Will The Trump Junta Cancel the 2020 Elections?

[Jarhyn]

Well, shit. What would your reaction be if Trump opens the Stargate? Don't just respond that there's no such thing. This, like the OP, should be taken just as seriously.

Except that there's actually plenty of historical precedent to dictators with large swaths of the government complicit to them of just running roughshod over the previous system of government and making up rules as they go along.

If you don't want to participate in a thread on the discussion of a serious topic, then maybe these are the wrong forums for you?

Fucking hell. The president only controls the executive of the federal government. He does not control the state, county, or city government. How do you not know this?

Yet you still don't answer the question: what would you do if he tried?

We have two active avenues for him to run a coup: the virus and the Ukraine charges. Seeing as he ostensibly controls a majority on the SCOTUS (we'll find out soon via the tax probe results), it doesn't matter what the Constitution says if the court responsible for enforcing it decides not to.

So he could either have his opposition arrested by his pet Barr at the DOJ or use the public health crisis to leverage a closing of the polls.

So what will you do if it happens? You claim these things are unlikely, but we are already talking about someone who has repeatedly expressed a desire to stay in office past two terms, getting back "lost" time, etc.

It's not unreasonable to think he would actually try something, especially in the presence of unrest. Now let me get back to the question: what do you, Trausti, do if he does?

 

[KeepTalking]

The Federal Government doesn’t run elections. Stop with the TDS.

Ignoring what you think likely or legal, since this administration has fuck-all concern for either likely or legal...

You still haven't weighed in on what your reaction will be to any attempts to cancel or delay elections.

What do you, Trausti, think is the appropriate reaction IF the administration makes some attempt at delaying or canceling an election?

And as a bonus for something that seems more likely, what would your reaction be to an attempt by Trump to have an opponent arrested?

If the administration actually plays into your wet dream about cancelling the election, you just ignore it.

Hey, California. Trumps says cancel your election.

Yeah, he can go fuck himself.

I mean, seriously. Do you and the other folks here just not understand federalism?

He doesn't need California to pay attention to him, he only needs to red states to cancel their elections. What will happen when half the States are not reporting any results because they did not run elections?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the administration actually plays into your wet dream about cancelling the election, you just ignore it.

Hey, California. Trumps says cancel your election.

Yeah, he can go fuck himself.

I mean, seriously. Do you and the other folks here just not understand federalism?

He doesn't need California to pay attention to him, he only needs to red states to cancel their elections. What will happen when half the States are not reporting any results because they did not run elections?

Trausti is unfortunately no position to talk about this because he apparently doesn't understand how the election works in the US for the President... and that Congress can ultimately give it the middle finger by just ignoring the Constitutional mandates for counting electors. It wouldn't be particularly legal, but who'd enforce that. SCOTUS? With what army?

 

[Jarhyn]

If the administration actually plays into your wet dream about cancelling the election, you just ignore it.

Hey, California. Trumps says cancel your election.

Yeah, he can go fuck himself.

I mean, seriously. Do you and the other folks here just not understand federalism?

He doesn't need California to pay attention to him, he only needs to red states to cancel their elections. What will happen when half the States are not reporting any results because they did not run elections?

Trausti is unfortunately no position to talk about this because he apparently doesn't understand how the election works in the US for the President... and that Congress can ultimately give it the middle finger by just ignoring the Constitutional mandates for counting electors. It wouldn't be particularly legal, but who'd enforce that. SCOTUS? With what army?

Not to mention that a huge portion of the SCOTUS, perhaps a majority at this point, wouldnt care about enforcing it: They would ass-pull a federalist society decision to say it was unconstitutional but that nobody but people he controls may enforce it, so the point is moot.

Once the constitutional crisis is manifest, that would naturally flow into a discussion of whether the Constitution may still stand at all. If enough of the government decides to suspend the Constitution, and the rest let them, legality is up for debate.

Of course, while this IS a very possible outcome, I would be hard pressed to find the person who doesn't spitball scenarios that are nonetheless completely ridiculous. I mean I've got considerations I've thought about as to if I ever get copied, fall into a time vortex and end up in the past or future, meet an extant god, meet an extant "devil", find myself existing suddenly as a Boltzmann's Brain, wake up tomorrow as myself in the fifth grade, there's an entire menu of considerations I've made about parenting a young child, still more about mentoring teens...

There are tons of things that we all think about every day, thinking about the unlikely or even impossible that nonetheless prepares us for running hypothetical plans for our immediate and likely future.

Only a huge dullard would shy away from playing such thought experiments. It takes a pretty big pussy to not want to pre-apply principles to a hypothetical context out of mere fear that one may actually be expected to hold to account on those principles.

Essentially, Trausti we want to know NOW, before it happens, if you will accept the fall of democracy or whether you will merely make excuses after the fact. Whether you think others will let him or stop him, we don't care about those others. They are not here. You are. How do YOU feel about it? Would you work to stop him? Would youerely object to it online and do nothing yourself? Would you be at his feet kissing them, praising his attempt?

 

[Elixir]

Trausti buries his head in the sand, and won't answer the question.
He thinks that Trumpie would NEVER ever ever meddle in the judiciary by convicting judges in the press for not being white enough, for handing out sentences to his pals that conform to guidelines etc. etc., or hold up Congress under threat of having its members "primaried" if they should dare send him bills x,y, or z (to the tune of more than 300).
Nah, in Trausti's lalaland, none of that would ever happen because "the pResident only controls the executive branch".

So, no need to even consider what happens if Trump loses the election then stands up and declares it null and void because of the votes 30 million non-existent illegal immigrants, and is backed by his toadies FROM THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES, McConnell and Barr. Right, Trausti? He'd never do that in your fantasyland, correct?

 

[Jarhyn]

Trausti buries his head in the sand, and won't answer the question.
He thinks that Trumpie would NEVER ever ever meddle in the judiciary by convicting judges in the press for not being white enough, for handing out sentences to his pals that conform to guidelines etc. etc., or hold up Congress under threat of having its members "primaried" if they should dare send him bills x,y, or z (to the tune of more than 300).
Nah, in Trausti's lalaland, none of that would ever happen because "the pResident only controls the executive branch".

So, no need to even consider what happens if Trump loses the election then stands up and declares it null and void because of the votes 30 million non-existent illegal immigrants, and is backed by his toadies FROM THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES, McConnell and Barr. Right, Trausti? He'd never do that in your fantasyland, correct?

I disagree. I don't think that Trausti finds it unlikely. I just think that she has determined that their principle is "defend God-Emperor" and that in order to not say the quiet part out loud, refuses to apply such things as principles lest they get into a situation where, rather than justifying after the fact, they would actually have to answer why they said a situation would prescribe a course of action that they would find unpalatable.

It's like when it took 5 pages to get Angelo to accept "IF Trump implements a 'mark of citizenship' THEN he would be rejected as Antichrist".

It's just that they don't want to be forced into the position of naming an actual condition, a line in the sand, that would trigger rejection of Trump. Once that line has been drawn they are in some way committed to that rejection. It makes it easier to not draw the line now so that they don't have to feel bad about crossing it later.

 

[Gun Nut]

Trausi,
Which better represents your point of view on this topic:

"I think it is impossible, but if Trump somehow obstructed the electoral process, I certainly would be strongly opposed and hit the street with countless others in protest"

OR

"I think it is impossible, but if Trump somehow obstructed the electoral process, it would be for very good reason and I would support it.

OR

"I think it is impossible, but if Trump somehow obstructed the electoral process, I would reserve my opinion until Fox reported the story and I would go along with however they characterize it"

 

[Elixir]

It's just that they don't want to be forced into the position of naming an actual condition, a line in the sand, that would trigger rejection of Trump.

Well, that's reasonable since it has repeatedly bitten many of them in the ass already.

Once that line has been drawn they are in some way committed to that rejection.

Prob'ly not too big a deal, given the volume of practice saying "I never said that".

It makes it easier to not draw the line now so that they don't have to feel bad about crossing it later.

... I suspect it's more just a hassle than anything that makes an "I'm not a trumpsucker" actually feel bad. If dishonesty and cognitive dissonance was a problem they wouldn't be making nice to a corrupt idiot-emperor in the first place.

 

[Gun Nut]

Well, that's reasonable since it has repeatedly bitten many of them in the ass already.



Prob'ly not too big a deal, given the volume of practice saying "I never said that".

It makes it easier to not draw the line now so that they don't have to feel bad about crossing it later.

... I suspect it's more just a hassle than anything that makes an "I'm not a trumpsucker" actually feel bad. If dishonesty and cognitive dissonance was a problem they wouldn't be making nice to a corrupt idiot-emperor in the first place.

I agree with both of you.. but I don't think Trumpsuckers really value truth or honesty when it comes to just getting the story they want to be a reality. The Trump cult's "lying for their Jesus" thing.. So, they just move on, ignore, lie, fake news.. fake news...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The election is months away and it is very hard to predict what will happen from now until then. Frankly, this is one of the things I was freaking about yesterday:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20947-Today-is-the-First-Day-I-am-Freaking-Out

No, not freaking out because of Trump being President...wondering the reaction people will have to lack of basic freedoms we have over months, almost a year. People are already panicking because of toilet paper. What happens under martial law in cities that don't have certain foods or supplies? And no actualized right to vote?

There's a non-zero probability we are on lockdown until spring 2021. How quickly will a vaccine be available and everyone get vaccinated or maybe just the most vulnerable get vaccinated and following that a little loosening? Or maybe MARTIAL LAW will be declared. No, elections do not need to be held under martial law. On the other hand, between now and then, campaigns can start really promoting electronic and mail-in procedures so that it can be done.

On the flip side, doctors in other countries that are hit harder and sooner than us have been testing various anti-virals as solutions. There are rumors of good treatments in India. So, best case scenario is that we have good treatments and vaccines very, very soon. Then, we are back in business.

So, bottom line: ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE at this point.

I have to also add a number of Biden supporters have been screaming to end the primary even before today. Now it will get worse. The Ohio primary is postponed to June. But what happens in June if nothing is solved and thousands have died? If some Democrats are accepting of postponing the primary or cancelling it because of coronavirus should they also be against postponing the election or cancelling it?

I don't think so, personally. I realize they are not exactly the same thing, but the primary is an OPPORTUNITY. It's an opportunity to develop the procedures and understanding and promote how voting should occur later in the general election under these circumstances.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cancelling the primary works only if the primary becomes uncontested. This ignores that there are more than just the Presidential nomination primaries in these elections. In fact, there are levies and other positions as well.

An uncontested general election will not happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This needs to be a poll.

Wanna set it up? Anonymous would probably be best, eh?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Maybe
4) Only if COVID-19 cases are still increasing, polls are radically against him or other extreme development

Not sure how you format those things..
But I find it unlikely that trumpsuckers or "I'm not a trumpsucker"s would participate in such a poll.

Unfortunately, I can't find any way to retroactively add a poll. I'm pretty sure the capability existed but that was long ago on a previous version of the software.