learningJ24

What happens if Trump refuses to step down if he loses

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You all have it backwards. What if he "wins"? The chances of non-Trumpers believing the election to be legitimate as about as high as the chances of Hillary Clinton being the next swimsuit model for Sports Illustrated. Even if he does win for real I don't see how he could ever convince anyone of that.

If he wins, it will go on about like it did last time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Putting party over country? Well, I'll be hornswoggled. We know the Republicans would never do that.

An excellent example of "whataboutism" to deflect from the question.  Well fucking done, Ish.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Thanks for the responses and for admitting you have no idea!  I have to say that I do not understand your delineations much.  "those things that happen" and "Pre-election behavior" don't really mean anything.  For what it's worth, 2016s winner and his party are still complaining about election fraud.

 As something of a student of history, there's only one thing that is new in this whole situation, and that's the total unaccountability of the public thanks to anonymized social media.  Everything else is same old, same old.  The first time anyone complained about an election procedure was most likely 200,000 years ago when some troglodyte in a cave drew the short stick and had to clean the shit pit.

Let me help ya counselor - before the election? most things said/done are electoral rhetoric.  That matters until the last vote has been cast.  After?  What matters is what someone does when they take office - whinging about stupid shit from 30 years ago isn't important to the present or the future, unless you want to reduce that persons' influence in office.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Let me help ya counselor - before the election? most things said/done are electoral rhetoric.  That matters until the last vote has been cast.  After?  What matters is what someone does when they take office - whinging about stupid shit from 30 years ago isn't important to the present or the future, unless you want to reduce that persons' influence in office.  

 

That quote was from after one election, which when it is over is before the next election. So are you saying words only matter the "Day Of" the election?

He said it. He means it, maybe more than Reagan meant it. But at least Reagan was floating the idea of a change in the CONUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

That quote was from after one election, which when it is over is before the next election. So are you saying words only matter the "Day Of" the election?

He said it. He means it, maybe more than Reagan meant it. But at least Reagan was floating the idea of a change in the CONUS.

And I don't think that "that quote" is as sinister or as serious as you want it to be.   Of course, I'm not spending my every waking moment looking for vilification, so you might have somethin' on me here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And I don't think that "that quote" is as sinister or as serious as you want it to be.   Of course, I'm not spending my every waking moment looking for vilification, so you might have somethin' on me here. 

I know, Presidential comments just aren't what they used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Now THAT is the god's honest truth.  You just can't stand on ANYTHING this goof says.  

Yeah, such a silly goof.  Can you believe some people actually use all those silly things he says to murder people?  What a goof!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lasal said:

Do you have any evidence of this? I'm not aware of any left wing conspiracy theories that have any large scale traction. Now, on the other hand, right wing conspiracy theories with traction go all the way to the top elected official of the Republican party.

IMHO of course, but with all the proven, suspected, guessed at, suspected, and imagined Russian shenanigans going on plus Moscow Mitch guaranteeing that not much can be done about it there is enough fertilizer there for every kind of conspiracy theory and then some.  Add in various voter suppression schemes and season to taste ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

IMHO of course, but with all the proven, suspected, guessed at, suspected, and imagined Russian shenanigans going on plus Moscow Mitch guaranteeing that not much can be done about it there is enough fertilizer there for every kind of conspiracy theory and then some.  Add in various voter suppression schemes and season to taste ;)

 

There's fertilizer all right. But I don't see any fields to put it on in terms of a large scale or official Democratic rejection of the election results based on a conspiracy theory or collection of them. Russian influence campaigns likely have had an influence on Trump voters, but that doesn't mean that Trump votes are illegitimate. It simply means Russian agitprop had a  an influence, and that's a big problem for our democracy. Mueller thinks so anyway. Big leap from that to some official rejection of election results themselves.

I see the concern as another Republican exaggeration to make elections less about issues and more about division and fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What's happened in the past is EXACTLY what's happening now - a lot of whinging, and nothing else.   Now - *IF* the imagined event that so many are crying about comes to pass?   That's when we'll have something to talk about.   

The actual mechanics of the transfer of power indeed DID transpire, but, has that stopped elected Dems from constantly suggesting that the election results they didn't like were illegitimate?  Isn't that the basis for the "birthers"?   A baseless attempt to de- legitimize election results they didn't like? Isn't this exactly what many here are projecting?  

Are you saying birtherism is baseless?

Are you also saying that the reports by our government that say Russia interfered with our election baseless?

Are you saying that it's baseless to think that if Trump were revealed to have had an affair with a porn star, and paid her off just before an election (probably illegally)  that the results of the election would be exactly the same?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're comparing birtherism by some people as being the same as other people actually listening to the intelligence community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike G said:

 

Are you saying that it's baseless to think that if Trump were revealed to have had an affair with a porn star, and paid her off just before an election (probably illegally)  that the results of the election would be exactly the same?

 

Yeah, If the grab em by the pussy thing didn't sink him a porn star or two probably wouldn't have either... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Yeah, If the grab em by the pussy thing didn't sink him a porn star or two probably wouldn't have either... 

How handy for him that that raft of emails was released just after that came out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

Yeah, such a silly goof.  Can you believe some people actually use all those silly things he says to murder people?  What a goof!

 

2 hours ago, Mike G said:

Are you saying birtherism is baseless?

Are you also saying that the reports by our government that say Russia interfered with our election baseless?

Are you saying that it's baseless to think that if Trump were revealed to have had an affair with a porn star, and paid her off just before an election (probably illegally)  that the results of the election would be exactly the same?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're comparing birtherism by some people as being the same as other people actually listening to the intelligence community.

Mike - you're imagining a buncha stuff that simply ain't so.  Come back when you have something real to talk about. Til then? STFU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What's happened in the past is EXACTLY what's happening now - a lot of whinging, and nothing else.   Now - *IF* the imagined event that so many are crying about comes to pass?   That's when we'll have something to talk about.   

The actual mechanics of the transfer of power indeed DID transpire, but, has that stopped elected Dems from constantly suggesting that the election results they didn't like were illegitimate?  Isn't that the basis for the "birthers"?   A baseless attempt to de- legitimize election results they didn't like? Isn't this exactly what many here are projecting?  

No

What people here are projecting is the possibility that when Trump's term of office is up, either because he loses or because he wins and another 4 years go by, he will outright refuse to leave office.

Given his past behavior, I believe it's possible. Given the behavior of the Republican Party, I think most Republicans including the leadership will laugh and say "aww you crybaby libby-rulls, watcha gonna do now, huh? Huh?"

Is that what you mean by "whinging"

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No

What people here are projecting is the possibility that when Trump's term of office is up, either because he loses or because he wins and another 4 years go by, he will outright refuse to leave office.

Given his past behavior, I believe it's possible. Given the behavior of the Republican Party, I think most Republicans including the leadership will laugh and say "aww you crybaby libby-rulls, watcha gonna do now, huh? Huh?"

Is that what you mean by "whinging"

- DSK

Are you reading what you write? Why WOULD he leave if he wins again?  The fuckin libbies HAVE pissed off a large portion of the populace, doesnt the last election sufficiently illustrate that for you? So - instead of trying to understand WHY that is, and figuring out how to counter those feelings with fact and information, you choose to discount those feelings, and disregard the people who hold them.  How'd that work for you in 2016?  Look ya loveable ass, I'm not saying your wrong to be dismayed at current circumstances, but  I dont think the way you're going about changing them is gonna work like ya think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you reading what you write? Why WOULD he leave if he wins again? 

 

You're definitely not reading what you're replying to

11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No

What people here are projecting is the possibility that when Trump's term of office is up, either because he loses or because he wins and another 4 years go by, he will outright refuse to leave office.

 

Drunk again, asshole?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You're definitely not reading what you're replying to

Drunk again, asshole?

- DSK

I misread what you typed reading on a cell phone- IF he refuses to leave after that, 5 years from now, you'll have a point. Now? You making an issue of nothing shows who the asshole is, doesnt ir? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I misread what you typed reading on a cell phone- IF he refuses to leave after that, 5 years from now, you'll have a point. Now? You making an issue of nothing shows who the asshole is, doesnt ir? 

Par for the course.

You're definitely Republican all the way thru, can't tolerate the idea that you might be responsible for your own actions

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Par for the course.

You're definitely Republican all the way thru, can't tolerate the idea that you might be responsible for your own actions

- DSK

Have another glass of wine  brudda.  I am - and enjoying the humor of your ire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No

What people here are projecting is the possibility that when Trump's term of office is up, either because he loses or because he wins and another 4 years go by, he will outright refuse to leave office.

Given his past behavior, I believe it's possible. Given the behavior of the Republican Party, I think most Republicans including the leadership will laugh and say "aww you crybaby libby-rulls, watcha gonna do now, huh? Huh?"

Is that what you mean by "whinging"

- DSK

 

Why would you and they posit something that would be a meaningless act?  The whole thread is inane.

The POTUS isn't the only one who takes a oath to uphold the constitution.  There is a term of office for the president and term limits. 

If re-elected, he would have no way to run again without a constitutional amendment and it would take two thirds of the states to get rid of the 22nd amendment.

Once there is a President-elect the transition process starts and power shifts to the new guy.  The full constitutional authority of the office comes to him with his inauguration and the former POTUS might get a farewell ride on the Presidential Aircraft but, it won't be Air Force One.

Everyone else would refuse to obey.  The Secret Service could treat him as a intruder in the White House and arrest him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he refuses to step away then unless the FBI, Secret Service or some other agency steps in; come 12:01pm on January 20, 2021 we become a banana republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

Mike - you're imagining a buncha stuff that simply ain't so.  Come back when you have something real to talk about. Til then? STFU. 

Hey, you're the one comparing birtherism to "but, has that stopped elected Dems from constantly suggesting that the election results they didn't like were illegitimate? "

One IS baseless, and the other is basically just listening to the people paid to protect our country.

 

Mike

By the way, I'm NOT the guy complaining about the lack of civil discourse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 8:19 PM, learningJ24 said:

Trump seems to be laying the groundwork to hang on to power if he should lose in '20. From claiming to want two years added to this term, multiple lawsuits, rejection of his popular vote loss, discussion of "2nd Amendment solutions" and "Russians helping Democrats", how would government function under multiple challenges to results and Trump refusing to concede?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/joshua-geltzer-election-peaceful-transition-of-power-donald-trump.html

Thanks for the laugh. I remember they were saying the same thing about Obama. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you reading what you write? Why WOULD he leave if he wins again?  The fuckin libbies HAVE pissed off a large portion of the populace, doesnt the last election sufficiently illustrate that for you? So - instead of trying to understand WHY that is, and figuring out how to counter those feelings with fact and information, you choose to discount those feelings, and disregard the people who hold them.  How'd that work for you in 2016?  Look ya loveable ass, I'm not saying your wrong to be dismayed at current circumstances, but  I dont think the way you're going about changing them is gonna work like ya think. 

Glad to see you’re no longer claiming to be conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The fuckin libbies HAVE pissed off a large portion of the populace, doesnt the last election sufficiently illustrate that for you?

If the libbies have pissed off so many people why are conservatives not running in droves, and why did libbies (though most of them are just moderates, you know, the kind of people you pine for) win big?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

Thanks for the laugh. I remember they were saying the same thing about Obama. :D

Yeah, but Obama wasn't saying it.  Trump is saying it.  No I don't think he could pull it off but he can inspire his deplorables to make trouble for his amusement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:

 

Why would you and they posit something that would be a meaningless act?  The whole thread is inane.

The POTUS isn't the only one who takes a oath to uphold the constitution.  There is a term of office for the president and term limits. 

If re-elected, he would have no way to run again without a constitutional amendment and it would take two thirds of the states to get rid of the 22nd amendment.

Once there is a President-elect the transition process starts and power shifts to the new guy.  The full constitutional authority of the office comes to him with his inauguration and the former POTUS might get a farewell ride on the Presidential Aircraft but, it won't be Air Force One.

Everyone else would refuse to obey.  The Secret Service could treat him as a intruder in the White House and arrest him.

Please note- I'm not the one that started this thread.

However, plenty of people have not done what they are supposed to do. Seeing President Trump over the past 2+ years, it does not seem at all improbable that he would refuse to leave, and that Republican leadership would shrug off his usurping office. As for the various agencies you are hoping to enforce the actual Constitution, they are employees. They take orders. Some would refuse, some would go along enthusiastically.

I'm somewhat relieved that you think it's a bad idea

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lasal said:

There's fertilizer all right. But I don't see any fields to put it on in terms of a large scale or official Democratic rejection of the election results based on a conspiracy theory or collection of them. Russian influence campaigns likely have had an influence on Trump voters, but that doesn't mean that Trump votes are illegitimate. It simply means Russian agitprop had a  an influence, and that's a big problem for our democracy. Mueller thinks so anyway. Big leap from that to some official rejection of election results themselves.

I see the concern as another Republican exaggeration to make elections less about issues and more about division and fear.

You might want to tell that to some of your elk.  Many of them have point blank here on PA said the election results themselves were illegitimate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Have another glass of wine  brudda.  I am - and enjoying the humor of your ire. 

My "ire" is just pointing out what a childish dumbshit you are.

Enjoy

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mike G said:

Hey, you're the one comparing birtherism to "but, has that stopped elected Dems from constantly suggesting that the election results they didn't like were illegitimate? "

One IS baseless, and the other is basically just listening to the people paid to protect our country.

 

Mike

By the way, I'm NOT the guy complaining about the lack of civil discourse.

You're right *I* am the guy constantly calling for civil discourse.   

I was pointing out that "birtherism" is baseless, and its an example of the right trying to deligitimize election results by using a baseless claim to suggest that he should have never been IN the election, much less won it.  It's BS no matter which side does it.   After the election?  It's over - there are no "instant replays" - and it's time to get on w/the people's business.  In Trump's case?  There's PLENTY to complain about in his post-election behavior, and the constant palaver about the illegitimacy of the election only serves to fuel those who might think that any Trump loss is part of a left-wing conspiracy.   It's just not necessary or helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right *I* am the guy constantly calling for civil discourse.   

I was pointing out that "birtherism" is baseless, and its an example of the right trying to deligitimize election results by using a baseless claim to suggest that he should have never been IN the election, much less won it.  It's BS no matter which side does it.   After the election?  It's over - there are no "instant replays" - and it's time to get on w/the people's business.  In Trump's case?  There's PLENTY to complain about in his post-election behavior, and the constant palaver about the illegitimacy of the election only serves to fuel those who might think that any Trump loss is part of a left-wing conspiracy.   It's just not necessary or helpful. 

Is suggesting that there might be problem with transition of power when Trump's term ends "trying to de-legitimize" his election?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is suggesting that there might be problem with transition of power when Trump's term ends "trying to de-legitimize" his election?

- DSK

Is that what's happening?  I've mistaken the "sky is falling" screed for the posit of a hypothetical, and a discussion of likely counters to that hypothetical?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Is that what's happening?  I've mistaken the "sky is falling" screed for the posit of a hypothetical, and a discussion of likely counters to that hypothetical?   

 

Perhaps.

Surely you're not mistaken, though. That would be completely unthinkable, like apologizing. Only for fools and weaklings and other left-leaning lesser lights

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you think that a prosecutor that believes in their "heart of hearts" that a suspect has committed a crime but knows there is no chance of getting a conviction also a "coward" and legally wrong based upon their oath? Where would Mueller fit into your scenario re: his failure to prefer charges for obstruction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bridhb said:

Yeah, but Obama wasn't saying it.  Trump is saying it.  No I don't think he could pull it off but he can inspire his deplorables to make trouble for his amusement.

Yes and I feel that the russians are somehow behind this! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You might want to tell that to some of your elk.  Many of them have point blank here on PA said the election results themselves were illegitimate.  

I'll set up an intervention.

Meanwhile, you've gotta admit that crying about any tiny number of libs saying the election itself was illegitimate has become another Republican exaggeration to make elections less about issues and more about division and fear.

It's a rally the base scheme.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

Thanks for the laugh. I remember they were saying the same thing about Obama. :D

Who are "they"?

Obama never floated the idea, then claimed it was a joke. Obama wasn't facing criminal charges the moment he was no longer President. Obama didn't behave in any way that suggested that this could be a possibility.

This thread needs to be saved for posterity to see how the elk react *if* Trump loses the election, refuses to leave the White House, claims the election was rigged by Obama, Hillary, Comey, the deep state, etc, declares martial law and disallows public gatherings with the use of military force (all of which he can do during the transition period).

Will the "2nd amendment people" gather to protect Trump? Or will they gather to protect the constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Please note- I'm not the one that started this thread.

However, plenty of people have not done what they are supposed to do. Seeing President Trump over the past 2+ years, it does not seem at all improbable that he would refuse to leave, and that Republican leadership would shrug off his usurping office. As for the various agencies you are hoping to enforce the actual Constitution, they are employees. They take orders. Some would refuse, some would go along enthusiastically.

I'm somewhat relieved that you think it's a bad idea

-DSK

That's some really imaginative drivel there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

Will the "2nd amendment people" gather to protect Trump? Or will they gather to protect the constitution?

The "law abiding" gun owners will abide with the law, whatever it is at the time..... and with the person who lays down the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

The "law abiding" gun owners will abide with the law, whatever it is at the time..... and with the person who lays down the law.

Then we will see how many “responsible gun owners” really do exist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nice! said:

This thread needs to be saved for posterity to see how the elk react *if*

What "if" the moon really is made of cheese? What happens then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Saorsa said:
On 9/18/2019 at 7:43 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Please note- I'm not the one that started this thread.

However, plenty of people have not done what they are supposed to do. Seeing President Trump over the past 2+ years, it does not seem at all improbable that he would refuse to leave, and that Republican leadership would shrug off his usurping office. As for the various agencies you are hoping to enforce the actual Constitution, they are employees. They take orders. Some would refuse, some would go along enthusiastically.

I'm somewhat relieved that you think it's a bad idea

 

That's some really imaginative drivel there.

 

Yeah, it's so imaginative, it's like it really happened!

First of thousands of news hits on goggle search "trump refuse to leave office":

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/16/trump-says-supporters-could-demand-he-not-leave-after-two-terms/1471915001/

So you're backpedaling on the idea that -you- personally would not support Trump appointing himself President-For-Life? Looks like AGITC does not support the idea but would not oppose Trump on it, after all the alternative is to vote Democrat

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Yeah, it's so imaginative, it's like it really happened!

First of thousands of news hits on goggle search "trump refuse to leave office":

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/16/trump-says-supporters-could-demand-he-not-leave-after-two-terms/1471915001/

So you're backpedaling on the idea that -you- personally would not support Trump appointing himself President-For-Life? Looks like AGITC does not support the idea but would not oppose Trump on it, after all the alternative is to vote Democrat

- DSK

Quoting for posterity so that we can hold this up the next time someone makes an offhand comment, and the peanut gallery suggests that it shouldn't be taken seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Yeah, it's so imaginative, it's like it really happened!

First of thousands of news hits on goggle search "trump refuse to leave office":

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/16/trump-says-supporters-could-demand-he-not-leave-after-two-terms/1471915001/

So you're backpedaling on the idea that -you- personally would not support Trump appointing himself President-For-Life? Looks like AGITC does not support the idea but would not oppose Trump on it, after all the alternative is to vote Democrat

- DSK

Why are you making the idiotic assumption that I ever had such a ridiculous idea in regards to Trump or anyone else for that matter?

Anyone deciding to appoint themselves president for life, over the will of the people, is the precise and accurate basis for the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why are you making the idiotic assumption that I ever had such a ridiculous idea in regards to Trump or anyone else for that matter?

Anyone deciding to appoint themselves president for life, over the will of the people, is the precise and accurate basis for the second amendment.

You really don’t understand the 2nd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That's some really imaginative drivel there.

Maybe it's reflective of just how pathetically supine and spineless you sad sack of shit elk are in the era of Trump?

BTW: you figured out what a neoliberal is yet dumbfuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

What "if" the moon really is made of cheese? What happens then? 

Thank you for this insightful and intelligent commentary. 

Perhaps you failed to notice that the entire point of this thread was to discuss a possible future scenario that has been hinted at numerous times by the person who will eventually decide if it's going to happen. And one that fits with a pattern of behaviour already exhibited by that person. So yes, while it is a hypothetical, that hypothetical was outlined in the premise of the thread. If you don't like discussions of such speculative hypothetical scenarios, go make your useless posts somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 9:01 PM, Saorsa said:

 

Why would you and they posit something that would be a meaningless act?  The whole thread is inane.

The POTUS isn't the only one who takes a oath to uphold the constitution.  There is a term of office for the president and term limits. 

If re-elected, he would have no way to run again without a constitutional amendment and it would take two thirds of the states to get rid of the 22nd amendment.

Once there is a President-elect the transition process starts and power shifts to the new guy.  The full constitutional authority of the office comes to him with his inauguration and the former POTUS might get a farewell ride on the Presidential Aircraft but, it won't be Air Force One.

Everyone else would refuse to obey.  The Secret Service could treat him as a intruder in the White House and arrest him.

That is the key question.  If he just decided to remain president, the world, the executive branch, the marshal's service, and the military would all have a good laugh and then follow the orders of the new president and any court orders that are issued to enforce the transition including physically removing him from wherever he might happen to be.   

But, if, instead, they all continue to follow Trump's orders, then that would be called a coup.  That, of course is as ridiculous as this entire thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why are you making the idiotic assumption that I ever had such a ridiculous idea in regards to Trump or anyone else for that matter?

Anyone deciding to appoint themselves president for life, over the will of the people, is the precise and accurate basis for the second amendment.

 

22 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Thank you for this insightful and intelligent commentary. 

Perhaps you failed to notice that the entire point of this thread was to discuss a possible future scenario that has been hinted at numerous times by the person who will eventually decide if it's going to happen. And one that fits with a pattern of behaviour already exhibited by that person. So yes, while it is a hypothetical, that hypothetical was outlined in the premise of the thread. If you don't like discussions of such speculative hypothetical scenarios, go make your useless posts somewhere else.

 

I would say that he's more than hinted at it, several times Trump has come right out and said he would not leave office just because of some bullshit election or the trivial fact that his term(s) is up.

And we have the PA righties assurance that they would not (well maybe) support such a move, unless it pissed off libby-rulls AND the gunnutz agreed.

And if it -did- happen of course it would be better than Hillary, which would make it the Democrats fault anyway

 

1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Quoting for posterity so that we can hold this up the next time someone makes an offhand comment, and the peanut gallery suggests that it shouldn't be taken seriously. 

 

At the moment, I don't take it seriously. But the reaction from the Trumpalos and non-supporters has been kind of telling.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Maybe it's reflective of just how pathetically supine and spineless you sad sack of shit elk are in the era of Trump?

BTW: you figured out what a neoliberal is yet dumbfuck?

Yes, a communist hiding his/her true beliefs with a different label.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

That is the key question.  If he just decided to remain president, the world, the executive branch, the marshal's service, and the military would all have a good laugh and then follow the orders of the new president and any court orders that are issued to enforce the transition including physically removing him from wherever he might happen to be.   

But, if, instead, they all continue to follow Trump's orders, then that would be called a coup.  That, of course is as ridiculous as this entire thread.  

Do not forget, in a scenario where he isn't re-elected, he will have the better part of 2 months to sit in the Oval and brood about how to avoid leaving it (and avoid the criminal charges that are coming the moment he leaves it). He will tweet-storm like never before to rally his rabid base. There could be protests turning into riots. He can and will declare martial law. The military is required to follow his orders at least until inauguration, and he could use that to stall or even cancel inauguration. He could also start a foreign war solely a distraction. Nothing is off the table for a narcissist sociopath backed into a corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

 

I would say that he's more than hinted at it, several times Trump has come right out and said he would not leave office just because of some bullshit election or the trivial fact that his term(s) is up.

And we have the PA righties assurance that they would not (well maybe) support such a move, unless it pissed off libby-rulls AND the gunnutz agreed.

And if it -did- happen of course it would be better than Hillary, which would make it the Democrats fault anyway

 

 

At the moment, I don't take it seriously. But the reaction from the Trumpalos and non-supporters has been kind of telling.

- DSK

From Trump's comments, is there a single human being on the planet that believes that Trump intends to remain as president beyond whatever is his final elected term?

That person definitely belongs on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

Do not forget, in a scenario where he isn't re-elected, he will have the better part of 2 months to sit in the Oval and brood about how to avoid leaving it (and avoid the criminal charges that are coming the moment he leaves it). He will tweet-storm like never before to rally his rabid base. There could be protests turning into riots. He can and will declare martial law. The military is required to follow his orders at least until inauguration, and he could use that to stall or even cancel inauguration. He could also start a foreign war solely a distraction. Nothing is off the table for a narcissist sociopath backed into a corner.

All of that might be good for a good laugh, but once his term ends, no one that matters is going to follow his "orders."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

From Trump's comments, is there a single human being on the planet that believes that Trump intends to remain as president beyond whatever is his final elected term?

That person definitely belongs on this forum.

I'm here. I think Donnie has to stay in office because the option is staying in jail. He will fight tooth and nail to keep his kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

All of that might be good for a good laugh, but once his term ends, no one that matters is going to follow his "orders."

Will the follow his orders between election night and inauguration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

I'm here. I think Donnie has to stay in office because the option is staying in jail. He will fight tooth and nail to keep his kingdom.

If only there was a way to monetize this opinion of yours.  I would take a bet on that in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

Will the follow his orders between election night and inauguration?

You think that the military is going to physically restrain every US Supreme Court Justice from swearing in the newly elected president?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 5:13 PM, learningJ24 said:

So would you think that a prosecutor that believes in their "heart of hearts" that a suspect has committed a crime but knows there is no chance of getting a conviction also a "coward" and legally wrong based upon their oath? Where would Mueller fit into your scenario re: his failure to prefer charges for obstruction?

No.  I see the "prosecutor" in your scenario as the Senate.  The House are the cops who are doing the investigation and ultimately the arrest.  I would expect the cops to arrest a perp irregardless if they thought the prosecutor was going to try the case.  If there was enough evadents to arrest, they should arrest.  

And Yes, I expect the House to do their fucking duty irregardless of the political consequences because that is what they swore an oath to do.  I expect the senate to do the same, but they are a bunchacunts.  That however should in no way drive what the House does or doesn't do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 7:55 PM, Nice! said:

Will the "2nd amendment people" gather to protect Trump? Or will they gather to protect the constitution?

I can't speak for everyone, but I know what I would be gathering to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Anyone deciding to appoint themselves president for life, over the will of the people, is the precise and accurate basis for the second amendment.

You really don’t understand the 2nd

He understands it a fuckload better than you do, r'zlet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Yes, a communist hiding his/her true beliefs with a different label.

 

:lol: I love when you double down on your fail.

Nothing says "communist" like treating the market as a deity and market-oriented reforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

Do not forget, in a scenario where he isn't re-elected, he will have the better part of 2 months to sit in the Oval and brood about how to avoid leaving it (and avoid the criminal charges that are coming the moment he leaves it). He will tweet-storm like never before to rally his rabid base. There could be protests turning into riots. He can and will declare martial law. The military is required to follow his orders at least until inauguration, and he could use that to stall or even cancel inauguration. He could also start a foreign war solely a distraction. Nothing is off the table for a narcissist sociopath backed into a corner.

That's all a lovely liberal fantasy.  But the salient point is the military does NOT have to follow illegal orders.  

I don't care how many times Il Cheetolini says it, its not going to happen and no one is going to follow his orders.  If there are some few idiots who protest and riot over it, they deserve to get shot - because they will be in the wrong.  

Its an interesting hypothetical thought exercise as a liberal orgasmic wet dream, but the reality is shitstain can say this all he wants, but it ain't gonna happen.  Just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's all a lovely liberal fantasy.  But the salient point is the military does NOT have to follow illegal orders.  

I don't care how many times Il Cheetolini says it, its not going to happen and no one is going to follow his orders.  If there are some few idiots who protest and riot over it, they deserve to get shot - because they will be in the wrong.  

Its an interesting hypothetical thought exercise as a liberal orgasmic wet dream, but the reality is shitstain can say this all he wants, but it ain't gonna happen.  Just saying.  

I hope you are correct, but I don't share your optimism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I hope you are correct, but I don't share your optimism.

A $hundy says I'm correct.  Want any of that action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

Will the follow his orders between election night and inauguration?

Yep, the legal ones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Also they are from Romania.

The nice thing about one word labels, assigned by others is that they can mean whatever the fuck you want to attribute to the person to whome you are applying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A $hundy says I'm correct.  Want any of that action?

I sincerely hope I am wrong about this. I don't want to make a bet where I hope that I lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's all a lovely liberal fantasy.  But the salient point is the military does NOT have to follow illegal orders.  

I don't care how many times Il Cheetolini says it, its not going to happen and no one is going to follow his orders.  If there are some few idiots who protest and riot over it, they deserve to get shot - because they will be in the wrong.  

Its an interesting hypothetical thought exercise as a liberal orgasmic wet dream, but the reality is shitstain can say this all he wants, but it ain't gonna happen.  Just saying.  

The Confounded Carolinian found a thousand hits with google.  Don't that make it a FACT!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The Confounded Carolinian found a thousand hits with google.  Don't that make it a FACT!!!!

 

Only 1000! I would have thought more from the TDS afflicted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The nice thing about one word labels, assigned by others is that they can mean whatever the fuck you want to attribute to the person to whome you are applying it.

NeoLiberals famously piss off the socialists/communists for NOT being anything like a socialist or communist. Kind of like confusing the KKK and NAACP :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The Confounded Carolinian found a thousand hits with google.  Don't that make it a FACT!!!!

 

Only 1000! I would have thought more from the TDS afflicted. 

So, are you all going to now make the claim that President Trump has never stated that he would/should/could refuse to leave office when his term(s) is up?

Think it over... I bet you'll go with "yeah, he did but he was joking, it was just locker room talk, he lies all the time, blah blah blah"

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, are you all going to now make the claim that President Trump has never stated that he would/should/could refuse to leave office when his term(s) is up?

Think it over... I bet you'll go with "yeah, he did but he was joking, it was just locker room talk, he lies all the time, blah blah blah"

- DSK

You have to be stupid to pay attention to what Trump says.  Or, any other politician for that matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, are you all going to now make the claim that President Trump has never stated that he would/should/could refuse to leave office when his term(s) is up?

Think it over... I bet you'll go with "yeah, he did but he was joking, it was just locker room talk, he lies all the time, blah blah blah"

- DSK

I think it's hilarious that the TDS afflicted hang on his (Trumps) every word. Talk about getting in your head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

NeoLiberals famously piss off the socialists/communists for NOT being anything like a socialist or communist. Kind of like confusing the KKK and NAACP :rolleyes:

The point is using one word labels and confusing them with thought.

Kinda like, Modern, Post-Modern, and Retro.

Neo means new so I guess that means it's an absolute concept now and it's stuck in concrete and we have to decide between New Liberalism, Social Liberalism,  left Liberalism, modern Liberalism, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an actual English word with a specific meaning. NeoConservative is another English word with a specific meaning and in both cases it is not "new". If you use it to mean just the newest thing liberals or conservatives do then no one else will understand you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

...    ...    ...

Think it over... I bet you'll go with "yeah, he did but he was joking, it was just locker room talk, he lies all the time, blah blah blah"

 

You have to be stupid to pay attention to what Trump says.  Or, any other politician for that matter.

 

BINGO!! what do I win...

... Other than proving that you are truly brainwashed into saying stupid shit and being so tiresomely predictable... and you even added the ever-popular (with righties) schtick about "all politicians are crooks/liars, so it doesn't matter that I knowing vote for one"

 

7 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

I think it's hilarious that the TDS afflicted hang on his (Trumps) every word. Talk about getting in your head. 

The TDS affliction is that the only way to get away from constant news coverage of President Trump is to be an illiterate head-in-the-sand rightie... kind of ironic, really. I'd much prefer to have news about all the interesting and important things going in the world

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

It is an actual English word with a specific meaning. NeoConservative is another English word with a specific meaning and in both cases it is not "new". If you use it to mean just the newest thing liberals or conservatives do then no one else will understand you.

Good, go deal in the absolutes of labels.

Maybe your little buddy should have capitalized Neoliberal as you did to make it a proper noun.

I have no idea why he introduced it into the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

BINGO!! what do I win...

... Other than proving that you are truly brainwashed into saying stupid shit and being so tiresomely predictable... and you even added the ever-popular (with righties) schtick about "all politicians are crooks/liars, so it doesn't matter that I knowing vote for one"

 

The TDS affliction is that the only way to get away from constant news coverage of President Trump is to be an illiterate head-in-the-sand rightie... kind of ironic, really. I'd much prefer to have news about all the interesting and important things going in the world

- DSK

Why not read what you just wrote.

It's OK to read, listen to, or view the "NEWS".  In fact, that's a good thing. Buuuuttttt, you really need to do so in a way that let's you decide if something is bullshit, feasible, affordable or whatever other criteria you think is rational.  The think thing there is critical.

For example, the way to solve the "student loan crisis" is to stop guaranteeing student loans and make them like any other loan.  No collateral, no loan.

The fact that you think Trump Derangement Syndrome is a solution and not a form of derangement is interesting.

Apparently you enjoy wallowing in your stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The point is using one word labels and confusing them with thought.

Kinda like, Modern, Post-Modern, and Retro.

Neo means new so I guess that means it's an absolute concept now and it's stuck in concrete and we have to decide between New Liberalism, Social Liberalism,  left Liberalism, modern Liberalism, etc.

Choosing nihilism over admitting you were wrong is pure Trump.

All of those labels have much thought behind them. Just because you don't give a shit, and can't be bothered to understand what they mean doesn't mean the thought doesn't exist. "postmodern" architecture is a thing, so is "modern" architecture. "classical liberalism" is very much a thing, and it's nothing to do with the modern Republican use of the word "liberal" as anything and everything bad. "classical liberalism"  is about civil liberty and economic freedom and it's this liberalism that "neoliberalism" claims linkage to. "communism" is also a thing, but even in it's broad envelope of failure I don't think there are many flavors with broad economic freedoms & markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites