“shit, put her in charge NOW, can’t possibly be any worse than the REAL LIFE fictional character we got rn”
As i’ve said in a previously, a hippo with diarrhea would be better than what we got now. It wouldn’t suggest you inject Lysol, for example. The REAL question is whether his base will reject him. Perhaps Willis has some insight into that since he comes from them? (Joyce is essentially autobiographical)
You know how you hear about the occasional town that elects a dog as mayor? I think that could work! Popular with voters, won’t tell people Lysol injections would work, foreign relations would probably improve . . .
Main issue is the age requirement, unless they count it in dog years. Maybe a tortoise?
Needfuldoer
I don’t think I could vote for a candidate with an anti-cat agenda, though.
Deanatay
“Russia cannot possibly go to war with such adorable animal! Will sign treaty.”
Have you seen his base? They’ve intertwined their identities with supporting him, to the point that not supporting him is inconceivable. The coalition backing him successfully applied the religious fundamentalism playbook; they built a loyal a cult of personality around him by tapping into emotional appeal. Get people angry and resentful of your opposition, and you cement a mindset in them that will back you and hold up to any logic or argument your opposition can throw at it. Their heels are dug in, and there will be no convincing them to change their minds with logic.
The real question should be, have they alienated enough swing voters and RINOs? Are enough of them beyond their breaking point, where they’ll vote for anyone else if they’re not completely disenfranchised? Why do you think they’re trying to sow discord in their opposition, and make voting as difficult as possible? They know the base alone isn’t enough, and they’ve overcooked their positions past their swing voters’ taste, so they’re trying to suppress opposition votes.
Dorothy is proving to have some **great** leadership props here. Even if she is a bit cocky.
That said . . .would Ross/Toedad be the equivalent of her Secret Service here?
Also on that note. . .oh dear. That shot to the head might be slowing down Toedad more then I thought if Blaine has him on his back on the floor even in his beaten up condition.
We’re seeing them looking down from above and I believe that Ross is still standing in spite of being beaten on the head twice now with a bloody hammer. Which is kind of impressive.
Oh it really is. That is some IMPRESSIVE endurance and pain tolerance, or just sheer determination, to be able to get up and fight after getting stuck in the temple like that.
Honestly not even that unrealistic either . . just really really impressive on Toedad’s part.
DudeMyDadOwnsaDealership
More like having a thick skull.
Someone before has noticed while he’s about as tall as a 15 year old girl, Ross is built like someone who should be a LOT physically stronger than what we’ve seen. (I think he may have a rigid muscle condition much like myself. Do his muscles suddenly spasm in a vibrating way for no reason, somethings?)
Ross was also called out on what kind of person he’s amounted to by someone he chose to believe was sent as a sign of God’s favor (and thus ignored all the red flags he was confronted with), right before said person struck him on the head with intent to kill.
Blaine’s badly injured, and is only making himself easier to take in a fight by continuing to play ‘wrath man.’ Ross is short. Not little, just short, with a very large skull (broad build, too) and has nearly been violently killed recently.
In superhero stories, you often can spot the Villain by finding the character who is opposite to the Hero’s defining traits. Amber is more than aware of how Amazi-Girl is more like Two-Face than Batman. At the same time, this is a sign of possessing Batman’s self-scrutiny, on top of being driven to become stronger; better than she was before.
Beavis and Butthead here, are purely motivated by a need to protect their gratifying and untrue self-images from Reality…
The US sometimes has a court-case instead of an election even when there aren’t unusual difficulties in conducting the vote and hostile forces trying to discredit the results.
trump has been very clear that he would label any election he loses as “fake”.
He will not go willingly, and there are many people with guns who will take to the streets if he tells them to. The anti-lockdown protests are practice runs for this.
King Daniel
Again, it’s bad but it’s not that bad. Yes, Trump has supporters who are currently protesting against the lockdown with guns. It won’t matter – if Donald Trump loses the election on 3 November 2020, then on 20 January 2021 he will legally no longer be POTUS no matter how much he shouts otherwise on Twitter. The Constitution may be vague in some areas, but it is absolutely clear on this point.
Bathymetheus
You do realise that trump doesn’t give a flying fig for the constitution?
Given how many people are demonstrably willing to risk their lives when he wants them to, there is a real possibility of civil war.
King Daniel
There’s little love between Trump and the military, and in such a situation Trump would have no legal authority to command them, no longer being the Commander-in-Chief. We are not looking at a civil war situation, at least this election cycle. Riots? Maybe. Civil war? No.
Bathymetheus
I sincerely hope you are right. But there will be lives lost, even so.
Bicycle Bill
At the risk of being labeled something or another, if they can’t get along with the rules of this country, maybe losing them wouldn’t be all that bad. As Thomas Jefferson wrote way back in 1787, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (emphasis mine)
thejeff
Riots, perhaps. More likely terrorist style killings – we’ve already seen plenty of right wing domestic terror.
Not civil war. There are extremists out there looking for it, but like the lockdown protests, it’s a tiny minority of people. The media coverage of these has been all out of proportion to their actual size.
I’d also expect court challenges after the fact and a ton of attempts to cheat and suppress the vote.
Needfuldoer
I’m leery of what this administration will do in its lame duck term, and especially of what the red hat cult of personality will do during and after. They’re more likely to double down than accept reality.
thejeff
Yeah, very worried about the lame duck session.
King Daniel
What the Trump administration will do during its lame-duck session (whether that comes in 2024-25 or, hopefully, ’20-21) is a perfectly valid concern to have – it’s one I’ll admit to, myself. What I consider doomsaying are preemptive declarations that we’re on the brink of a civil war where Trump has somehow persuaded the military (which, by and large, does not like him) to be on his side, or that Trump will somehow manage to illegally stay in office once his term is expired.
Like, the situation is certainly bad but it’s not yet that bad.
Needfuldoer
Yeah, I expect the types who protested the COVID lockdowns to pick up their Bass Pro Shops rifles and dress up in their Amazon tacticool gear again, to protest the “deep state” “orchestrating a coup” with somehow appointing Hillary Clinton as a dictator-for life as the “end game”. They’ll continue to consider Trump the “real winner” and “true President”, while the irony that they’re living out the tall tales they’ve woven about the “deep state” these last four years flies a mile over their heads.
Meanwhile, back in reality, we’ll be dealing with Tea Party 2.0 (now with double the bald-faced hypocrisy of the next leading brand) screaming about how all the problems the last administration left behind are somehow all the new administration’s fault, and that they’re not fixing them fast enough. For the most part, though, life will go on.
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny Ray…
Icalasari
I think the concern is more organized riots
He Who Abides
Except that a lot of his drones will absolutely attempt armed rebellion if he claims that he was “cheated” (translation: his terrible behavior and lack of leadership catch up with him), and a depressing number of them are law enforcement/military. It’s pretty terrifying to think about.
Matthew Evan Davis
If they do (and I think that’s a big if — dressing up all tacticool and going to Walmart with your AR-15 is a lot different than actual combat) I fully expect them to lose and lose badly. The 2nd Amendment does not provide training in small unit tactics or strategy along with the right to bear arms, nor does it provide you the right to all the weapons. Provided the military isn’t on Trump’s side — and let’s be honest, it’s not — I don’t think we have to worry.
jmsr7
That’s a good point about the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind that it was intended to make sure the states could at least have a chance at taking on the federal government forces in an armed conflict. But that was when ‘arms’ meant ‘bolt action rifles’ as the bulk of your firepower. By restricting it to things like that, the courts have effectively neutered the 2nd amendment’s intent. So it’s kinda moot now and serves only to keep gunsturbators happy. No one thinks they’d be anything but a minor impediment to an enemy in an armed conflict. No one but them, that is. And Sarah has previously expressed her opinion of them in this very story arc.
Caspar Mulders
Actually, it was written when “the right to bear arms” meant carrying a flint-lock, muzzle-loading musket or, if you were really rich, having a smoothbore cannon standing in your shed. Neither of those weapons would have much killing power in the hands of a single person. The 2nd amendment inseparably connects the right to bear arms to taking part in the ‘well-regulated militia’ that later evolved into the National Guard. Naturally, most 2nd amendment enthousiasts happily ignore that half of the text, because they’re not really interested in the constitution – they just want to have guns.
Ralph Oscar
Actually, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the slave states’ slave patrols. All white men were required to serve on these for several years starting at age 21 or so – they patrolled to check passes for any slaves caught off their plantations, run down and round up runaways, and to put down rebellions. It says right there in the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia”. These slave patrols functioned as local militias, and the wording puts this at the *state* level because the slave states didn’t want the federal government conscripting their slave militias to fight in wars against foreign enemies – they needed them there at home! See this article at the Daily Beast for more: “How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment”
thejeff
It wasn’t intended for anything like that at all. Back then the states had their own militias and those were the main source of troops for any serious conflict. They didn’t want the country to have a standing army at all, but it soon became clear that wasn’t practical.
Mostly though, it’s only a tiny fraction of even Trump’s base that would even try to take up arms – most of them already connected to various militia and hate groups. There will very likely be violence. They will very likely try to kill people and start their boogaloo, but they don’t have the numbers or the support to be anything more than murderers.
Bicycle Bill
Correction — are WANNA-BE law enforcement and (maybe) ex-military. And if push comes down to actual shove, my money will be on the REAL military — the guys who have all the neat toys like REAL armored vehicles, REAL body armor, and REAL weapons that will do far more damage than a guy with an AR-15 look-alike with a couple of extended magazines taped together. Oh, and have been trained constantly on how to use them to their best advantage.
Agemegos
In historical examples it has often been a problem that people can’t agree on what happened. The Constitution may be clear, but the facts are often not. It may very well be the case in November that Faux News will report a set of events that would, if they were true, make Trump the constitutional president. If a lot of senators, governors, judges, attorneys-general, Army officers and National Guard members continue in their habit of believing Faux News, then a lot of important institutions can be paralysed during a crisis.
Nathan West
Yes, of course it is. But the constitution and the legal system it enables are not magical cosmic forces. They only work because people do them. Yes, if he loses the election he’s no longer president. But if he stays in office, and congress and the courts don’t do anything about it? If the secret service doesn’t allow him to be hauled off by the FBI? Then what? There’s no recourse without a congress that has shown time and time again it doesn’t give two shits what laws he breaks.
Needfuldoer
The 20th Amendment says the President and Vice President’s terms end at noon on January 20th the year after an election year. This can only change by ratifying a new Amendment, which will never happen with a divided Congress. I doubt the system would let him unilaterally ignore or nullify this, because it would set a precedent for any Administration to unilaterally ignore or nullify any Amendment, including the 2nd.
He also can’t suspend or cancel the election, because that’s not the Executive branch’s purview. It would take an act of Congress to move election day from “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November”, which I think sets the whole process in motion, and that’s highly unlikely given the blue House.
Needfuldoer
Basically I think the only thing stopping the current Administration and Senate from going full Emperor Palpatine on us is the looming threat that it can come back to bite them in the ass if their opposition comes to power, and they can’t 100% prevent that from happening yet.
thejeff
Yes, in a way you’re right. If the entire apparatus of government stands behind him, despite the law, despite the newly elected President and Congresscritters, then he’ll continue to hold power.
If the secret service and the Department of Justice and the military all stand behind him, then it’s an open coup. And remember it’s not just the top people – his appointed cronies, but the actual low level people doing their jobs, who will, come January 20th have to choose between breaking their oaths and following their old bosses and following the law and their newly elected and appointed superiors.
I don’t see it happening. I don’t think he’s hollowed out the lower ranks of government that much. I certainly don’t think the military’s behind in that fashion – especially not after his administrations handling of Covid-19 outbreaks on naval vessels (and elsewhere in the military).
Bathymetheus
Personally, I think he should be given the Emperor Norton treatment.
(the original from 19th. century San Francisco, not the poster on this forum)
In the US, we’ve long believed we have the rule of law. But the last few years have shown us, repeatedly, that what we really had was a rule of norms.
The current US president just ignores those norms, which wouldn’t be that much of a crisis were it not for the fact that his Attorney General also ignores those norms, and pretty much every political appointee in the executive branch also ignores those norms, and oh guess what? the judicial branch has been filled with people who also ignore those norms, confirmed in their positions by one of the legislative branches that is controlled by people who ignore those norms.
I think it’s a pretty safe bet that we’ll have an election in November, though probably not a free and fair one. But if the results don’t come out the way the president wants, and he refuses to accept them, and continues to act as though he were re-elected — who’s going to remove him? Not the Justice Department, that’s for sure.
Bathymetheus
The president-elect will need to take armed services personnel to arrest him. trump’s Secret Service detail will permit this, provided no-one threatens his life.
At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. I do not share King Daniel’s optimism, but I do hope sanity prevails. For once.
Needfuldoer
If he loses the election, his term ends on January 20th whether a successor is sworn in or not. Period. If at that point there is no definitive successor selected, Congress picks a new President and VP from the top three individuals who got the most Electoral College votes; the House picks the POTUS and the Senate picks a VP. I think this is extremely unlikely because we only have two parties big enough to muster a majority of EC votes.
The real worry in my opinion is his sycophantic fan club rejecting the results as some kind of “deep state shadow government” “taking away control” from the “real government”, ironically listening to a one-man ‘shadow government’ themselves.
thejeff
The Justice Department will. The political appointees (Barr in particular) are done at that point – the new President will replace them.
And can and will do so even if Trump is still squatting in the White House.
No election means either Pelosi or Patrick Leahy becomes president when Trump’s term expires on January 20th. There are quite a few worrying scenarios out there, but cancelled elections isn’t really one of them.
Not necessarily. State legislatures could adopt some means of selecting electors other than popular election.
Viktoria
Enough have to do that to get 45* past 270. He needs a majority, not a plurality. And while TX and Ohio would probably be reliable, can he count on, say, Florida to give him electors without an election and not end up with a bunch of pissed-off Puerto Ricans rioting?
Agemegos
He only needs 270 votes in the elector college if all 538 electoral votes are cast. If some states end up unable to conduct an election and lack any alternative method for appointing electors, of if any states’ elections end up so screwed up that the Supreme Court gets to rule that the states’ electors were not validly appointed, then only a smaller number of votes are needed to made up the majority.
The US electoral system is a rickety old Rube Goldberg contraption, and parts of it only works because, when, and if they are carried out by people of goodwill who are committed to democratic values.
CrazyJ
Democratic controlled states will have elections normally though, and they control the majority of the electors. What Republican states choose to do or not to do with their elections will at best keep Trump’s loss from being a landslide.
Agemegos
Maybe they will. They’ll certainly try. But I’m really afraid, actually terrified, that there will be things going on by then that make if very difficult to conduct an election that is fair and transparent and in which all citizens have an equal opportunity to cast their votes and have them counted. The conduct of elections in the USA is a schmozzle at the best of times; with Trump and the Russians and the die-hards of the Confederacy and conspiracy nutters and random shooters all trying to screw things up there is a strong chance of widespread irregularities. Irregularities will end up in front of the federal courts. And an awful lot of federal judges were appointed since January 2017 by Trump on the advice of the Federalist Society and confirmed by a McConnell’s senate. It can easily all end up in confusion with no agreed-upon result. As it did in 1876, for example.
Wizard
Judicial appointments have been one of the few bright spots of the Trump administration. I’ll just mention that some of Trump’s more egregious acts of overreach were swatted down by judges that he appointed.
Needfuldoer
I think those electors are supposed to be counted on Election Day, so any states that don’t count their votes and assign electors by then run the risk of effectively “sitting out” the election. That’s probably to incentivize getting the process done and over with, but you know they’ll try any chicanery they can weasel up to get counted anyway.
thejeff
One problem is that states aren’t actually required to assign electors through a popular vote process. They can simple appoint electors as they please.
They are however required to elect House Representatives by voting. So if they skip elections, they don’t get Representation. (Or something. It’s not entirely clear to me what would happen in the long run in that case.)
One hopes so. I mean, I don’t need the whole world knowing that my middle name is Allison.
Meagan
I am confused about this comment.
Doom Shepherd
I am being obscure intentionally, to avoid trouble, but there is a certain type of person where the whole world becomes familiar with their middle name. Like “Harvey” or “Wilkes.”
clif
Doom Alison Shepherd. We knew them when.
Doom Shepherd
I am of course also being facetious. I don’t even possess anything more dangerous than a butter knife. Please stop calling me, Secret Service Man.
SillyGoose
You’re saying that like butter knives aren’t dangerous.
HeySo
“I heard on the internet that butter knives are part of the liberal agenda.
Quickly, break into all the homes and seize the butter knives.”
-Trump to Armed Forces, August 2023
I’ve long lost grasp on which of these kinds of hypothetical situations about Trump would actually be farcical, so your guess is as good as mine whether I intended that seriously or not. :/
Deanatay
Here lies Doom Alison Shepherd. Trouble was their middle name. Also, Alison.
You’re talking like rule of law still applies. What if Trump just keeps acting like he’s still in office, who’s going to remove him? Not the Attorney General, that’s for sure.
kickstarter
book 9
tomorrow night
be ready 
309 thoughts on “Unbound”
Ana Chronistic
shit, put her in charge NOW, can’t possibly be any worse than the REAL LIFE fictional character we got rn
only downside is it takes her literally MONTHS to do like a full day’s work (how’s that different from now lolololol)
Ana Chronistic
Dumbing of Age Book 9: BE READY
clif
Here I was thinking it was DOA Book 9: You Left Us Our Teeth.
Meagan
Dumbing of Age Book 9: You Left Us Our *Teeth*. Whoops.
I don’t usually do the title proposals, but this one felt right.
chris2315
Dumbing of Age Book 9: Whoops.
Lys
Dumbing of Age Book 9: teeth
SuperZero
That’s damning with faint praise, right there. That’s like saying she’d be at least as good as a brick, which would be quite the step up at present.
jmsr7
“shit, put her in charge NOW, can’t possibly be any worse than the REAL LIFE fictional character we got rn”
As i’ve said in a previously, a hippo with diarrhea would be better than what we got now. It wouldn’t suggest you inject Lysol, for example. The REAL question is whether his base will reject him. Perhaps Willis has some insight into that since he comes from them? (Joyce is essentially autobiographical)
Mollyscribbles
You know how you hear about the occasional town that elects a dog as mayor? I think that could work! Popular with voters, won’t tell people Lysol injections would work, foreign relations would probably improve . . .
Main issue is the age requirement, unless they count it in dog years. Maybe a tortoise?
Needfuldoer
I don’t think I could vote for a candidate with an anti-cat agenda, though.
Deanatay
“Russia cannot possibly go to war with such adorable animal! Will sign treaty.”
Ana Chronistic
Elect Stubbs the Cat! (or, I guess, since the dead can’t hold office, Denali?)
Needfuldoer
Have you seen his base? They’ve intertwined their identities with supporting him, to the point that not supporting him is inconceivable. The coalition backing him successfully applied the religious fundamentalism playbook; they built a loyal a cult of personality around him by tapping into emotional appeal. Get people angry and resentful of your opposition, and you cement a mindset in them that will back you and hold up to any logic or argument your opposition can throw at it. Their heels are dug in, and there will be no convincing them to change their minds with logic.
The real question should be, have they alienated enough swing voters and RINOs? Are enough of them beyond their breaking point, where they’ll vote for anyone else if they’re not completely disenfranchised? Why do you think they’re trying to sow discord in their opposition, and make voting as difficult as possible? They know the base alone isn’t enough, and they’ve overcooked their positions past their swing voters’ taste, so they’re trying to suppress opposition votes.
jmsr7
Yeah, i was thinking that too.
ReFlex76
“Let them fight.”
https://youtu.be/XKdJ6DnPhzk
Madock345
yea Dorothy! You are best girl.
clif
Nonsense! Dina is best girl. Just ask Becky.
timemonkey
Just be happy Sarah doesn’t have her bat, Blaine.
Brooks Flugaur-Leavitt
Damn Dorothy! I figured she was stalling Ross earlier, but this is even better than I expected.
William Leonard Reese Jr.
Dorothy is proving to have some **great** leadership props here. Even if she is a bit cocky.
That said . . .would Ross/Toedad be the equivalent of her Secret Service here?
Also on that note. . .oh dear. That shot to the head might be slowing down Toedad more then I thought if Blaine has him on his back on the floor even in his beaten up condition.
clif
We’re seeing them looking down from above and I believe that Ross is still standing in spite of being beaten on the head twice now with a bloody hammer. Which is kind of impressive.
William Leonard Reese Jr.
Oh it really is. That is some IMPRESSIVE endurance and pain tolerance, or just sheer determination, to be able to get up and fight after getting stuck in the temple like that.
Honestly not even that unrealistic either . . just really really impressive on Toedad’s part.
DudeMyDadOwnsaDealership
More like having a thick skull.
Someone before has noticed while he’s about as tall as a 15 year old girl, Ross is built like someone who should be a LOT physically stronger than what we’ve seen. (I think he may have a rigid muscle condition much like myself. Do his muscles suddenly spasm in a vibrating way for no reason, somethings?)
Ross was also called out on what kind of person he’s amounted to by someone he chose to believe was sent as a sign of God’s favor (and thus ignored all the red flags he was confronted with), right before said person struck him on the head with intent to kill.
Blaine’s badly injured, and is only making himself easier to take in a fight by continuing to play ‘wrath man.’ Ross is short. Not little, just short, with a very large skull (broad build, too) and has nearly been violently killed recently.
In superhero stories, you often can spot the Villain by finding the character who is opposite to the Hero’s defining traits. Amber is more than aware of how Amazi-Girl is more like Two-Face than Batman. At the same time, this is a sign of possessing Batman’s self-scrutiny, on top of being driven to become stronger; better than she was before.
Beavis and Butthead here, are purely motivated by a need to protect their gratifying and untrue self-images from Reality…
Chubsius
A modicum of cockiness oft translates to charisma.
Marsh Maryrose
It’s so cute, all these people talking as though the US is going to have an election in November.
King Daniel
Come on now, the situation’s bad but it’s not that bad.
Agemegos
The US sometimes has a court-case instead of an election even when there aren’t unusual difficulties in conducting the vote and hostile forces trying to discredit the results.
Bathymetheus
trump has been very clear that he would label any election he loses as “fake”.
He will not go willingly, and there are many people with guns who will take to the streets if he tells them to. The anti-lockdown protests are practice runs for this.
King Daniel
Again, it’s bad but it’s not that bad. Yes, Trump has supporters who are currently protesting against the lockdown with guns. It won’t matter – if Donald Trump loses the election on 3 November 2020, then on 20 January 2021 he will legally no longer be POTUS no matter how much he shouts otherwise on Twitter. The Constitution may be vague in some areas, but it is absolutely clear on this point.
Bathymetheus
You do realise that trump doesn’t give a flying fig for the constitution?
Given how many people are demonstrably willing to risk their lives when he wants them to, there is a real possibility of civil war.
King Daniel
There’s little love between Trump and the military, and in such a situation Trump would have no legal authority to command them, no longer being the Commander-in-Chief. We are not looking at a civil war situation, at least this election cycle. Riots? Maybe. Civil war? No.
Bathymetheus
I sincerely hope you are right. But there will be lives lost, even so.
Bicycle Bill
At the risk of being labeled something or another, if they can’t get along with the rules of this country, maybe losing them wouldn’t be all that bad. As Thomas Jefferson wrote way back in 1787, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (emphasis mine)
thejeff
Riots, perhaps. More likely terrorist style killings – we’ve already seen plenty of right wing domestic terror.
Not civil war. There are extremists out there looking for it, but like the lockdown protests, it’s a tiny minority of people. The media coverage of these has been all out of proportion to their actual size.
I’d also expect court challenges after the fact and a ton of attempts to cheat and suppress the vote.
Needfuldoer
I’m leery of what this administration will do in its lame duck term, and especially of what the red hat cult of personality will do during and after. They’re more likely to double down than accept reality.
thejeff
Yeah, very worried about the lame duck session.
King Daniel
What the Trump administration will do during its lame-duck session (whether that comes in 2024-25 or, hopefully, ’20-21) is a perfectly valid concern to have – it’s one I’ll admit to, myself. What I consider doomsaying are preemptive declarations that we’re on the brink of a civil war where Trump has somehow persuaded the military (which, by and large, does not like him) to be on his side, or that Trump will somehow manage to illegally stay in office once his term is expired.
Like, the situation is certainly bad but it’s not yet that bad.
Needfuldoer
Yeah, I expect the types who protested the COVID lockdowns to pick up their Bass Pro Shops rifles and dress up in their Amazon tacticool gear again, to protest the “deep state” “orchestrating a coup” with somehow appointing Hillary Clinton as a dictator-for life as the “end game”. They’ll continue to consider Trump the “real winner” and “true President”, while the irony that they’re living out the tall tales they’ve woven about the “deep state” these last four years flies a mile over their heads.
Meanwhile, back in reality, we’ll be dealing with Tea Party 2.0 (now with double the bald-faced hypocrisy of the next leading brand) screaming about how all the problems the last administration left behind are somehow all the new administration’s fault, and that they’re not fixing them fast enough. For the most part, though, life will go on.
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny Ray…
Icalasari
I think the concern is more organized riots
He Who Abides
Except that a lot of his drones will absolutely attempt armed rebellion if he claims that he was “cheated” (translation: his terrible behavior and lack of leadership catch up with him), and a depressing number of them are law enforcement/military. It’s pretty terrifying to think about.
Matthew Evan Davis
If they do (and I think that’s a big if — dressing up all tacticool and going to Walmart with your AR-15 is a lot different than actual combat) I fully expect them to lose and lose badly. The 2nd Amendment does not provide training in small unit tactics or strategy along with the right to bear arms, nor does it provide you the right to all the weapons. Provided the military isn’t on Trump’s side — and let’s be honest, it’s not — I don’t think we have to worry.
jmsr7
That’s a good point about the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind that it was intended to make sure the states could at least have a chance at taking on the federal government forces in an armed conflict. But that was when ‘arms’ meant ‘bolt action rifles’ as the bulk of your firepower. By restricting it to things like that, the courts have effectively neutered the 2nd amendment’s intent. So it’s kinda moot now and serves only to keep gunsturbators happy. No one thinks they’d be anything but a minor impediment to an enemy in an armed conflict. No one but them, that is. And Sarah has previously expressed her opinion of them in this very story arc.
Caspar Mulders
Actually, it was written when “the right to bear arms” meant carrying a flint-lock, muzzle-loading musket or, if you were really rich, having a smoothbore cannon standing in your shed. Neither of those weapons would have much killing power in the hands of a single person. The 2nd amendment inseparably connects the right to bear arms to taking part in the ‘well-regulated militia’ that later evolved into the National Guard. Naturally, most 2nd amendment enthousiasts happily ignore that half of the text, because they’re not really interested in the constitution – they just want to have guns.
Ralph Oscar
Actually, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the slave states’ slave patrols. All white men were required to serve on these for several years starting at age 21 or so – they patrolled to check passes for any slaves caught off their plantations, run down and round up runaways, and to put down rebellions. It says right there in the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia”. These slave patrols functioned as local militias, and the wording puts this at the *state* level because the slave states didn’t want the federal government conscripting their slave militias to fight in wars against foreign enemies – they needed them there at home! See this article at the Daily Beast for more: “How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment”
thejeff
It wasn’t intended for anything like that at all. Back then the states had their own militias and those were the main source of troops for any serious conflict. They didn’t want the country to have a standing army at all, but it soon became clear that wasn’t practical.
Mostly though, it’s only a tiny fraction of even Trump’s base that would even try to take up arms – most of them already connected to various militia and hate groups. There will very likely be violence. They will very likely try to kill people and start their boogaloo, but they don’t have the numbers or the support to be anything more than murderers.
Bicycle Bill
Correction — are WANNA-BE law enforcement and (maybe) ex-military. And if push comes down to actual shove, my money will be on the REAL military — the guys who have all the neat toys like REAL armored vehicles, REAL body armor, and REAL weapons that will do far more damage than a guy with an AR-15 look-alike with a couple of extended magazines taped together. Oh, and have been trained constantly on how to use them to their best advantage.
Agemegos
In historical examples it has often been a problem that people can’t agree on what happened. The Constitution may be clear, but the facts are often not. It may very well be the case in November that Faux News will report a set of events that would, if they were true, make Trump the constitutional president. If a lot of senators, governors, judges, attorneys-general, Army officers and National Guard members continue in their habit of believing Faux News, then a lot of important institutions can be paralysed during a crisis.
Nathan West
Yes, of course it is. But the constitution and the legal system it enables are not magical cosmic forces. They only work because people do them. Yes, if he loses the election he’s no longer president. But if he stays in office, and congress and the courts don’t do anything about it? If the secret service doesn’t allow him to be hauled off by the FBI? Then what? There’s no recourse without a congress that has shown time and time again it doesn’t give two shits what laws he breaks.
Needfuldoer
The 20th Amendment says the President and Vice President’s terms end at noon on January 20th the year after an election year. This can only change by ratifying a new Amendment, which will never happen with a divided Congress. I doubt the system would let him unilaterally ignore or nullify this, because it would set a precedent for any Administration to unilaterally ignore or nullify any Amendment, including the 2nd.
He also can’t suspend or cancel the election, because that’s not the Executive branch’s purview. It would take an act of Congress to move election day from “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November”, which I think sets the whole process in motion, and that’s highly unlikely given the blue House.
Needfuldoer
Basically I think the only thing stopping the current Administration and Senate from going full Emperor Palpatine on us is the looming threat that it can come back to bite them in the ass if their opposition comes to power, and they can’t 100% prevent that from happening yet.
thejeff
Yes, in a way you’re right. If the entire apparatus of government stands behind him, despite the law, despite the newly elected President and Congresscritters, then he’ll continue to hold power.
If the secret service and the Department of Justice and the military all stand behind him, then it’s an open coup. And remember it’s not just the top people – his appointed cronies, but the actual low level people doing their jobs, who will, come January 20th have to choose between breaking their oaths and following their old bosses and following the law and their newly elected and appointed superiors.
I don’t see it happening. I don’t think he’s hollowed out the lower ranks of government that much. I certainly don’t think the military’s behind in that fashion – especially not after his administrations handling of Covid-19 outbreaks on naval vessels (and elsewhere in the military).
Bathymetheus
Personally, I think he should be given the Emperor Norton treatment.
(the original from 19th. century San Francisco, not the poster on this forum)
Marsh Maryrose
In the US, we’ve long believed we have the rule of law. But the last few years have shown us, repeatedly, that what we really had was a rule of norms.
The current US president just ignores those norms, which wouldn’t be that much of a crisis were it not for the fact that his Attorney General also ignores those norms, and pretty much every political appointee in the executive branch also ignores those norms, and oh guess what? the judicial branch has been filled with people who also ignore those norms, confirmed in their positions by one of the legislative branches that is controlled by people who ignore those norms.
I think it’s a pretty safe bet that we’ll have an election in November, though probably not a free and fair one. But if the results don’t come out the way the president wants, and he refuses to accept them, and continues to act as though he were re-elected — who’s going to remove him? Not the Justice Department, that’s for sure.
Bathymetheus
The president-elect will need to take armed services personnel to arrest him. trump’s Secret Service detail will permit this, provided no-one threatens his life.
At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. I do not share King Daniel’s optimism, but I do hope sanity prevails. For once.
Needfuldoer
If he loses the election, his term ends on January 20th whether a successor is sworn in or not. Period. If at that point there is no definitive successor selected, Congress picks a new President and VP from the top three individuals who got the most Electoral College votes; the House picks the POTUS and the Senate picks a VP. I think this is extremely unlikely because we only have two parties big enough to muster a majority of EC votes.
The real worry in my opinion is his sycophantic fan club rejecting the results as some kind of “deep state shadow government” “taking away control” from the “real government”, ironically listening to a one-man ‘shadow government’ themselves.
thejeff
The Justice Department will. The political appointees (Barr in particular) are done at that point – the new President will replace them.
And can and will do so even if Trump is still squatting in the White House.
CrazyJ
No election means either Pelosi or Patrick Leahy becomes president when Trump’s term expires on January 20th. There are quite a few worrying scenarios out there, but cancelled elections isn’t really one of them.
Agemegos
Not necessarily. State legislatures could adopt some means of selecting electors other than popular election.
Viktoria
Enough have to do that to get 45* past 270. He needs a majority, not a plurality. And while TX and Ohio would probably be reliable, can he count on, say, Florida to give him electors without an election and not end up with a bunch of pissed-off Puerto Ricans rioting?
Agemegos
He only needs 270 votes in the elector college if all 538 electoral votes are cast. If some states end up unable to conduct an election and lack any alternative method for appointing electors, of if any states’ elections end up so screwed up that the Supreme Court gets to rule that the states’ electors were not validly appointed, then only a smaller number of votes are needed to made up the majority.
The US electoral system is a rickety old Rube Goldberg contraption, and parts of it only works because, when, and if they are carried out by people of goodwill who are committed to democratic values.
CrazyJ
Democratic controlled states will have elections normally though, and they control the majority of the electors. What Republican states choose to do or not to do with their elections will at best keep Trump’s loss from being a landslide.
Agemegos
Maybe they will. They’ll certainly try. But I’m really afraid, actually terrified, that there will be things going on by then that make if very difficult to conduct an election that is fair and transparent and in which all citizens have an equal opportunity to cast their votes and have them counted. The conduct of elections in the USA is a schmozzle at the best of times; with Trump and the Russians and the die-hards of the Confederacy and conspiracy nutters and random shooters all trying to screw things up there is a strong chance of widespread irregularities. Irregularities will end up in front of the federal courts. And an awful lot of federal judges were appointed since January 2017 by Trump on the advice of the Federalist Society and confirmed by a McConnell’s senate. It can easily all end up in confusion with no agreed-upon result. As it did in 1876, for example.
Wizard
Judicial appointments have been one of the few bright spots of the Trump administration. I’ll just mention that some of Trump’s more egregious acts of overreach were swatted down by judges that he appointed.
Needfuldoer
I think those electors are supposed to be counted on Election Day, so any states that don’t count their votes and assign electors by then run the risk of effectively “sitting out” the election. That’s probably to incentivize getting the process done and over with, but you know they’ll try any chicanery they can weasel up to get counted anyway.
thejeff
One problem is that states aren’t actually required to assign electors through a popular vote process. They can simple appoint electors as they please.
They are however required to elect House Representatives by voting. So if they skip elections, they don’t get Representation. (Or something. It’s not entirely clear to me what would happen in the long run in that case.)
Doom Shepherd
One hopes so. I mean, I don’t need the whole world knowing that my middle name is Allison.
Meagan
I am confused about this comment.
Doom Shepherd
I am being obscure intentionally, to avoid trouble, but there is a certain type of person where the whole world becomes familiar with their middle name. Like “Harvey” or “Wilkes.”
clif
Doom Alison Shepherd. We knew them when.
Doom Shepherd
I am of course also being facetious. I don’t even possess anything more dangerous than a butter knife. Please stop calling me, Secret Service Man.
SillyGoose
You’re saying that like butter knives aren’t dangerous.
HeySo
“I heard on the internet that butter knives are part of the liberal agenda.
Quickly, break into all the homes and seize the butter knives.”
-Trump to Armed Forces, August 2023
I’ve long lost grasp on which of these kinds of hypothetical situations about Trump would actually be farcical, so your guess is as good as mine whether I intended that seriously or not. :/
Deanatay
Here lies Doom Alison Shepherd. Trouble was their middle name. Also, Alison.
Marsh Maryrose
You’re talking like rule of law still applies. What if Trump just keeps acting like he’s still in office, who’s going to remove him? Not the Attorney General, that’s for sure.