State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office
-
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Trump is liable to call a loss "illegitimate". Lots of losers of elections have done so, that is an irrelevancy.
Many of Trump's base would back him on that claim, again irrelevant and commonplace.
I think there is no plausible path forward for Trump to use violence to stay in office.
and no, I will not attempt to establish that it is "impossible". "Impossible" is not necessary for something to not be a "legitimate concern", especially when the "legitimate concern" is fun to say out loud to drive home the point that orange man bad.
You conceded my first two concerns then skipped the rest, ending on a nice straw man. Perhaps it wasn't intentional, want to try again?
What straw man? Was it a straw man when I rephrased "couldn't happen" as "impossible"? Serious question, I am fascinated by your ability to see straw men where they do not exist.
Your other points were about Trump using violence to stay in office, I claimed that they were implausible. Your accusation that I skipped them is convenient but inaccurate.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:22 last edited by@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Trump is liable to call a loss "illegitimate". Lots of losers of elections have done so, that is an irrelevancy.
Many of Trump's base would back him on that claim, again irrelevant and commonplace.
I think there is no plausible path forward for Trump to use violence to stay in office.
and no, I will not attempt to establish that it is "impossible". "Impossible" is not necessary for something to not be a "legitimate concern", especially when the "legitimate concern" is fun to say out loud to drive home the point that orange man bad.
You conceded my first two concerns then skipped the rest, ending on a nice straw man. Perhaps it wasn't intentional, want to try again?
What straw man? Was it a straw man when I rephrased "couldn't happen" as "impossible"? Serious question, I am fascinated by your ability to see straw men where they do not exist.
Bump for jon, I am curious what the straw man was.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:22 last edited by
The democrats are trying to put in place an excuse for when they lose the election.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:23 last edited by
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:28 last edited by
It seems there are plenty of democrats who would be willing to commit massive fraud.
Would they be able to commit massive fraud? Probably, some.
It could happen.
In which case Mr. Trump would be obliged to declare a loss illegitimate.
What else could he do?
We have courts to deal with this. No big deal. They will provide justice.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:30 last edited by
62 Posts with 51 Views, that is unusual
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:33 last edited by
It's as transparent as can be.. push for vote by mail so you can steal the election, get all the bobble heads on the Left talking about Trump refusing to accept the election results, then while they're looking at that Shi y object steal the election. Then, if you get caught at stealing the election you can simply say "see, we told you he wouldn't accept the results!! "
The Left is evil and have no morals or principles.
-
It's an academic question posed by people who find it cathartic to discuss implausible worst case scenarios that are the result of a political result they don't like.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:59 last edited by@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
It's an academic question posed by people who find it cathartic to discuss implausible worst case scenarios that are the result of a political result they don't like.
If this place is any guide, it sounds to me that no small number of Trump supporters have already decided the next election is going to be rigged, and of course all of the cheating will be by Democrats.
Obviously, you don't spend as much time, or any time, making fun of those people.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 16:03 last edited by
I root for the underdog. I am in the enviable position of actually being on the side that pop culture is unified against. Everybody wants to be on that side, I actually am.
-
And my point about the current riots and its political side basically accepting them, while expressing concerns over the possibility of violence if Trump loses, remains a good one.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:08 last edited by@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
And my point about the current riots and its political side basically accepting them, while expressing concerns over the possibility of violence if Trump loses, remains a good one.
The reason is that the riots, even today's protests, have absolutely nothing to do with Floyd's death. It has nothing to do with Justice, as the Corps have been arrested and charged. This is all about power for some, fun and games for others.
I
-
@Larry said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Klaus said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
What are you talking about, Larry? As far as I remember, Hillary Clinton called Trump to acknowledge that he won during the night of the election.
Oh yes, she made the standard "I concede" call. Then she got drunk and fell asleep, woke up the next day, scratched her fat ass, farted, and launched a 3 year "I didn't really lose" campaign. She even wrote a book about how it was everyone else's fault not hers, and how she won the popular vote so she's really the rightful winner. She called the book "What Happened".
Did she make any serious attempts to overthrow Trump? Bitching about the electoral college vs popular vote is one thing. But she never said that Trump didn't win the electoral college.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:14 last edited by Jolly 6 May 2020, 17:15@Klaus said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Larry said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Klaus said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
What are you talking about, Larry? As far as I remember, Hillary Clinton called Trump to acknowledge that he won during the night of the election.
Oh yes, she made the standard "I concede" call. Then she got drunk and fell asleep, woke up the next day, scratched her fat ass, farted, and launched a 3 year "I didn't really lose" campaign. She even wrote a book about how it was everyone else's fault not hers, and how she won the popular vote so she's really the rightful winner. She called the book "What Happened".
Did she make any serious attempts to overthrow Trump? Bitching about the electoral college vs popular vote is one thing. But she never said that Trump didn't win the electoral college.
Hillary paid for the fake opposition research on Trump and then leaked it to John McCain, among others. This helped precipitate a coup attempt between some denizens of the Deep State, using fake facts in FISA Court applications.
-
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
And my point about the current riots and its political side basically accepting them, while expressing concerns over the possibility of violence if Trump loses, remains a good one.
The reason is that the riots, even today's protests, have absolutely nothing to do with Floyd's death. It has nothing to do with Justice, as the Corps have been arrested and charged. This is all about power for some, fun and games for others.
I
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:28 last edited by@Jolly said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
And my point about the current riots and its political side basically accepting them, while expressing concerns over the possibility of violence if Trump loses, remains a good one.
The reason is that the riots, even today's protests, have absolutely nothing to do with Floyd's death. It has nothing to do with Justice, as the Corps have been arrested and charged. This is all about power for some, fun and games for others.
Yep. In the de facto n-d chess game of left vs right politics, the riots are in fact the left's intentional use of violence to exert their power. It is irrelevant that the rank and file lefty is not capable of thinking their way to that fact.
-
@Jolly said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
And my point about the current riots and its political side basically accepting them, while expressing concerns over the possibility of violence if Trump loses, remains a good one.
The reason is that the riots, even today's protests, have absolutely nothing to do with Floyd's death. It has nothing to do with Justice, as the Corps have been arrested and charged. This is all about power for some, fun and games for others.
Yep. In the de facto n-d chess game of left vs right politics, the riots are in fact the left's intentional use of violence to exert their power. It is irrelevant that the rank and file lefty is not capable of thinking their way to that fact.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:33 last edited by@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Jolly said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
And my point about the current riots and its political side basically accepting them, while expressing concerns over the possibility of violence if Trump loses, remains a good one.
The reason is that the riots, even today's protests, have absolutely nothing to do with Floyd's death. It has nothing to do with Justice, as the Corps have been arrested and charged. This is all about power for some, fun and games for others.
Yep. In the de facto n-d chess game of left vs right politics, the riots are in fact the left's intentional use of violence to exert their power. It is irrelevant that the rank and file lefty is not capable of thinking their way to that fact.
Amen.
-
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
It's an academic question posed by people who find it cathartic to discuss implausible worst case scenarios that are the result of a political result they don't like.
If this place is any guide, it sounds to me that no small number of Trump supporters have already decided the next election is going to be rigged, and of course all of the cheating will be by Democrats.
Obviously, you don't spend as much time, or any time, making fun of those people.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:42 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
It's an academic question posed by people who find it cathartic to discuss implausible worst case scenarios that are the result of a political result they don't like.
If this place is any guide, it sounds to me that no small number of Trump supporters have already decided the next election is going to be rigged, and of course all of the cheating will be by Democrats.
Obviously, you don't spend as much time, or any time, making fun of those people.
It's not surprising in the least that that's as far as you can get with it.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:46 last edited by
I hear mention in this thread of a "coup" attempt. What does this mean? Do you mean that President Trump would be impeached? If so, would not the Vice President become president?
Maybe my understanding is not that good, but in what way could the Democrat taken power of the executive branch?
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:53 last edited by
The goal was to remove Trump from office, by any means possible, including illegal or immoral means.
-
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Trump is liable to call a loss "illegitimate". Lots of losers of elections have done so, that is an irrelevancy.
Many of Trump's base would back him on that claim, again irrelevant and commonplace.
I think there is no plausible path forward for Trump to use violence to stay in office.
and no, I will not attempt to establish that it is "impossible". "Impossible" is not necessary for something to not be a "legitimate concern", especially when the "legitimate concern" is fun to say out loud to drive home the point that orange man bad.
You conceded my first two concerns then skipped the rest, ending on a nice straw man. Perhaps it wasn't intentional, want to try again?
What straw man? Was it a straw man when I rephrased "couldn't happen" as "impossible"? Serious question, I am fascinated by your ability to see straw men where they do not exist.
Bump for jon, I am curious what the straw man was.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 18:01 last edited by@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@jon-nyc said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
@Horace said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
Trump is liable to call a loss "illegitimate". Lots of losers of elections have done so, that is an irrelevancy.
Many of Trump's base would back him on that claim, again irrelevant and commonplace.
I think there is no plausible path forward for Trump to use violence to stay in office.
and no, I will not attempt to establish that it is "impossible". "Impossible" is not necessary for something to not be a "legitimate concern", especially when the "legitimate concern" is fun to say out loud to drive home the point that orange man bad.
You conceded my first two concerns then skipped the rest, ending on a nice straw man. Perhaps it wasn't intentional, want to try again?
What straw man? Was it a straw man when I rephrased "couldn't happen" as "impossible"? Serious question, I am fascinated by your ability to see straw men where they do not exist.
Bump for jon, I am curious what the straw man was.
That I was claiming it was literally impossible. It didn't seem like you were conversing in good faith. If I say 'What if Trump dumps Pence and gets Michelle Obama to join him on a unity ticket'? and you say 'that couldn't happen', there's no way I would interpret that as stating that it violates the laws of physics or whatever.
I would still like your position on my other items.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 18:04 last edited by
I'll tell you what, jon. If you just straight out admit the obvious - that my rephrasing of "couldn't happen" as "impossible" is not a straw man but legitimate communication, and if you apologize for that, which by the way was another in a long string of false accusations of straw men from you, then I will respond to each of your points.
For reference, you said:
Tell me why you think it couldn't happen.
Then I said:
and no, I will not attempt to establish that it is "impossible". "Impossible" is not necessary for something to not be a "legitimate concern", especially when the "legitimate concern" is fun to say out loud to drive home the point that orange man bad.
-
What if Trump loses but is able to provide valid proof massive fraud?
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 18:04 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office:
What if Trump loses but is able to provide valid proof massive fraud?
You think the world is ever that clean? He'll point to minor irregularities, some real and some contrived, and extrapolate from there. We already know his base will follow.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 18:08 last edited by
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?
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 18:13 last edited by
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.....
