"Get Rid Of The Ballots!"

[Elixir]

Hoooookay...

Cue "he didn't really mean it" from the same people who elected him because he says what he means.

Yes, he IS planning to send Federal troops into key locations on the night of 11/3 to seize ballots.
Counting to be stopped at midnight, regardless of State laws. Trump to announce his victory.
Don't like it? Take it to the newly packed Supreme Court.

 

[lpetrich]

Titled link: ‘We want to get rid of the ballots’: Trump won’t commit to peaceful transfer of power, pushing voter fraud claims instead | The Independent - "Trump says police violence against journalists is ‘actually a beautiful sight’"

“We’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster,” Mr Trump said at a press conference on Wednesday, a continuation of his repeated attacks on the integrity of expanded mail-in voting programmes states have rolled out amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The reporter pressed him on this issue.

“Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferral of power?” the reporter asked.

“We want to get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation,” Mr Trump replied.

“The ballots are out of control. You know it,” he said, to which the reporter objected, “No, I don’t know it.”

Mr Trump continued: “And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than everybody else.”

Seems like he wants the new Supreme Court appointee in office before Election Day so he will get someone willing to vote for him.

“I think it's better if you go before the election, because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it's a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court,” the president told reporters at the White House, referring to mail-in votes.

“I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation, if you get that,” Mr Trump said of a Supreme Court that could be stalemated on the election results without its ninth justice.

Seems like he's projecting.

 

[Ford]

I may have mentioned this before, but it looks like I'm actually going to have to have a reckoning of sorts with my best friend.

It was maybe 6 years ago that he posted something to Facebook about how Obama was going to suspend the 22nd Amendment and hold onto power for a 3rd term. We had an argument about it (online) and I made a bet with him.

I said if that actually happened, and on January 20th 2017 Obama refused to step down, I would pay him the agreed-upon sum of money, ask to borrow a firearm (he has lots) and join him in the "fight against tyranny."

If Obama stepped down peacefully, all he had to do was admit he was wrong.

I never collected on that bet.

It's starting to look very much like Trump (my friend is a supporter) is going to refuse to step down. I'm looking for the right words...something like "so are you going to loan me a firearm and join ME in the fight against the guy who usurped the Presidency?"

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Help me Obi Wan Covid-19. You are my only hope!

 

[TV and credit cards]

Eight, nine justices. It matters not. Trump’s got nothing. He’s got nothing. Dickhead will probably ask his Supreme Court nominee for a loyalty pledge.

 

[Elixir]

...
If Obama stepped down peacefully, all he had to do was admit he was wrong.

I never collected on that bet.

It's starting to look very much like Trump (my friend is a supporter) is going to refuse to step down. I'm looking for the right words...something like "so are you going to loan me a firearm and join ME in the fight against the guy who usurped the Presidency?"

You need new friends. At least you certainly don't need that one.

Why do I sense that this thread could go on until election day with nary a peep from Meta, Harvestdancer and the rest of the libberpublican contingent?
Like Joe Scarborough, I remember from Elementary school and beyond, being taught that the principle feature that separates the USA from the rest of the world - especially the shitholes (there were other terms for them) - was that in the USA we have ALWAYS had a peaceful transfer of power based on the results of national elections. But it seems that some time since I was in school, they stopped teaching anything like that. Certainly none of Trump's AR15-wielding Bubbas ever held such values.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Eight, nine justices. It matters not. Trump’s got nothing. He’s got nothing.

He's got much more than nothing. He has a complicit Senate Majority and very likely enough votes on SCOTUS to contest the election and send it to the states.

This is lining up to be dirtiest post election ever in our history, and it likely won't even be close. I so badly want to be wrong and look back at this post with embarrassment.

 

[Elixir]

Eight, nine justices. It matters not. Trump’s got nothing. He’s got nothing.

He's got much more than nothing. He has a complicit Senate Majority and very likely enough votes on SCOTUS to contest the election and send it to the states.

Not to mention a toady running DOJ who will not hesitate to use ICE agents and other Federal troops to invade and seize ballots on election night. Billy Barr is already at almost as much risk of jail or death penalty as Trump is. They are a desperate mob, and they will stop at nothing to retain power.
NOTHING.

This is lining up to be dirtiest post election ever in our history, and it likely won't even be close. I so badly want to be wrong and look back at this post with embarrassment.

It is already the dirtiest pre-election by far in my 70 years. No reason to think it's going to get cleaned up in the next 5 weeks.
The only scenario I can think of that might make a difference is if Trump loses almost every single State, and if that is evident on election night.

 

[jab]

They're hoping for a repeat of Florida and the Supremes' 2020 hit "Push, Putsch Georgie Bush". Stop the vote count in selected states, declare victory while they're ahead, and then have the Supremes block any recount or expanded count. Remember, there is precedent for this.

 

[Elixir]

They're hoping for a repeat of Florida and the Supremes' 2020 hit "Push, Putsch Georgie Bush". Stop the vote count in selected states, declare victory while they're ahead, and then have the Supremes block any recount or expanded count. Remember, there is precedent for this.

That's why the moment must never occur where Trump is ahead by any significant margin on the night of 11/3. Biden not only has to win and win big, he has to win both early and late.

 

[Gun Nut]

Hoooookay...

Cue "he didn't really mean it" from the same people who elected him because he says what he means.

Yes, he IS planning to send Federal troops into key locations on the night of 11/3 to seize ballots.
Counting to be stopped at midnight, regardless of State laws. Trump to announce his victory.
Don't like it? Take it to the newly packed Supreme Court.

That would be an illegal order and Generals have stated (unprecedentedly) that no illegal orders will be followed, as per centuries old law and basic ethical standards all military personnel follow to the letter.
Proven in military court and precedent forming decisions across international law have been made following WWII.. "Just following orders" holds personal liability when such orders are illegal or even just immoral.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Hoooookay...

Cue "he didn't really mean it" from the same people who elected him because he says what he means.

Yes, he IS planning to send Federal troops into key locations on the night of 11/3 to seize ballots.
Counting to be stopped at midnight, regardless of State laws. Trump to announce his victory.
Don't like it? Take it to the newly packed Supreme Court.

That would be an illegal order and Generals have stated (unprecedentedly) that no illegal orders will be followed, as per centuries old law and basic ethical standards all military personnel follow to the letter.
Proven in military court and precedent forming decisions across international law have been made following WWII.. "Just following orders" holds personal liability when such orders are illegal or even just immoral.

You apparently missed the events in portland this summer. He has lots of federal troops that aren't under the command of generals.

 

[Elixir]

Hoooookay...

Cue "he didn't really mean it" from the same people who elected him because he says what he means.

Yes, he IS planning to send Federal troops into key locations on the night of 11/3 to seize ballots.
Counting to be stopped at midnight, regardless of State laws. Trump to announce his victory.
Don't like it? Take it to the newly packed Supreme Court.

That would be an illegal order and Generals have stated (unprecedentedly) that no illegal orders will be followed, as per centuries old law and basic ethical standards all military personnel follow to the letter.
Proven in military court and precedent forming decisions across international law have been made following WWII.. "Just following orders" holds personal liability when such orders are illegal or even just immoral.

You apparently missed the events in portland this summer. He has lots of federal troops that aren't under the command of generals.

Yes. ICE, CBP and even the Coast Guard fall under the DHS umbrella, all controlled by the Executive branch and all greatly militarized over the last 4 years. Not to mention USSS, US Marshals and a whole litany of other LE entities.

 

[SLD]

You apparently missed the events in portland this summer. He has lots of federal troops that aren't under the command of generals.

Yes. ICE, CBP and even the Coast Guard fall under the DHS umbrella, all controlled by the Executive branch and all greatly militarized over the last 4 years. Not to mention USSS, US Marshals and a whole litany of other LE entities.

Yes, but all have taken the same basic oath that military personnel have taken. All federal officers swear an oath to the constitution and to only obey legal orders. Portsmouth was an abomination, but maybe an aberration as well. They were making arrests without proper training. Going in and seizing ballots is vastly different.

 

[SLD]

Reading up more on electoral law. The constitution does allow state legislatures to pick the electors for President. Trump is right. He can ask legislators to ignore the voters will. Republican legislators are in charge in key swing states including Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan amongst others.

But here’s the rub. They don’t have legal authority to over rule the votes the people cast for their electors. All states have laws on the books requiring that the electors be elected by the people - not the legislators. They can’t change that - at least for now. Thus Trump’s ploy won’t work.

He’ll need to come in and seize the ballot boxes to overturn the election.

I wonder if he could use armed militias like the three percenters.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But here’s the rub. They don’t have legal authority to over rule the votes the people cast for their electors. All states have laws on the books requiring that the electors be elected by the people - not the legislators. They can’t change that - at least for now. Thus Trump’s ploy won’t work..

That’s why their approach is to say the ballots will be fraudulent. If the tally is fraudulent then it doesn’t represent the will of the people.

 

[Elixir]

But here’s the rub. They don’t have legal authority to over rule the votes the people cast for their electors. All states have laws on the books requiring that the electors be elected by the people - not the legislators. They can’t change that - at least for now. Thus Trump’s ploy won’t work..

That’s why their approach is to say the ballots will be fraudulent. If the tally is fraudulent then it doesn’t represent the will of the people.

Only Trumpsuckers are people. That's where Trump's argument begins and ends.
Kim Jong Un is his role model.
Now... if he'd just follow Kim's example and FUCKING DIE!

 

[Elixir]

You apparently missed the events in portland this summer. He has lots of federal troops that aren't under the command of generals.

Yes. ICE, CBP and even the Coast Guard fall under the DHS umbrella, all controlled by the Executive branch and all greatly militarized over the last 4 years. Not to mention USSS, US Marshals and a whole litany of other LE entities.

Yes, but all have taken the same basic oath that military personnel have taken. All federal officers swear an oath to the constitution and to only obey legal orders. Portsmouth was an abomination, but maybe an aberration as well. They were making arrests without proper training. Going in and seizing ballots is vastly different.

Seriously SLD, that's what I thought from the time my Company started supplying DHS with tactical medical gear, right up until 2017 when a lot of our contact people disappeared and the whole character of CBP and ICE changed. It became really hard to live with, and the main reason I was anxious to get out. People mouth words of loyalty to the Constitution, but act in loyalty to the despot who can make or break their careers.

 

[bilby]

...
If Obama stepped down peacefully, all he had to do was admit he was wrong.

I never collected on that bet.

It's starting to look very much like Trump (my friend is a supporter) is going to refuse to step down. I'm looking for the right words...something like "so are you going to loan me a firearm and join ME in the fight against the guy who usurped the Presidency?"

You need new friends. At least you certainly don't need that one.

Why do I sense that this thread could go on until election day with nary a peep from Meta, Harvestdancer and the rest of the libberpublican contingent?
Like Joe Scarborough, I remember from Elementary school and beyond, being taught that the principle feature that separates the USA from the rest of the world - especially the shitholes (there were other terms for them) - was that in the USA we have ALWAYS had a peaceful transfer of power based on the results of national elections. But it seems that some time since I was in school, they stopped teaching anything like that. Certainly none of Trump's AR15-wielding Bubbas ever held such values.

That "always" died in 2000, when the Supreme Court ruled that Florida should stop recounting, and accept the first (and clearly wrong) declared result. Judges decided the POTUS, not the voters.

Australia and New Zealand have always had peaceful transitions based on the vote counts, although it's arguable that the Whitlam dismissal disqualifies Australia too.

So perhaps it was NZ your elementary school teacher was thinking of when describing the only country to always have a peaceful transition. Though I presume that 2000 was still in the future when you were in elementary school.

 

[Elixir]

... I presume that 2000 was still in the future when you were in elementary school.

Yes, the far distant future. When I was in elementary school, NZ was still part of the Colony of New South Wales.