U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Whoever wins has to win big, or else.

A big win could also make people feel like it was the result of voter fraud, whoever wins. That's the problem. Trump has created an environment in which any and all elections can be in doubt now. 

[Jace, Extat]

I expect these Portland special policing actions are a prelude to 'voter security measures' at voting locations. Hope you're not a registered Democrat or you'll get driven twenty miles out of town. And that's if you're lucky.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The courts will almost certainly get involved (come on, Trump litigates everything, you think he wont for an election?), so hopefully Roberts can find his umpire cap again and declare a strike this time around.

The courts can make their decision. Let them enforce it. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I expect these Portland special policing actions are a prelude to 'voter security measures' at voting locations. Hope you're not a registered Democrat or you'll get driven twenty miles out of town. And that's if you're lucky.

Republicans this year are now not having to deal with this weird agreement that said they would not do this sort of thing - as of this year.  So yeah. 

[Horza]

8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The courts will almost certainly get involved (come on, Trump litigates everything, you think he wont for an election?), so hopefully Roberts can find his umpire cap again and declare a strike this time around.

With few known exceptions blatant partisanship has not been a factor in Supreme Court rulings on president vote counts.

[Fez]

19 minutes ago, Horza said:

Sorry to keep doing this but this is one of those sentences that pulls a knife on itself.

I don't see how. 

Quote

The franchise has been pathetically small at times, but it's never been this under threat on a national scale to those that have had it.

There is a voting franchise. It has been restricted in who has legally been allowed to have it. But those who have legally had it have been allowed to exercise it without issue. There have been regional threats to the franchise to those with it; such as African Americans in the south for at least 80 years. And there have been specific incidents of voter suppression in a given locality. But the franchise has never been universally threatened nationally like this.

What is there to be pedantic about? You can disagree with the sentiment, but I think the sentence is quite straightforward.

[Horza]

Just now, Fez said:

I don't see how. 

There is a voting franchise. It has been restricted in who has legally been allowed to have it. But those who have legally had it have been allowed to exercise it without issue. There have been regional threats to the franchise to those with it; such as African Americans in the south for at least 80 years. And there have been specific incidents of voter suppression in a given locality. But the franchise has never been universally threatened nationally like this.

What is there to be pedantic about? You can disagree with the sentiment, but I think the sentence is quite straightforward.

I dunno it just looks to me like all those qualifiers serve to undercut the grounds for believing the franchise was some secure right for those lucky enough to have it.

 

 

[Maithanet]

At this point I actually think that Roberts wants Trump gone, so a Bush v Gore party line redux might be avoided.  But it's hard to believe that Trump will respect a SC ruling that is virtually guaranteed to remove him from office.  

[Horza]

All Roberts wants is to avoid putting his name to something as blatant as Bush v Gore, and if he can find a way to get that and another Republican term he will take it.

[Fragile Bird]

If Trump caught and died from COVID-19 and Pence stepped up, we’d have trouble.

Please, God, let him live for another 3 months.

[Fragile Bird]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

So who would have taken the odds that the old foggy church lady would make the joke about someone dying before me?

Man I should have bet that one hard. I would have made off better than Butch.

I made no joke. It was a simple statement of fact.

[DMC]

For the umpteenth time, Trump would also need his choice to ignore a clear electoral loss enforced by the military or federal law enforcement.  He's been warring with the latter his entire presidency and the former does not seem particularly fond of him as well - even those predisposed to agree with him and work for him like Kelly and Mattis have been dispensed with.  It's more legitimate to wonder who will enforce Trump's obstinance than to wonder who will enforce a clear Biden victory.

[Zorral]

"No masks in Tulsa!  People are fed up!"

Cain -- the fate of licking spittle.

[Argonath Diver]

If you're scrolling facebook or forums, perhaps listen to the words being spoken about John Lewis at his funeral service right now. George W Bush delivered a solid speech. Bill Clinton is on now. I don't know when Obama is on - perhaps next. 

[Maithanet]

31 minutes ago, Horza said:

All Roberts wants is to avoid putting his name to something as blatant as Bush v Gore, and if he can find a way to get that and another Republican term he will take it.

If Roberts wants to remain the swing justice (and thus incredibly more powerful) then he needs a Democrat to replace RBG and Breyer.  If Trump picks their replacement, then he has a lot less clout.  

[SpaceChampion]

He doesn't have the jackboots to go to all 175,000 precincts to enforce anything.  So you can plan ahead to focus on protecting the swing districts.  I don't see Democrats providing anything but a lackluster and completely inadequate resistence, but you could perhaps organize that group of veterans who went to Portland and Standing Rock, to provide a wall of bodies around as many polling stations as possible.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

The courts can make their decision. Let them enforce it. 

YUP.

[article, Trump Is Now Openly Defying the Supreme Court]

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

For the umpteenth time, Trump would also need his choice to ignore a clear electoral loss enforced by the military or federal law enforcement. 

No; he simply needs to make the electoral 'loss' disputed, either in fact or in concept. You're taking for granted that the election will produce a clear winner that is so obvious that Trump has no choice but to confront facts. This tweet is indicating that he disputes the entire grounds for the election result. 

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

He's been warring with the latter his entire presidency and the former does not seem particularly fond of him as well - even those predisposed to agree with him and work for him like Kelly and Mattis have been dispensed with.  It's more legitimate to wonder who will enforce Trump's obstinance than to wonder who will enforce a clear Biden victory.

Chad Wolf. Ken Cuccinelli. Both of them have demonstrated aptly that they're willing to do whatever. 

And as stated elsewhere, the local and state police appear to be far more fond of him than the general public. 

But really, if we're at the point where we're talking about someone saying that Trump needs to be physically removed from office - do you think Biden is going to want to do that? Do you think Pelosi is? They have more spines than Gore, but both of them recognize some of the damage that that would cause - a nonpeaceful transition of power in the US government. 

I think the situation is both more scary and far more nuanced than you're putting out.

[DMC]

@Maithanet

Quote

The poll just made clear where I see the easiest place for Trump to attack the election.  

Fair enough, and I think you're right, just think you're overstating the worry and ignoring other factors.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're taking for granted that the election will produce a clear winner that is so obvious that Trump has no choice but to confront facts. This tweet is indicating that he disputes the entire grounds for the election result. 

No, I'm prefacing my statements that in the event of a clear Biden victory.  If the results are close, then yes these fears are entirely legitimate, which I've also said as we've been discussing this the past few years.  And not shit he's going to question the legitimacy of the election when he thinks he's going to lose.  That's literally what he did last time, it's entirely predictable.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Chad Wolf. Ken Cuccinelli. Both of them have demonstrated aptly that they're willing to do whatever. 

LOL, so Trump's appointees at the Homeland Security department, and state/local police, are going to enforce a coup.  Hohkay.  And yes, if Biden clearly wins I think both him and Pelosi will do whatever's necessary to remove Trump from office.  It will not that hard, and Trump is a coward that isn't going to fight in the face of such institutional pressure.  That has been demonstrated throughout his administration - he pushes the envelope, but when there's pushback he backs down and just whines on Twitter.

[Horza]

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If Roberts wants to remain the swing justice (and thus incredibly more powerful) then he needs a Democrat to replace RBG and Breyer.  If Trump picks their replacement, then he has a lot less clout.  

This is plausible for motivation but if it were the case why does he keep making it easier for Republican states to suppress the vote?