General strike

[rdking647]

If trump steals the election americans need to go on strike. shut everything down. Just like you see in other countries after the election is stolen,the people can force the usurpers out.

block every highway
shut down the airports.
shut down the factories
force the criminals out.

I never thought id have to say this about america but we are on the brink of a second revolution

[TwilightZone]

1. "If trump steals the election" - he can't.

This has been beaten to death, but Trump can't do anything to force anyone to override state law where elections are concerned. They're done when they're done counting or when their state laws say they're done.

Even John Roberts has said that courts don't determine election law, state legislatures do. Trump's advisors certainly know what the message is there.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

7. Roberts is a Republican.

Never trust a Republican.

Remember Florida 2000.

[Silent3]

9. I doubt Trump can steal the election, but I still have some worry because of Republican judges

While a judge is normally constrained to at least make the appearance of following the law, and state and federal constitutions, there really is nothing that absolutely stops them from deciding any way they wish, especially with no jury involved, "because I said so!"

A judge can of course be impeached for that kind of behavior, but we've seen how Republican senators and representatives happily overlooked Trump's crimes, joyfully contradicted themselves about appointing Justices during election years, and gleefully packed the courts with ideologues and incompetent buffoons, so long as they were loyal to the Republican agenda and Trump.

And as long as a judge hides behind enough smoke and mirrors that they decide in favor of Trump in a way even slightly less obvious than "because I said so!", Republicans won't impeach such a judge over that, and I no longer trust the integrity of the SCOTUS to overrule even blatant Republican partisanship or absurd interpretations of the law in service of Trump.

[TwilightZone]

12. Any cases would end up at the SC.

Roberts has already stated publicly that states determine election law, not courts. There's little reason to believe he's going to override state laws of perhaps a dozen states to hand Trump the victory. Roberts just isn't showing any signs that he's even open to the possibility - his statement was pretty clear and an obvious message.

It's always been little more than a Trump pipe dream. I get the concern, I understand it, but I'm just not sure it's warranted.

[Silent3]

13. Roberts alone can't spare us a corrupt decision any more

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett... rushed into the position just in time, just for this... are the only five unprincipled votes needed to sell out the country to Trump.

I don't think it'll come to that, but I'm not anywhere as sure as I'd like to be.

I think Biden is going to make a clear win of this election, and that will make stealing it much harder. But this isn't a country where we can at all count on the rules being followed anymore. We, as Democrats, have already accepted the disgusting premise that Biden has to win BIG to ensure victory, when we should be able to feel perfectly safe that a mere 50.1% of the vote in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes is quite enough.

[TwilightZone]

14. I don't think the court touches it, especially if it's a blowout.

Regardless of the makeup. There's just no Constitutional basis for overriding the laws of a bunch of states and setting one of the worst precedents in SC history. Roberts is pretty clearly concerned about the legacy of "his" court, and he still has significant influence. They can't really even fake it because the jurisdictional issues are so clear. Florida in 2000 only worked because one state had a 500-vote gap and the decision was still historically bad. This would dwarf that.

The assertion that Barrett was rushed in for only this is mostly a myth. She's been in the pipeline for years and is a Federalist Society darling. She's there for 40 years of ultra-conservative rulings. I think we overstate how willing the conservative justices are to throw their reputations in the trash for Trump.

I know..."Trump says" she was placed there for this. I tend to assume everything he says is a lie, including that assertion. Why "we" suddenly started believing him of late is a little beyond my understanding. He isn't lying any less than before. He says stuff like that to get a rise out of people, and it works every time.

[Silent3]

15. I'm mostly agreeing with you, I'm just stating why circumstances don't give me...

...the degree of certainty I think I have a right to feel in our country and our government.

What I find especially suspicious about Barrett was the rush to get her confirmation done before the election, not after. Yes, you could say that doing so after the election, with Trump losing the election, would look even more unseemly and hypocritical than the process has already been, but I don't think Republicans give a shit about how unseemly and hypocritical they appear anymore. The rush to get Barrett in (or any other arch-conservative, even if it hadn't been her specifically) can't help but strike me as suspicious.

[TwilightZone]

17. Politically, it made more sense to do it before the election.

That is especially true if their internal polls, as I suspect, show Trump getting thumped on Tuesday.

If Biden wins in a blowout and they hadn't already pushed her through, the public would turn on them en masse. Public support of pushing Barrett through would have cratered and it would be a PR nightmare from the GOP's perspective. By pushing her quickly through now, it left little time for there to be much of an uproar, even though public opinion was largely against it.

They would have pushed her through regardless, but it would have been much more damaging politically to do it after the election, especially if Trump gets hammered. It was really a no-brainer from McConnell's perspective. Cycle 2022 starts Wednesday and starting it off with a PR nightmare wouldn't be a good idea.

[doc03]

16. Hasn't a judge already ruled against counting votes received after Tuesday even if

postmarked before election day in at least one state?

[TwilightZone]

19. They ruled against an extension in WI and allowed one in PA and NC.

The argument seems to be that WI needed to stick to existing rules, which in the face of CV19 is ridiculous, though they weren't terribly clear on their reasoning.

For Trump's "theft" to be successful, they would have to clearly override the existing laws in multiple states and basically hand him the states in the absence of any reason to do so. That's not the same issue or the same scale.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. Swear to god if you haven't organized for a general strike don't fucking call one.

[The Magistrate]

11. Hear Hear, Ma'am

[Hoyt]

3. Isn't that kind of what trumpsters are saying if Biden wins, although with more violence implied?

Sure if he "steals" the election. However regrettable it is, there are a lot of people that believe differently from us.

I'd prefer to wait and see what happens before throwing around a lot of threats if we don't get our way. Don't think such considerations will be necessary, just like they weren't when we won in 2008, 2012, 2018.

[roamer65]

4. Not a revolution, on the edge of Yugoslavian-style break up and conflict.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. Other countries have general strikes at least in part because

they are a whole lot smaller than this one. Plus, many of them continue to have very strong unions. The working class people in those countries understand they are working class, and have a sense of solidarity as a class. Too many Americans have zero sense that they really are some kind of working class and will never be wealthy, will never have to worry about paying estate taxes, and so on. That's why so many people think that Trump cut their taxes, when he didn't.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

6. Solidarity. Unions are calling for a GS as well.

Count me in for a GS and a boycott of Republican companies.

If Trump loses and refuses to accept the election results, and Joe gets cheated out of the Presidency by the courts, I'm definitely in.

[Klaralven]

8. Any group that tries that will be overwhelmed by mobs searching for toilet paper and towels

How long do you suppose American women will put up with a lack of feminine hygiene products?

[rzemanfl]

10. Brilliant argument. I am humbled. n/t

[doc03]

18. I have been in a couple strikes in my lifetime it is always the most

militant and vocal that cave and turn against the union once they lose their first pay check.

[EndlessWire]

20. I think that he has something up his sleeve

Trump doesn't care about these crowds of brain deficient MAGA cheerers; he doesn't care about caravans of Trump flag waving idiots trying to cause accidents. He cares only about himself. We all know this.

He has his eyes on the EC. Period. And, because there are states with Repubs in power, he can screw around with this. He can. It was surprisingly easy for him to put himself above the law these last 4 years. So, nothing would surprise me. We'll know what is going to happen when it happens. But, you know he isn't leaving quietly. Why else would he decide to continue to campaign after the 3rd? What did this mean when he said that?

I am ashamed of the people interviewed on TV who plan to vote for Trump. It is more than a difference of opinion. They'll wake up with a fascist government and not understand anything.