2020 US Election (Part Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I acknowledge your argument and vehemently disagree. To elaborate would be to go in circles, so I'll leave it at that.
No elaboration has yet been offered, by yourself or by any other poster, so I don't think there's any risk of covering past ground. The limitless capacity of Republican villainy has been gestured towards, but nobody has offered a practical narrative describing how Trump would remain in office in the event of a dispute election.
 
Last edited:
No elaboration has yet been offered, by yourself or by any other poster, so I don't think there's any risk of covering past ground. The limitless capacity of Republican villainy has been gestured towards, but nobody has offered a practical narrative describing how Trump would remain in
office in the event of a dispute election.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
This article contains many potential scenarios.
 
No elaboration has yet been offered, by yourself or by any other poster,
That's not an accurate or generous take on this long-running argument. This is not the first time you and I and others have disagreed on it and while I say I vehemently disagree with you, I don't claim you have made no argument at all. I'm not going to dig up the many quotes and links where we have expounded on the perturbations of legal and extralegal maneuvers he might take to stay on, but they are still there.

I feel people have been very unkind in having characterized you as having either no clue of conditions on the ground or that you are so disconnected from it that your opinion is invalid. It just sucks to see you essentially taking that same approach with me here.

This is not even the first time this article has been linked to, and there are several others with variations on the same theme that have also been quoted and argued over.
 
Last edited:
No elaboration has yet been offered, by yourself or by any other poster. The limitless capacity of Republican villainy has been gestured towards, but nobody has offered a practical narrative describing how Trump would remain in office in the event of a dispute election.
It would be a mistake to assume the threat posed by Trump is that he won't leave office if roundly defeated. As we've been saying, the threat is that he will:

- forge evidence that mailed ballots are fraudulent, and use this to justify the tossing of mailed ballots and the appointment of loyal Republican electors in swing states to vote for him regardless of the popular outcome;

- shut down as many polling stations in overwhelmingly Democratic areas to cripple turnout (already happening in Texas and other states);

- have a significant edge on Election Night because his voters are far more likely to turn out in person, whereas Democratic voters are more likely to vote by mail, and then do everything in his considerable power to delay or toss the counting of mailed ballots beyond the deadline in December;

- ram through the appointment of Barrett to get a loyal SCOTUS to rule in his favor (he has already said he expects the election to reach the SCOTUS);

- use the tens of thousands of armed Republican "election monitors" - already hired - to profile and intimidate anyone who looks like a Democratic voter while slowing the lines long enough that people go home or can't get in by the deadline; the GOP used this exact tactic in 1981 in New Jersey and was barred from doing it again until this election, which a GOP strategist was caught saying was a "huge, huge, huge, huge deal";

- have his son's "Trump Army," a far-right militia, engage in further intimidation, and outright violence if the outcome isn't to his liking;

- urge every right-wing militia and terrorist in the country to engage in violence if he loses, or if he needs them to do things like seizing and destroying ballots;

- have huge numbers of mailed ballots tossed on technicalities such as improper amounts of envelopes, hard-to-read signatures, slight differences between official and signed names, anything.

As the article @Lexicus linked states, the threat isn't that he has to be escorted out; it's that he will do absolutely anything to reduce Democratic turnout, destroy or invalidate their ballots, make it very unclear who won the election, and then provoke violence against his opponents. Each and every one of these things is not the delusion of paranoid Democrats, but plans that the GOP has already hinted at or outright announced.
 
- use the tens of thousands of armed Republican "election monitors" - already hired - to profile and intimidate anyone who looks like a Democratic voter while slowing the lines long enough that people go home or can't get in by the deadline; the GOP used this exact tactic in 1981 in New Jersey and was barred from doing it again until this election, which a GOP strategist was caught saying was a "huge, huge, huge, huge deal";

I believe the consent decree had expired before the 2018 election as well but Trump wasn't on the ballot then.
 
I believe the consent decree had expired before the 2018 election as well but Trump wasn't on the ballot then.
At any rate, this is the first general election without it. It's clear to me now that we need more permanently and harshly enforced laws all across the board to prevent such incredibly blatant rigging. As long as the GOP exists it will close polling stations and intimidate opponents with "surgical precision," to use a phrase from the North Carolina Supreme Court on their blatantly racist gerrymandering there.
 
At any rate, this is the first general election without it. It's clear to me now that we need more permanently and harshly enforced laws all across the board to prevent such incredibly blatant rigging. As long as the GOP exists it will close polling stations and intimidate opponents with "surgical precision," to use a phrase from the North Carolina Supreme Court on their blatantly racist gerrymandering there.

Yes, and a Constitutional Amendment to put election administration into the hands of a nonpartisan public body rather than being administered by state governments.
 
Yes, and a Constitutional Amendment to put election administration into the hands of a nonpartisan public body rather than being administered by state governments.
We're going to need a whole lot of lawyer and politician red teams to figure out how to make these laws a lot more watertight than the ones we have now. The last four years have revealed just how many checks and balances and protections were nothing more than gentlemen's agreements based on the assumption that a party couldn't just sabotage the whole country without political blowback. Turns out that the GOP can, in fact, do that.
 
Kyle shouldn't have been there. If he hadn't people wouldn't have died.

Somebody should have been there. Yeah, not a teenager with a gun.

Kyle's moral authority? Are you insane? Are you advocating teenagers with semiautomatic rifles to go around practicing vigilante justice?

And "They weren't shot attacking a cop." was as a response of you bringing cops into it, you .... person.

I have a game for you. It's called: Find The Cop In This Post

Nobody would have died if nobody was chasing a kid around for putting out fires. What if Rittenhouse was unarmed and Rosenbaum started beating the hell out of him, would you blame Rittenhouse for being there? Do people have the moral authority to put out fires or do arsonists have the moral authority to attack them? The cops weren't there, the firemen weren't there, 'militia' was there.

You mentioned cops, you said they're not analogous and I quoted you, whats the big deal? I only brought them up to show a moral equivalence between them and people being attacked by arsonists for putting out fires. I guess you disagree. So what if Rittenhouse was a black kid putting out fires started by the KKK and they attacked him and he killed a couple?

And the vigilantes were the two other guys who got shot, and thats being generous. One or both of them might have seen Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. But assuming all they knew was Rittenhouse might have murdered someone they were the vigilantes.
 
Nobody would have died if nobody was chasing a kid around for putting out fires. What if Rittenhouse was unarmed and Rosenbaum started beating the hell out of him, would you blame Rittenhouse for being there? Do people have the moral authority to put out fires or do arsonists have the moral authority to attack them? The cops weren't there, the firemen weren't there, 'militia' was there.

You mentioned cops, you said they're not analogous and I quoted you, whats the big deal? I only brought them up to show a moral equivalence between them and people being attacked by arsonists for putting out fires. I guess you disagree. So what if Rittenhouse was a black kid putting out fires started by the KKK and they attacked him and he killed a couple?

And the vigilantes were the two other guys who got shot, and thats being generous. One or both of them might have seen Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. But assuming all they knew was Rittenhouse might have murdered someone they were the vigilantes.

Rittenhouse wasn't unarmed though. A kid just rushing around putting out fires is going to get a different reaction to a kid rushing around putting out fires whilst brandishing a rifle.
 
Do people have the moral authority to put out fires or do arsonists have the moral authority to attack them?

No, they don't. They should call the emergency services, so in this case the fire department. Citizens should NOT by themselves do more than offer first aid and secure the area until the professionals are there. This is probably the main difference between you and me/us, and it's a pretty big one that makes no whole discussion not click: For me, there's no difference between the rioters and the militia - both disturb the public peace and that's it. The militia doesn't have more rights just because it calls itself a militia. Because that doesn't make it a militia which are by the way a dangerous thing. Again, totally different conceptions of terms that make the whole debate not work because we have a totally different starting point.
 
No elaboration has yet been offered, by yourself or by any other poster, so I don't think there's any risk of covering past ground. The limitless capacity of Republican villainy has been gestured towards, but nobody has offered a practical narrative describing how Trump would remain in office in the event of a dispute election.

You are technically correct. In the event of a disputed election come January 20th Trump is out. The issue is that everyone else is talking about an election that is resolved before January 20th, specifically resolved in Trump's favor through means that are pretty well isolated from the electoral results. That's the actual concern.

Hope this clarifies the problem for both sides cuz you are sort of talking past each other.
 
Moderator Action: This is not the Rittenhouse thread. Kindly stop distracting the US election thread with such matters.
 
Yes, and a Constitutional Amendment to put election administration into the hands of a nonpartisan public body rather than being administered by state governments.

We're going to need a whole lot of lawyer and politician red teams to figure out how to make these laws a lot more watertight than the ones we have now. The last four years have revealed just how many checks and balances and protections were nothing more than gentlemen's agreements based on the assumption that a party couldn't just sabotage the whole country without political blowback. Turns out that the GOP can, in fact, do that.
Without the court, it's not even a sure thing that red-teaming the issues and writing iron clad laws will matter; the courts will simply throw them out one by one.

We need probably a half dozen new amendments to address all the shortfalls of the system and all the traditions that Trump has wrecked. In this climate, I expect we'll wind up with 0 new amendments - maybe 1 if the SCOTUS throws us a bone on the ERA but they won't. In light of all that, the only option is for Biden to pack the courts.
 
Did anyone else cringe out of their skin when Biden shouted, "I AM THE PARTY" at the debate? Thankfully, Trump talked over that as well so it didn't really have time to impact and sink in. While I understand and even agree with the sentiment he was trying to get at, it was so hamfisted that I consider it a close cousin to 'If you're not voting for me you ain't black'.
 
Did anyone else cringe out of their skin when Biden shouted, "I AM THE PARTY" at the debate? Thankfully, Trump talked over that as well so it didn't really have time to impact and sink in. While I understand and even agree with the sentiment he was trying to get out, it was so hamfisted that I consider it a close cousin to 'If you're not voting for me you ain't black'.

What was the context?
 
If Trump losses in Florida, he's toast.
I really think that the Democrats shoudl work harder at convincing the Cuban and Venezuelan minorities that a man with active business deals in the homelands whence they've fled with the dictators who've persecuted them is definitely not the man to vote if they want him to ‘Restore democracy!!!!’ to those countries.
 
I really think that the Democrats shoudl work harder at convincing the Cuban and Venezuelan minorities that a man with active business deals in the homelands whence they've fled with the dictators who've persecuted them is definitely not the man to vote if they want him to ‘Restore democracy!!!!’ to those countries.

Do you think there are really any principled opponents of autocracy, corruption, and authoritarianism in those countries who are gonna vote for Trump?
 
The hoodwinked masses of refugees and their descendants, definitely.

I'm speaking from experience. :(
 
What was the context?
Trump was trying to say that Biden wanted Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, defunding the police and anything that Trump could call socialist. Biden said that he didn't support any of those things, to which Trump said, well your socialist party does. Then Biden tried to respond that the party platform is his platform and it doesn't include all those things even if some within the party want them. To this, Trump just kept shouting over him until Biden dropped any attempt at nuance and just shouted "I AM THE PARTY".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom