• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What Would Happen if Trump Refused to Leave Office?

From different people, for different reasons, out of different fears based on discrete acts by each individual in question. But, sure, lump them collectively and the Orange Scandal Pisstol's cheating is no more likely than, say, any actual career politician who was not facing arrest and prosecution the instant his tenure stops.
Sure.

From different people, for different reasons, yes. Democrats have nothing to gain by scaremongering about if a Democrat doesn't leave office. Republicans have nothing to gain by scaremongering if a Republican doesn't leave office. Yet I did hear the scaremongering, from different sides, in '96, '00, '04, '08, '12, and '16. Now I'm hearing it in '20.

And every two years I hear "this is the most important election ever so you just can't vote 3rd party". That I heard in '92, '94, '96, '98, '00, '02, '04, '06, '08, '10, '12, '14, '16, and '18. Now I'm hearing it in '20.

Prove it. Show us the scaremongering. Put up or shut up.

This. Fucking. Thread. Is. The. Fear. Mongering. You. Are. Asking. For. Proof. Of.

You read this thread. You posted in this thread. It would be reasonable to assume you understood this thread, but then I have never associated you with the word "reasonable".
 
Prove it. Show us the scaremongering. Put up or shut up.

This. Fucking. Thread. Is. The. Fear. Mongering. You. Are. Asking. For. Proof. Of.

You read this thread. You posted in this thread. It would be reasonable to assume you understood this thread, but then I have never associated you with the word "reasonable".

I'm not asking for proof of people being afraid of Trump's failure to turn over power peacefully.

I am asking for proof of your claims that people were scaremongering about previous presidents.

You have not substantiated your "both sides" bullshit.

Of course, I can find numerous times where Trump has directly communicated a desire to remain in office beyond two terms, illegally. I can find numerous times where he has complained about the result of an election he ostensibly won. You have claimed scaremongering for 6 elections. You have 6 elections of scaremongering to prove.

I doubt, though, you could find a single communication by a single candidate in any of those elections about how they wanted to violate the constitution, anything to substantiate such fearmongering. This time, though, there's a whole laundry list of statements from the man himself that he wants, and his followers are expected to, make trouble over the peaceful exchange of power.

Of course, it is ALWAYS reasonable to be in a position to want to enforce the peaceful exchange of power. It is always reasonable to be skeptical of someone's will to turn over the reigns of power, and positioned in a way to respond to that failure.

Finally, Some skepticism is more healthy than other skepticism, especially when the skepticism in 2016 was leveled by someone who said that the president was going to wage a war in Iran to be a "wartime president" and attempt to get a third term, and that same person, as president, attempted to wage a war in Iran around the same time as he was making tweets about extending his current term, and requesting additional terms.
 
Last edited:
Funny, I've seen that prediction happen every four years.

That speaks to the company you keep. I never heard that abut Carter, Reagan or either Bush. I heard it about Clinton and Obama of course, coming from the usual crackpot republitards.

Crackpots, or projection of what they want to do?
 
Funny, I've seen that prediction happen every four years.

That speaks to the company you keep. I never heard that abut Carter, Reagan or either Bush. I heard it about Clinton and Obama of course, coming from the usual crackpot republitards.

Crackpots, or projection of what they want to do?
I'm banking on projection. Trump says "Obama will start a war with Iran for a power grab". Then trump, fairly late in his term, attempted to start a war with Iran. I wonder why...
 
I'm not too worried about trumty-dumpty not willingly leaving office. I'm more concerned about the scorched Earth he will try to leave being as his last parting crime.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 
Election 2020: Biden says his 'concern' is Trump will 'steal election'
The warnings from President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden are growing louder and earlier than in 2016, when Trump decried a "rigged" political system in the final weeks before his victory over Hillary Clinton.

The claims are also more direct, reflecting the deeply divided nation that has defined the Trump era.
Trumps says if he loses in November he'll 'go on and do other things' - The Washington Post
“Certainly if I don’t win, I don’t win. I mean, you know, go on and do other things,” Trump said during a Fox News interview that aired Friday afternoon.

“I think that would be a very sad thing for our country,” he added.

Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, predicted during an interview on “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah” on Wednesday that Trump “is going to try to steal this election.” Biden called it his “single greatest concern.”
Let's see if he actually does that.
 
Soleimani was not a US citizen.

I thought you were talking about Obama's extra-judicial murder of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Yea, I've got zero problem with killing Anwar. He was at war with the US. He planned and executed several attacks against the US. He was actively planning additional attacks. He was at war with the US and in an active battlefield. A US Judge ruled that the attack was legal under the congressionally passed "Authorization for Use of Military Force" act. We have no police force in Yemon and had no way to arrest him even if we wanted to.
 
Soleimani was not a US citizen.

I thought you were talking about Obama's extra-judicial murder of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Yea, I've got zero problem with killing Anwar. He was at war with the US. He planned and executed several attacks against the US. He was actively planning additional attacks. He was at war with the US and in an active battlefield. A US Judge ruled that the attack was legal under the congressionally passed "Authorization for Use of Military Force" act. We have no police force in Yemon and had no way to arrest him even if we wanted to.

If you have zero problems with killing Anwar then you have zero problems disposing of the entire legal process simply because the person in charge says "I think he's bad." That is not a good thing.

Maybe it is because you agree with the person in charge, and would object if you didn't agree, but you have just approved of disposing of the entire legal process.
 
Yea, I've got zero problem with killing Anwar. He was at war with the US. He planned and executed several attacks against the US. He was actively planning additional attacks. He was at war with the US and in an active battlefield. A US Judge ruled that the attack was legal under the congressionally passed "Authorization for Use of Military Force" act. We have no police force in Yemon and had no way to arrest him even if we wanted to.

If you have zero problems with killing Anwar then you have zero problems disposing of the entire legal process simply because the person in charge says "I think he's bad." That is not a good thing.

Maybe it is because you agree with the person in charge, and would object if you didn't agree, but you have just approved of disposing of the entire legal process.

Presidents have been assassinating targets overseas who pose a threat to the US for many many years. It's just that Obama was far more open about it. Trump carries them out all the time. Why the double standard? Why do you only hold Obama to your very high standard?
 
Yea, I've got zero problem with killing Anwar. He was at war with the US. He planned and executed several attacks against the US. He was actively planning additional attacks. He was at war with the US and in an active battlefield. A US Judge ruled that the attack was legal under the congressionally passed "Authorization for Use of Military Force" act. We have no police force in Yemon and had no way to arrest him even if we wanted to.

If you have zero problems with killing Anwar then you have zero problems disposing of the entire legal process simply because the person in charge says "I think he's bad." That is not a good thing.

Maybe it is because you agree with the person in charge, and would object if you didn't agree, but you have just approved of disposing of the entire legal process.

Presidents have been assassinating targets overseas who pose a threat to the US for many many years. It's just that Obama was far more open about it. Trump carries them out all the time. Why the double standard? Why do you only hold Obama to your very high standard?

Because Anwar was a US Citizen. Unlike all the other overseas assassinations, Anwar was a US Citizen. That is what makes him different from all the others. There is a standard applied to US Citizens that isn't applied to anyone else, even if it should be applied to everyone else. Whether or not you think everyone should be held to the same standard that is not the case, and Anwar was a US citizen so therefore there is a higher standard. Citizenship means something.

Assassinating a citizen of a different country, yeah that is bad in most cases. Doing it to a US Citizen, when not in an active battlefield, that is worse. You say you don't care, but you should, because the laws that should have protected Anwar are the same laws that should protect you.
 
Presidents have been assassinating targets overseas who pose a threat to the US for many many years. It's just that Obama was far more open about it. Trump carries them out all the time. Why the double standard? Why do you only hold Obama to your very high standard?

Because Anwar was a US Citizen.

Emphasis on "was." He effectively renounced that citizenship--and thereby any of its subsequent rights/protections, such as due process--when he actively allied himself with a declared enemy of the US.

Aside from that, however, is the fact that police officers routinely deny US citizens' their right of due process every time they shoot to kill a suspected criminal. The very act of authorizing police officers--as a general operating principle--to use deadly force against US citizens is, arguably, a defacto suspension of the right of due process, left up to the individual officers to determine in any given scenario.

Iow, we understand and accept that there are certain circumstances where due process is not possible.
 
Last edited:
Presidents have been assassinating targets overseas who pose a threat to the US for many many years. It's just that Obama was far more open about it. Trump carries them out all the time. Why the double standard? Why do you only hold Obama to your very high standard?

Because Anwar was a US Citizen. Unlike all the other overseas assassinations, Anwar was a US Citizen. That is what makes him different from all the others. There is a standard applied to US Citizens that isn't applied to anyone else, even if it should be applied to everyone else. Whether or not you think everyone should be held to the same standard that is not the case, and Anwar was a US citizen so therefore there is a higher standard. Citizenship means something.
What standard was applied for justifying the attack on Anwar?
 
Presidents have been assassinating targets overseas who pose a threat to the US for many many years. It's just that Obama was far more open about it. Trump carries them out all the time. Why the double standard? Why do you only hold Obama to your very high standard?

Because Anwar was a US Citizen.

Emphasis on "was." He effectively renounced that citizenship--and thereby any of its subsequent rights/protections, such as due process--when he actively allied himself with a declared enemy of the US.

"Effectively". That's not good enough.

What standard was applied for justifying the attack on Anwar?

Good question. He certainly wasn't on an active battlefield, and he certainly wasn't tried in any court.
 
Back
Top Bottom