US Election 2024: Grumpy Old Men

[Eternal_Freedom]

Is there something Biden can legally do to prevent a second Trump presidency (assuming Harris can't win on recounts and proving Republican cheating (which we all know happened, as republican voter fraud is the ONLY kind ever verified?)
Because if Trump DOES get a second turn, THE US as a functional country or useful member of the world community are OVER.

Well SCOTUS ruled that the President is immune for actions taken within "official acts" which included the hypothetical of ordering the SEALs to assassinate political rivals, so I suppose that's technically legal.

Of course, if Biden did do that, I would expect an immediate SCOTUS u-turn and "that's not what we meant!"

[Batman]

SCOTUS can u-turn after the fact all they want, the stupidest, least competent and most corrupt cabinet in the history of human politics would be out of the picture.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Honestly, part of me wants Biden to do that just to see the mental gymnastics the GOP would have to go through to suddenly reverse their position. Kinda like how in 2020 I wanted Biden to win the electoral college but not the popular vote just to see how quickly the GOP said "nope, must get rid of the electoral college RIGHT NOW."

[Ralin]

SCOTUS can u-turn after the fact all they want, the stupidest, least competent and most corrupt cabinet in the history of human politics would be out of the picture.

He could do that anyway if we go down that route. Would still lead to an immediate constitutional crisis and impeachment.

To answer your question though, Trump to all appearances won fair and square and by a significant amount. I don't think there are any alternatives besides Biden declaring himself dictator or someone hatting up and making everyone find out who is third in the line of succession.

[Batman]

'to all appearances' meaning as reported by the MSM whose accuracy and integrity no longer exist. I find it much more credible that Trump won (if at all) by an insignificant margin (that was likely won by cheating).
And an immediate constitutional crisis is FAR preferable to a second Trump term, which would END the US as a functional country, and give Putin free reign to do whatever he wants. If I had anything to say I'd say the UK and France should retarget their nukes on Washington because it just became a much bigger threat to Europe than Russia ever was.

[Raw Shark]

'to all appearances' meaning as reported by the MSM whose accuracy and integrity no longer exist. I find it much more credible that Trump won (if at all) by an insignificant margin (that was likely won by cheating).
And an immediate constitutional crisis is FAR preferable to a second Trump term, which would END the US as a functional country, and give Putin free reign to do whatever he wants. If I had anything to say I'd say the UK and France should retarget their nukes on Washington because it just became a much bigger threat to Europe than Russia ever was.

Let's slow our roll here, my guy. Do I think this is a not great situation for everybody that is likely to reduce respect and influence for the country I happen to live in? Yes. Do I think the nukes should be on the table? We're far off from that point IMHO. And I'm saying this as a guy who thinks the Mad Max dystopia is by far the one I'd personally shine in. I'd be the guy in the hockey mask and we'd have cool hot rods. But not yet. Not yet by a long shot. This is embarrassing, not the end.

[Ralin]

'to all appearances' meaning as reported by the MSM whose accuracy and integrity no longer exist. I find it much more credible that Trump won (if at all) by an insignificant margin (that was likely won by cheating).
And an immediate constitutional crisis is FAR preferable to a second Trump term, which would END the US as a functional country, and give Putin free reign to do whatever he wants. If I had anything to say I'd say the UK and France should retarget their nukes on Washington because it just became a much bigger threat to Europe than Russia ever was.

I remind you that one of the few good things you can say about Trump's first term is that he didn't start any new wars.

[Raw Shark]

I know I talked a big-dickin' anarchist game when I was younger about helter-skelter and let's shake the Etch-A-Sketch and see what happens, but I turned into a grown-up at some point and I happen to like this bad ol' world the way it is, mostly. I can be a man and admit I was wrong. I would rather help to save the world than watch it burn, these days. I think most people feel the same. Our strength has always been in our ability to come together for the greater good. As a species. Not necessarily as societies, which have always been competitive. But when it comes to total destruction, I think the cold war proved most of us don't want it.

[bilateralrope]

Is there something Biden can legally do to prevent a second Trump presidency (assuming Harris can't win on recounts and proving Republican cheating (which we all know happened, as republican voter fraud is the ONLY kind ever verified?)
Because if Trump DOES get a second turn, THE US as a functional country or useful member of the world community are OVER.

While Republican voters making fraudulent votes has happened in the past, I can't recall any examples where there was enough of it to change the result.

In theory the electoral college could decide that they don't want Trump as president. But they won't and, even if enough of them did, it would probably quickly find its way to SCOTUS. Who then have to choose between a Harris win or eliminating faithless electors. I can't see the current SCOTUS choosing Harris.

Well SCOTUS ruled that the President is immune for actions taken within "official acts" which included the hypothetical of ordering the SEALs to assassinate political rivals, so I suppose that's technically legal.

Of course, if Biden did do that, I would expect an immediate SCOTUS u-turn and "that's not what we meant!"

Well, the surviving members of SCOTUS would get to make that u-turn.

If Biden takes out Trump that way, you get Vance replacing him. Vance will follow orders from the Heritage Foundation, which likely means more competent nominations than Trump is making. If Biden takes out Trump and Vance, who is next in the line of succession ?

The best plan for assassinations would be for Biden to take out Trump, Vance, and so on down the line of succession until he gets someone he wants. As well as the conservative members of SCOTUS. Pardon everyone involved. Then let himself stand trial so the surviving members of SCOTUS get to eliminate presidential immunity.

Even then, that leaves the US with republicans in control of the house and senate, with a major talking point for the next presidential elections. Then the Heritage Foundation gets to pick someone competent for their next attempt.

Right now the best plan is to hope that there is enough incompetence, bureaucratic inertia and people delaying things to keep elections happening for the next 4 years. While allowing enough bad stuff through that people realize why electing a fascist is a bad idea.

[Raw Shark]

Even then, that leaves the US with republicans in control of the house and senate, with a major talking point for the next presidential elections. Then the Heritage Foundation gets to pick someone competent for their next attempt.

Right now the best plan is to hope that there is enough incompetence, bureaucratic inertia and people delaying things to keep elections happening for the next 4 years. While allowing enough bad stuff through that people realize why electing a fascist is a bad idea.

I hate to say it, but that's starting to look like the best-case scenario to me. Maybe they'll fuck it up enough that they don't accomplish the agenda and convince everybody it was a bad idea. With the cabinet picks so far, I can see some potential fractures already. Maybe the best thing is if this turns out to be a loose house of cards that does minimum harm in their haste to brawl with each other and ends up looking as dumb as it is instead of hellishly scary effective.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Gaetz is out.

Matt Gaetz has withdrawn as President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Attorney General following continued scrutiny over a federal child sex trafficking investigation.

The 42-year-old's announcement came days after an attorney for two women said his clients, one of whom was 17 at the time, told House Ethics Committee investigators that Gaetz paid them for sex multiple times, starting in 2017 when he was a Florida congressman.

Gaetz said in a statement on Thursday: “While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition.

"There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General. Trump’s DOJ must be in place and ready on Day 1."

Gaetz has denied any wrongdoing and said last year that the Justice Department’s investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving underage girls had ended with no federal charges against him.

He would have overseen the same agency, the Justice Department, had he been confirmed as attorney general by the Senate. He also would have controlled the FBI and ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives).

Trump, in a social media post, said that Gaetz has a "wonderful future".

“I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General. He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect," he said.

"Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!”

Gaetz’s withdrawal could undermine Trump’s efforts to appoint loyalists to his incoming administration and signal potential resistance from other Republicans

When he was announced as Trump's pick of the attorney general, Republican congressman Max Miller of Ohio, described Gaetz in an interview with Politico as “a reckless pick” with “a zero percent shot”.

[Solauren]

The question is, was having sex with a 17 year old for money illegal. And if so, will he be facing criminal charges now?

[Ralin]

The question is, was having sex with a 17 year old for money illegal. And if so, will he be facing criminal charges now?

He's Republican

[bilateralrope]

The question is, was having sex with a 17 year old for money illegal. And if so, will he be facing criminal charges now?

The DOJ already investigated and refused to prosecute. I can't see Trump's DOJ doing anything further.

[Raw Shark]

The question is, was having sex with a 17 year old for money illegal. And if so, will he be facing criminal charges now?

He's Republican

Yeah, this won't go anywhere. Except he's not going to be Attorney General. Gaetz fucks kids is a boys will be boys situation to those clowns. In the words of the legendary George Carlin, "This is setting the bar very low and settling for very little."

[Khaat]

In short, because he could afford an actual attorney (instead of an overworked public defender), conviction is much less likely, so the Fed declined to prosecute. Because witnesses (with their own convictions), digital evidence, and politics that would land the trial in Florida Federal court....

Yay! Two-tiered justice! /sarcasm

[Ralin]

'to all appearances' meaning as reported by the MSM whose accuracy and integrity no longer exist. I find it much more credible that Trump won (if at all) by an insignificant margin (that was likely won by cheating).

No, as reported by the actual government.

I don't have the stats handy but Trump won with increased numbers across the board. Including in deep red and deep blue states no one really bothers campaigning in for presidential elections because there's no point. And he didn't squeak by in the electoral college either; he won by something like multiple states worth.

The US has what amounts to fifty separate elections. Rigging even a fraction of them would require a massive conspiracy. The kind that's too big to pull off without being noticed or someone talking. And no one, most particularly including the other candidate who conceded within a day or so and presumably really wanted to be president, is claiming to have proof that it happened.

Would love to believe that's a potential out, but the logistics just don't work.

[Solauren]

In the last three elections, there were four categories of voters

2 of them, or constant in US politics; The 'Voting Republic no matter who it is', and 'Voting Democract' no matter who it is.

So, the others two groups where people that are not hard core on the political part, but liked policies/the candidate

2016 -
Voted for Trump
Voted for Clinton

2020 -
Voted for Trump
Voted for Biden

2024 -
Voted for Trump
Voted for Harris


This time round, more people decided to vote for Trump, then decided to Vote for Harris, at all levels. For whatever reason.

Trump won due to a combination of his own popularity, his stated goals and policies for when he took office, and people not liking Harris/her policies.

Same with the Congressional and Senate level elections.

Simply put - alot of people didn't like how the Biden administration handled alot of things, or how Harris said she was going to, while Trump had people eating out of his hand. That's why he won.

Be disgusted if you want, but that is that.

Now, all we can do is sit back, and watch.

Just remember, this stage is just the 'Prologue' of Trump 2025 -2029
The first chapter starts off Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, after Trump is sworn in.

[Raw Shark]

No, as reported by the actual government.

I don't have the stats handy but Trump won with increased numbers across the board. Including in deep red and deep blue states no one really bothers campaigning in for presidential elections because there's no point. And he didn't squeak by in the electoral college either; he won by something like multiple states worth.

The US has what amounts to fifty separate elections. Rigging even a fraction of them would require a massive conspiracy. The kind that's too big to pull off without being noticed or someone talking. And no one, most particularly including the other candidate who conceded within a day or so and presumably really wanted to be president, is claiming to have proof that it happened.

Would love to believe that's a potential out, but the logistics just don't work.

You won't hear me say this all the time, but Ralin's right. Ralin's totally correct. He won. May the God I don't believe in have mercy on our souls.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What are the chances that Trump et al will try to do away with the midterms to prevent the inevitable blue wave if they fuck up creating Fascist America?

[Gamerzone]

What are the chances that Trump et al will try to do away with the midterms to prevent the inevitable blue wave if they fuck up creating Fascist America?

It's pretty unlikely that Trump or anyone else in his circle would be able to do away with the midterms, even if they tried. The midterm elections are a cornerstone of U.S. democracy, with checks and balances deeply embedded in the system

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What are the chances that Trump et al will try to do away with the midterms to prevent the inevitable blue wave if they fuck up creating Fascist America?

It's pretty unlikely that Trump or anyone else in his circle would be able to do away with the midterms, even if they tried. The midterm elections are a cornerstone of U.S. democracy, with checks and balances deeply embedded in the system

Trump is the living antithesis of that, unfortunately those are two years away meaning Trump has that long to do whatever the fuck he wants.

[Gamerzone]

What are the chances that Trump et al will try to do away with the midterms to prevent the inevitable blue wave if they fuck up creating Fascist America?

It's pretty unlikely that Trump or anyone else in his circle would be able to do away with the midterms, even if they tried. The midterm elections are a cornerstone of U.S. democracy, with checks and balances deeply embedded in the system

Trump is the living antithesis of that, unfortunately those are two years away meaning Trump has that long to do whatever the fuck he wants.

I guess we will live and see

[bilateralrope]

What are the chances that Trump et al will try to do away with the midterms to prevent the inevitable blue wave if they fuck up creating Fascist America?

It's pretty unlikely that Trump or anyone else in his circle would be able to do away with the midterms, even if they tried. The midterm elections are a cornerstone of U.S. democracy, with checks and balances deeply embedded in the system

Trump is the living antithesis of that, unfortunately those are two years away meaning Trump has that long to do whatever the fuck he wants.

Only for things he can do with executive orders.

If he needs congress or the senate to approve, they are going to limit what he can do. Any law change (eg, killing Obamacare) can be blocked by a few R's worried about how it will hurt their reelection chances. A lot of horrible law changes will get through, but the very worst might get stopped.

Confirmations in the senate are going to be much slower than Trump likes, with the democrats asking a lot of questions Trump doesn't want answered. A lot will get confirmed, but it did seem that Gaetz was too much even for them. We just need to know where the line is.

As for recess appointments, that gets fun. Sure, Trump gets to make appointments unopposed during a recess. But starting a recess needs two of:
- A majority in Congress voting for the recess.
- A majority in the Senate voting for the recess.
- The president approving of the recess.
Get a few R's in both bodies worried enough about who Trump will nominate during the recess and the recess doesn't happen.

[Mr Bean]

Confirmations in the senate are going to be much slower than Trump likes, with the democrats asking a lot of questions Trump doesn't want answered. A lot will get confirmed, but it did seem that Gaetz was too much even for them. We just need to know where the line is.

As for recess appointments, that gets fun. Sure, Trump gets to make appointments unopposed during a recess. But starting a recess needs two of:
- A majority in Congress voting for the recess.
- A majority in the Senate voting for the recess.
- The president approving of the recess.
Get a few R's in both bodies worried enough about who Trump will nominate during the recess and the recess doesn't happen.

Correction as I found out during the Obama years (That President Obama never used)
If the Senate says we should go into recess and the House says we should not, the President can force them into recess, or to quote the law in question.

Article II Executive Branch

Section 3 Duties

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

So he does not need the Senate and House to both agree to go into recess he just needs one.