nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Quin_Dub

Continuation thread from here

All existing rules still stand.

Everyone will want to be active in this thread over the next few days , but there will be zero tolerance for Forum rule breaches.

Keep it Sensible , Civil and Polite please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

everlast75

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1326225961738772491

Really doubling down on this.

That administration is full of the worst of the worst.

Kalyke

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I wonder why this tweet was deleted

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1326186765879832576

Logan act maybe?

I THINK..He sent the message before the conversation took place??

BluePlanet

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1326225961738772491

Really doubling down on this.

If you watch the video (it's kind of long), when he said that it seemed like he mis-spoke.
The next thing he was saying was that the transition would be managed so that the State Dept can fulfill it's mandate.
He said he was on the other side of the transition before.

rossie1977

everlast75 wrote: »

That administration is full of the worst of the worst.

It's the party of Nixon, Agnew, Don Regan, Gingrich, Stone, Cheney, McConnell with the likes of Limbaugh, Jones, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ailes continually egging them on.

Republicans only care about one thing and that's absolute power.

Headshot

I like that smirk from Biden when mentioning Pompeo

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1326198168091054080

This sums up all of the arguments about not calling it or asking for recounts. Worth a listen, at least to hear him stumble over his words.

AMKC

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1326225961738772491

Really doubling down on this.

Lol some one is going to have to be dragged or carried out of the White House if that's what they think lol. If that happens then he should lose his secret security too.

Brussels Sprout

This doesn't bode well for Biden's chances of winning N.C.

https://twitter.com/kendallkarson/status/1326257115451838467

Irish Praetorian

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not a bit of it. There are legal limitations on what the President can ask the military to do, and the military leadership has made it very clear it has no intention or authority of coming anywhere near the process for the election or the transfer of power. There are plenty enough other agencies in the Federal government with both authority and capability to see the new administration take over.

Tangental to this; in your experience as (iirc) an army officer, what proportion of the rank and file would support Trump or perhaps Trumpism more generally? Does it contrast much with the attitudes of the officer corps for that matter? My recollection on the matter is vague but I have memories of one navy officer telling me the armed forces in the US drew most of their manpower from either the inner cities or the rural areas with a tradition of service, does that still hold true? And I guess beneath all of this is the question, when push comes to shand, how many would cross the Rubicon with Trump or someone like him?

L1011

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This doesn't bode well for Biden's chances of winning N.C.

I don't think anyone really thought there were any chances

everlast75

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1326198168091054080

This sums up all of the arguments about not calling it or asking for recounts. Worth a listen, at least to hear him stumble over his words.

Cal Thomas was on Today FM, same bluster without substance.

It's like arguing with flat-earthers.

froog

i wonder do republicans actually understand what would happen if trump somehow managed to steal the election. an actual civil war with no end in sight and international sanctions that would send them back to the stone age. it would be the end of the USA.

440Hertz

What they're doing is incredibly dangerous. Even though it probably will not succeed, it's sowing the seeds of a conspiracy theory that could destabilise the US for years.

Democracy depends upon having a democratic culture. They're basically dismantling a large aspect of that and what would replace it would be a period of total chaos and it could quite literally mean the end of the United States.

Americans have walked on eggshells around these conspiracy theorists and loons for far too long, failing to call them out or challenge them and this is where it winds up.

Effectively you've a president and political party in the White House that looks like it no longer recognises the legitimacy of the American democratic process.

Foxtrol

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The problem is, the longer this goes on it increases the chances of Trump and his allies pulling effectively a coup.

Here's what needs to happen for Biden to be confirmed President.
Counts need to finish

State level results get certified by the respective Governors/Secretaries of State

State send forward Electors

Electoral College Votes

Biden gets 270+ votes

He's President

There are 2 key dates.

States need to certify their results before December 8th (Safe Harbour)
Electors meet on December 14th to actually cast their votes

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Trump plan here is to flood key States with a torrent of spurious court cases to delay/prevent the results being certified by the required date.

He then hopes to get the various States to do one of the following

Do not send any Electors forward as they cannot certify the results - He'd be looking at places like Arizona and Georgia for that , with GOP Governors and SoS

Send forward competing Slates of Electors - He'd be looking at Pennsylvania for that - Dem Governor , but GOP State Legislature. The likelihood is that with two sets of electors competing , both would excluded.

The End game is that no ones gets to 270 thereby forcing a "Contingent Election"

In the event of a Contingent Election , the Senate elects the VP and the House Elects the President , but in the House it's a State by State vote not a simply majority.

As it stands right now , the GOP lead the State by State count in the house 26-24 , so they'd elect Trump and the Senate would elect Pence.

This is their plan.

Now - The Sh!t-storm this would kick off would be of catastrophic proportions and they might not get away with it.

The GOP leader of the PA House has already come out and said that they would not get involved in the Electoral College process , but let's see if they withstand the pressure they are going to come under.

It is not a coincidence that Trump just fired Esper as Sec. Of Defence either.

Esper refused to allow Trump to use the Military on the streets during the BLM protests etc.

He has now been replaced by a door-mat who will do whatever he's told including sending the Military out to suppress protests if they actually try to do this.

The potential for truly terrifying times in the US is very real right now.

Did some more reading on this and it looks like the above skips at least one step/safeguard. What I've come to is that unless the House Democrats decide to go along with the above plan then the bold simply cannot happen.

When there is a dispute over a state's electoral votes, unless the House and Senate both agree on the resolution then counting stops. Then all the dems have to do is run out time until President Pelosi takes charge.

degsie

Meanwhile, America becomes even more divided. Entertaining stuff!

Water John

Thomas Friedman had a great line on this about Pompeo and others; 'you know you're out of power when your limousine is yellow and the driver speaks Farsi'.

StringerBell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This doesn't bode well for Biden's chances of winning N.C.

https://twitter.com/kendallkarson/status/1326257115451838467

Tactical concession, words chosen well I think.

StringerBell

Water John wrote: »

Thomas Friedman had a great line on this about Pompeo and others; 'you know you're out of power when your limousine is yellow and the driver speaks Farsi'.

Wasn't about pompeo was it? Thought that was a pretty old quote, open to correction though

brooke 2

Headshot wrote: »

I like that smirk from Biden when mentioning Pompeo

Haha! Loved that!! :pac:

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1325951831667699712

It is a great day for content on this.

eire4

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1325951831667699712

It is a great day for content on this.

Classic stuff and so Republican too. They so often accuse others of exactly that which they themselves are doing.

Water John

StringerBell wrote: »

Wasn't about pompeo was it? Thought that was a pretty old quote, open to correction though

Yes, it is an old one and he applied it mainly to Pompeo.

prawnsambo

Seems the Project Veritas USPS guy has recanted his allegations that a supervisor tampered with ballots. Doubt O'Keefe will be getting his money back though.

Manic Moran

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Tangental to this; in your experience as (iirc) an army officer, what proportion of the rank and file would support Trump or perhaps Trumpism more generally? Does it contrast much with the attitudes of the officer corps for that matter? My recollection on the matter is vague but I have memories of one navy officer telling me the armed forces in the US drew most of their manpower from either the inner cities or the rural areas with a tradition of service, does that still hold true? And I guess beneath all of this is the question, when push comes to shove, how many would cross the Rubicon with Trump or someone like him?

Difficult to give a figure. There are a fair few who support Trump and his policies, without necessarily supporting Trump as a person, but as a rule, the folks I run into are fairly overwhelmingly Republican. Statistically, I believe officers are more likely lean Democrat than enlisted, and I do know some enlisted who are definitely on the progressive end of the scale, but they are all in the overall minority.

That said, I have seen absolutely nothing from anyone to indicate that any of us want the military to get involved in taking sides as an organisation. We've over two centuries of, shall we say, militant neutrality on the matter starting with George Washington, that sort of tradition is hard to break.

Of course, what they -want- and what they're -ordered- are two separate things. The Eisenhower vs Arkansas incident in the 50s showed that soldiers will carry out instructions to the best of their ability from one side one day, and then from the other side the next day, pursuant to the lawful chain of command at the time. In that, they place trust in the senior leadership that they are being given lawful orders. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Joint Chiefs or Combatant Commanders (Technically, the Joint Chiefs are not actually in the chain of command) would be willing to partake in an unlawful destruction of the peaceful or smooth transfer of civilian power, the President is quite limited in what he can do with troops inside the US (Another advantage of the US being 50 independent States). A more interesting question is what a State governor could do, but even if the most irrational Red state governor in the country decided to order his soldiers to take action (As Governor Faubus did in 1957), what would they do? Invade Pennsylvania from Kentucky to take over the counting centers? There would be nothing for them to do in their own jurisdiction.

That leaves one, very large wildcard. The DC. National Guard, located, coincidentally enough, right where the transfer of power is located. And unlike any other Guard, it's both able to lawfully conduct operations in the city normally prohibited to the military and has President at the top of the chain of command. Which is a full battalion of military police, and a bunch of other folks like transportation, Air force security, etc. So, if Trump ordered the DC Guard to fortify the White House and turn it into a fortress, I presume they'd do it. Probably half-heartedly (eg I can't imagine they'd dig trenches in the Rose Garden), but they'll do it.
And then, at 12:01 on 20th January, someone would relay a message to them from the new commander in chief across town to stand down, and that would be the end of it.

Your Naval Officer friend is correct. It's been a note of some concern that military service is now considered to be almost a family affair, with a very large proportion of folks in the service with relatives who served. And they, in turn, tend to be from where their folks are/were serving, which tends to be in the rural areas since that's where many of the bases are. And, yes, there's a large cohort from the inner cities, as it's viewed as a way out which gives free job training and other benefits. Those folks tend to gravitate to the support roles. (Not many post-army civilian jobs for infantry, but helicopter mechanics are another matter entirely, for example).

everlast75

So it would the famed whistleblower accepts it was all BS??

https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1326289047933816836?s=19

prawnsambo

And there's a GoFundMe for him too. Probably not for long by the look of it.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

So it would the famed whistleblower accepts it was all BS??

Hope he does time if he made it up.

However, he's standing by his original affidavit according to O'Keefe.

We'll see.

serfboard

440Hertz wrote: »

What they're doing is incredibly dangerous. Even though it probably will not succeed, it's sowing the seeds of a conspiracy theory that could destabilise the US for years.

Two commentators from very different sides of the fence (Paul Krugman in his New York Times column, and John Bolton on RTE Drivetime this evening) have made the same comment in relation to this - they are concerned that the Trumpists will foment a stab-in-the-back myth around Trump losing the election, and that this could be very dangerous territory indeed.

[Deleted User]

More conspiracy theory believers hired

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html

Controversial official who pushed conspiracy theories taking top Pentagon policy role

Controversial retired Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata is being moved into the Pentagon's top policy role, taking over the duties of James Anderson, who resigned Tuesday, according to a US defense official.

Tata was previously nominated to be undersecretary of defense for policy this summer but his nomination was withdrawn because of bipartisan opposition.

Only the best people.

kowloon

How do you manage to "accidentally" embed another message, out of line with the original text and faded heavily in a tweet?
It takes extra steps for that result. Someone is 'avin a larf in No. 10

Linky