Tha fuq? It’s rare these days for Trumpists to wander into this forum… your stay here will be entertaining, at least.
11 Likes
IANAL, and have no clue on “legality” but I have not been impressed that Il Douche worries about that either. As I said, I don’t see it as a likely outcome, but should it get to that, I would imagine there would be local court decisions all over the spectrum and mass confusion. It could delegitimize the election which is what he wants anyway.
3 Likes
Not really, but it is rare for them to read the rules. They always get themselves banned eventually, if they don’t get bored and leave first.
10 Likes
My guess is Russia.
1 Like
Donnie tried it before. He asked unlicensed poll watchers to come out for the 2016 election and “prevent voter fraud.”
That was going to fail because the GOP was under a consent decree not to do anything like that after they intimidated voters in 1981:
The consent decree’s ended now.
The concept that the courts will halt elections, which is against their interests in many cases, is foolhardy. The concept that there will be orchestrated intimidation efforts has historical precedent and does not assume people acting against interest.
I concede that both ideas are unlikely to actually occur.
3 Likes
I’m not saying he can’t or shouldn’t be impeached for it. I’m saying that it’s silly to say that because he hasn’t been impeached for something that isn’t illegal that we have little evidence of, that he therefore wouldn’t be impeached for something that is illegal that we have clear evidence of.
I see your point, and there would be chaos.
But chaos gets resolved, and it tends to get resolved in favour of the better organized faction. And considering that the pro-democracy faction outnumbers the anti-democracy faction by about 1000:1, I don’t think there’s even a whisper of a chance of the anti-democracy faction taking power.
We’re simply missing the 100 million people with a burning desire to abolish democracy along with the army whose soldiers who believe they’ll be significantly better off with the end of democracy.
I oppose Trump. Always have. Voted against him in 2016 and will do so in 2020.
But yes: there’s no serious evidence he accepted help from Russians (less so than Hillary did), and no serious evidence that he has a QPQ with Ukraine over Biden dirt, no serious evidence that he seriously incited violence (telling people to use force against assaulters isn’t incitement), and no serious evidence of siphoning money from government (what a weird claim). 
Been out on a wilderness trip the last few weeks, have you?
15 Likes
I’m not suggesting that he will succeed, but I am suggesting that it is possible that he will try. Consequently, I am also suggesting that it’s probably a good idea to be prepared to work for the outcome you want.
The only evidence is Trump saying it.
And we all know what a liar Trump is.
Okay - his senior leadership said it too.
12 Likes
I think you may need to do some catching up. Even the admin has moved on from “we did no such thing” to “of course we did, there is nothing wrong with it.” And yet the constitution would suggest otherwise. Maybe start by googling “emoluments.”
15 Likes
Not impossible, which is more than bad enough, but “no longer improbable” is taking things way too pessimistic for the facts, as far as I can tell.
Given all the stuff the regime has already done that was completely improbable in my experience of Presidential administrations before 2016 (including the Cheney Regency), I’ll be sticking with my position as being reasonably pessimistic.
6 Likes
Fair enough, although I’d say the Brownshirts’ elimination was still part of taking power. He certainly DID break quite a few German laws, nonetheless; he just was able (much like Dolt 45) to armwave, distract, or otherwise bully his way past any real controls until it was far too late to stop him, so again, your point stands anyway.
Suggesting people use force against those who are not assaulting anyone, however, certainly is incitement. And Darth Chee-To has done that several times at his rallies. The rest of your cavils are exactly as worthless, frankly; instant, obvious, utter justification fail.
I suggest the following Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+incites+violence+at+rally
7 Likes
There must be Trump Gaslighting Bingo cards out there somewhere, where each square is a bullshit excuse, like “HE WAS JOKING,” “HILLARY DID IT FIRST,” “PHONY EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE,” etc.
12 Likes
Yeah, because it was a desperate Roger Stone gimmick to lend legitimacy to Trump’s presumptive slinking away after losing by crying fraud. Even with months of planning, lots of funding, multi-state outreach, and devoted staff, only a handful of people bought into it at a time when Trump was far more popular and defensible than he is now. The handful of people that sprung up at a few polling places were singular crazy yelling assholes and were quickly dissuaded by threats of cops being called. Trump can tweet all he wants. If he declares the election invalid and tries to incite anything he’ll be a laughing stock.
That was literally two neighborhoods in New Jersey for a gubernatorial election, and even that was caught and ended. Oddly enough, guess who the campaign advisor that rolled out that plan was? Roger Stone. He tried the same thing with Trump (see above) and it failed miserably.
I get being wary of potential fuckery, really I do. But it’s just so exhausting to give legitimacy to every single terrible thing Trump could potentially try to pull off as a way to prepare for what will be an ugly season full of bullshit. They’re trying to get people to turtle up and waste energy pre-defending against stuff they won’t do, and it sadly makes for highly clickable opinion pieces/tweet threads to boot. But I don’t think you can min/max preparedness by giving credence to every remote possibility. I’m just trying to stay generally limber in preparation for Hilariously Unexpectable Dumb Shit. Be ready to identify and laugh at/deride it as nimbly and publicly as possible. It’ll be kinda fun!
P.S. Kurt Eichenwald still suuuuuuucks
2 Likes
He came to power via the ballot box. Just because he did illegal things to doesn’t mean that’s incorrect.
[ETA] The general over all point is that the law and justice are NOT one and the same. The law can be used to very effectively enforce an unjust system, as was the case in Nazi Germany, as was the case in the American south, as was the case in many other places… in the modern era. The law is ONLY just when WE make it just. If the law is being used to oppress ANYONE it is inherently unjust.
11 Likes
Perhaps not yet, but there SHOULD be…
I’m not joking.
