November 2020 (or maybe January 2021)- If Trump Loses

This is a video of some very fine people with their secondary penises just hanging out while a protest march goes by

(sorry, wouldn't embed properly)

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1268169436118294528?s=20

I haven't seen much commentary on what might happen if (when) Trump loses, but I'm quite worried about what might happen.

here's some more reasoned behavior.

And, lest we not forget, the police that are showing such exemplary behavior at the protests are overwhelmingly Trump supporters.

November's gonna be a sh!t show.

Trump warned us about a year ago. My guess is that Miller, or whoever, told him to not repeat this piece of wisdom.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-warns-it-would-be-very-bad-if-my-police-biker-gang-fans-decided-to-get-tough-on-my-opponents

President Trump issued a bizarre, indirect warning Monday that his supporters could get “tough” on his political enemies at a “certain point,” in a clip of a Breitbart interview spotted Thursday by The Toronto Star. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny,” the  president told Breibart’s Matthew Boyle. “I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I
can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump–I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then
it would be very bad, very bad.”

As a left-leaning person I am surprised and heartened by the response of numerous former Military Leaders to Trump's threat to use the Military against protesters.

Yeah, I'm not so worried about the military as I am local police forces, CPB agents, those mysterious correctional officers with no badges that are now in D.C., etc. Plus the Trump mob, armed to the teeth, spread throughout the nation.

drummerboy said:

Yeah, I'm not so worried about the military as I am local police forces, CPB agents, those mysterious correctional officers with no badges that are now in D.C., etc. Plus the Trump mob, armed to the teeth, spread throughout the nation.

The pushback from an outright Trump defeat will come more in the form of bombings, mass shootings and other acts of terrorism, things we are already seeing but on a much bigger scale.  If the election is close, other things may come into play.

It's almost as if we shouldn't take a marginal victory like 51-49% and subject 160 Million people who didn't vote for this person & subject them to policies that affect every aspect of their life.  

terp said:

It's almost as if we shouldn't take a marginal victory like 51-49% and subject 160 Million people who didn't vote for this person & subject them to policies that affect every aspect of their life.  

 Other than anarchy, what is a better alternative?

Less centralization of government.

If Trump loses, the first response isn't going to be violent.  The groundwork is already being laid for calling the election rigged.  There will almost certainly be lawsuits filed, probably in every state Trump loses.  And because of the pandemic, there will be more paper ballots submitted than ever before, and Republicans will likely challenge the validity of every single ballot cast in Democratic-leaning precincts.  The results of hand recounts won't be known for weeks.  And even then if the recounts show Biden still won, expect more appeals and lawsuits.  With the results dragging on long past the typical dates for states to certify electors, who knows what states with Republican-majority legislatures will do?  Probably certify Trump electors even if the results of the vote still aren't final.  Maybe even certify Trump electors if Biden won the vote in their states (citing "voter fraud").

This presidential election is going to be a test of whether or not from here forward the president of the United States will be chosen by voters in each state, or by a cabal of legislators in each state.  I'm not entirely hopeful that this election and those that follow won't be a partisan sham.

ml1 said:

If Trump loses, the first response isn't going to be violent.  The groundwork is already being laid for calling the election rigged.  There will almost certainly be lawsuits filed, probably in every state Trump loses.  And because of the pandemic, there will be more paper ballots submitted than ever before, and Republicans will likely challenge the validity of every single ballot cast in Democratic-leaning precincts.  The results of hand recounts won't be known for weeks.  And even then if the recounts show Biden still won, expect more appeals and lawsuits.  With the results dragging on long past the typical dates for states to certify electors, who knows what states with Republican-majority legislatures will do?  Probably certify Trump electors even if the results of the vote still aren't final.  Maybe even certify Trump electors if Biden won the vote in their states (citing "voter fraud").

This presidential election is going to be a test of whether or not from here forward the president of the United States will be chosen by voters in each state, or by a cabal of legislators in each state.  I'm not entirely hopeful that this election and those that follow won't be a partisan sham.

 So, similar to 2016 then. 

terp said:

 So, similar to 2016 then. 

 Or completely different. 

terp said:

ml1 said:

If Trump loses, the first response isn't going to be violent.  The groundwork is already being laid for calling the election rigged.  There will almost certainly be lawsuits filed, probably in every state Trump loses.  And because of the pandemic, there will be more paper ballots submitted than ever before, and Republicans will likely challenge the validity of every single ballot cast in Democratic-leaning precincts.  The results of hand recounts won't be known for weeks.  And even then if the recounts show Biden still won, expect more appeals and lawsuits.  With the results dragging on long past the typical dates for states to certify electors, who knows what states with Republican-majority legislatures will do?  Probably certify Trump electors even if the results of the vote still aren't final.  Maybe even certify Trump electors if Biden won the vote in their states (citing "voter fraud").

This presidential election is going to be a test of whether or not from here forward the president of the United States will be chosen by voters in each state, or by a cabal of legislators in each state.  I'm not entirely hopeful that this election and those that follow won't be a partisan sham.

 So, similar to 2016 then. 

 whut?

terp said:

Less centralization of government.

 We would still be governed according to majority rule and sometimes marginal majorities. Whether the Congress or the Municipal Council enacts laws with which I disagree it has the same impact on me. In fact the actions of a Municipal Council have a more immediate and direct impact.

nohero said:

terp said:

 So, similar to 2016 then. 

 Or completely different. 

 I think you mean 1876

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election

ml1 said:

This presidential election is going to be a test of whether or not from here forward the president of the United States will be chosen by voters in each state, or by a cabal of legislators in each state.  I'm not entirely hopeful that this election and those that follow won't be a partisan sham.

 At what point do the people revolt? There are thousands in the streets protesting police misconduct. If a President running for re-election on a Law and Order platform looses the popular vote by a substantial margin, let's say 10%, and nevertheless by some convoluted scheme declares victory, what result? 

What if by the time the Electoral Votes are counted in a joint-session of Congress, the Dems control both Chambers?

STANV said:

nohero said:

terp said:

 So, similar to 2016 then. 

 Or completely different. 

 I think you mean 1876

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election

 I was thinking more 2000 multiplied by 20

More interested in what happens after the dust settles on a hypothetical Trump loss: 

What's his long-term effect on party? Militant cons? 

Does angry Norman Bates look-alike Tom Cotton ride his op-ed to national leadership? 

Trump TV? 

Fox? 

Terp, you never fail at contrarian stance. Kinda like Senate irritant Rand Paul.

Yup, less centralization of gov't: even more uneven police practices; fewer fed laws protecting the vulnerable, etc. 

My general feeling on the balance between localism and federalism:

The higher standard on civil liberties should prevail. Eg, if a municipal ordinance offers greater protections against firing someone based on their sexual identity, states shouldn't be able to override this. If federal law offers greater protections, states should not be able to override this.

Depending on where you sit, this may or may not be controversial. Even if someone agrees with the broad concept, there may be disagreement on what counts as a stronger protection of civil liberties. To which I'd say bodily integrity > ability to earn a living > property rights. Yes, you as a landowner have your freedom curtailed by environmental legislation, but clean drinking water trumps your property rights.

GL2 said:

More interested in what happens after the dust settles on a hypothetical Trump loss: 

What's his long-term effect on party? Militant cons? 

Does angry Norman Bates look-alike Tom Cotton ride his op-ed to national leadership? 

Trump TV? 

Fox? 

Terp, you never fail at contrarian stance. Kinda like Senate irritant Rand Paul.

Another thing to consider is that, under normal circumstances, Trump would probably go to jail (for one thing, he is unindicted co-conspirator of Michael Cohen, who DID go to jail). He knows this, and will want to abuse his power / megaphone to avoid this.

PVW said:

My general feeling on the balance between localism and federalism:

The higher standard on civil liberties should prevail. Eg, if a municipal ordinance offers greater protections against firing someone based on their sexual identity, states shouldn't be able to override this. If federal law offers greater protections, states should not be able to override this.

Depending on where you sit, this may or may not be controversial. Even if someone agrees with the broad concept, there may be disagreement on what counts as a stronger protection of civil liberties. To which I'd say bodily integrity > ability to earn a living > property rights. Yes, you as a landowner have your freedom curtailed by environmental legislation, but clean drinking water trumps your property rights.

 Interesting. Is the decision made by the courts? I can't come up with the perfect quick example but does your right to open carry conflict with my states denial of that right.  Or does our town respecting sexual preference run counter to your religious beliefs and as a business owner denying someone their wedding cake? As a property owner can my right to rent a carriage house be challenged by the town's right to set ordinances against it?  Aren't those the challenges we deal with now? 

Not sure if I'm muddying the concept.

You are not muddying the concept. You are asking legitimate questions and raising legitimate issues.

"Rights" come into conflict. My "right" as a business owner to hire and fire whomever I chose might conflict with your "right" to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender.

The Declaration of Independence says we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable Rights". This is, of course, not objectively true. "Rights" are created by governments. The author of the quoted words had the legal Right to own slaves. Many years later the Government took away that "Right".

I think we've gone way off topic.

STANV said:

I think we've gone way off topic.

 Wait. What's yer point? 

I'll also ask this, re the OP: if Joe loses, what happens? I'm thinking major league civil unrest, leading to Trump vs. military standoff. Hopefully, a coup. Coup would be cool. Not so far fetched, given recent history.

Sheesh. This siht never ends.

drummerboy said:

This is a video of some very fine people with their secondary penises just hanging out while a protest march goes by.

 What makes you think those penii are secondary?  I think they are solitary.  

If people are going this batsh!t crazy over wearing a mask, imagine what they'll do when Trump loses.

The forces are assembling

https://gothamist.com/news/inside-seething-white-heart-blue-lives-matter-movement

I could be wrong, but it appears that Trump's rally rhetoric is becoming more violent and more racist.

I am actually frightened about what's going to happen come election day.

Like this? Here he tries to defend his racism "That includes them" after he claims how people don't want "projects" next to their house.

By the way, we are doing really well with the African American community, with the Hispanic community. We're doing well with women. We're doing very well. We're doing well with suburbia, suburbia. I ended a regulation that will destroy suburbia. If Biden got in, they will destroy the suburbia. We call it suburbia of the world and we love it. I know it well, Westchester County, the suburban, they sometimes, if you say suburban housewife, you're in deep trouble. So what you do is you say suburban women, they love me. You know why? They want security and they don't want projects being right next to their house. That's okay. They don't want it. By the way, that includes minorities. Because 29% to 30% of these suburban communities are minorities. That includes them.

They don't want that. They want safe communities. They want great communities. They don't want to lose the American dream. It's very simple. I got rid of the regulation from Obama- Biden that was destroying suburbia. Okay? Destroying it. I think suburbia has got to wake up because if they get in, you know who's in charge? You know who's in charge of the program? Cory Booker, Cory Booker. Cory Booker. So, I think the suburban women and suburban men and husbands and wives and everybody, you better get smart because you're not going to have your dream very much longer if they get in. If I get in, you've got it. You've also got your second amendment if I get it.

So the warning in the second paragraph is that Booker is in charge of the program that will destroy suburbia.  And adds a reminder - you'll at least still have your second amendment with Donny/

Does anyone know the specific program he's talking about?

What a wacko - talk about cognitive ability.  He's out there!

Here's the full transcript from the other night:

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/tGZ70vdGGGVHyQ2jWBMvgsiynq6XBH3AP6a53HSm4bCuhDFTDcaXHhdWpwUXhai7pSkjWljWX583_hPKfMFMhlwOBME?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=466.52

He's still reliving election night from 4 years ago in FULL detail - this is demented.