Amused to Death
Footballguy
This is what I'm worried about more than the shenanigans in Congress. Trump's tweet ended with "Stay tuned".
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
January 6th - what will happen? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maik Jeaunz
- Start date
- Status
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I consider it to pretty damn reckless of the president but I know others here think it is fine.
the moops
Footballguy
Is Hawley the first senator on record saying he will object to certification? This guy is a disgrace
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/532082-hawley-to-challenge-electoral-college-results-in-senate
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/532082-hawley-to-challenge-electoral-college-results-in-senate
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
For most of the last 20 years republicans have complained about "participation trophies" and the inability of "the left" and "kids these days" not being able to handle a loss. I hate myself for wasting so much time listening to that hogwash.
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
There are millions of trump supporters and Trump and his team have convinced many of these millions that there is massive fraud. This is going to continue to happen and I predict more senators will do this. If you step outside the traditional media bubble, you’ll see that Jan 6 has the potential to be an epic cluster.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
And as GOP up-and-comers shift further right to fight for the grassroots conservative vote, the DCCC shifts right to fight over the new middle. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Sea Duck
Footballguy
The "traditional media bubble" has it right. Hawley's stunt will have no effect whatsoever, except to signal his virtue to Trump and his base. There is no potential for a cluster, aside from the everyday potential for chaos which constantly bubbles under the surface of the Trump presidency.
I suppose that it's tantalizing to flirt with the idea of Pence hiding in his basement on January 6th, but the reality of that scenario is that Nancy Pelosi would then become Acting President on January 20th. And nobody wants that.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Been saying it for awhile, Hawley has presidential aspirations and wants to take up the Trumpism mantle. Not a surprising move from him, as far as I can tell.
shader
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
The potential for a cluster exists, but it would take unprecedented and likely unlawful actions by Pence, combined with unrest fomented by Trump and his enablers.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Instead of coyly tapdancing around the subject, maybe you could offer some thoughts about what you think -- or what right wing social media thinks -- could potentially happen? That way we could have an actual discussion on the subject, and maybe it would even serve to tamp down some of the fears?
I mean, there are an infinite number of unconstitutional acts which have the "potential" to be an epic cluster -- for example off the top of my head: Trump declaring martial law and re-running the election, Trump having Joe Biden arrested and jailed, Obama instituting Sharia Law and taking everyone's guns, etc.
But society generally doesn't give these fever dreams more than a cursory discussion because we are a nation of laws, not people.
shader
Footballguy
I'm not tapdancing? I've posted numerous articles about what could happen, and if memory serves, you've brushed most of them off.
Instead of coyly tapdancing around the subject, maybe you could offer some thoughts about what you think -- or what right wing social media thinks -- could potentially happen? That way we could have an actual discussion on the subject, and maybe it would even serve to tamp down some of the fears?
I mean, there are an infinite number of unconstitutional acts which have the "potential" to be an epic cluster -- for example off the top of my head: Trump declaring martial law and re-running the election, Trump having Joe Biden arrested and jailed, Obama instituting Sharia Law and taking everyone's guns, etc.
But society generally doesn't give these fever dreams more than a cursory discussion because we are a nation of laws, not people.
My current thinking is that it all depends how far Pence wants to push it. As president of the senate, he could literally attempt to reject the votes of contested states, and what would happen then? There's a ton of ambiguity in the process that has been argued academically for a long time. There are 19th century arguments that have never been fully resolved, mostly because there's never been a president that tried to push the process in this way. So the only way for this to play out is if Pence/Trump decide to push it. And as is always the case with Trump, it's tough to tell if he serious (unlikely) or just playing tough on twitter.
I assume when the 6th gets here , Trump/Pence will perform just enough antics to placate their base, but will ultimately back down and concede. But what if they don't and what if they push it to the limit? What's the process for Pence authoritatively taking action and forcing Trump in? How would the democrats and Biden be able to respond at that point in time? Would they have to go to the supreme court? Does the presence of 10-100k trump supporters in DC (which Trump has personally asked to come to DC) change things?
The potential for chaos is quite obvious, but it's just potential, it could turn out to be nothing.
the moops
Footballguy
Take this gently please friend. But it is helpful if you include the tweet so we can discuss it.
shader
Footballguy
Sorry man that would be helpful!https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1344359312878149634?s=20
the moops
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1344359312878149634?s=20
He has been tweeting about January 6th for a good while now. Not sure why this tweet is anything to fret overDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!
shader
Footballguy
Yes I know....
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!
Sea Duck
Footballguy
But that's just my point: there is no ambiguity here. The Constitution is very clear on the subject. It's quite explicit, actually: "The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates".
There is no "process" for Pence to "push" the limit. None. If Pence refuses to show up, then Chuck Grassley replaces him (as per the Constitution). If Grassley (or Pence) refuses to open the certificates, then Nancy Pelosi becomes Acting President on January 20th.
We do have laws and rules and procedures for this stuff.
There is no viable Constitutional path for Trump to remain President, even if every single Republican voted for it. On a purely theoretical level, the only path for Trump would be if a number of Democratic members of Congress joined forces with Republicans to oppose certification, and (despite GordonGekko's hot take proposition) that idea does not have a snowball's chance in hades of reaching culmination.
Mile High
Footballguy
What I see is a group of Congress and the President willing to do anything to stay in power. Lost the election, lost in court, lost in getting states to not certify the electors. Now they are saying they should be able to ignore all the loses and just straight out take the presidency. Not sure what you call it, but doesn't sound very American.
shader
Footballguy
I'm out of time today, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the bolded. Academics have debated it for years. There were many articles from the left, back when they'd discuss this, that warned of nightmare scenarios. Now the party line is that nothing can possibly happen, but you're setting yourself up for a rude awakening if you take that line.
Trump and the right are literally telling you what they are going to try to do, and he's openly begging people to come to Washington to support them. If you're too blinded by things like "viable constitutional paths", (a point that I'm not disagreeing with you on), you may not be open to what could potentially happen, even if that possibility is far outside of anything the US has ever seen.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
I'd like to see some links that support the claims of academic debates.
I don't doubt that there have been serious debates about Congress' ability to vote against certification, and I suspect that your memory of "the left" is purely in regards to that aspect. I very much doubt, however, that there were ever any serious, academic debates about a Vice President's ability to circumvent democracy by simply refusing to read names.
I mean, if we're gonna turn this into another episode of whataboutism, at least give the other side a chance to defend itself. It's kind of unfair to expect "the left" to defend itself against hypothetical arguments that it may not have even made.
And I'm not saying that "nothing can possibly happen". After all, it's certainly possible that Trump would declare martial law and try to re-run the election. And it's certainly possible that Trump would try to have Joe Biden arrested and jailed. And it's certainly possible that Trump might legally change his name to "Joseph R. Biden" and then have Brett Kavanaugh swear him in on January 20th (ha ha!). And it's certainly possible that aliens might reveal themselves and force the country to accept Donald J. Trump as their puppet president. But all of those "nightmare scenarios" fall into the category of "unconstitutional behavior". And how much time should we devote to analyzing and discussing theoretical-yet-implausible unconstitutional behavior? How far down the placation rabbit hole does mainstream society have to go before right wing twitter accepts the answer?
Stuff has been on the verge of happening -- any moment now -- for literally years. This is how doomsday cults work. On January 7th, people will turn their attention to January 20th. Then some other day. It will always be very soon...
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
In a healthy society, stunts like this should disqualify somebody from running for garbage commissioner, not set the stage for a presidential run.
I think the issue with the 6th is less about Pence/Congress and more about the Pro-Trump rally in DC.
I think Trump is hoping for a show of force to validate his claim to rule the party for the foreseeable future.
Hawley has not learned the most important lesson of the Trump era - those who line up in support of Trump always get burned.
This will not be the exception to the rule.
timschochet
Footballguy
Agreed. But the bothersome part is that there are more Americans that apparently agree with this particular doomsday cult than any other in our history- a huge chunk of Republicans, who knows how many?
GordonGekko
Footballguy
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/420760-pelosi-would-sabotage-progressive-agenda-with-pay-go-rules
"Specifically, likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is proposing the House adopt pay-as-you-go (paygo) rules that require all new spending be offset with either budget cuts or tax increases.These rules would also prohibit any new taxes on the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution. Overturning the rules would require a 60 percent supermajority, which means that a substantial number of Republicans would have to be pulled along to get passage.
To see why this is such a poor idea, it’s only necessary to think of many of the proposals that Democrats floated in the recent election. There is considerable support among Democrats for "Medicare for All," extending the Medicare program to the whole population. While many do not interpret this as meaning an immediate extension of Medicare to everyone, even lowering the qualifying age to 55 or 60 will mean additional spending.
Under Pelosi’s pay-go rule, this extension would be prohibited unless it was coupled with offsetting budget cuts and/or taxes on the top 20 percent."
*****
Pelosi is pushing a plan that, on it's face, sounds fiscally simple and practical to the average American citizen ( i.e. only buy something if you trade something else that equalizes it) but would kill Green New Deal ( which is not unreasonable since that's financially impossible) but also Medicare For All. Her concern, and it's a valid one, is that AOC will grow her current 8 voter block in the HOR and expand that in the 2022 election cycle. AOC endorsing young Progressive digital natives is a pin from the Pope. She can generate to what amounts of unpaid media coverage in the millions for someone drastically far down the political totem pole who just can't generate that kind of money and whom the DNC cabal won't support.
Even though most of the DNC actually supports M4A, because of Joint Finance Agreements weaponized by the Obama administration and then the Clinton 2016 run, everyone down the ticket outside the Progressives are financially dependent on the Party apparatus and the Obama/Biden loyalists who control the purse strings. This is why Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the primaries when he did and pushed Medicare For All Who Want It when it offered him no true political advantage to do so. The casino had the poker table stacked against him, so he cash in his chips for a future payout. Neutralizing Buttigieg kept him away from flipping to the Progressives/Socialists faction, whom they desperately needed for AOC to make an eventual POTUS run. Buttigieg is the DNC's version of Nikki Haley (Think prime Charles Woodson on the Packers defense, creating more answers than questions and patching over multiple flaws everywhere else)
If AOC wants M4A in the next decade, she will either have to trade something to the Republicans en masse for it or become POTUS. Either way, the internal fight inside her own Party is assured. The Obama/Biden and Pelosi/Newsom factions want Miss GND cancelled. They want to prop up Obamacare at all costs.
It's a long shot, but if I was in Trump's shoes, I'd offer AOC the deal. Your voting block in the HOR and the Sanders/Warren votes in the Senate for a guarantee of M4A. I'd see what happens.
Kiddnets
Footballguy
.Im an independent and voted for Clinton, Bush, Obama then Romney so Im pretty neutral to party.....can someone who is a moderate republican explain what evidence there is of voter fraud to allow the closest I have seen ever seen to a coup/attempted dictatorship in my lifetime......I dont want to be buried in anti Trump/Republican rhetoric...Im just interested in what evidence there has been to not be horrified at the statements and actions since the election.
The courts are there for a reason - Al Gore - who I was not a big fan of....made it very clear that the courts are to be protected and honored....besides having a different outcome in 60+ cases what has changed? Is it all blind loyalty and political gamesmanship? How does one justify that when pointing a gun at the base of democracy. This last lawsuit basically says every VP has the power to decide who the next president is.....how is this accepted as a reasonable argument
Im seriously curious....
The courts are there for a reason - Al Gore - who I was not a big fan of....made it very clear that the courts are to be protected and honored....besides having a different outcome in 60+ cases what has changed? Is it all blind loyalty and political gamesmanship? How does one justify that when pointing a gun at the base of democracy. This last lawsuit basically says every VP has the power to decide who the next president is.....how is this accepted as a reasonable argument
Im seriously curious....
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
kwille
Footballguy
Good luck getting an answer. I'd like one too. Closest I've seen is "look at the unprecedented amount of fraud allegations" a.k.a. "look at the unprecedented amount of poorly formed excitement that has been thrown at the wall."
I think this is a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#False_claims_of_fraud
(I would have pointed you to the #True_claims_of_fraud section if there was one.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Kiddnets
Footballguy
I just dont see any actual proofs of anything....all I see are the words "allegations" used several times.....as someone who has voted Republican several times Im personally offended that these representatives are trying to act like allegations are proofs and are trying to overturn a legitimate election. I like many Republican ideals but I have to say that based on these actions I am hesitant to vote Republican in the future....I mean if the Dems didnt have the house there is a chance that this craziness could work....I feel like I cant trust to put Republicans in that power position any more even if I do align with many of their ideals....are any republicans concerned about losing several right leaning indys like me over this?
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Christine Blasey Ford comes to mind.
Anyways, I digress. Like you, I'm fed up as I have not seen any concrete proof. Proof we were told was coming and never did. I'm all for investigating fraud but you have to have proof.
Now, I would say I've seen some disturbing things that would make me question some results (ballot counters cheering as GOP observers are kicked out, suitcases of ballets showing up underneath desks, etc...), but nothing concrete I can point to.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigJim®
Footballguy
Don't feel too bad... even they do not align with their ideals (states rights, fiscal conservatism).
Amused to Death
Footballguy
There's much more in the link, but the fact that this group of bipartisan Defense Secretaries were compelled to include the following is what has me concerned. Its still uncertain why Trump cleaned house at the Pentagon and appointed loyalists in the waning days of his term.
In Op-Ed, 10 Ex-Defense Secretaries Say Military Has No Role In Election Dispute
The 10 signatories made it clear that any effort to involve U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take the country "into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory."
They wrote, "Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic."
In Op-Ed, 10 Ex-Defense Secretaries Say Military Has No Role In Election Dispute
The 10 signatories made it clear that any effort to involve U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take the country "into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory."
They wrote, "Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic."
General Malaise
Footballguy
Gotta love the Proud Boys announcing that they will show up on the 6th incognito. Guess they'll have to leave their Call of Duty armor at home. I'm sure they'll just blend in.
Guess they'll have to leave their Call of Duty armor at home. I'm sure they'll just blend in.
BigJim®
Footballguy
So basically when the violence starts the story becomes "Well you know those antifas are the ones in black, so... must be antifa violence."Gotta love the Proud Boys announcing that they will show up on the 6th incognito.
Mile High
Footballguy
the rover
Footballguy
Well, he got arrested today for destruction of private property (burning churches' BLM banners/signs). Looks like he may miss the party.Gotta love the Proud Boys announcing that they will show up on the 6th incognito.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Bret Baier of Fox News takes "constitutional lawyer" Josh Hawley to school
Baier: "Are you trying to say that as of January 20, that President Trump will be president?"
Hawley: "Well Bret, that depends on what happens on Wednesday."
Baier: "No, it doesn't..."
Baier: "Are you trying to say that as of January 20, that President Trump will be president?"
Hawley: "Well Bret, that depends on what happens on Wednesday."
Baier: "No, it doesn't..."
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Pentagon approves DC mayor's request to deploy National Guard for upcoming demonstrations
Washington (CNN) Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Monday approved a request from the mayor of Washington to deploy DC National Guard forces to the city to support local authorities during pro-Trump demonstrations scheduled in the city this week, a defense official told CNN.
Washington (CNN) Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Monday approved a request from the mayor of Washington to deploy DC National Guard forces to the city to support local authorities during pro-Trump demonstrations scheduled in the city this week, a defense official told CNN.
timschochet
Footballguy
My Trump supporting neighbors are participating in a “national strike” on Wednesday. They will shut their business down and won’t go anywhere. Supposedly they will be joined by “millions of Patriots in every state.”
- Status
