Pelosi is worried Trump won't step down voluntarily if 2020 is a close race.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... ip-vpx.cnn

It is terrifying that we're at this point- but we are, and I'm glad that Pelosi recognizes the danger. Unfortunately, as the video explains, she is using it as a reason to "stay in the center" and not impeach Trump.

In other words, her answer to the possibility of Trump attempting to retain power illegally is to concede to him immunity to the rule of law. That will not make Trump less likely to attempt a coup- it will send the message that his opposition is weak, that they fear him, and that they will concede to avoid conflict.

It also frankly begs the question- if the mere fear of Trump attempting to retain power illegitimately is to make enormous concessions to him, how can we trust her to stand up to him if he actually does it?

This is bordering on treasonous conduct by Pelosi, and Trump has just been sent the message that fear of conflict will make the Democrats back down. He has no reason now not to try to retain power by force of arms.

[The Romulan Republic]

This also confirms, incidentally, that her refusal to commit to a position on impeachment was dealing in bad faith. She is locked into avoiding an impeachment if at all possible. Pelosi is a coward, and she's sold our country and the rule of law out. She should be primaried.

[The Romulan Republic]

I reiterate: vote Democrat in the general, but in the primaries, you first consideration should now be: which candidates do I trust most to lead us in a civil war against Trumpism?

I haven't given the question enough thought to say for sure, yet, but right now I'm leaning toward Pete Buttigieg in the Presidential race. He's a Christian and from a red state, and doesn't have a lot of baggage in the public record, so he might have some broad appeal, but he's also fairly progressive in policy and surged in the primary polls, so some appeal to the base. He's not got a lot of political experience, but he's extremely well-educated and intelligent, willing to give in-depth answers on policy, and though not the strongest on impeachment, is not the most resistant to it either. He also has former military and intelligence experience.

[Zaune]

The phrase "damned if we do, damned if we don't" comes to mind. I can't exactly fault her for not wanting to antagonise the impulsive vicious idiot with a millions-strong mob of equally vicious idiots at his beck and call, but nor can I deny that it won't work indefinitely: If we don't give him an excuse to tweet about making a stack of blank pardons for every white American who kills a registered Democrat, sooner or later he'll just invent one.

[Broomstick]

Hell, I'm worried about it, too, but I'm not sure eliminating Pelosi politically is the best solution here. Frankly, I'm not sure what to do about this.

[bilateralrope]

If we don't give him an excuse to tweet about making a stack of blank pardons for every white American who kills a registered Democrat, sooner or later he'll just invent one.

So Democrats need to get out ahead of it. Begin Impeachment hearings. Call it an investigation if they don't want to write up the articles of impeachment yet. Those hearings being televised are what turned people against Nixon, they should turn people against Trump. The more effective they are, the less change there is of a close Trump loss. The greater the chance that enough of the military/intelligence services will pick democracy over Trump that they can remove him by whatever means necessary if he refuses to abide by the election results.

Include hearings with various contractors Trump refused to pay. Just to get the message across that Trump is not a man to honor his promises when they don't benefit him.

Then, if Trump does promise pardons, it's time to remind people that murder is still a state crime. Which Trump can not pardon even if he wanted to.

[Gandalf]

Why is it a thing if Trump "won't step down?" I would think that in order to remain president he would need the backing of a whole bunch of the machinery of state.

[bilateralrope]

Why is it a thing if Trump "won't step down?" I would think that in order to remain president he would need the backing of a whole bunch of the machinery of state.

That is a good question. I'm guessing people are worried that Trump has corrupted enough of the machinery of state that he has the option of ignoring the election results. I can see why Trump worries them more than past presidents, though I'm not convinced he will have that much power.

Also, I remember people here worrying that Bush would refuse to give up the presidency at the end of his second term. So it could just be paranoia.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why is it a thing if Trump "won't step down?" I would think that in order to remain president he would need the backing of a whole bunch of the machinery of state.

Well, that's the question: how much backing would he have? But we really don't want to find that out, both because we don't really know the answer, and because even the attempt would shatter any residual confidence in American democracy, and probably trigger widespread violence from his base.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why is it a thing if Trump "won't step down?" I would think that in order to remain president he would need the backing of a whole bunch of the machinery of state.

That is a good question. I'm guessing people are worried that Trump has corrupted enough of the machinery of state that he has the option of ignoring the election results. I can see why Trump worries them more than past presidents, though I'm not convinced he will have that much power.

Also, I remember people here worrying that Bush would refuse to give up the presidency at the end of his second term. So it could just be paranoia.

Hopefully so, because the alternative is unthinkably, unprecedentedly terrifying.

But this is Donald Trump- a malignant narcissist who has already incited violence, lied about mass voter fraud by his opponents and the size of his election win, had a campaign that was, if not conspiring with a hostile foreign power to win, at least riddled with close contacts to said foreign power and open to its aid (and willing to obstruct all investigation into its interference and take little or no action to secure future elections). This is a man who talked about using the Second Amendment (ie, assassinations) if Hillary won and could appoint Supreme Court Justices. And this is a man who won't have much to lose if he loses the election, because he will almost certainly face multiple criminal counts once he no longer has the DOJ policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted to protect him. And his own personal lawyer, one of the people who knew him best, testified under oath to Congress that he feared there would not be a peaceful transition of power if Trump lost the election.

So people are absolutely right to be worried about it. The question is what we do to prepare for that possibility.

[The Romulan Republic]

Speaking of- Trump has just said that he believes he deserves an extra two years as President due to the Mueller probe:

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/06/will-d ... -concerns/

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why is it a thing if Trump "won't step down?" I would think that in order to remain president he would need the backing of a whole bunch of the machinery of state.

The entire Republican party seems like a "whole bunch" to me.

[Gandalf]

Why is it a thing if Trump "won't step down?" I would think that in order to remain president he would need the backing of a whole bunch of the machinery of state.

The entire Republican party seems like a "whole bunch" to me.

By "state machinery" I meant something more along the lines of the public service, as well as the police and armed forces. They're the entities which actually enact what the politicians say.

[Zaune]

By "state machinery" I meant something more along the lines of the public service, as well as the police and armed forces. They're the entities which actually enact what the politicians say.

Sadly, Trump probably does have substantial support in those entities. Not as much as he thinks, and certainly not a majority, but enough to inflict a lot of damage before they're shut down by the rest if he does spit the dummy.

And once that line is crossed, swearing in the candidate who actually won while Trump is hauled away in handcuffs, a straitjacket or a body-bag is not going to make everything go back to... Well, I want to call it "normal", but there are people eligible vote Anyone But This Cuntflap 2020 who are too young to even remember anything else.

[Gandalf]

Does "substantial support" include aiding a coup?

[Zaune]

Does "substantial support" include aiding a coup?

When they're facing an incoming administration that's under considerable pressure from its base to carry out some drastic house-cleaning within their agency? Hell yes, at least for some of them. At the very least they're more likely to back out because of cowardice rather than out of principle.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Does "substantial support" include aiding a coup?

The major issue (and I think the thing you aren't really taking into account) is how a very large chunk of the Republican party apparatus and supporters is that they are very seriously convinced that all of this grandstanding on Russia is part of a Democratic/deep state ploy to perform a coup of their own that keeps them in power at the expense of what "real Americans" want. This has been the center of their rhetoric for years, now. It's not that they would think of supporting Trump as aiding a coup, they would think of it as PREVENTING a coup by the various nefarious forces at work.

Whether or not there are enough of these people embedded at enough influential positions within the bureaucracy to pull it off is an open question (thankfully, I think the Trump administration's general incompetence at both interacting with the bureaucracy and at successfully appointing people to positions within in has neutered their ability to infiltrate it). But you seem to be approaching this as if you believe all the pro-Trump crowd are saying to themselves, "Yeah, we're going to stage a coup!" That's not what they're thinking, and that's exactly what makes them so dangerous, because they very strongly believe that they have the moral imperative.

[Aether]

Frankly, this isn't even worthy to discuss unless it is backed by evidence that there is a substancial voting block at hand ready to start or "prevent" a coup. And a handful of white nationalist nutjobs who come on each other hoping that their re-enactment of 1984's Red Dawn comes true isn't "substancial."

This is nothing more than an Elseworld's thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, this isn't even worthy to discuss unless it is backed by evidence that there is a substancial voting block at hand ready to start or "prevent" a coup. And a handful of white nationalist nutjobs who come on each other hoping that their re-enactment of 1984's Red Dawn comes true isn't "substancial."

This is nothing more than an Elseworld's thread.

How about the fact that entire DOJ under Barr is basically an extension of Trump's will, at this point, except to the extent that lower ranked employees are willing to go against their superiors? Or that he effectively has ICE acting as his personal Brown Shirts? Or the fact that he is the only Presidential candidate ever to receive the endorsement of the border control? Or that a majority of polled Republicans support postponing the 2020 elections?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Frankly, this isn't even worthy to discuss unless it is backed by evidence that there is a substancial voting block at hand ready to start or "prevent" a coup. And a handful of white nationalist nutjobs who come on each other hoping that their re-enactment of 1984's Red Dawn comes true isn't "substancial."

Why, exactly, are we not allowed to speculate? Of course there's no evidence, because we are talking about a hypothetical situation. By definition, there's no going to be any evidence, only our suppositions about the potential ramifications of the current political situation. If you disagree with any of the specific logic in any of our statements, you are free to state those oppositions. But in lieu of that this is nothing more than a worthless shitpost.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, I'd really like this to turn out to be much ado about nothing. But at this point, I'm not sure if any outcome counts as "implausible". We're already light years past what most people thought was plausible five years ago.

[Ender]

I reiterate: vote Democrat in the general, but in the primaries, you first consideration should now be: which candidates do I trust most to lead us in a civil war against Trumpism?

I haven't given the question enough thought to say for sure, yet, but right now I'm leaning toward Pete Buttigieg in the Presidential race. He's a Christian and from a red state, and doesn't have a lot of baggage in the public record, so he might have some broad appeal, but he's also fairly progressive in policy and surged in the primary polls, so some appeal to the base. He's not got a lot of political experience, but he's extremely well-educated and intelligent, willing to give in-depth answers on policy, and though not the strongest on impeachment, is not the most resistant to it either. He also has former military and intelligence experience.

Hi there, Indiana organizer for the past 5 years and navy veteran here. Don't vote Buttigieg.

His record in South Bend is one of refusing action and battling the Democratic base while letting Notre Dame pump a ton of money into the local economy and taking credit for that. He is staunchly opposed to progressive policy, his general attitude is that he is always rhe smartest and leftist guy in the room (daddy issues hooray) and won't budge. His intelligence is largely performative, he isn't dumb but he is no more an expert on anything than anyone else in the race, he is just playing to class biases. He has no policies, and he is flat out misrepresenting his "military and intelligence experience " - he was a reserve office, meaning he sat at Kabul International airport where weapons were unloaded and spent his time supervising working parties, remedial PT, and urinalysis.

On topic the core issue is that the Dem leadership is committed to not leading. They want the titles and fat contracts but don't want to build and wield power.

Like look, you don't want to impeach and Trump is openly defying the law refusing to cooperate with congressional subpoenas. The courts probably won't hold him to account. So start issuing subpoenas to the groups bribing Trump instead. Those the courts will uphold. Fairly straightforward, right? Gotta wonder why they aren't doing it, almost like the leading Dems are up to their eyeballs with the same crooks, hmm?

[Ender]

Frankly, this isn't even worthy to discuss unless it is backed by evidence that there is a substancial voting block at hand ready to start or "prevent" a coup. And a handful of white nationalist nutjobs who come on each other hoping that their re-enactment of 1984's Red Dawn comes true isn't "substancial."

This is nothing more than an Elseworld's thread.

This is correct and the one saving grace. Trump can't mobilize bodies in the streets or a strike. The Dems could - Sara Nelson's walk off ended the shutdown in hours. But the Dems don't want to. Pelosi and Schumer do not want a strong labor movement shutting things down, they are very happy with the present of using Trump as a boogeyman. If they were serious about it you'd see it in their budgets, throwing money to direct action organizing and embracing CWU, SEIU, and upstarts like Nelson instead of Trumka.

Trump refusing to accept the results of the election, so fucking what. He won 2016 and claims it was fraudulent. He will do it regardless. But he doesn't have the bodies to make it work. This is that she doesn't want to do anything

[Broomstick]

Hi there, Indiana organizer for the past 5 years and navy veteran here. Don't vote Buttigieg.

If you're an "Indiana organizer" why does your location field say "Illinois"? Are you a carpet-bagger?

He has no policies, and he is flat out misrepresenting his "military and intelligence experience " - he was a reserve office, meaning he sat at Kabul International airport where weapons were unloaded and spent his time supervising working parties, remedial PT, and urinalysis.

Yeah, totally unlike Cadet Bone Spurs. What, is there something shameful in doing that work? Doesn't the military need people to unload weapons or supervise people or deal with drug testing? Do only combat veterans count or something?

Frankly, I haven't heard anything about Buttgieg being in the military until your post, so I don't perceive him "misrepresenting" anything, although it's possible he has.

What I find annoying is that you can't go to his official website without be blasted with JOIN! JOIN! SIGN UP! DONATE!. Fuck that noise, I want a website less slick and more with what the candidates policies/plans are for tackling various issues.

[Zaune]

Yeah, totally unlike Cadet Bone Spurs. What, is there someone shameful in doing that work?

There isn't, but there is plenty of shame in framing your military career as something it wasn't for personal gain. I haven't researched Buttgeig's campaign in much detail (I expected him to flee into tax exile in shame once the Internet noticed his name has "butt" in it, honestly) but if he's going out of his way to gloss over the fact he almost certainly never heard a shot fired in anger, as Ender alleges, then he can go be fruitful and multiply with himself.