The Trump Presidency – 2016

[GrantDawg]

I don't disagree that it would be a coup. What we are watching is clearly an attempted coup. I have a hard time seeing how you could have watched the last 4 years and believe there is anything that Trump will not do, or that the vast majority of the Republicans will not go along with.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Perhaps the right thread? Unsure since there's multiples now:

Anyways...

What happens if the conspiracy that the elections aren't certified and the state electors get selected and get put in place to throw their votes to Trump, in essence stealing the election. The GOP Senators and House stand back and explain it away as they've done with literally everything and their morality as well (Christians! Ha!). What does the rest of the country do is my question?

Does the military intervene? Does the populace? I'm thinking no and Trump does in fact 'steal' the election, gets 4 more years and the country is neutered to do anything. Then the long tail is that he runs for a 3rd term because the first was so affected by a opposition party.

What are the things that could happen that I'm missing on the extreme crazy spectrum?

None of that's happening. You'll very likely start to see the Senate GOP turn on him by the end of next week if his lawsuits aren't going anywhere and they're not. Coons' comments yesterday about GOP Senators asking him to privately congratulate Biden is telling. They've acknowledged the result but don't want a bullseye on them until more are ready to speak out.

This is mostly about not splitting the base before the Georgia runoffs, but the longer it drags out the inevitable the more likely the base is to fracture anyway.

I'm not denying that that this is bad for our democracy, but 95% of GOP congress has to understand that if Trump is still President on January 21st there won't be a country left to govern. The West Coast and North East would likely start discussing the idea of seceding, our elections would become pointless, and we face international sanctions.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I just can't fathom that the senate would go beyond this current political theatre and stand by allowing him to burn democracy to the ground.

I mean, Germany in 1933 was in essentially the same boat. "Oh, Hitler can be contained, we'll just surround him with the Right People."

In short order, Germany was a one-Party country and had gone from a federal democracy to a dictatorship. History absolutely gives us examples, recent ones, even, of political institutions standing back and allowing a thing to happen because they absolutely can't fathom that the thing would ever happen.

And that's the bigger comparison here. Not that Trump = Hitler, but that the lust for power will blind people to the consequences of their choices. The Conservatives saw Hitler as a bulwark against Germany's leftist parties, and in order to shut them out, were willing to make the proverbial deal with the devil. They thought they could contain Hitler.

They were wrong.

I can absolutely see the modern GOP being willing to make a deal with the devil if it means denying the Democrats the White House, followed by what-have-we-done recriminations a decade later.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

They'll all be screaming about election fraud. No doubt about it.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, and they'll swear until their dying day that the Deep State rigged the election for Biden.

^ We saw this coming on 10/7

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't disagree that it would be a coup. What we are watching is clearly an attempted coup. I have a hard time seeing how you could have watched the last 4 years and believe there is anything that Trump will not do, or that the vast majority of the Republicans will not go along with.

Exactly, why do we keep doubting they will do exactly what they say they will do just because it's batshit crazy.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I mean, Germany in 1933 was in essentially the same boat. "Oh, Hitler can be contained, we'll just surround him with the Right People."

In short order, Germany was a one-Party country and had gone from a federal democracy to a dictatorship. History absolutely gives us examples, recent ones, even, of political institutions standing back and allowing a thing to happen because they absolutely can't fathom that the thing would ever happen.

And that's the bigger comparison here. Not that Trump = Hitler, but that the lust for power will blind people to the consequences of their choices. The Conservatives saw Hitler as a bulwark against Germany's leftist parties, and in order to shut them out, were willing to make the proverbial deal with the devil. They thought they could contain Hitler.

They were wrong.

I can absolutely see the modern GOP being willing to make a deal with the devil if it means denying the Democrats the White House, followed by what-have-we-done recriminations a decade later.

I would hope that those we have trusted to lead would have learned from history. Quite honestly, I see it as nothing more than some of these people have recognized the attraction Trump has and are supporting his bluster to curry favor with his base and/or hope Trump plays Kingmaker for them in 2024.

To not recognize where this power play would go if they enabled it to succeed, especially when in the grand scheme of things, the occupant of the White house does not tilt the needle that much on the compass of America as a nation, is beyond absurd. (And by this I mean the average Americans quality of life)

But again, 4 years ago most of us thought that ever having a President like Trump was absurd too. So, I guess you have to take all this shit seriously.

[GrantDawg]

General McCaffery on MSNBC a little while ago said he is very concerned about the staff shake ups at the DOD. He says he doesn't believe the uniform service members would ever take part in anything that violates the constitution, BUT if he were looking at a CIA assessment from another country he would say that this was the action of a strongman trying to overthrow an election. While he doesn't think the military would be a party to it, there seems to to be some in the White House taking actions that suggest they are seriouly considering it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't disagree that it would be a coup. What we are watching is clearly an attempted coup. I have a hard time seeing how you could have watched the last 4 years and believe there is anything that Trump will not do, or that the vast majority of the Republicans will not go along with.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It is like something you read about in Third World country elections, not the USA.

Other than in the Third World country the sitting president is usually competent enough to steal the election from the popular challenger, rather than the other way round!

TBH I think it has already irreparably damaged the reputation of the US, regardless of what happens from now on

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by AlexB

It is like something you read about in Third World country elections, not the USA.

Other than in the Third World country the sitting president is usually competent enough to steal the election from the popular challenger, rather than the other way round!

TBH I think it has already irreparably damaged the reputation of the US, regardless of what happens from now on

And don't forget, over 70 million of our fellow americans are ok with it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by AlexB

TBH I think it has already irreparably damaged the reputation of the US, regardless of what happens from now on

I kind of feel like if slightly-less-than half of our population AND politicians are perfectly fine abandoning democracy then we probably deserve a new/different reputation.

[ISiddiqui]

So check out what loser.com redirects to...

Lol

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I have a hard time seeing how you could have watched the last 4 years and believe there is anything that Trump will not do, or that the vast majority of the Republicans will not go along with.

I don't disagree with any of this. The point is that it will take more than that for Trump to remain in power.

[larrymcg421]

To be fair, not all Trump supporters support this nonsense, just most of the elected GOP. Polls say 80% of the country believes Biden won. It's the crazies making the most noise.

[JPhillips]

If you give money to the recount effort, you're giving money to Trump's PAC instead.

A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.

Everything's a con.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This stuff at the DOD

Scoop: Douglas Macgregor joining Pentagon as senior adviser to Acting SecDef. Sends the strongest possible signal that Trump wants to accelerate withdrawal of troops from the Middle East before the end of his presidency. https://t.co/grODh5w3aN

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) November 11, 2020

gets more ominous.

The DoD (forced) resignations are worrisome, but this one doesn't scare me. A rushed withdrawal from the ME is dumb, but it's a hell of a lot better than ramping up to a war. I will admit I'm also confused by the timing because I don't really think he would've gotten meaningful opposition to this if he'd pushed for it at any time at least since Mattis resigned, so if he wanted to do that he should've just done it by now.

Originally Posted by Atocep

if Trump is still President on January 21st there won't be a country left to govern. The West Coast and North East would likely start discussing the idea of seceding, our elections would become pointless, and we face international sanctions.

That's just dumb. If Trump tries to pull this bullshit past January 21 the play isn't to talk about seceding, it's to ask/force/beg the professional members of the military to adamantly refuse to do anything furthering Trump's agenda while also via rhetoric if not action making their stance clear that Biden is the POTUS.

The military clearly doesn't want to be involved, they don't even want to think about what their breaking point of people asked to resign/unqualified people promoted to the top of the chain of command would have to be to just say nahhhh, we good, but it's been obvious in the words of actual leaders where their loyalties lie. Maybe there's a slim chance if he can somehow cheat his way into an EC victory, but if the EC ratifies Biden as President? 0.0% chance.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That's just dumb. If Trump tries to pull this bullshit past January 21 the play isn't to talk about seceding, it's to ask/force/beg the professional members of the military to adamantly refuse to do anything furthering Trump's agenda while also via rhetoric if not action making their stance clear that Biden is the POTUS.

And one way to help float that is to suggest that secession may be on the table. The military may be more likely to refuse orders from Trump if they believe it's saving the union.

States could also make clear that they consider Biden the actual President and will, at all costs, stymie Trump's federal government from doing anything in their state borders. Biden could be acting President from Philadelphia or NYC, say.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And one way to help float that is to suggest that secession may be on the table. The military may be more likely to refuse orders from Trump if they believe it's saving the union.

States could also make clear that they consider Biden the actual President and will, at all costs, stymie Trump's federal government from doing anything in their state borders. Biden could be acting President from Philadelphia or NYC, say.

Plus if say, CA, says FU, we are gonna be our own nation, that completely fucks with the US economy (yes, I know that is an extreme dumbing down of what would actually have to happen)

[miami_fan]

So, I am going to push this forward to the next transition of presidential power. This is the standard now right? I mean it seems to me we are making allowances for Trump to push this out all because "we have to let the process play out." or "we have to give him time to come to grips with the defeat." So we have to do the same playbook for every losing candidate moving forward, right? If we don't allow this moving forward, we can't really get upset when whoever it is plays whatever card they feel they need to play.

That is what I can't figure out about this whole thing. I don't feel this would be tolerated for anyone else but Trump. Maybe this goes back to the breakdown of the institutions Brian.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm with you 100% on the idea that it's been clear for several days and it's not healthy to let it go on and have as many people as are doing so say its just fine without substantial relevant evidence being presented legally. If they had credible evidence of multiple tens of thousands of votes in multiple key states or a widespread systemic issue then yes you absolutely should led it play out, but that's not the situation. I just think the Republicans are trying to just let Trump sink his own ship and not be seen as sabotaging him by 71 million or however many people, most of whom voted for them also.

It wouldn't be tolerated for anyone else, and this is where the I think the whole Hitler analogy (Godwin's Law alert) is actually relevant. Appeasing a bully is worse than just saying no and meaning it.

ETA: On the other side of it I actually don't view this as being a huge black mark for democracy as a whole just yet. In any country you can have an idiot doing idiotic things. What matters is whether he ultimately gets away with it. Having a tinpot wannabe dictator show up and then getting rid of them anyway with a normalish transfer of power shows strength in a democracy, not weakness. Until multiple states actually throw out the proper results and certify false electors or whatever, we don't really have that much of a problem. The various dates of certification, EC meeting, presidential inauguration, etc. give enough time for everything to happen. So long as we keep to those standards - something's going to give one way or the other before then - it's not a crisis yet.

[Drake]

In light of the SecDef firing, I've pretty much decided that it's a coin flip at this point that Trump just announces he's not leaving and there's nothing anyone can do about it because his words are backed by nuclear weapons.[*]





* That's a quote from Civ. I don't think he'll actually say that. But he might. That's another coin flip.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And one way to help float that is to suggest that secession may be on the table. The military may be more likely to refuse orders from Trump if they believe it's saving the union.

States could also make clear that they consider Biden the actual President and will, at all costs, stymie Trump's federal government from doing anything in their state borders. Biden could be acting President from Philadelphia or NYC, say.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Plus if say, CA, says FU, we are gonna be our own nation, that completely fucks with the US economy (yes, I know that is an extreme dumbing down of what would actually have to happen)

It's not actually possible for any state(s) to secede unless the federal government allows it, it's definitely not possible for them to do so if the US military is willing to use force to preserve the union (yes, even you Texas), so thus it's not a credible threat any more than liberals running to Canada was in 2016, or Trump agreeing to shut up if he lost this one.

Threatening to go outside the power structure and institutions that have worked for 200+ years and establish your own shadow government isn't the play, asking the military to uphold it's oaths and honor and defend the institutions this country was founded and built on is. The legitimacy granted by 200+ years of civil institutions is a much, much, much better selling point than trying to split the country geographically along partisan lines & asking the military to pick a side.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I would hope that those we have trusted to lead would have learned from history. Quite honestly, I see it as nothing more than some of these people have recognized the attraction Trump has and are supporting his bluster to curry favor with his base and/or hope Trump plays Kingmaker for them in 2024.

To not recognize where this power play would go if they enabled it to succeed, especially when in the grand scheme of things, the occupant of the White house does not tilt the needle that much on the compass of America as a nation, is beyond absurd. (And by this I mean the average Americans quality of life)

But again, 4 years ago most of us thought that ever having a President like Trump was absurd too. So, I guess you have to take all this shit seriously.

They haven't. They never do. Whether they make the same mistakes in the same order under the same circumstances? Well. That's another question.

But the reason history rhymes is because those who study history and point out patterns get dismissed as alarmists, and by the time those in power go "we maybe shouldna done that," it's too late.

There have been some people who muttered and shuffled their feet and didn't really take any kind of a stand against Trump's candidacy who, four years later, went on to endorse Joe Biden because ohmygod.

But the thing is? There were people who recognized historical patterns in the way Trump was running his campaign, and called those patterns out, only to be dismissed.

And by the time the foot-shufflers went "oh god we have to speak out against this," the dude was in power, and the question had become whether the institutions he sought to smash were stronger than he.

Still an open question, that. We'll find out in the next six weeks.

But had they listened in the first place and said, "you know, it doesn't generally end well when people who behave in this manner grasp the levers of government, maybe we should take our stand now," maybe things are different. Instead, they thought they could contain his worst excesses, and came to find out over the next four years that they could not. They reached breaking points, some earlier, some later, but they got to that point four years after it might have done the most good, and in the hopes that their epiphany hadn't come too late.

[JPhillips]

Imagine if enough GOPers had said enough in 1994 with Gingrich. Or in the late nineties when they were shooting watermelons to prove Clinton was a murderer. Or in the 2000s when the off-year redistricting and voter suppression started. Or during the birther madness. Or when Trump first started to run.

They never stand up and it just keeps getting worse. Trump probably won't convince enough people to override the election, but something worse is bound to come.

[booradley]

I have to admit I'm flabbergasted. I knew he was a egoist, but I never thought he'd humiliate himself or our nation to this degree. It's so embarrassing. I'd love to see him physically dragged out of the WH and chucked onto Penn Ave., kicking and screaming ...

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

ETA: On the other side of it I actually don't view this as being a huge black mark for democracy as a whole just yet. In any country you can have an idiot doing idiotic things. What matters is whether he ultimately gets away with it. Having a tinpot wannabe dictator show up and then getting rid of them anyway with a normalish transfer of power shows strength in a democracy, not weakness. Until multiple states actually throw out the proper results and certify false electors or whatever, we don't really have that much of a problem. The various dates of certification, EC meeting, presidential inauguration, etc. give enough time for everything to happen. So long as we keep to those standards - something's going to give one way or the other before then - it's not a crisis yet.

We are not there yet and (famous last words) I don't think we will get there.

We are a few steps closer today than we were on November 2nd.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's not actually possible for any state(s) to secede unless the federal government allows it, it's definitely not possible for them to do so if the US military is willing to use force to preserve the union (yes, even you Texas), so thus it's not a credible threat any more than liberals running to Canada was in 2016, or Trump agreeing to shut up if he lost this one.

Threatening to go outside the power structure and institutions that have worked for 200+ years and establish your own shadow government isn't the play, asking the military to uphold it's oaths and honor and defend the institutions this country was founded and built on is. The legitimacy granted by 200+ years of civil institutions is a much, much, much better selling point than trying to split the country geographically along partisan lines & asking the military to pick a side.

The US military would be firing on it's own civilians which is it very loath to do. So if Trump tries to game the EC by having state legislators ignore the will of the people, it is a good idea to remind them the potential consequences of such an act.

Appealing to the military oaths just gets you seeming honorable as Trump steals an election. Maybe you can hope for an Arab Spring like movement, who knows. But having the states ignore the authority of a Trump federal government is how you convince the military to side with the protestors over the dear leader who games the EC.

Now, it seems the battleground states are not interested in going as far ok invalidate voters. But if they did, appealing to oaths ain't going to do shit.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The US military would be firing on it's own civilians which is it very loath to do. So if Trump tries to game the EC by having state legislators ignore the will of the people, it is a good idea to remind them the potential consequences of such an act.

Appealing to the military oaths just gets you seeming honorable as Trump steals an election. Maybe you can hope for an Arab Spring like movement, who knows. But having the states ignore the authority of a Trump federal government is how you convince the military to side with the protestors over the dear leader who games the EC.

Now, it seems the battleground states are not interested in going as far ok invalidate voters. But if they did, appealing to oaths ain't going to do shit.

If the US military is actually willing to go along with allowing Trump to usurp the election, it's not going to let California, New York, and the billions of dollars & millions of Republican voters just up & leave either.

Luckily it's not and it doesn't want to police citizens let alone fire on them, as multiple major leaders have broken ranks in order to assert, though it's also made clear that it's not looking to undermine the Presidency/chain of command long term.

Biden/Harris are playing this exactly as they should - ignore the bluster publicly, fight tooth & nail on the ground for the letter of the law to be upheld and every vote to be counted, and either let Trump try to push the military to the point they refuse or play out the clock until Jan 21 when Biden is the POTUS.

Even threatening to secede would just be dumb even if it was viable, but considering how many people moved to Canada etc after 2016 you're not getting millions to protest day after day in the streets let alone be a violent threat to overthrow the government if the military is backing them.

[ISiddiqui]

You realize this entire line of conversation started with you responding to Atocep's post if Trump was still President on Jan 21. Meaning the military did go along with it (or at least didn't step in to decide competing claims)?

And if that's the case the only thing to do would be to Arab Spring and start talking secession. Let the military decide whether it wants to fire on it's own people on national TV. That's how a number of governments fell a decade ago.

Otherwise you are saying everyone would just go along with the coup. And I seriously doubt that happens. And yes I do you think you'd have thousands on the streets day after day in every major city if a Trump coup happened. I think you'd be ridiculous to think otherwise.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

I think we would go along with it. There would be no secession and certainly no civil war. This is not the 1800s - life is relatively good, no one is willing to give that up, and people are too spread out to try to cut the country up into pieces. It used to take an entire generation to move from one end of the country to the other, and everyone and everything you cared about was in a self-contained bubble about 50 miles wide. Now, we are everywhere - families and friends in every corner of the country and blues mixed with reds. I just don't see anyone being motivated to secede or take up arms given the complexity of the choices we'd all have to make to give up on relationships, jobs, lifestyle, etc.

No doubt there would be protests/riots in the big cities. The rest of us would just watch.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I think you are nuts on that one.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

I'm definitely with KSyrup there. All indications I've seen in modern America are that we do not care enough to go through that level of upheaval. If we did, we wouldn't be where we already are as a country; a big part of us even getting here in the first place is the fact that nothing collectively motivates us more than maintaining our standard of living.

[Ksyrup]

I guarantee that if it was a choice between vacationing in FL every summer with no hassle (imagine the "vacation tax" on blue state visitors or requiring a passport to go across state lines) or having your Starbucks on every corner versus 4 more years of Trump whining, people would choose the latter.

Who's gonna secede? Blue states are on the country's edges. Everything else blue is mixed in with vast swaths of red. There's no geographic consistency to it. It wouldn't work. And it would take something far worse than a stolen election for people who don't even bathe their own pets to suddenly put themselves, their families, their jobs and their lifestyle in jeopardy to consider armed conflict to "save" something that can remain relatively stable at the sacrifice of who's running the country. It's just a fact.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

versus 4 more years of Trump whining, people would choose the latter.

Yeah... that's the problem. Most people would realize it wasn't about 4 more years of Trump whining. Especially considering Trump has openly spoken about a third term. Who would stop him if he could steal a second term?

I think y'all are way too cynical about people just going along with a coup and future dictatorship when cities burned after George Floyd was killed.

So I really really don't understand how we go from the left is out of control, and months of protests over BLM, including some riots, etc. to... well people will just shrug and go on with things after Trump steals the WH.

And if California threatened to leave or just refuse to enforce Trump administration pronouncements, that would definitely make people perk up and take notice. Would you put it past Newsom making the suggestion?

[Ksyrup]

No one would do anything until they personally felt it. That's what many of the sane Trump voters I know have told themselves. They see what is going on, what he has done to this point, and they chose tax plan or anti-abortion or whatever because at this point, it's just theoretical damage to the country until it hits home.

Much in the way GOPer enabling Trump to go as far as he is in challenging the election just think it's humoring a dufus... until the election is stolen. And it won't be considered a coup, because the court system will have blessed it. That's how it would happen.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No one would do anything until they personally felt it. That's what many of the sane Trump voters I know have told themselves. They see what is going on, what he has done to this point, and they chose tax plan or anti-abortion or whatever because at this point, it's just theoretical damage to the country until it hits home.

Much in the way GOPer enabling Trump to go as far as he is in challenging the election just think it's humoring a dufus... until the election is stolen. And it won't be considered a coup, because the court system will have blessed it. That's how it would happen.

But I never thought the leopards would eat my face!

[Butter]

Yeah, bullshit Ksyrup. If Trump steals the election through some BS (not if there were actual widespread fraud uncovered), then I will march on Washington myself and push down the gates and murder him in the street if I have to. Or get killed trying. Quality of life be damned

[Ksyrup]

OK. You will be in the minority is all I'm saying.

[Ksyrup]

50% of the country will absolutely believe the election WASN'T stolen. So that's your starting point.

[Brian Swartz]

Yep. I don't think anyone is saying there won't be anyone who wants to start a revolution over it or that nobody will be mad. I'm sure states would talk about seceding etc. But there wouldn't nearly enough people willing to give up their comfort to actually go to literal war over it, and if you want to really secede you have to do that.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

50% of the country will absolutely believe the election WASN'T stolen. So that's your starting point.

bingo...

I've seen so much splayning to accept what was formerly unacceptable and thought the bottom was in only to find it was false that I am done guessing bottoms.

[Ksyrup]

And again, if it's the courts that ultimately give it to him, that's a flaw in the system, not a coup. The takeaway is that the system is broken because a group in power took bad faith to a place no one ever thought it would go.

To come full circle on the FOFC board, this like someone in a multi-player game refusing to abide by the house rules and claiming victory because they gamed the system by not agreeing to the honor system and that allowed them to win in the way they did.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

OK. You will be in the minority is all I'm saying.

No, what you said is "no one would do anything until they personally felt it". That's incorrect. Minority or not is not the issue.

I'm a middle-aged white male, the stakes for me are pretty low, except theoretically.

But we're talking a number of steps beyond George Floyd violence is where this will go. It will get ugly fast. No one wants to go to Civil War, but the spectre is there. GOP knows this, and we won't go there.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And again, if it's the courts that ultimately give it to him, that's a flaw in the system, not a coup. The takeaway is that the system is broken because a group in power took bad faith to a place no one ever thought it would go.

To come full circle on the FOFC board, this like someone in a multi-player game refusing to abide by the house rules and claiming victory because they gamed the system by not agreeing to the honor system and that allowed them to win in the way they did.

Yeah, I just don't see it going that far. But if it does, you're not going to have some mild "let's break some windows" rioting. There will be widespread death and destruction. Maybe not rising to the level of a years long war, but it will be ugly for a time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter

But we're talking a number of steps beyond George Floyd violence is where this will go. It will get ugly fast. No one wants to go to Civil War, but the spectre is there. GOP knows this, and we won't go there.

Right. It'll make the George Floyd protests look like a walk in the park... and it likely will get more violent. It does depend on what the national guard would do in response. In a lot of cities they'll let mass protests go on for months (see Portland). If there is an attempt to violently put it down, it will be really, really bad.

[cuervo72]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ritarian-data/

Those assessments are combined into the main measure in the chart above, which tracks parties’ overall commitment to democracy. Lührmann points out that the Republican Party score started to edge downward during the Obama administration but fell off a cliff in 2016 with the ascent of Trump.

The Democratic Party, by contrast, hasn’t changed much. This is a prime example of what political scientists call asymmetric polarization — a growing partisan gap driven almost entirely by the actions of the Republican Party.

Would y'all like to "both sides!" this?

[NobodyHere]

Sometimes I imagine Putin sitting in front of a computer reading threads like this. He takes a sip of Cognac and then just grins maliciously.

[ISiddiqui]

So who's Putin here?! Show yourself!

[QuikSand]

I lost track of which thread we got deep into speculating about the Trump media plans ahead, but...

President Trump has told friends he wants to start a digital media company to clobber Fox News.

"He plans to wreck Fox. No doubt about it," said a source with detailed knowledge of Trump's intentions. https://t.co/4654GjS90r

— Axios (@axios) November 12, 2020

so, yeah...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I lost track of which thread we got deep into speculating about the Trump media plans ahead, but...

I think the most likely endgame here is for Trump to start his own news network and announce he's running in 2024. Even if he's too old and even if he had no realistic chance the free money from donations and the rallies are an addiction.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter

No, what you said is "no one would do anything until they personally felt it". That's incorrect. Minority or not is not the issue.

I'm a middle-aged white male, the stakes for me are pretty low, except theoretically.

But we're talking a number of steps beyond George Floyd violence is where this will go. It will get ugly fast. No one wants to go to Civil War, but the spectre is there. GOP knows this, and we won't go there.

True, that's what I said. But I guess what I meant was not enough people will do anything for it to make any difference, or change anything, or certainly not to get to the point of a civil war or secession.

There will be death and destruction "over there" which is not where most of us are, and we'll barely notice a change to our lives unless we are willing to give up our current lifestyles (lives?) to go "there" and join in.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I lost track of which thread we got deep into speculating about the Trump media plans ahead, but...

President Trump has told friends he wants to start a digital media company to clobber Fox News.

"He plans to wreck Fox. No doubt about it," said a source with detailed knowledge of Trump's intentions. https://t.co/4654GjS90r

— Axios (@axios) November 12, 2020

so, yeah...

If the saying, "Past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior" is true, then trump will bankrupt that endeavor as well.