2020 US election - The fat lady is warming up in the wings

[hazard]

Not optimistic of that myself at this point,

Optimistic for what outcome? Because I've a feeling we have very different definitions of 'optimistic' when it comes to the results of this particular election.

[Black Aeronaut]

Guys. Let's not beat up on Geth here. He's willing to accept the reality of the situation.

That said, I'm now a bit more concerned about what Trump might possibly pull in order to make things more difficult for Biden once he's exhausted even his Hail Marie plays.

Granted, I'm sure that Biden can reverse a lot of things through executive orders... But there's still a lot of damage Trump can do until Inauguration Day. Some of it may even be irreparable - at least, within our lifetimes.

Yes, the world will still keep turning. Life will go on. But I have a worry that it's going to be hard going if he finds the right lever to pull.

[GethN7]

Guys.  Let's not beat up on Geth here.  He's willing to accept the reality of the situation.

That said, I'm now a bit more concerned about what Trump might possibly pull in order to make things more difficult for Biden once he's exhausted even his Hail Marie plays.

Granted, I'm sure that Biden can reverse a lot of things through executive orders...  But there's still a lot of damage Trump can do until Inauguration Day.  Some of it may even be irreparable - at least, within our lifetimes.

Yes, the world will still keep turning.  Life will go on.  But I have a worry that it's going to be hard going if he finds the right lever to pull.

To lay it on the table, I stand by what I said before: I will accept it as an adult if Trump loses and if Biden wins despite everything Trump has done to challenge this. That in mind, I also have not discounted the evidence of the alternate possibility occurring, and I do not feel the least bit of shame I preferred Trump to have a second term, I made that choice and own it, but will again accept if that does not occur.

If Trump gets it, I will be gracious about it. If he doesn't, I promise the same. Life is bigger for me than petty political disputes. Besides, this is not without historical precedent and I mostly want to see where it goes as a student of history, regardless of the outcome, life will continue regardless.

To cover what the above-quoted reply addresses, I will be realistic, Trump could make Biden's life very hard if he does lose. John Adams signed into office a bunch of judges to frustrate Thomas Jefferson's designs in office before leaving, and if Trump so decides, there are a lot of entirely legal and consistent with the powers of the executive ways he could smash everything with a hammer and leave Biden to fix the shattered pieces. Warren Harding had a lot to fix because the outgoing Wilson administration did exactly this to him out of sheer spite.

However, that is not ENTIRELY bad. This could give Biden a chance to clean house, and thus leave less in place to be enforced that could be a long-term impediment to any Biden/future Democrat administration initiatives. Despite Wilson's team smashing everything with a hammer before they left, Harding was able to set into place the means of Republicans to hold the presidency through the 1920s anyway.

At the same time, it would be a spiteful act for Trump to pull and I would certainly consider it a dick move if he does, but regretfully, as much as I'd prefer it be as amiable as Ford was handing things over to Carter by comparison, Trump is likely to smash the fine china with a hammer on his way out if he does ultimately lose.

[Bob Schroeck]

if he does ultimately lose.

I would point out that by the laws of this nation, the fat lady is not only on the stage, she's standing before the mike, and the curtain is up. All she's waiting for is the conductor to wave his baton.

Trump is not "ensuring his rights" and his toadies are not "pursuing election fraud" -- even Trump's hand-picked Supreme Court majority has called bullshit on all that. Trump is engaged in trying to effect an autogolpe, a coup by which he will remain in power against the will of the people. If he is president of the United States after January 20, it will not be because he won, it will be because he and his lickspittles will have neutered the Constitution for their own benefit and denied the Presidency to the legitimate holder of that office.

[hazard]

The USA likes to pretend it's a nation of laws.

But it was never a nation of laws. Nations have always been of people. For a nation to have laws, there must be the people to devise, distribute, adjudicate and enforce those laws.

[GethN7]

if he does ultimately lose.

I would point out that by the laws of this nation, the fat lady is not only on the stage, she's standing before the mike, and the curtain is up.  All she's waiting for is the conductor to wave his baton.

Trump is not "ensuring his rights" and his toadies are not "pursuing election fraud" -- even Trump's hand-picked Supreme Court majority has called bullshit on all that.  Trump is engaged in trying to effect an autogolpe, a coup by which he will remain in power against the will of the people.  If he is president of the United States after January 20, it will not be because he won, it will be because he and his lickspittles will have neutered the Constitution for their own benefit and denied the Presidency to the legitimate holder of that office.

In fairness, I see your point, Biden all but has this, but even if this legal stuff is a farce, it's a farce we must play out because this isn't the first time it has happened, and I for one am just grateful Trump cannot just make himself an unironic dictator in the sense of ordering his re-election through force of arms.

So long as that remains true and power does not devolve to growing strictly out of the barrel of a gun, I say let the farce continue, I'd rather the rule of law hamstring any attempt at a coup bought in actual blood if this must continue.

From where I'm sitting, it will only be time to panic when Trump can seize power at the tip of a bayonet, then I will not only denounce him, but also agree completely all hope is lost for representative democracy.

[Bob Schroeck]

At least Trump shot himself in the foot with the military; after all his missteps there, not the least of which is the "suckers and losers" comment, he's not going to be able to convince anyone to ignore their oaths to the Constitution to help him keep the Presidency by force. Which is probably why he made the shout-out to the Proud Boys -- they're the closest thing he has to a loyal military force.

[robkelk]

autogolpe

My "new" word for today... and for this quarter-year, for that matter.

If he is president of the United States after January 20, it will not be because he won, it will be because he and his lickspittles will have neutered the Constitution for their own benefit and denied the Presidency to the legitimate holder of that office.

If it comes to that, well... I believe somewhere on this very subform there's a post mentioning that this is what your Second Amendment is for.

This would very quickly overwhelm Canada's ability to accept refugees (California alone is currently home to about as many people as all of Canada), so please don't let it come to that.

[Isodecan]

In fairness, I see your point, Biden all but has this, but even if this legal stuff is a farce, it's a farce we must play out because this isn't the first time it has happened, and I for one am just grateful Trump cannot just make himself an unironic dictator in the sense of ordering his re-election through force of arms.

So long as that remains true and power does not devolve to growing strictly out of the barrel of a gun, I say let the farce continue, I'd rather the rule of law hamstring any attempt at a coup bought in actual blood if this must continue.

From where I'm sitting, it will only be time to panic when Trump can seize power at the tip of a bayonet, then I will not only denounce him, but also agree completely all hope is lost for representative democracy.

I was wondering what was the previous time in US history that you are positing that a situation like this occurred where the sitting president lost the election and claimed that massive fraud occurred in multiple states to cause that loss and filed dozens of lawsuits without presenting any actual evidence?

[GethN7]

In fairness, I see your point, Biden all but has this, but even if this legal stuff is a farce, it's a farce we must play out because this isn't the first time it has happened, and I for one am just grateful Trump cannot just make himself an unironic dictator in the sense of ordering his re-election through force of arms.

So long as that remains true and power does not devolve to growing strictly out of the barrel of a gun, I say let the farce continue, I'd rather the rule of law hamstring any attempt at a coup bought in actual blood if this must continue.

From where I'm sitting, it will only be time to panic when Trump can seize power at the tip of a bayonet, then I will not only denounce him, but also agree completely all hope is lost for representative democracy.

I was wondering what was the previous time in US history that you are positing that a situation like this occurred where the sitting president lost the election and claimed that massive fraud occurred in multiple states to cause that loss and filed dozens of lawsuits without presenting any actual evidence?

Not exactly the same circumstances, but the states under Reconstruction governments in 1876 all returned two sets of electoral votes that confused both sides as to their legitimacy, and there was a lot of legal handwringing especially on the Republican side because whoever had the legit votes got the presidency, and the Republicans had more to lose at the time.

There was a lot of finger-pointing and accusations of influence peddling and vote canvassing at the time (it wasn't until 1878 the full scope of whose underwear was really dirty was cleared up), so there is a similar, if not exact, precedent.

[robkelk]

Echoing 2016, the President-Elect is Time's Person of the Year. Not echoing 2016, the Vice-President-Elect shares the honor.

They got the nod for offering "restoration and renewal in a single ticket".

Can't find a link to the actual announcement in a quick search, so here's Reuters' article about it.

[Bob Schroeck]

Twitter tantrum from Trump in 5, 4, 3, 2...

[robkelk]

Well, to be fair, His Orangeness did tie with the Black Lives Matter protestors for runner-up.

[hazard]

I would be greatly skeptical of such claims.

I mean, Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize, but his foreign policy was a continuation of his predecessor's.

[classicdrogn]

I think the difference is more likely to be getting a Nobel Peace Prize for reversing the policies of the previous administration, if anything.

[robkelk]

I would be greatly skeptical of such claims.

Take it up with the editors of Time magazine - they're the ones who said Trump was as newsworthy as Black Lives Matter protestors, but neither were as newsworthy as the President-Elect.

And that's all this is - who (not what, who) was most newsworthy (not in the news, newsworthy) in the year just ending. Consider who got the nod in 2016, or in 2006, or in 1969, or in 1938 (Godwin!)

[classicdrogn]

"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician." - Mike Godwin, Dec 2015

[Bob Schroeck]

The House passes the annual defense bill without the changes Trump demanded, with a lopsided majority that makes it veto-proof.

And today, the Senate did exactly the same, 84-13.

It's an interesting question now whether Trump will veto anyway out of petulance despite knowing it'll just get overridden, or pretend nothing happened to save face, sign it, and claim it's what he planned all along.

[hazard]

Or just refuse to sign it entirely, regardless of the veto proof majority. Can bills in the US become law without the president's signature?

[Bob Schroeck]

It's called a "vest pocket veto", IIRC. <quick Googling> Wow, that's not really a commonly-used phrase any more, is it? But yeah.

<more Googling> Ah! Because vests aren't common any more, I guess, it's just called a "pocket veto" nowadays... and according to the Senate's own page on pocket vetoes, the President has ten days to sign a bill into law. If he doesn't, it automatically becomes a law without his signature at the end of the ten days. The only exception is if Congress adjourns during that ten day period, in which case it is a "pocket veto"; the bill does not become law and it cannot be overridden. So depending on when Congress adjourns for the holiday, it's still possible.

EDIT: It looks like Congress adjourns on the 21st. So if no reconciliation of the Senate and House versions was needed and it was put on his desk today, or maybe even tomorrow, the President can't pull a pocket veto.

[GethN7]

Time made Hitler a Person of the Year, which means that, for better or worse, he did change history that year to the point everyone noticed. Biden and Harris, regardless what happens after this year, have still made everyone notice their impact, so fair enough.

As for Trump getting told no on that defense bill thing, he was trying to attach Section 230 weakening as a rider on a bill and they told him no. Given it already has bipartisan support anyway, I bet Trump will swallow his pride (he is a businessman at heart, it would be the only pragmatically sensible thing to do) on this since Congress wants to do that anyway and just endorse their version since it's basically what he wants.

[RMH999]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3865344001

Well, the Texas Hail Mary is toast. Rejected by the Supreme Court

[GethN7]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3865344001

Well, the Texas Hail Mary is toast.  Rejected by the Supreme Court

Unless Donald Trump becomes an unironic reality warper on the level of Cthulhu Mythos, yeah, I'd say it over.

[robkelk]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3865344001

Well, the Texas Hail Mary is toast.  Rejected by the Supreme Court

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed the four states used the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext to change election rules and greatly expand mail voting in violation of the Constitution.

what, is that really a thing south of the border?

Because we're looking at changing election rules specifically because of the pandemic on our side of the border (multi-day voting over a weekend, to be specific -we already have mail-in voting), and everybody - including the Conservatives - thinks that's a good thing.

[RMH999]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3865344001

Well, the Texas Hail Mary is toast.  Rejected by the Supreme Court

Unless Donald Trump becomes an unironic reality warper on the level of Cthulhu Mythos, yeah, I'd say it over.

Well... not quite.

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-...ed79f.html

Sen. Johnson of Wisconsin is not ruling out challenging the Electors on Jan 6. If he gets a senator to go with him, then they (House & Senate) will vote to see if they accept the electors and who knows from there.