The Election That Could Break America (1 Viewer)

[McBokonon]

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump· 4h

RINO Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts is unsuccessfully trying to defend Mail In Ballots, when there is fraud being found all over the place. Just look at some of the recent races, or the Trump Ballots in Pennsylvania that were thrown into the garbage. Wrong Charlie!

@Jayrod - this isn't Trump merely "questioning" the integrity of the elections. It's declarative. And it's a lie. And 35-40% of the country believes him.

 

[moleculo]

How is he undermining the integrity of the election?  He is questioning it, but he can't really undermine it. (1)

And as for the rest of the elected GOP officials, they have unanimously stated that they will enforce the election as completed and that the democratic process will be upheld.

Look, I'm not Trump supporter, but this is just a bunch of fear mongering.  He can't do crap to rig, change, steal or otherwise undermine the election.

Like I told my cousin who irrationally freaked the hell out when Trump was elected (2), this is still the USA and there is still checks and balances and even the President isn't allowed to just do whatever he wants (3).

(1) By accusing fraud before the election is even held, Trump is creating doubt WRT the legitimacy of the election.  If that isn't undermining the integrity of the election, I don't know what is. 

(2) your cousins fears were not irrational.  Things are not better than they were 4 years ago, possibly irreparably.  Our relations with allies are damaged, we are in a trade war, multiple treaties have been ripped up, environmental regulations have been slashed, the supreme court is moving to the right, and that's before we even get to 200k dead Americans from a Virus we were unprepared for and are woefully unequipped to handle.

(3) This president has no checks and balances.  How many inspector generals have been removed?  How many congressional subpoenas have been enforced?  How effective is impeachment?  As long as Trump has a sycophant as AG, and as long as congressional leadership continues to swing from Trumps nuts, the president IS allowed to just do whatever he wants.

 

[Joe Summer]

(2) your cousins fears were not irrational.  Things are not better than they were 4 years ago, possibly irreparably.  Our relations with allies are damaged, we are in a trade war, multiple treaties have been ripped up, environmental regulations have been slashed, the supreme court is moving to the right, and that's before we even get to 200k dead Americans from a Virus we were unprepared for and are woefully unequipped to handle.

Um....many conservatives are quite happy about the bolded items.

 

[moleculo]

Um....many conservatives are quite happy about the bolded items.

well, yeah...I'm assuming @Jayrod's cousin is not one of them.  If you are liberal, freaking out about a Trump presidency has proven to be very rational.

 

[mcintyre1]

Republican-Controlled Senate Passes Peaceful Transfer of Power Resolution Vowing ‘No Disruptions by the President’

The Republican-controlled Senate passed a resolution from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reaffirming its “commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power,” after President Donald Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer if he loses the presidential election.

Manchin’s resolution read that the Senate “reaffirms its commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the United States,” and “intends that there should be no disruptions by the President or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States.”

The resolution was passed by unanimous consent in the Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday.

“It’s a shame that we have to come and reaffirm our commitment to our country, to our Constitution, and who we are as a people and how we became a great country, the greatest country on Earth, the freedoms that we all take for granted,” said Manchin in a floor speech following passage of the resolution. “And sometimes we hear things that challenge that, and we heard that yesterday, and we were very concerned about that.”

“What we are doing with this resolution is saying that basically the bedrock of democracy is the orderly and peaceful transfer of power when the president transitions out. It should not be a question,” he continued. “There should not ever be one iota of interruption whatsoever as that peaceful demonstration.”

Manchin went on to say, “We have come through a lot in our country, and we continue to be challenged, but I believe to have the leader of the free world talk as if we are an autocracy, an authoritarian versus a democracy, is something that alarmed me and alarmed a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, even those quiet as some may be, I know they’re alarmed.”

“And with that, what we did is reaffirm who we are in the Senate and what we believe in, and the resolution is very clear,” he concluded.” All it says is we reaffirm as the Senate our commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the United States and intends that there shall be no disruptions by the president or any person in power to overturn the will of the people in the United States.”

 

[Joe Summer]

Um....many conservatives are quite happy about the bolded items.

well, yeah...I'm assuming @Jayrod's cousin is not one of them.  If you are liberal, freaking out about a Trump presidency has proven to be very rational.

Obviously I can't speak for Jayrod, but if the goal is to get conservatives to sympathize with your position, then it would seem wise to offer examples that would appeal to them.

 

[moleculo]

Obviously I can't speak for Jayrod, but if the goal is to get conservatives to sympathize with your position, then it would seem wise to offer examples that would appeal to them.

if I wanted to appeal to conservatives to be against trump, I'd talk about the ballooning deficit, how tariffs restrict free trade, maybe about the price fixing Trump wants on pharmacies, the amount we continue to spend on defense (including Space Force), The government meddling with private businesses - i.e. attempts to regulate twitter, facebook, tiktok, etc.  Sadly, there don't seem to be many ACTUAL conservatives any more - not fiscal ones, anyhow.  

Regardless, that wasn't my point: liberals were right to freak out circa 2016.

 

[Jayrod]

My cousin freaked out (to the point of panic attacks) because "my children's grandparents went through the Holocaust".  She had been brought to hysteria by liberal hyperbole that Trump was a white supremacist leader who was going to usher in a Nazi regime of sorts.

Just like you people are freaking out that somehow Trump is going to be able to resist the results of the election.

If he fights it, he will lose and be ousted with as much disgrace as he has portrayed throughout his presidency.

 

[Gr00vus]

My cousin freaked out (to the point of panic attacks) because "my children's grandparents went through the Holocaust".  She had been brought to hysteria by liberal hyperbole that Trump was a white supremacist leader who was going to usher in a Nazi regime of sorts.

Just like you people are freaking out that somehow Trump is going to be able to resist the results of the election.

If he fights it, he will lose and be ousted with as much disgrace as he has portrayed throughout his presidency.

I think you're right. I hope you're right. But unlike every other President in my lifetime, I'm not 100% certain you're right. And that is a source of trepidation.

 

[Jayrod]

(1) By accusing fraud before the election is even held, Trump is creating doubt WRT the legitimacy of the election.  If that isn't undermining the integrity of the election, I don't know what is. 

(2) your cousins fears were not irrational.  Things are not better than they were 4 years ago, possibly irreparably.  Our relations with allies are damaged, we are in a trade war, multiple treaties have been ripped up, environmental regulations have been slashed, the supreme court is moving to the right, and that's before we even get to 200k dead Americans from a Virus we were unprepared for and are woefully unequipped to handle.

(3) This president has no checks and balances.  How many inspector generals have been removed?  How many congressional subpoenas have been enforced?  How effective is impeachment?  As long as Trump has a sycophant as AG, and as long as congressional leadership continues to swing from Trumps nuts, the president IS allowed to just do whatever he wants.

(1) Creating doubt about the legitimacy doesn't undermine the integrity unless there is actual reasons to doubt the legitimacy.  Otherwise it is just a bunch of baseless statements.  All he is trying to do is whip up a frenzy of voters to go and vote in person.  Just like the left is doing in trying to stoke the panic about this election "stealing" campaign.  Politics as usual (well maybe a bit more dirty than most Presidential elections, but it has been trending this way for decades).

(2) I spelled out her fears in my prior post.  The specific fears of a white supremacist regime were indeed unfounded, especially when it comes to Jewish people as Trump is more of a Zionist than any President before him.

(3) He has Congress, the Supreme Court and the American People as a check and balance.  Against issuing Executive Orders?  Yeah, he has a lot of power there.  Against stealing the election and refusing to concede?  Yeah, that isn't going to happen and the Republicans in congress have made it abundantly clear.  He doesn't control them and a lot of them resent him a great deal.

If he loses the election he is out and there is nothing he can do about it......so again, this is all a much ado about nothing.

 

[Sinn Fein]

(3) He has Congress, the Supreme Court and the American People as a check and balance. 

I admire your unwarranted sense of optimism.

 

[moleculo]

(1) Creating doubt about the legitimacy doesn't undermine the integrity unless there is actual reasons to doubt the legitimacy.  Otherwise it is just a bunch of baseless statements.  All he is trying to do is whip up a frenzy of voters to go and vote in person.  Just like the left is doing in trying to stoke the panic about this election "stealing" campaign.  Politics as usual (well maybe a bit more dirty than most Presidential elections, but it has been trending this way for decades).

(2) I spelled out her fears in my prior post.  The specific fears of a white supremacist regime were indeed unfounded, especially when it comes to Jewish people as Trump is more of a Zionist than any President before him.

(3) He has Congress, the Supreme Court and the American People as a check and balance.  Against issuing Executive Orders?  Yeah, he has a lot of power there.  Against stealing the election and refusing to concede?  Yeah, that isn't going to happen and the Republicans in congress have made it abundantly clear.  He doesn't control them and a lot of them resent him a great deal.

If he loses the election he is out and there is nothing he can do about it......so again, this is all a much ado about nothing.

(1) respectfully disagree.  If he convinces enough people that the votes cast are fraudulent, the election will be meaningless.  He is sewing the seeds right now to make that claim.  

(2) ok.  I don't know your cousin nor do i know why they would be irrationally afraid of Trump. 

(3) disagree.  Congress is not a check, that has been proven multiple times.  The Supreme Court is not a check - litigation takes too long.  He can do as he pleases, tie up proceedings up in lower courts, delay, obfuscate.  It's been happening for years.  As to Republicans - the only thing they have made abundantly clear is that they have no scruples and will go against their word time and time again.  4 years ago, they said, "let the electorate decide on who should name the next SC justice in an election year".  Now: "nah, we'll go ahead and rubber stamp anyone Trump puts forth"...  come on now. Trump absolutely, unequivocally, controls them.  If you can find Lindsey Grahams spine, I might agree with you but that seemed to have died along with John McCain.

 

[Murph]

I think you're right. I hope you're right. But unlike every other President in my lifetime, I'm not 100% certain you're right. And that is a source of trepidation.

This I can respect. It's the hysterical takes that are getting exhausting. 

Although I'm surprised that this is the first time you're less than 100% certain. I had my doubts about Cheney's commitment to democracy.

 

[dawgtrails]

(1) Creating doubt about the legitimacy doesn't undermine the integrity unless there is actual reasons to doubt the legitimacy.  Otherwise it is just a bunch of baseless statements.  All he is trying to do is whip up a frenzy of voters to go and vote in person.  Just like the left is doing in trying to stoke the panic about this election "stealing" campaign.  Politics as usual (well maybe a bit more dirty than most Presidential elections, but it has been trending this way for decades).

A bit more dirty? Talk about an understatement.

There has never been an attack like this from a sitting president. And if you can't see that he is laying the groundwork for a contested result than you are blinded by your something or other

 

[Gr00vus]

This I can respect. It's the hysterical takes that are getting exhausting. 

Although I'm surprised that this is the first time you're less than 100% certain. I had my doubts about Cheney's commitment to democracy.

Agree about Cheney in general. But he wasn't President, and he didn't do things as blatant as something like this would be. For all his faults, W. would never have been on board, he's a decent person.

 

[dozer]

How is he undermining the integrity of the election?  He is questioning it, but he can't really undermine it.

And as for the rest of the elected GOP officials, they have unanimously stated that they will enforce the election as completed and that the democratic process will be upheld.

Look, I'm not Trump supporter, but this is just a bunch of fear mongering.  He can't do crap to rig, change, steal or otherwise undermine the election.

Like I told my cousin who irrationally freaked the hell out when Trump was elected, this is still the USA and there is still checks and balances and even the President isn't allowed to just do whatever he wants.

The President was impeached, and the Senate didn’t so much as call one of the many, many witnesses....

He can pretty much do what he wants.

 

[Possum]

imo a lot of people need to go sit in a darkened room somewhere with soft music playing and breathe into a paper bag until this election is over. 

 

[Jayrod]

(1) respectfully disagree.  If he convinces enough people that the votes cast are fraudulent, the election will be meaningless.  He is sewing the seeds right now to make that claim.  

(2) ok.  I don't know your cousin nor do i know why they would be irrationally afraid of Trump. 

(3) disagree.  Congress is not a check, that has been proven multiple times.  The Supreme Court is not a check - litigation takes too long.  He can do as he pleases, tie up proceedings up in lower courts, delay, obfuscate.  It's been happening for years.  As to Republicans - the only thing they have made abundantly clear is that they have no scruples and will go against their word time and time again.  4 years ago, they said, "let the electorate decide on who should name the next SC justice in an election year".  Now: "nah, we'll go ahead and rubber stamp anyone Trump puts forth"...  come on now. Trump absolutely, unequivocally, controls them.  If you can find Lindsey Grahams spine, I might agree with you but that seemed to have died along with John McCain.

Talk about hyperbole.  Maybe you should run for office.

These things are baseless over the top statements none of which are actually factual.

Wake up, you are reading/listening/watching too much media.  Back away and breathe.  The slim 3 person majority in the Senate is not enough to overturn any actual election results and the Democrats already control the House (which, BTW, why aren't they to blame for anything?).

Maybe if the Dems had paid 1 ounce of attention to the people in this country instead of trying to ramrod Hillary down our throats things would have been a little bit better.

 

[Gr00vus]

Talk about hyperbole.  Maybe you should run for office.

These things are baseless over the top statements none of which are actually factual.

Wake up, you are reading/listening/watching too much media.  Back away and breathe.  The slim 3 person majority in the Senate is not enough to overturn any actual election results and the Democrats already control the House (which, BTW, why aren't they to blame for anything?).

Maybe if the Dems had paid 1 ounce of attention to the people in this country instead of trying to ramrod Hillary down our throats this wouldn't have happened.

To your point, we should reiterate that the Senate has just passed a resolution affirming a peaceful transferal of power after the election. This doesn't prevent someone taking things to the courts, but it says, to me at least, that Congress isn't going to let Trump hold on to office if he doesn't win the election. I know we're all cynical, but I will take them at this word that they're not going to stand for Trump trying to remain in office via coup or ridiculous claims of tampering, interference, etc.

 

[Rich Conway]

I don't think anyone believes Trump intends to attempt a military coup.  However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if states controlled by the GOP go to exceptional lengths to stop counting mail ballots early, or delay the process enough that those same states could submit a result stating that Trump won.  The latter would not go against the resolution just passed by the Senate, either.

 

[moleculo]

Talk about hyperbole.  Maybe you should run for office.

These things are baseless over the top statements none of which are actually factual.

Wake up, you are reading/listening/watching too much media.  Back away and breathe.  The slim 3 person majority in the Senate is not enough to overturn any actual election results and the Democrats already control the House (which, BTW, why aren't they to blame for anything?).

Maybe if the Dems had paid 1 ounce of attention to the people in this country instead of trying to ramrod Hillary down our throats things would have been a little bit better.

give me one concrete example of congress acting as a check on Trump.  They have issued a few joint resolutions about Trump selling arms to the Saudis I suppose, which Trump veto'd.  Whoopty doo.  When the House impeached, the Senate essentially apologized for dragging his name thru the mud - they called zero witnesses, they didn't mount a serious investigation.  

pull your head out of the sand.  Mitch McConnell is nothing but a Trump lackey (or, is it the other way around?)  BTW, the Senate majority can't do anything about the 2020 election - that's not what this is about.  You are the one who made the claim that Congress is a check on the executive; that's what I'm calling BS.

And, don't give me Hillary.  The republicans voted for Trump in the 2016 primary, didn't even allow a primary in 2020, and didn't even bother putting together a platform!  

 

[moleculo]

To your point, we should reiterate that the Senate has just passed a resolution affirming a peaceful transferal of power after the election. This doesn't prevent someone taking things to the courts, but it says, to me at least, that Congress isn't going to let Trump hold on to office if he doesn't win the election. I know we're all cynical, but I will take them at this word that they're not going to stand for Trump trying to remain in office via coup or ridiculous claims of tampering, interference, etc.

lol @ taking the senate republicans at their word.  

The senate is powerless.  If Trump can get state legislatures to invalidate election results, there isn't a damn thing the senate can do about it.

 

[Jayrod]

OK, @moleculo, the sky is falling.  You win.  Go shut yourself up in your bomb shelter now.  See you in 50 years. 

I'm going to keep on living my life like I've always done and the sun will come up and my wife and kids will still be with me as this is the USA and no single man controls this country nor can he single handedly destroy it.

 

[Gr00vus]

lol @ taking the senate republicans at their word.  

The senate is powerless.  If Trump can get state legislatures to invalidate election results, there isn't a damn thing the senate can do about it.

How would Trump do that exactly? And if he did, is there nothing Congress could do at that point? Also, I find it hard to believe one party or another (DNC, Biden, ACLU) wouldn't take that to the courts.

The point is, it still seems very unlikely Trump will be able to dictate a result unilaterally as current President. He'd need a lot of help from a lot of loosely affiliated sources. What most are saying here is that he's not going to get that help in sufficient qualities to overturn a legitimate outcome.

We should remain vigilant (my biggest concern is that Russia ups the ante from 2016 and starts cracking voting machines to alter vote counts and we really haven't done anything to protect ourselves from what we know they did in 2016), but we must also not give in to complete cynicism.

 

[moleculo]

"“There should be no disruptions by the President or any person in power to overturn the will of the People of the United States,” concludes the resolution, which passed with no objections."

Define the will of the people, especially in an election the president isn't convinced can be honest.  If the presidents team believes the election is tainted (and they are sending giant smoke signals right now that any tally that doesn't result in a Trump victory is fraudulent), they will argue the results do not reflect the will of the people. 

This isn't a situation where the president loses fair and square, and refuses to leave office.  The play will be to delay, argue, and litigate, until Trump friendly state governments nominate their own electors who will not be required to vote per the questionable election results.

This resolution is meaningless.

 

[moleculo]

How would Trump do that exactly? And if he did, is there nothing Congress could do at that point? Also, I find it hard to believe one party or another (DNC, Biden, ACLU) wouldn't take that to the courts.

The point is, it still seems very unlikely Trump will be able to dictate a result unilaterally as current President. He'd need a lot of help from a lot of loosely affiliated sources. What most are saying here is that he's not going to get that help in sufficient qualities to overturn a legitimate outcome.

We should remain vigilant (my biggest concern is that Russia ups the ante from 2016 and starts cracking voting machines to alter vote counts and we really haven't done anything to protect ourselves from what we know they did in 2016), but we must also not give in to complete cynicism.

how many votes won Florida for GWB in 2000?  There is a clear precedent for contesting a close race and litigating the results.  Imagine this happening in 6 or 7 states, simultaneously.  

2000 FL went to the SC.  The Atlantic article seems to argue it could go a different direction, where state legislatures and/or governors can appoint their own electors.  I don't know why 2020 would be different than 2000.

 

[Gr00vus]

how many votes won Florida for GWB in 2000?  There is a clear precedent for contesting a close race and litigating the results.  Imagine this happening in 6 or 7 states, simultaneously.  

2000 FL went to the SC.  The Atlantic article seems to argue it could go a different direction, where state legislatures and/or governors can appoint their own electors.  I don't know why 2020 would be different than 2000.

States appointing their own electors in conflict with the vote tallies would be different from 2000. Also 2000 did set a precedent for how long a decision can be prolonged. If races are that close (600 votes) there probably should be 2nd and 3rd pass checks to ensure the count is accurate. Why would you have a problem with that? We should ensure that every vote is counted accurately to the most reasonable degree possible.

 

[Sea Duck]

I don't think anyone believes Trump intends to attempt a military coup.

Trump doesn't need the military. He can just judge-shop until he finds a judge willing to nullify a few dozen Democratic electors, then get his buddies on the Supreme Court to uphold the decision. Worst case, the election gets bumped to Congress, where Pence casts the deciding vote in a 50-50 Senate to install himself as Biden's VP.

 

[moleculo]

States appointing their own electors in conflict with the vote tallies would be different from 2000. Also 2000 did set a precedent for how long a decision can be prolonged. If races are that close (600 votes) there probably should be 2nd and 3rd pass checks to ensure the count is accurate. Why would you have a problem with that? We should ensure that every vote is counted accurately to the most reasonable degree possible.

Every vote should be counted correctly, but as we saw in 2000, that can turn into a giant #### show.  Hanging chads will have nothing on "illegible postmark".

Reading in the Atlantic article from the OP: 

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

...

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

...

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.

 

[shadrap]

how many votes won Florida for GWB in 2000?  There is a clear precedent for contesting a close race and litigating the results.  Imagine this happening in 6 or 7 states, simultaneously.  

2000 FL went to the SC.  The Atlantic article seems to argue it could go a different direction, where state legislatures and/or governors can appoint their own electors.  I don't know why 2020 would be different than 2000.

curious, so you think Gore actually won the 2000 election or just more concerned that it was contested?

 

[AAABatteries]

How is he undermining the integrity of the election?  He is questioning it, but he can't really undermine it.

And as for the rest of the elected GOP officials, they have unanimously stated that they will enforce the election as completed and that the democratic process will be upheld.

Look, I'm not Trump supporter, but this is just a bunch of fear mongering.  He can't do crap to rig, change, steal or otherwise undermine the election.

Like I told my cousin who irrationally freaked the hell out when Trump was elected, this is still the USA and there is still checks and balances and even the President isn't allowed to just do whatever he wants.

I probably would have 100% agreed with this four years ago but just about everything he’s said and done since he was elected tells me he will try anything he can get away with to “win” re-election.  I’m not saying he would get away with it but I’m 100% convinced he would try it.  And that does scare me a little as I’m not sure what all he could get away with.

 

[moleculo]

curious, so you think Gore actually won the 2000 election or just more concerned that it was contested?

I think Bush won....just citing it as a spot where a contested election was litigated.

Coincidentally, I lived in Palm Beach County at the time.  I voted for Bush on the infamous butterfly ballot.  I remember the fall-out from that quite well.

 

[E Street Brat]

It's a distinction without difference. If someone fights results, then they are not abiding by them.

Otherwise, you're just infinitely moving the goalposts, where every subsequent "result" gets redefined as merely a step in the process.

So Al Gore did not abide? 

 

[E Street Brat]

imo a lot of people need to go sit in a darkened room somewhere with soft music playing and breathe into a paper bag until this election is over. 

 

[E Street Brat]

"“There should be no disruptions by the President or any person in power to overturn the will of the People of the United States,” concludes the resolution, which passed with no objections."

Define the will of the people, especially in an election the president isn't convinced can be honest.  If the presidents team believes the election is tainted (and they are sending giant smoke signals right now that any tally that doesn't result in a Trump victory is fraudulent), they will argue the results do not reflect the will of the people. 

This isn't a situation where the president loses fair and square, and refuses to leave office.  The play will be to delay, argue, and litigate, until Trump friendly state governments nominate their own electors who will not be required to vote per the questionable election results.

This resolution is meaningless.

Isn't this exactly what the democrats have been doing for the past 4 years?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So Al Gore did not abide? 

I think Gore should have accepted the results of the first machine recanvassing and moved on, rather than put the country through a hyper-partisan battle over a race that was, in essence, tied.

But let's not kid ourselves.  Trump is going to do whatever Trump decides to do.  Even if Gore had set a more adult precedent, Trump wouldn't care.

 

[moleculo]

Isn't this exactly what the democrats have been doing for the past 4 years?

Make meaningless and toothless resolutions?  Pretty much.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

How is he undermining the integrity of the election?  He is questioning it, but he can't really undermine it.

And as for the rest of the elected GOP officials, they have unanimously stated that they will enforce the election as completed and that the democratic process will be upheld.

Look, I'm not Trump supporter, but this is just a bunch of fear mongering.  He can't do crap to rig, change, steal or otherwise undermine the election.

Like I told my cousin who irrationally freaked the hell out when Trump was elected, this is still the USA and there is still checks and balances and even the President isn't allowed to just do whatever he wants.

The President was impeached, and the Senate didn’t so much as call one of the many, many witnesses....

He can pretty much do what he wants.

Not only that, they refused to enforce subpoenas.  The country is slowly being conquered.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

I probably would have 100% agreed with this four years ago but just about everything he’s said and done since he was elected tells me he will try anything he can get away with to “win” re-election.  I’m not saying he would get away with it but I’m 100% convinced he would try it.  And that does scare me a little as I’m not sure what all he could get away with.

It's easy to be 100% convinced, because Trump said he won't accept  any result other than him winning.

 

[Sabertooth]

Why didn't he push to take control during covid.   Outside of a world War.  This was the greatest opportunity  to grab power in a hundred years.   

Which situation has he grabbed more power that previous presidents haven't  used?.

Because he knew it wouldn’t be a political winner.  He punted because he doesn’t know how to lead.  Gutless.  

 

[Thunderlips]

Isn't this exactly what the democrats have been doing for the past 4 years?

No.

Wasn't Sessions appointed by Trump?  

 

[caustic]

“Fox News, the president’s favored network, will face enormous pressure to call the election for Mr. Trump. The outcome rests on a little-known 65-year-old wonk who will declare the winner.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/business/media/trump-election-fox-news.html

 

[quick-hands]

Because he knew it wouldn’t be a political winner.  He punted because he doesn’t know how to lead.  Gutless.  

That is literally  the opposite of what an autocratic ruler would think. 

 Never waste a good crisis.  The Democrats believe this.  

 

[Sabertooth]

That is literally  the opposite of what an autocratic ruler would think. 

 Never waste a good crisis.  The Democrats believe this.  

No.  No it isn't.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

give me one concrete example of congress acting as a check on Trump.  They have issued a few joint resolutions about Trump selling arms to the Saudis I suppose, which Trump veto'd.  Whoopty doo.  When the House impeached, the Senate essentially apologized for dragging his name thru the mud - they called zero witnesses, they didn't mount a serious investigation.  

pull your head out of the sand.  Mitch McConnell is nothing but a Trump lackey (or, is it the other way around?)  BTW, the Senate majority can't do anything about the 2020 election - that's not what this is about.  You are the one who made the claim that Congress is a check on the executive; that's what I'm calling BS.

And, don't give me Hillary.  The republicans voted for Trump in the 2016 primary, didn't even allow a primary in 2020, and didn't even bother putting together a platform!  

@Jayrod   Can you answer his question?

As an aside, it seems like some of you are under the impression that the road to authoritarianism will be swift and obvious.  Rather, it'll be a slow, steady unraveling of the institutions and laws that made our democracy great.  Some of us are aware when another thread is being pulled and bringing attention to it isn't "hyperbole" or "baseless".    

 

[Ilov80s]

Because he knew it wouldn’t be a political winner.  He punted because he doesn’t know how to lead.  Gutless.  

Less political and more financial. He wanted to protect the markets. He also was able to establish more power over his supporters than ever. Now he was able to tell them to listen to him over the CDC, health experts, etc. Joining forces with Democratic leaders to have a joint plan on COVID would have diminished his authority. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

The hilariously scary part of all this - and my research over the weekend convinces me that the President wants to deligitimize the election and his minions have found a mechanism for that in the electoral college - is that, unlike any of history's other power grabs, it is done to no higher purpose than to do it. "G'ahead, say no and make it stick" Trump has been saying his whole life. No one has yet and he won't stop til someone does, and it's no more complicated than that

 

[McBokonon]

EXCLUSIVE: Channel 4 News investigation reveals a huge Trump campaign data leak, exposing how 3.5 million Black Americans were listed as ‘Deterrence’ - to try to stop them voting in 2016.

 

[Joe Summer]

Never waste a good crisis.  The Democrats believe this.  

Trump is exploiting the current crisis by questioning the integrity of the election, by denouncing mail-in ballots, by undercutting the post office, by funneling taxpayer funds to his friends and supporters in big pharma and Hollywood, by inciting civil unrest, and by holding super-spreader rallies in swing states, which will help to ensure that the COVID chaos is still rampant on Election Day.

 

[quick-hands]

Trump is exploiting the current crisis by questioning the integrity of the election, by denouncing mail-in ballots, by undercutting the post office, by funneling taxpayer funds to his friends and supporters in big pharma and Hollywood, by inciting civil unrest, and by holding super-spreader rallies in swing states, which will help to ensure that the COVID chaos is still rampant on Election Day.

He is reserving his right to challenge  the election.   You know like gore did.   

If the democrats vote harvesting  schemes work it may be a stolen election.    Biden has sarogates saying not to concede.  Both sides have lawyers circling for court challenges.   

You may have missed that.