Tboy when the Supreme Court declares his dictatorship unconstitutional

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/f5...4c6ab12d1e.gif

I don't know what "people" you're talking about. From what I remember, most people took Trump's ambitions to build a wall seriously. It was one of his hallmark campaign promises. Maybe that's how it got watered down on some conservative TV stations to sell the message to subrban housewives, but I don't remember people en masse saying that Trump wasn't serious about that. His supporters certainly thought he was serious. You can look at things that Trump has said and done, but you can also look at many things he's said and hasn't done, e.g. locking Hillary up, draining the swamp, etc.

No, I said that Trump saying that "he can't lose unless it's rigged" was bravado. Him saying he might not accept the results of the election simply means that he's planning to try and litigate it if necessary. If you want to look at things that Trump has said and gone through with that are within his powers as President that you find shocking as reinforcement for your idea that he'll actually try to cling to power if he plainly and clearly has lost the election, you're free to do so. But it might be more useful to look at what he's done that's been clearly in violation of his presidential power as an indicator to how likely it is that he'll cling to power in a loss that's been litigated.

It's bluster until it's not. You probably don't remember people waving off every single one of his comments and campaign platforms as empty bravado or a joke to trigger the libs in 2016 because it happened so often. That's post truth for ya.

Sounds like you have double standards for the dumb **** Trump claims: he can't possibly be willing to do this ridiculous thing he claimed but this other ridiculous thing he claimed he would be willing to do. Maybe you should just stop trying to apply real person logic to Trump's claims and just assume he'll do whatever he think he can get away with or what he thinks will gain him support. You're talking about "his powers as President" and yet he clearly doesn't give a **** about what his actual powers are so long as he thinks he has something to gain by ignoring those powers. If he loses in a landslide I imagine he'll slink away with his tail between his legs but if it's in any way close I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he fought a loss.

"Of course" except nobody else has done this. One of the lessons Trump has taught us is that norms aren't binding, only laws are. And norms make up a lot of the balances we traditionally put up against abuses of power from presidents or presidential candidates. E.G. Trump never released his taxes which has been an assumed part of the process for ages

I dunno exactly how a loss would pan out... The most likely scenario is litigation on a state level in possibly multiple key states. The least likely option is him literally refusing to leave office and having a Scarface scene in the white house. But you honestly can't rule anything between the two out.

You don't think Trump will invoke the insurrection act if protests and riots continue after he wins a second term and send in the feds?

I will grant that the messaging about Trump only ceding the election if he loses by a wide margin is a good one (if your goal is to try and incentivize people to go out and vote for Biden). If you want to get voters out there for Biden on election day, then spread the message of "Trump won't leave, unless he's crushed in the election" - fear is a great motivator. I agree that if it's in any way close both he and the Dems will take a shot at litigation. If you think that Trump will try to cling to power after litigation (or the SC) determines that he lost, that's where you and I disagree.

I agree with this - you efficiently summarized what I'm trying to say with less fluff.

Trump's said and done many things, some of which people find shocking. He's also said he'd do things that people find shocking that he hasn't followed up on. He hasn't (to my knowledge, except for perhaps the actions that resulted in his impeachment) broken laws which bind his powers as President. If he tried to stay in office after litigation of the election (which determines that he lost), that would clearly be breaking not just convention, but the law.

Some people seem to not trust that our system of government and laws could prevent Trump from taking actions that would allow him to cling to power after losing an election. I do trust that it would stop him in any kind of effort to do so.

To be clear, I would bet my life he's broken plenty of laws .. the question is rather would he so obviously break a law in such a public fashion... Which I agree would be low on the list of likely scenarios.

But I want to reemphasize that his actions aren't normal and the impression you give that this is just the way it goes is not accurate. The very fact that we're even seriously entertaining these questions says quite a bit about where we are as a democracy.

It's possible he's broken laws. But if so, none of them have been egregious (or perhaps public) enough for the Dems to successfully utilize them in their messaging.

Yeah, I could see how what I said would give that impression - I didn't mean to make it out that what Trump does is normal or aligned with precedent, it's definitely not. But the "Of course..." bit was more about what I'd expect Trump to do and say, and not committing to just accepting the results is a perfect match.

I more or less agree with this but I think that even after a Supreme Court decision he could hem and haw about and talk about this or that potential executive decree and muddy the waters with nonsense. I think that the thing that would be his Rubicon would be actual consequences for not stepping down. I don't think there are actual protocols for how to deal with this kind of situation and in that space can potentially be a lot of wiggle room for a politician with no scruples to baffle the public with bull**** and even if there is clear just cause to send in federal agents or even the army to physically take a president out of the White House the realities of politics could make it murky as to whether or not anyone will be willing to send in those agents to actually remove him.

We can talk about legality until the cows come home but actually forcing a president out of office with actual force would be a Rubicon of its own for the people on the other side of the argument. I don't think anyone would be able be casual about just saying "Well it's legal to send in the cavalry to drag him out so therefore that's what we're doing."

You must understand what a weak argument this is?

If you tell me a Hitler type leader committed a genocide I can reply "of course" because I expect it from them. That tells me nothing.

Whether you cop to it or not, when you said of course you were implying that his behavior was normal. Not only for him but in general.