If Trump Refuses to Concede

[SLD]

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13153832/donald-trump-refuse-to-concede

Trump has recently walked back his comment that he would support Clinton if she were to win the election - as it is looking increasingly likely. He is making more and more bizarre statements that the election is going to be stolen by Clinton, and encouraging his league of voters to go and watch the polls. Of course voter intimidation is illegal. But that won't stop him and won't reverse the outcome of an election even if caught (might get him impeached but that's highly unlikely).

But let's just say Clinton wins a majority of the votes in Florida, clearly, but by about 1 - 2%. The networks call it for her on the evening of November 8th. But she also wins by much smaller margins in North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. That means she would win without Florida. But Trump refuses to concede.

At that point, it's anyone's guess what could happen next. Logically, the votes would be counted and certified by election officials, with watchers from both parties, and once certified the votes would be final, and Trump would lose. But he could try to challenge the process, and challenge the counts, filing suits in all the states where he lost (including Pa) alleging massive voter fraud. Even if the cases where quickly disposed of as frivolous and without merit, he could try to affect the outcome simply by trying to intimidate election officials, and others. Not sure if it would work. It seems unlikely that he could reverse the election outcome - especially if it requires more than one state to reverse, which as of now it sure does.

But there's a larger issue of what his legions of supporters would do in that scenario - he's telling them it's rigged. They believe him no matter what. How does that play out? Violently? He refuses to calm his supporters - it's a classic fascist response. Very scary.

Thoughts?

SLD

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I imagine that then you'd have a bunch of angry people who hate the government who'd get angry and start hating the government. Clinton would become President while not giving two shits about Trump's ranting and her SC appointees would likely feel the need to recuse themselves from ruling on Trump's lawsuits about how he's the President and everyone else is just a big poopy-head.

The actual process for inaugurating the next President is in no way dependent on the challenger conceding. Note how Bush started his transition process while pretty much ignoring Gore's insistence that he shouldn't start the transition process yet because he may not have won. If Trump tried to get the results overturned, it would go to the Supreme Court and the matter would end in a 4-4 tie due to each of the Justices soberly and dispassionately considering the items on the merits and it just coincidentally coming out that way as opposed to them ruling in a partisan manner to help their team and the results would stand because of that.

Trump would then spend the next few years making money off of talking about how he got screwed by the elites along with the rest of the country.

 

[Elixir]

I imagine that then you'd have a bunch of angry people who hate the government who'd get angry and start hating the government. Clinton would become President while not giving two shits about Trump's ranting and her SC appointees would likely feel the need to recuse themselves from ruling on Trump's lawsuits about how he's the President and everyone else is just a big poopy-head.

The actual process for inaugurating the next President is in no way dependent on the challenger conceding. Note how Bush started his transition process while pretty much ignoring Gore's insistence that he shouldn't start the transition process yet because he may not have won. If Trump tried to get the results overturned, it would go to the Supreme Court and the matter would end in a 4-4 tie due to each of the Justices soberly and dispassionately considering the items on the merits and it just coincidentally coming out that way as opposed to them ruling in a partisan manner to help their team and the results would stand because of that.

Trump would then spend the next few years making money off of talking about how he got screwed by the elites along with the rest of the country.

If he pulls that crap and gets his rumpsuckers riled up to commit violence, I'd like to see him brought up for sedition.

 

[Deepak]

If his followers get violent then Jefferson's quote about the Tree of Liberty would apply in its original context

 

[Elixir]

If his followers get violent then Jefferson's quote about the Tree of Liberty would apply in its original context

If any patriots' blood is spilled, the charge should be accessory to murder.

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13153832/donald-trump-refuse-to-concede

Trump has recently walked back his comment that he would support Clinton if she were to win the election - as it is looking increasingly likely. He is making more and more bizarre statements that the election is going to be stolen by Clinton, and encouraging his league of voters to go and watch the polls. Of course voter intimidation is illegal. But that won't stop him and won't reverse the outcome of an election even if caught (might get him impeached but that's highly unlikely).

But let's just say Clinton wins a majority of the votes in Florida, clearly, but by about 1 - 2%. The networks call it for her on the evening of November 8th. But she also wins by much smaller margins in North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. That means she would win without Florida. But Trump refuses to concede.

At that point, it's anyone's guess what could happen next. Logically, the votes would be counted and certified by election officials, with watchers from both parties, and once certified the votes would be final, and Trump would lose. But he could try to challenge the process, and challenge the counts, filing suits in all the states where he lost (including Pa) alleging massive voter fraud. Even if the cases where quickly disposed of as frivolous and without merit, he could try to affect the outcome simply by trying to intimidate election officials, and others. Not sure if it would work. It seems unlikely that he could reverse the election outcome - especially if it requires more than one state to reverse, which as of now it sure does.

But there's a larger issue of what his legions of supporters would do in that scenario - he's telling them it's rigged. They believe him no matter what. How does that play out? Violently? He refuses to calm his supporters - it's a classic fascist response. Very scary.

Thoughts?

SLD

There is no evidence based information to suggest that the Republican Party, Trump or others will resort to any form of violence if Clinton wins. However I think it is most likely that this will go through the legal procedure if there is any evidence to suggest a miscount, rigging or any or any other irregularities.

The key issues have been overlooked such as the US soaring debt which has reportedly doubled since Obama took office.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435093/barack-obama-economy-jobs-ugly-truth National debt — $10.63 trillion then vs. $19.19 trillion last Wednesday: up 80.5 percent.

If the National Review is correct then there are serious problems which are constantly being overlooked

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435093/barack-obama-economy-jobs-ugly-truth

Meanwhile, annualized GDP growth nearly stalled in the first quarter at a meager 0.5 percent. This is down from already tepid 1.4 percent growth in the fourth quarter of 2015.
Obama is the only U.S. chief executive in history not to preside over even a single year with 3 percent GDP growth, as the Institute for Policy Innovation’s Tom Giovanetti observes:
From 1790 to 2000, U.S. real GDP growth averaged 3.79 percent,’ entrepreneur Louis Woodhill explained at RealClearMarkets.
He expects final figures to show that ‘2015 will have been the tenth year in a row that real GDP growth came in at under 3.0 percent.’
During the Obama years, the number of Americans below the poverty line is up 3.5 percent.
Real median household income: down 2.3 percent.
Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I imagine that then you'd have a bunch of angry people who hate the government who'd get angry and start hating the government. Clinton would become President while not giving two shits about Trump's ranting and her SC appointees would likely feel the need to recuse themselves from ruling on Trump's lawsuits about how he's the President and everyone else is just a big poopy-head.

The actual process for inaugurating the next President is in no way dependent on the challenger conceding. Note how Bush started his transition process while pretty much ignoring Gore's insistence that he shouldn't start the transition process yet because he may not have won. If Trump tried to get the results overturned, it would go to the Supreme Court and the matter would end in a 4-4 tie due to each of the Justices soberly and dispassionately considering the items on the merits and it just coincidentally coming out that way as opposed to them ruling in a partisan manner to help their team and the results would stand because of that.

Trump would then spend the next few years making money off of talking about how he got screwed by the elites along with the rest of the country.

I think Trump is a realist so your last paragraph would sound attractive to him.

 

[Elixir]

There is no evidence based information to suggest that the Republican Party, Trump or others will resort to any form of violence if Clinton wins. However I think it is most likely that this will go through the legal procedure if there is any evidence to suggest a miscount, rigging or any or any other irregularities.

The fact that he lost will be all the "evidence" Trump needs. As always.

The key issues have been overlooked such as the US soaring debt which has reportedly doubled since Obama took office.

Not being overlooked by the rumpsucker surrogates at all. "Failed economic policies!" is one of their three mantras (the others being EMAILS! and BENGHAZI!). It's all they have, and "failed economic policies" is the weakest of the bunch. All anyone has to do is look at the relevant data from 2008 and compare it to today. Then go back and take a look at how the economy has historically performed under republican trickle-down voo-doo, and compare with how it has performed under democrat administrations. It's pretty stark.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The fact that he lost will be all the "evidence" Trump needs. As always.

The key issues have been overlooked such as the US soaring debt which has reportedly doubled since Obama took office.

Not being overlooked by the rumpsucker surrogates at all. "Failed economic policies!" is one of their three mantras (the others being EMAILS! and BENGHAZI!). It's all they have, and "failed economic policies" is the weakest of the bunch. All anyone has to do is look at the relevant data from 2008 and compare it to today. Then go back and take a look at how the economy has historically performed under republican trickle-down voo-doo, and compare with how it has performed under democrat administrations. It's pretty stark.

Clinton was of course cleared of wrongdoing re Benghazi. I'm not sure how far emailgate will go but there outpoints on the part of Clinton. Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory. Iraq is of course an earlier bigger disaster. Syria backfired as the original government is stll there in key parts of the country.

All successive governments have been simply borrowing nonstop so the debt continues to spiral out of control. They all have their faults which is why the debate should be focussed on how the economy is going to be fixed.

As they say in American sports, quit the fighting and just play the ball.

 

[bilby]

The fact that he lost will be all the "evidence" Trump needs. As always.



Not being overlooked by the rumpsucker surrogates at all. "Failed economic policies!" is one of their three mantras (the others being EMAILS! and BENGHAZI!). It's all they have, and "failed economic policies" is the weakest of the bunch. All anyone has to do is look at the relevant data from 2008 and compare it to today. Then go back and take a look at how the economy has historically performed under republican trickle-down voo-doo, and compare with how it has performed under democrat administrations. It's pretty stark.

Clinton was of course cleared of wrongdoing re Benghazi. I'm not sure how far emailgate will go but there outpoints on the part of Clinton. Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory. Iraq is of course an earlier bigger disaster. Syria backfired as the original government is stll there in key parts of the country.

All successive governments have been simply borrowing nonstop so the debt continues to spiral out of control. They all have their faults which is why the debate should be focussed on how the economy is going to be fixed.

As they say in American sports, quit the fighting and just play the ball.

Before I can agree with your claim that the debate should be focused on how the economy is going to be fixed, you need to explain how you conclude that it needs fixing. The US economy is in fine shape. GDP has grown in 33 of the last 40 quarters (10 years); Inflation is low, the DJIA is above 18,000 (it peaked at 14,000 just before the 2008 recession, so it has more than recovered from that setback).

Wages and unemployment/underemployment are still a problem, but not one that is so pressing as to warrant being the sole focus of political debate.

What part of the economy do you think is so problematic? It seems to me that the economy is pretty good, and that it is claimed to be in desperate need of a 'fix' only by slime-ball politicians who claim to know what that 'fix' should be.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Clinton was of course cleared of wrongdoing re Benghazi. I'm not sure how far emailgate will go but there outpoints on the part of Clinton. Clinton however turned a stable dictatorship (Libya) with the highest per capita income in Africa to a bloodbath, giving ISIS an opportunity to seize territory. Iraq is of course an earlier bigger disaster. Syria backfired as the original government is stll there in key parts of the country.

All successive governments have been simply borrowing nonstop so the debt continues to spiral out of control. They all have their faults which is why the debate should be focussed on how the economy is going to be fixed.

As they say in American sports, quit the fighting and just play the ball.

Before I can agree with your claim that the debate should be focused on how the economy is going to be fixed, you need to explain how you conclude that it needs fixing. The US economy is in fine shape. GDP has grown in 33 of the last 40 quarters (10 years); Inflation is low, the DJIA is above 18,000 (it peaked at 14,000 just before the 2008 recession, so it has more than recovered from that setback).

Wages and unemployment/underemployment are still a problem, but not one that is so pressing as to warrant being the sole focus of political debate.

What part of the economy do you think is so problematic? It seems to me that the economy is pretty good, and that it is claimed to be in desperate need of a 'fix' only by slime-ball politicians who claim to know what that 'fix' should be.

Borrowing is the biggest problem The US debt under the current government has gone from US$10 trillion to around US$18 trillion. One day this could hit America with austerity measures.

Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

These are indications of some bigger problem that are blowing into the US.
How do does the US therefore stimulate growth where the only reason unemployment dropped is because many seem to have taken themselves off the unemployment register.

 

[J842P]

Before I can agree with your claim that the debate should be focused on how the economy is going to be fixed, you need to explain how you conclude that it needs fixing. The US economy is in fine shape. GDP has grown in 33 of the last 40 quarters (10 years); Inflation is low, the DJIA is above 18,000 (it peaked at 14,000 just before the 2008 recession, so it has more than recovered from that setback).

Wages and unemployment/underemployment are still a problem, but not one that is so pressing as to warrant being the sole focus of political debate.

What part of the economy do you think is so problematic? It seems to me that the economy is pretty good, and that it is claimed to be in desperate need of a 'fix' only by slime-ball politicians who claim to know what that 'fix' should be.

Borrowing is the biggest problem The US debt under the current government has gone from US$10 trillion to around US$18 trillion. One day this could hit America with austerity measures.

Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

These are indications of some bigger problem that are blowing into the US.
How do does the US therefore stimulate growth where the only reason unemployment dropped is because many seem to have taken themselves off the unemployment register.

Actually, one significant factor is the ongoing retirement of the baby boomers.

 

[bilby]

Before I can agree with your claim that the debate should be focused on how the economy is going to be fixed, you need to explain how you conclude that it needs fixing. The US economy is in fine shape. GDP has grown in 33 of the last 40 quarters (10 years); Inflation is low, the DJIA is above 18,000 (it peaked at 14,000 just before the 2008 recession, so it has more than recovered from that setback).

Wages and unemployment/underemployment are still a problem, but not one that is so pressing as to warrant being the sole focus of political debate.

What part of the economy do you think is so problematic? It seems to me that the economy is pretty good, and that it is claimed to be in desperate need of a 'fix' only by slime-ball politicians who claim to know what that 'fix' should be.

Borrowing is the biggest problem The US debt under the current government has gone from US$10 trillion to around US$18 trillion. One day this could hit America with austerity measures.

Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

These are indications of some bigger problem that are blowing into the US.
How do does the US therefore stimulate growth where the only reason unemployment dropped is because many seem to have taken themselves off the unemployment register.

Austerity measures are a fucking stupid response to debt; debt is a non-issue for the USA.

Only morons with no grasp on economics consider debt to be a problem for currency issuing nations. The USA should always be in debt, and that debt should always increase over the long term - any attempt to prevent that from occurring would be disastrous.

Food stamps are an abomination, but the basic idea of giving money away to people without work is very sensible - indeed, it is essential in an automated society. More people should be getting more handouts, rather than being expected to find jobs that don't exist. Alternatively the education system could be improved to make the useless section of society capable of doing something useful - but that's not an economic policy.

US growth is robust; clearly there is no urgency to stimulate it further.

You have completely failed to convince me that the economy needs any kind of 'fix' - it's not broken, despite calls to fix it via massively stupid 'solutions' such as 'austerity', which is merely a buzzword describing the behaviour of a government that robs the poor to give to the rich.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Borrowing is the biggest problem The US debt under the current government has gone from US$10 trillion to around US$18 trillion. One day this could hit America with austerity measures.

Americans on Food Stamps — 33 million then, 46 million now: up 39.5 percent.
Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

These are indications of some bigger problem that are blowing into the US.
How do does the US therefore stimulate growth where the only reason unemployment dropped is because many seem to have taken themselves off the unemployment register.

Austerity measures are a fucking stupid response to debt; debt is a non-issue for the USA.

Only morons with no grasp on economics consider debt to be a problem for currency issuing nations. The USA should always be in debt, and that debt should always increase over the long term - any attempt to prevent that from occurring would be disastrous.

Food stamps are an abomination, but the basic idea of giving money away to people without work is very sensible - indeed, it is essential in an automated society. More people should be getting more handouts, rather than being expected to find jobs that don't exist. Alternatively the education system could be improved to make the useless section of society capable of doing something useful - but that's not an economic policy.

US growth is robust; clearly there is no urgency to stimulate it further.

You have completely failed to convince me that the economy needs any kind of 'fix' - it's not broken, despite calls to fix it via massively stupid 'solutions' such as 'austerity', which is merely a buzzword describing the behaviour of a government that robs the poor to give to the rich.

True, austerity measures are something which the EU was applying and which could lead to its break-up. Your point is true. It means bailing out the banksters and government debts by the tax payer and while saying it was all their fault.

The growth rate pa is actually lower than previous times but the real issue is the national debt which has gone up a few trillion. If not addressed will one day will affect the economy eventually with the taxpayer footing the bill.
Those on foodstamps has increased, which is a sign of stagnation in certain areas.

A US$1 bill is 0.1mm thick 1 million mm equals one kilometer.
So 18 billion of these would be 180,000 miles high.
Different government just seem to be recklessly mounting up this to borrow their way out of a crisis so as to jerk-off the public to convince them everything is doing well.
Obama care needs to be developed to cover all US citizens who want it if it is providing greater cover without adding to the national debt.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think Trump is a realist

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think Trump is a realist

:laughing-smiley-014

In relation to this he is where an election loss can be turned into an lucrative income.

Trump would then spend the next few years making money off of talking about how he got screwed by the elites along with the rest of the country.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think Trump is a realist

:laughing-smiley-014

You beat me to it.

I have a lot of Trump supporters in my neighborhood. I seriously doubt any of them would act violently if, I mean when, Trump loses.

 

[Angry Floof]

:laughing-smiley-014

You beat me to it.

I have a lot of Trump supporters in my neighborhood. I seriously doubt any of them would act violently if, I mean when, Trump loses.

I don't share that confidence. They are highly suggestible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't share that confidence. They are highly suggestible.

Well, what are they going to do? If they block roads or anything with their protests, they're going to need to pay the people they inconvenience for the trouble they caused. If they damage any public property, it means that they're just criminals living the thug life and they'll lose the support of every right winger in the country as a result. If they run off into the hills and hole up in compounds with their guns ... well ... good. I'm sure they'll have fun sitting around waiting for Hillary's jackbooted gestapo to get over there and oppress them - which will totally happen any day now.

They are, after all, only Americans. They'll tweet up a shitstorm from their couches and then not do anything because doing things is hard.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13153832/donald-trump-refuse-to-concede

Trump has recently walked back his comment that he would support Clinton if she were to win the election - as it is looking increasingly likely. He is making more and more bizarre statements that the election is going to be stolen by Clinton, and encouraging his league of voters to go and watch the polls. Of course voter intimidation is illegal. But that won't stop him and won't reverse the outcome of an election even if caught (might get him impeached but that's highly unlikely).

But let's just say Clinton wins a majority of the votes in Florida, clearly, but by about 1 - 2%. The networks call it for her on the evening of November 8th. But she also wins by much smaller margins in North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. That means she would win without Florida. But Trump refuses to concede.

It is important to keep things in perspective.

• In 2000, Florida was razor thin, much much less than 1%, closer to the order of 0.017%.
• The likelihood of one state being that close seems unlikely, but the likelihood that several states being that close is extremely unlikely.
• Electoral College wins out. Hillary Clinton needs 270 votes, so even is an entire state doesn't send electors, she is going to have some breathing room, especially if Ohio and Nevada swing back to blue. Florida and North Carolina could play dirty pool and she'd still reach the majority.
• However, dirty pool seems too unlikely because first off, a state would need to be close enough, probably no bigger than 0.1% (or roughly 1000 or fewer vote difference per 1,000,000 cast), because otherwise, there are state laws that must be followed and it would be hard to imagine any purple state has a Supreme Court red enough to overlook the law.

The only way Trump can win by cheating is to keep Clinton from getting enough delegates at the EC. That will require holding back delegates at the state. We haven't seen shit like that since Hayes v Tilden, though in that case both parties sent teams of delegates.

My biggest concern is that the polls could be hinting at a Clinton landslide. I don't know what Trump supporters would do in that case. They are so sold on his greatness and that they know the true pulse of the nation, they'll possibly cause some trouble. It'd come down to what their overlords on the AM Radio dial want. And those overlords have their own overlords. I can't imagine they'd was marches in the street. It affects the market poorly.