State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office
-
Horace - its not that the thesaurus disagrees with your substitution, it's that I obviously didn't mean it in the strictest possible usage.
Seriously, did you really think I was asking you whether such an action violated the laws of physics? or literally 'couldn't happen' in some deep ontological sense?
-
There's a simple solution to all of this: officially label the Democrat party an enemy of the state and a terrorist organization, rou d up all the Democrat politicians and throw them in prison, confiscate all their assets and put the money in the general fund, and send everyone who identifies as a Democrat to a reprogramming camp.....
-
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Horace - its not that the thesaurus disagrees with your substitution, it's that I obviously didn't mean it in the strictest possible usage.
Seriously, did you really think I was asking you whether such an action violated the laws of physics? or literally 'couldn't happen' in some deep ontological sense?
No, you were just disingenuously smuggling in "couldn't happen" for "is not a legitimate concern". You asked me to defend the idea that it couldn't happen when I was opposing the idea that it was a legitimate concern. I recognized your dishonest reframing of the discussion called you out on it.
-
Really, to me the scenario I (indirectly) laid out with those questions seems so plausible I can't imagine(1) anyone disagreeing with it being a legitimate concern.
I even thought that no one would be able to point to a specific step in the process and tell me 'No, that would never(2) happen, Jon, because ....'.
So far from 'reframing' it as a gotcha I was disappointed you ignored it and instead opted for the straw man interpretation.
(1) I don't mean that literally in the sense that I can't close my eyes and picture the words on the screen. I mean I couldn't imagine reasonable people communicating that view in good faith.
(2) I mean that in the colloquial sense, like if you were to say 'Maybe Trump will dump Pence and invite Michelle Obama on a national unity ticket' and I say 'that could never happen', I don't mean it would violate any laws, either of physics or the state
-
Really, to me the scenario I (indirectly) laid out with those questions seems so plausible I can't imagine(1) anyone disagreeing with it being a legitimate concern.
I even thought that no one would be able to point to a specific step in the process and tell me 'No, that would never(2) happen, Jon, because ....'.
So far from 'reframing' it as a gotcha I was disappointed you ignored it and instead opted for the straw man interpretation.
(1) I don't mean that literally in the sense that I can't close my eyes and picture the words on the screen. I mean I couldn't imagine reasonable people communicating that view in good faith.
(2) I mean that in the colloquial sense, like if you were to say 'Maybe Trump will dump Pence and invite Michelle Obama on a national unity ticket' and I say 'that could never happen', I don't mean it would violate any laws, either of physics or the state
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Really, to me the scenario I (indirectly) laid out with those questions seems so plausible I can't imagine(1) anyone disagreeing with it being a legitimate concern.
I even thought that no one would be able to point to a specific step in the process and tell me 'No, that would never(2) happen, Jon, because ....'.
So far from 'reframing' it as a gotcha I was disappointed you ignored it and instead opted for the straw man interpretation.
(1) I don't mean that literally in the sense that I can't close my eyes and picture the words on the screen. I mean I couldn't imagine reasonable people communicating that view in good faith.
(2) I mean that in the colloquial sense, like if you were to say 'Maybe Trump will dump Pence and invite Michelle Obama on a national unity ticket' and I say 'that could never happen', I don't mean it would violate any laws, either of physics or the state
No, the sane among us see you simply as playing silly booger...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jon-nyc :
Or do you think there's nothing he or his supporters could do to marshall a competing set of electors from GOP-led swing states? Or to just invalidate whole classes of votes?
I am sure there is something he could do. Gosh jon, do you think I think the laws of physics would be violated by that? What's with these straw men?
I don't consider that stuff a "legitimate concern".
-
Personally, I think this discussion both sucks and blows simultaneously, hence violating the very laws of physics you two appear to know so much about.
-
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Really, to me the scenario I (indirectly) laid out with those questions seems so plausible I can't imagine(1) anyone disagreeing with it being a legitimate concern.
I even thought that no one would be able to point to a specific step in the process and tell me 'No, that would never(2) happen, Jon, because ....'.
So far from 'reframing' it as a gotcha I was disappointed you ignored it and instead opted for the straw man interpretation.
(1) I don't mean that literally in the sense that I can't close my eyes and picture the words on the screen. I mean I couldn't imagine reasonable people communicating that view in good faith.
(2) I mean that in the colloquial sense, like if you were to say 'Maybe Trump will dump Pence and invite Michelle Obama on a national unity ticket' and I say 'that could never happen', I don't mean it would violate any laws, either of physics or the state
No, the sane among us see you simply as playing silly booger...
-
Maybe you could take us step by plausible step through the process by which this happens? It would help identify our differences between what is or is not a legitimate concern, or maybe it will bring people to your side, as they understand the plausibility of the process.
-
I am asking so I can understand more about the logistics of this:
Or do you think there's nothing he or his supporters could do to marshall a competing set of electors from GOP-led swing states? Or to just invalidate whole classes of votes?
I am presuming that you think the door to doing these sorts of things has always been legally open but that prior presidents have chosen not to do them because they are decent people.
-
You provided exactly zero description of the logistics of doing this. As you are the one claiming this unprecedented thing is a legitimate concern, I think the burden would be on you to establish the plausible steps in some amount of detail beyond "invalidate a bunch of votes". Which I am temped to straw-man as "just invent your own vote totals". But that would totally be a straw man and you definitely did not say that.
