is SCOTUS, who are individually nominated by a president, from taking too much of an active hand in deciding who becomes (or remains) president.

I have to agree with you re Gore v. Bush, while it wasn't the result I wanted, it was a definite "hands off" for inappropriate judicial interference in a presidential election. And I fervently agree with you about never overturning a presidential election without unequivocal fraud. Chief Justice Roberts seems to be VERY good at not interfering and taking what I consider a solid moderate role in many cases - surprisingly so.

[Belize]

Lololololol

President Tinyhands went to hide in the WH bunker.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/u...rge-floyd.html


What a fucking pathetic pussy

[fwc577]

You guys. I'm proud of my family. I've avoided talking to a lot of them as much as possible since 2016 because they're too pro-Trump for my liking and I cannot possibly understand what they see in him.

This weekend, I was at a gathering with a lot of them and there was political discussion and yeah, I heard the whole "once they start rioting they've lost all credibility in my eyes" shit that makes me roll my eyes. BUT they also talked about how much they cannot stand Trump now and they seem to be holding Trump responsible. I'm in heavy Trump country too.

IMO, this is BAD for Trump.