Get ready for four more years (at least) of Trumplandia

Homepage Forums Politics Get ready for four more years (at least) of Trumplandia

This topic contains 40 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 8 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • Author
  • #33261


    Do the legalities play a role when he has decided he is not leaving? March on DC Tcultists. Now what?

    Depends on who follows the rules (and him losing the election), but once Biden is sworn in, Biden is the President and Trump can leave holding a cardboard box of the contents of his desk, or the Secret Service will treat him as an intruder and carry him out, or arrest him LOL. At least, that’s how it would happen in a normal universe.



    The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night — And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

    Read the full article here:

    Between the political machinations described below, an already conservative Supreme Court, possibly to become even more conservative in coming weeks, and the naked power mad hypocrisy of the GOP who for years now have thrown principles to the wind, I wonder whether the Dems have the will, if not the wherewithal, to stop it from happening.

    Whatever happens, nearly half the electorate is bound to feel they got robbed in the election.
    Of course, he might be saddled with a Democrat congress making it impossible for him to get just about anything other than budgets passed. At the same time, the Dems would lack the two-thirds majority to impeach him in the Senate by straight party-line vote.

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.


    From The HillHypocrisy rules on both sides over replacing Justice Ginsburg


    […] McConnell did not specify when a Trump nominee would be put to a vote, leaving open the possibility that it could be done after November’s election. In fact, given the amount of vetting that goes into any nominee’s background, and the hearing process that would take place, a post-election vote might be more likely under the best of circumstances.


    So a majority “yes” vote in the Senate to replace Justice Ginsburg is no certainty, no matter how qualified that person might be. All that anyone can be sure of is that Sen. McConnell would be labeled a hypocrite by many if he brings a nominee up for a vote, possibly endangering the reelection chances of some GOP senators. And, of course, that President Trump could look like a pandering politician, too, perhaps risking his own chances for reelection.

    Trump might have been wiser not to have impulsively tweeted his intention to name a replacement before the election. Instead, he could have considered going on television and calmly announcing that he would not move to replace Justice Ginsburg at this time, that there’s time enough for that after the election. Doing so would have reassured his base and conservatives generally that he has their interests in mind and remains committed to a certain kind of nominee.

    During Obama’s presidency: 1) I don’t remember the details, but I think Dems pushed a “nuclear option” barrage of lower court nominations that Reps claimed was unethical; 2) when re-watching an annual Correspondent’s thing (I forget the exact name… maybe I saw this on a Frontline episode) and the camera was on Trump at a particularly “roasty” moment during Obama’s stage time speaking about/at Trump, I imagined Trump was seething hatefully at that moment… perhaps even desperately thinking how he could reclaim respect by running for president?

    On a related note, also from The Hill:

    Trump casts doubt on Ginsburg statement, wonders if it was written by Schiff, Pelosi or Schumer


    President Trump cast doubt in a Monday interview on Fox News that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was that her replacement on the Supreme Court not be picked by Trump, saying those words might have been “written by Adam Schiff, Schumer or Pelosi.”

    NPR reported shortly after the news of Ginsburg’s death her dying wish was that she not be replaced until a new president was in office.

    But Trump said he wasn’t sure Ginsburg really said that or if it came from Schiff (D-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee chairman and his chief nemesis in the impeachment fight, or from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).



    Oh, he can lose the election but keep the presidency in a way that’s entirely legal under United States law.

    In fact, he’s pretty much laid out his plan which is to contest the election every inch of the way, starting with challenges at the local and state level, which drag the election out until just before the day final day a decision must be reached, at which time he’ll take it to the Supreme Court. He’s counting on the fact that the court is now 2/3 conservative justices to give him the election.

    Now, I have no idea whether the justices will be as compliant as he seems to assume they will be. In fact, they may resent his implication that they serve merely as an arm of his campaign. If the case goes to the court, and if he clearly lost the popular vote, even conservative justices may have to side with Biden.

    We’ll see. However, we have a lot to worry about between now and then.

    • This reply was modified 10 months ago by  Unseen.


    I am the last of the conspiracy supporters. Not saying there are never conspiracies but mostly it is paranoid thinking.

    Am thinking about the stock market. Does it seem utterly weird how it has come back to what were already bloated highs or nearly so? Pandemic…unemployment…specter of civil war or some form of chaos..businesses closed…diminished productivity…none of the aforementioned ought to be good for the stock market. And yet…

    Does it mean… Could it mean that Trump will win?



    Trump is going to win only because he cheated. Just like the first time.



    Trump is going to win only because he cheated. Just like the first time.

    Trump doesn’t risk anything on a fair exchange, and his total approach to life is transactional…how can he win the transaction and come out ahead of the other party. The notion of a fair exchange, where a fair deal is struck and both are satisfied with the outcome, is unsatisfying to him.

    The Dems, strangely, haven’t really absorbed that truth, and if/when Biden loses, the loss began a while ago, because they have largely adopted a “play fair” attitude with someone who thinks only stupid people play fair.

    • This reply was modified 10 months ago by  Unseen.



    Yep. He can’t lose. If he loses the vote, he’ll take it to the Supreme Court. Now, it’s a court which has already handed him a major defeat and has gone on the record that not even the President is above the law, in their 7-2 decision that Trump must turn over his taxes to a New York prosecutor.

    So, there is some hope there, but I wouldn’t want to stake my life on it. For one thing, the Court only hears cases it wants to hear and why would it want to get ensnarled in that situation?

    So, it is what it is and we’ll have to see what happens. LOL (even though it’s not funny)



    • This reply was modified 10 months ago by  Unseen.

    Glen D

    As an outsider, I don’t think trump can win honestly.  Possibly just wishful thinking.

    I’ve visited the US several times to see relatives and have a holiday. Always had a wonderful time.  A magnificent country and everyone I met treated me with civility and friendliness. (even New Yorkers) Relatives treated me like visiting royalty.

    However, haven’t been for 20 years, and have no plans.

    I’m interested in the current US election in the same way one is interested in an unusual animal. I think the election and Trump’s behaviour  will be entertaining, especially  if he loses.

    As an Aussie   I have a vested interest in US politics because of the way they can effect my country. EG Trump could easily impose strict protection policies against Aussie goods. I can also see him withdrawing the US from various treaties as well as human rights conventions the US has signed.

    Even if Trump loses, seems to me it will take a generation to repair the damage he’s done. I’m  thinking specifically of the way he’s stacked the US Supreme Court. Seems to me the appointment of Amy Barrett will be an ongoing disaster for progressives and moderates in the US, not to mention US citizens from the lower end of  the totem pole.  Why do so many people vote against their own interests? (rhetorical question, happens here too)

    I heard (don’t remember where) that if president, Biden could make new appointments to the Supreme Court.  Is there no constitutional  limit? Must there always be an odd number of judges.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by  Glen D.


    Must there always be an odd number of judges.

    Oddly, the US Constitution doesn’t define the number of judges, nor does it define the number of representatives in the House except “according to a proportion of population” [parphrase]. Republicans have installed about 3/4 (or something terribly lopsided like that) in the past few decades of SCOTUS judges, declined to consider Obama’s nomination claiming as a matter of “principle” that it should be delayed several months until after the next election, and then with hubris and with obscene partisan-bullying entitlement they ram through a Trump nomination in the last weeks before an election. This is not illegal, but it’s a serious form of power-hungry corruption just the same, with complete disregard for the majority of Americans, enabled in 2016 by the antiquated electoral college system.

    Like any purported “divinely inspired” scripture, our constitution was not written with this kind of future in mind. No one could have predicted the current situation, and like believers in ancient scripture who believe in it literally no matter how realities change, the tendency is for “conservatives” to conserve their own power, even in the face of a majority of USA citizens. Trump, Bannon, and gang knew exactly how to take advantage of these permanantized imperfections, while pretending to uphold “rule of law” as if it’s a mandate coming from a divine source… their divine source.

    It’s a corruptive, shameless, dark side of human nature in people with power that keeps coming up with excuses for why it’s ok to disrespect or even hate in some cases the majority of the population, not to mention minorities lower on the totem pole.

    I don’t know how to fix this, in light of the power of the senate empowered by overly represented, sparsely populated red states. They have unfair advantage, with hubris and self-congratulatory arrogance. (If anyone wonders why a partisan map of USA looks overwhelmingly red, it’s due to the large land areas in sparsely populated states.) This is a relatively new kind of “red” threat based on disproportionately distributed power at the top of all three branches of government; but just opposite to the extreme ideology of red communism. In both cases, there is no moderate point of view allowed, or “respect for freedom” of the people as a whole.

    Well, that was a rant. TLDR: It is obscenely corruptive to our system for two, currently-partisan branches (executive and legislative) to conspire to overwhelmingly own/partisanize the third (judicial) branch. Our permanently, self-empowered two-party system has taken over and threatens our republic like a metastatic cancer.



    Must there always be an odd number of judges.

    Oddly, the US Constitution doesn’t define the number of judges, nor does it define the number of representatives in the House except “according to a proportion of population” [parphrase].

    The second makes sense in principle (if properly applied), but the first is a surprise. Judges aren’t regional representatives, so it’s not like their numbers need to be reflective of changing population levels. It seems like something both fairly simple to define explicitly, and sensible to do it in the national constitution.

    I remember when Scalia died how Republicans tried to rationalize blocking Obama’s appointment. It was unsettling not because of how things went down so much as how it spoke to the depths of political sickness. There was talk of how, given the proximity of the next election, the next president should decide. To anyone making that excuse, that should have felt like a Hail Mary.

    Obama’s justice nomination was made ten months out from the official end of his term. That’s twenty percent of the four-year term in which he was elected to serve as POTUS. You’d really have to be an abject, fucking moron to treat that as a rounding error. If memory serves, even some Republicans (and ‘independents’ who always vote Republican) didn’t respect blocking the nomination in such an absurd way, but certainly it was more than a fringe element which bought into it. I don’t think it’s because they were all idiots. It was just the same disconcerting issue with human cognition that always makes democracy at least a little uncomfortable: when we want to rationalize something, it often takes only the slightest of feather touches to lock us down into believing what we wanted to believe in the first place.

    I remember one woman telling me Obama couldn’t appoint the next justice because Scalia had been appointed by a Republican so a Republican had to appoint his replacement or else it wouldn’t be fair. Now that was just stupidity. Pure, unadulterated, mind-numbing stupidity.



    Former Dem government official and attorney Van jones says he was shocked when he started looking into the options a loser presidential candidate has if he wants to retain office. Basically, it’s easier than you might think to game and then beat the system.



    Most countries have a supreme court with a limited time on the bench and even have courts where the justices are selected by an apolitical committee. I don’t think it is brain science that a justice should be as apolitical as possible and not serve on the bench forever.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.