State of the art progressive thought re: Trump refusing to leave office
-
@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.
-
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?
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.....
-
My concerns are assuaged already, Larry. Thanks!
-
@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.
-
Wow.
-
No ad hominems from you would surprise me anymore. It's the interpretation.
-
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
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@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.
