Everyone needs to stop pretending that Donnie Dipshit will EVER be president again

[maxrandb]

Even if he loses the popular vote again, but somehow eeks out 270 electoral votes

HE MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO TAKE OFFICE.

I know that some will say, well, that makes us just like them, but we never sent an armed throng of violent fucksticks to attack the capitol.

I am sick of hearing this; "but what if he wins" bullshit. The media, and every sane Americans needs to stop imagining, or pretending that he will be president again. He surely as hell won't be president of any "United" states. Think California, New York, Illinois or other blue states are just going to sit back and wait for the retribution to come?

No! We need to put it out of our minds and deepest darkest imaginations, that this orange festering perianal cyst will ever step foot in the White House again.

He is an absolute threat to America, and he should be treated as such.

I am dead fucking serious.

If it even means declaring martial law, this amoral, corrupt, evil amphibian turd MUST NEVER DARKEN OUR DOORS AGAIN!

If the seccessionist had defeated Lincoln, do you really think he would have just had a peaceful transition?

We are at the precipice of Civil War.

Who thinks that him eeking out an Electoral College win doesn't push us over that cliff.

[leftstreet]

1. No, he won't. But the media need the clicks

massive money was made off Trump

[Prairie_Seagull]

19. Absolutely and I will see you and raise you.

Doesn't it make sense that they wish this to continue as long as possible?

[leftstreet]

25. Well sure. He was a cash cow.

He's easy to beat now as no one but fringe evangelicals and nutters think he's destined to win, and the media like to ignore that most of his "supporters" just voted against Clinton.

He'll be a cash and news diversion draw until the next thing comes along...

[Conjuay]

26. so the media is grifting

off the grifter.

[FBaggins]

2. Yes - that does indeed make you just like him

If he actually wins the election he must become president.

And if some nut decides to declare martial law and block the peaceful transfer of power - they too should be locked up.

[WarGamer]

20. Exactly...

Nothing worse than people who rail against authoritarianism and lawbreakers... and then promote authoritarianism and law breaking.

Come on people, ever heard the expression about not allowing your hatred to turn you into THE VERY THING YOU HATE?

[Ms. Toad]

29. Agreed.

As much as I hate the concept of him becoming president again - if he actually wins and we prevent him from taking office by unlawful means, we are just like him.

[FBaggins]

31. Worse

He didn’t succeed

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. You are WRONG

There is polling showing that TFG is competitive with President Biden. Such polling is suspect but should not be ignored. I was a Clinton delegate to Philadelphia and the prevailing view that Hillary would win easily. While I was at the convention, Russia did its first data dump and we had to change chairperson of the party during the convention. Putin will use whatever means he still has available to help TFG in that TFG is the only way for Putin to be Ukraine.

Right now, we are looking at Cornel West/Jill Stein and No Labels running third parties in efforts designed to re-elect TFG. Jill Stein and her Russian backers are why Hillary lost three states. Jill Stein was responsible for electing TFG in 2016. Now, the bid by Cornel West is designed to help re-elect TFG.

Link to tweet

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4086732-axelrod-warns-cornel-west-bid-could-tip-election-to-trump/

Democratic strategist David Axelrod said the Green Party bid by academic Cornel West could draw votes away from President Biden, leading to a victory for former President Trump.

“In 2016, the Green Party played an outsized role in tipping the election to Donald Trump. Now, with Cornel West as their likely nominee, they could easily do it again. Risky business,” he tweeted.....

Axelrod compared West to 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who some blamed for splitting the vote for Hillary Clinton in key electoral states, potentially causing Clinton’s electoral loss to former President Trump.

Stein won more votes than Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin and Michigan, states which would have tipped the outcome of the election if Clinton had won them.

I am not taking anything for granted. TFG is running to stay out of prison and could win with help from third parties. No labels is being funded by the Harlan Crow and others who want TFG to win.

I really wish that you are right, but I strongly disagree. We need to work hard to re-elect President Biden and VP Harris.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

7. He is not saying that he will not win the election

He is saying that we must, and we will, have Civil War.
He lists some states that he thinks will secede.
His demands of insurrection are beyond the pale.

I hope he is not right about that, and I think he is a troll.

[Elessar Zappa]

17. Maxrandb is not a troll.

He contributes greatly to this website. I don’t agree with his post but he isn’t a troll.

[FBaggins]

22. That has been my impression as well

But this post walks and quacks like a duck.

[brush]

9. It came out yesterday that Cornell West owes over a half million in back taxes...

so he's just about neutralized as he's
raged quite often that the rich should be taxed higher. What a hypocrite.

This should finish off his campaign to take votes from Joe Biden. He is running on the Green Party banner now. Maybe he thought he could pull off a Jill Stein (Green Party) recount maneuver too and then pocket the money like she did, and pay off his owed taxes.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218150588#top

RFK jr. and No Labels still have to be combated though.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Jill Stein met with Putin and still hurt Clinton in 2016

Jill Stein met with Putin and was still able to draw votes from Hillary Clinton. West may be running to get help with these taxes. I am still worried about West.

[brush]

12. West still bares watching as who knows who he's conspiring behind the scenes.

Could be Russia, dark money, repub big money...but this back taxes revelation will weaken him.

We need to keep passing this news of his tax dept/hypocrisy on whenever his candidacy come up.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

77. What neutralizes him even more is his abrasive personality

His skin color makes that even less tolerable with way too much of the American populace.

I'd rather people boot him at the polls over his ridiculous stances on several issues, but that's what would happen in an ideal world, not the real one.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

4. This seems like an extremist point of view, or TROLLing?

Calling for insurrection and civil war to see us react?
Or because you truly believe we must not accept the next election if trump wins?
And you think the end of our form of government should occur in that case?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Keepin it 100!

[RKP5637]

6. If he were to become president, the US would likely be in such a perpetual state of chaos

I wonder if it could even be governed.

[maxrandb]

27. Exactly! And No, I am not a troll

just a realist.

I consider myself a patriot. I served 28.5 years in the United States Navy. I served under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. I am proud that my Certificate of Retirement was signed by President Obama.

I did not agree with all of those president's policies, but I never once considered them an existential threat to the country. I never once thought they would issue an order contrary to the Constitutional bedrock of America.

It is simply inconceivable to me that this orange amphibian turd ever sullied our county ONCE. He has already told and shown us what he would do if ever given the reigns of power again.

Think the "institutions" will save us the next time?

Look, if my neighbors voted for an axe murderer to live in my house, do I allow it?

If you friend downs 10 shots of tequila, do you not do everything in your power to stop him from driving home? Would you take the keys? Would you lock him in a room to sleep it off?

If you find a toddler playing with a loaded gun, would you take it away from him and make sure he couldn't get his hands on it again?

There is NO feasible, reasonable, or even delusional scenario where this amoral, evil, violent, ignorant shit-weasle does not destroy America if he ever gets this tiny hands on it again.

If Hitler came back from the dead and ran for president, or if Putin ran for president and they were able to secure 270 Electoral Votes from a minority of Americans voters, would they be allowed to serve? Or, would we say; "no fucking way".

Donnie Dipshit is just as evil and vile as Hitler, and he is just as committed to the destruction of America as Putin.

Even if it tore our country apart, he must never step foot in the White House.

Whatever we stitched back together after that tear would be 1,000 better than what Donnie Dipshit would unleash.

[RKP5637]

28. The founders never entertained IMO such a beast as Trump coming along as a president, and much

less a possible repeat performance, which leads me to say there are a lot of really fucked up people supporting Trump. It will be a crises if he slithers back into the White House. How it will be handled I have no idea, but it will be a crisis and chaos.

[Ms. Toad]

30. That is exactly what the MAGA crowd believed about Biden.

What gives us any more right to use unlawful means to retain the white house then they had?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

36. kooky

I think the OP is extremist content, and should be removed.

You are right about how some view Biden.
It's amazing how awful some thought Clinton was.

At any rate, this forum should not allow posts that call for insurrection.
It is extremist content and is, therefore, against the rules.

[BlackSkimmer]

38. Dude, you're all over this thread insulting the OP.

I disagree with the OP, but your personal attacks are really not necessary.

Can't you disagree without calling names?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

65. It's the rules, calling the post kooky, not the poster.

It's under the content section,

Content

No kooky, extremist, or hate content.

Do not promote extreme fringe views.

[BlackSkimmer]

71. Lol, so you changed the post where you called another DUer a troll?

Hmm?

Whyever for?

[harumph]

45. an interesting academic question.

Let me ask you this. What if a future admin says: "fuck the constitution!" we're going to
act by executive fiat to (insert deprivation here) and basically deny or eliminate constitutional
guarantees for certain out groups. What if the foregoing admin not only ignores the laws and
works to subvert them? What if the admin makes peaceful transfer of power impossible by
actively disenfranchising certain groups? All hypothetical of course. Love to hear
counselor.

[maxrandb]

54. You can't answer that without context

I hate to use the Nazis reference so often, but wouldn't the answer to your scenario depend on what the purpose is.

Would those actions be acceptable to prevent the Nazis from taking power?

What about a current scenario like Niger? Should then current government take such actions you mentioned to put down the coup?

The right-wing in this country tries to maintain the charade that we are "just as bad" from the left extreme, as they are from the right.

That is simply NOT true.

[Ms. Toad]

62. Those are not hypothetical -

And not exclusively committed by the Republicans.

Executive orders are an administration's interpretation of existing law - and directions to the executive departments about how to implement the law. When executive orders exceed the authority granted by Congress (executive fiat), it is up to the courts to determine whehter the executive fiat was, or was not, within the power granted and - if not - rule the unlawful parts of the executive order void. Biden has had a few setbacks when he has tried to follow the bad example set by recent Republicans.

When the administration works to subvert the laws, it is similarly up to the courts (via lawsuits) to correct the administration.

The latter is obviously happening with all of the restrictive voting laws. The solution is the courts, if they are unconstitutional, and lobbying/ballot initiatives/voting if not unconstitutional.

[maxrandb]

53. If you think what MAGA Dipshits think of Biden, is anywhere remotely the same

as what you have seen with your own eyes, and heard with your own ears from Donnie Dipshit, you're either trolling, or delusional.

You're argument really is like saying; "well, the Nazis felt the same way about the Jews, as we feel about the Nazis"

I could imagine you at the Nuremberg trials saying; "well, we need to see this from the other side"

It's the epitome of "there were good people on both sides".

[BlackSkimmer]

57. Goodness gracious, what a thread!

Calling MT a troll or delusional?

Can no one argue a position without insults?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

68. I eddited my 'TROLL' headline

I'll call the OP either, 'extremist' or looking to get our reaction, 'trolling',

But I edited and added some lighter context that I originally used.
I'm sorry.

[Ms. Toad]

63. Using how you feel about someone to justify an insurrection is the same illegal act

Regardless of whether those feelings are justified or not.

[maxrandb]

81. But it's NOT just "feelings"

We saw Jan 6 with your own eyes. Those of us in Virginia could smell the teargas, smoke and blood waifting across the Potomac.

I saw them looking for Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, AOC and Mike Pence, with the intent to hang their broken bodies from a DC bridge like a scene out of Felugia.

Since then I have heard him say he is going to use the reigns of power to sic the DOJ, IRS, DoD, etc, after people that dare disagree with him.

I've seen a frickin 3-Star General and White House Advisors, and DOJ officials that served under him, claim that what they got wrong was failing to call out the military to impound ballots and deploy to blue cities.

That's NOT a "feeling", that's a fact!

And ANY Democratic that had done the same? I would be the first to say they MUST NOT be seated in the White House either.

Don't get me wrong. My hope and goal is that he is crushed at the ballot box.

I also think that's it's not crazy to consider worst case.

Didn't mean to get personal, but I believe you called me a troll.

Politics has always been an "agree, or disagree" prospect, however, I can not agree, or disagree about whether America is destroyed.

That is what we are being asked to do in this case, "agree, or disagree about whether America continues to exist.

[Ms. Toad]

82. Not the point.

Trumps bloviating aside, we are a country based on the rule of law.

If you believe that if Trump wins the election it is justified to carry out an insurrection to prevent the lawfully elected president from taking office, you are acting exactly like J6 crowd did - who believed the exact same thing: It was critical to the survival of our country to prevent a lawfully elected president from taking office.

I'm not calling you a troll. I'm pointing out the logic you are using is the exact same logic that the J6 crowd used for their insurrection.

[maxrandb]

86. Please read my post again

No where did I call for insurrection.

President Biden, the Senate, they DOJ could deem him a threat to national security (HE IS!) and invoke Presidential powers to "defend the Constitution"

State Governors, that have an obligation to defend their citizens, could begin to take actions to secure their states and citizens from harm.

If thousands of MAGA Dipshits "AGAIN" try to OVERTHROW the government, Martial Law can be declared.

History shows that sometimes coups come at the point of a gun, and sometimes they come from voter suppression, propaganda, and the ballot.

Doesn't matter. A coup, is a coup, is a coup, and it must not succeed.

We all know he's an existential threat to Democracy, not only here, but around the world.

It's absolutely silly to think, "yeah, we know all that, but...meh...we'll just let him take power anyway".

My God! If folks voted to give a two-year-old a loaded gun, would we just throw up our hands and say; 'well, the people have spoken'"?

[Ms. Toad]

87. Read your OP again

If it even means declaring martial law, this amoral, corrupt, evil amphibian turd MUST NEVER DARKEN OUR DOORS AGAIN!

Declaring martial law because you don't like the outcome of a lawful election is insurrection.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

89. And virtually called for Civil War

And said,
even if he wins the election, HE MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO TAKE OFFICE

Sounds like that included everything, up to and including insurrection.


And said , do you really think he would have just had a peaceful transition?

Which sounds like saying violence is appropriate. Wouldn't violent resistance be insurrection?


Then finished with saying, We are at the precipice of Civil War.

So, sounds like a call for Civil War if trump should win,
Isn't that insurrection?

[Ms. Toad]

90. Agreed.

I was just picking out a single thing, rather than reciting the entire laundry list.

But yes, it sounds like exactly the same thing the MAGA crowd was saying leading up to J6, for the same reason - the scenario the OP set out "even if he wins the election"

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

91. Yes, I knew you were being concise

I wrote that response more to help the OP see the light.

[maxrandb]

93. No it doesn't

"By General Orders No. 141, September 25, 1862, Lincoln subjected protestors to martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus."

The Jan 6 folks...all of them...should be rotting in a jail cell right now. A true President would have directed the Jan 6 folks to be subject to martial law and had them arrested that day.

Martial law involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in time of war, rebellion, or natural disaster.

The prospect of Donnie Dipshit in the White House meets the definition of War "and" Natural Disaster.

[Ms. Toad]

94. Declaring martial law for the purpose of using military force to remain in office

when someone else has been lawfully elected is insurrection.

A legitimate election is not war, rebellion, or natural disaster, so using martial law would be unlawful.

You may not like that Trump was elected. You may not like the fact that the law allows him to run. But that doesn't justify substituting martial law for civilian law - any more than it would have ben justified had Trump done it.

That you don't see that your logic is identical to his is, frankly, appalling.

[keithbvadu2]

8. DeSantis is desperately counting on Trump not being able to run.

DeSantis is desperately counting on Trump not being able to run.

Trump has him running way behind right now.

[grumpyduck]

10. There are things I would like to say,

but in this day and age, and online. I will not.

[brush]

13. Good rant. I believe we outnumber the trumper cult...meaning Democrats....

Independents and never-trumper republicans. They are determined and will try to steal it again, but we beat them in 2020 and will again as we are no pushovers and are just as determined to beat back fascism as that is what the 2024 election is about.

If that orange turd gets in, look the fuck out. The nation will descend into chaos the moment he take the oath on Jan. 20, 2025 as he will begin his retribution against all who opposed him. And who thinks there will be no unrest in the big blue states like California and the other west coast states, New York, Illinois, Michigan. We are in the most dangerous time since the Civil War.

We can't let authoritarianism happen. We must GOTV and beat the fascists again.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

14. Unrest

When you look at a state like Illinois, it is almost all Red by land area.
There is a small area called Chicago that has a metropolitan population so large that it controls the outcome of elections.

So, when you speak of Unrest in the state of Illinois, but not in a state like Georgia that contains Atlanta, do you mean that the unrest is from the elected politicians?

Or, if you mean the Unrest in the state of Illinois is going to be by the population, it might have sat better with me if you had said that there will be unrest in the big cities of the big blue states.

The best way, IMO, to talk about where unrest by the citizens would be is in Large Cities.
Even in RED States, large cities could see unrest.

There was unrest after the 2020 election.

The original post asks for insurrection if Trump wins in 2024.

Do you believe that there should be insurrection if Trump wins in 2024?

[brush]

16. I'll go with you on the large cities, in red state too. Some pols also. Newsom in California...

will not, IMO, sit quietly, nor will other prominent ,blue state governors who sense republican, election skullduggery.

It will be a tense time if the repugs manage to steal it like in 2016 and 2000.

[Silent Type]

15. I and millions of others thought the same in 2016. Do agree it's unlikely.

[0rganism]

18. 'eking' not 'eeking'

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eke
sorry, pet peeve/trigger

[Prairie_Seagull]

21. I think it's hard not to think these are like past times when things were hard but mostly rational.

These are not those times

I don't think this should remove any of our rationality, Instead we should add another layer

[BannonsLiver]

23. Setting all the other silliness aside, he's not going to president because he's not going to win.

I’ll pretend he’s got a legit shot to play along with everyone else and I’m sure I can feign a sense of foreboding and doom with the best of them, but he’s not going to be president again. Sorry for the honest moment, everyone. I know it will not be well received, but don’t really care either.

[BlueIdaho]

24. Fatso needs to be brought in front of the court of public opinion.

It’s time for the release of the hundreds of hours of him making his endless nasty, sexist, racist, and ageist screeds on mainstream platforms. Time for him to be broadly seen for the self centered, sinister, and corrupt rotten brat he is.

This is an ugly man - we need to make sure everyone sees that.

[former9thward]

32. So you believe in insurrection?

Got it.

[harumph]

50. What is to "believe in insurrection?"

Do you mean advocate? The OP is merely stating his opinion that
resistance to a future government might be justifiable under certain circumstances
such as are stated elsewhere in the thread. Whether such circumstances will
come to pass is speculative. I "believe" there is some rationale provided for the possibility being
discussed in one of our founding documents...remind me what was it?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

66. Read OP again.

You said the OP says, "might be justifiable"

What the OP said is that it MUST happen.
The OP is saying that we must not accept the results of the next election if it shows that trump won.

[B.See]

34. While I absolutely agree with your characterization of MAGA'S Antichrist...

I think it would be foolish of us to believe that abomination could never again occupy the Oval Office.

That, I think, is putting too much trust in those empowered to protect our Democracy (like our military, for instance) to side with US in such a scenario.

And lest we forget, a conservative controlled SCOTUS inserted George W. Bush into the presidency with nary a whimper.

I think our BEST bet is to get busy, get active, PROactive, vocal, and DRIVEN, to register to vote, and SHOW UP come hell or high water.

We may end up having to fight those fkrs still, but better to be fighting from the WIN column than from the losing end.

[GenThePerservering]

35. Do NOT become complacent

do not be distracted.

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks he will or will not be elected - that's just airy speculation. We must MAKE SURE that he does not.

And if he is elected by foul means (steals the election), then he must be barred from office by any means possible.

[William769]

37. I believe in the rule of law and that will never change.

If you don't then shame on you.

[harumph]

40. Yeah, 1933- 39, German laws were made that Jews report and be counted.

Ever heard "...an unjust law is no law at all" ?

I take it you would believe in unjust laws? Shame on me.

[William769]

41. Oh for fuck sake

We are not in Nazi Germany. You lose the argument right there.

Do we have a perfect form of Government? No. It's the best we got and I'll take it over any other Government out there.

The only more perfect Government would be a benevolent King. But will he stay benevolent?

[harumph]

42. You're incredibly naive if you don't think once

Republicans have a lock on power (if they manage to get it) - that they
won't "otherize" certain demographics. In fact your naivety is astounding.
And the "...best looking horse in the glue factory" ain't much of an argument.

[harumph]

43. The naysayers in this thread criticizing the OP

appear in my estimation to be "professional types" who are fairly privileged - probably not
in any at risk group. They state that the OP is hyperbolic.
They'll be fine when the fascists take over by just keeping their
opinions to themselves and being good Americans.

[BlackSkimmer]

44. Well, your estimation would be wrong.

I'm a gay woman, and I don't agree with the OP.

I also don't agree with the personal attacks made by others against the OP, to by anyone else in this thread using personal attacks to defend their point.

Really, if you have to insult others, you've already lost the argument.

[harumph]

47. When some posters imply that

rebellion is a non-starter under any circumstances, then that is not credible. They either
don't understand how bad it can get (maybe they don't want to imagine it) but BlackSkimmer, it can get bad.
So, my comments aren't insulting, they're merely testing the bounds of the assertions that some
are making. Rhetorical device is not a personal attack. I'm asking an important question: is there
any circumstance imaginable that would justify insurrection. For example, Ms Toad above is asking
that very same question. Are Russians in their rights to resist their government? Are they "justified?"
Let me respectfully add that if it gets really bad, you may change your opinion of the OP's post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. No, you really are being insulting

"They'll be fine when the fascists take over by just keeping their
opinions to themselves and being good Americans."

That is a piece-of-shit opinion, not "a rhetorical device". That some of the DUers you aim is at are LGBT, and thus clearly under threat, just makes it worse.

And the OP is not suggesting rebellion after unjust laws have been passed; it's suggesting rebellion if Trump wins the Electoral College.

By the way, Ms. Toad is not asking the same question - she says "As much as I hate the concept of him becoming president again - if he actually wins and we prevent him from taking office by unlawful means, we are just like him." and "That is exactly what the MAGA crowd believed about Biden. What gives us any more right to use unlawful means to retain the white house then they had?"

[harumph]

51. I don't agree.

What if Trump "wins" by unlawful voter suppression? What if republican officials in the red states just throw out
votes from heavily democratic leaning districts? Is he even then president? Is winning by any means legitimate?
That is the core of the question. We should stop pretending that these are normal times. Perhaps the comment by
Ms. Toad is rhetorical, inasmuch as Ms. Toad (may) intend a reasonable person reading it to respond, "...gosh,
Ms. Toad is right! We would be as unlawful as Trump!" I however took it as an honest question because any other interpretation
infantilizes the readers and commentators of the thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. You're not just infantilizing the commentators of the thread, you're distorting their words

and putting in spurious "what ifs" to justify your rudeness. Ms. Toad's first post, which I quoted above, shows your interpretation is wrong - she did not just ask a question in #30, she made a statement in #29.

This renders your posts in this thread a waste of space.

[harumph]

56. In post #29 Ms. Toad states:

"...as much as I hate the concept of him becoming president again - if he actually wins and we prevent him from taking office by unlawful means, we are just like him." which I disagree with for reasons already stated.

Firstly, implicit in the foregoing statement is the assumption that a Trump "win" would be legitimate - meaning a majority of the electoral count - without significant (e.g., enough to sway election) interference by the right wing officials and apparatchiks. That must be the interpretation - no? Otherwise, the statement implies that we merely accept a Trump win as legitimate even when right wing officials throw out legitimately cast Democratic votes. Just because you know.

Second, what you interpret as being rude is merely asking the essential question of whether there is any circumstance under which resistance would be reasonable when given an unlawfully elected executive wielding power in such a way as to cement a permanent minority rule.

Third, when you initially accused me of being rude it was my response to William769 post #37 wherein William769 stated: "I believe in the rule of law and that will never change. If you don't then shame on you." Shame on me indeed. Implicit is the suggestion that I don't believe in the rule of law and I should be ashamed. All this assumes that a Trump win would be necessarily legitimate. Yet I have already provided concrete examples that would call into question a Trump victory by illegitimate means. What then?

At the end of the day and much to the consternation of our local legal professionals, adherence to law depends on its credibility. Credibility comes BEFORE the law. Law drafters need to have a provenance of legitimacy. If government is seen by the people to institute laws that make a mockery of fairness, those laws will be considered no law at all. This is a recognizable concept (Aquinas, MLK). A concept rightfully scary to legal professionals who are smart people and have worked very diligently learning to apply and argue the law. If the laws become meaningless, what is there to argue?

I submit our "legal system" that is so revered and which is frequently pointed to as '...the best looking horse in the glue factory' is showing its age. The OP is correct that our condition is preposterous. I take him at his word that he served in the military as have members of my immediate family and maybe just maybe we get something that others don't. Perhaps we will dodge this bullet of Trump and the experience of having to dodge will prompt new laws/guardrails to inoculate our country from fascism. However, I'm not optimistic as the right wing has already stated repeatedly and on the record that they are willing to construct new laws simply to their advantage - their position may be summarized as "fuck ya'll." Power. Power. Power. And their "laws" to paper over deprivations. What about non-violent demonstration? Don't be surprised if a new Trump admin simply authorizes martial law and you get shot for peacefully demonstrating.

Respectfully, your allegations that I'm being rude are false, unsupported by my comments, and a needless distraction from the content of my posts and others in the thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Your post #43 was incredibly rude

and you have provided no attempt at justifying it. It was not "merely asking a question". It was a slur. Yes, implicit in the OP, and others' posts, is that an electoral college win by Trump would be legal, under current law. And the OP is about ignoring the current law, if that were to happen. You are introducing different hypotheticals (nothing "concrete", just literal "what ifs" ) about a later time when Republicans have changed laws, or if they have broken electoral law but this is somehow not prevented.

Don't worry, there's no "needless distraction" from the content of your posts, because no-one has any need to pay attention to that content.

If you apologized for slurring several DUers, then you might become worth talking to. The "members of my family served in the military, so I know better" claim is, frankly, bullshit. The US military is not filled with legal, historical or political experts, and there's no reason to think that if there were such a thing, it would magically rub off on you.

[BlackSkimmer]

61. +1000

Perhaps that poster is unaware that, not only are some of the DUers he's insulting gay, but some of us have also served in the military.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

75. I stand for mankind

It's not just about me.
I have friends, acquaintances, family, loved ones and fellow mankind.

They do not all have the same genetics, height, personality, sexuality, gender, income, social status, etc.

I send not, to see for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for me.

I want now and the future to be kind and good for all of the human race.
Judging my opinions on only how it would effect myself is inappropriate.

[harumph]

73. "Frankly Bullshit" eh...

Many (not all) who join the military don't know what the military is going to ask them to do - but do so because they
a sense of obligation. So that "magic" is seeing what bullshit my children go through in order to serve the country - and golly gee, it does rub off on the parents. The complexity and contradictions of service is indeed something that often eludes those who haven't served or know none who have. That's fact.

What is absolute bullshittery is your insistence that I apologize for your interpretation that there was slurring of several DUers - for the mere reason that apparently (at 99K + posts) you have been anointed to come to their rescue as if rescuing were required. Here is my preview - no apology is forthcoming.

I imagine if commenters have an issue they'd be able to speak for themselves. The hypotheticals; "what ifs" as you call them, aren't out of the domain of possibility. The salient issue raised is what action might be taken if the republicans cheat to get Trump in again. Do you really think any electoral win is possible if there isn't HEAVY voter suppression? I know you won't even address that question. I know that others won't address the question straightforwardly - and I respect that - because if Trump gets in, online discourse will be scrutinized.

What you imply was a slur contained #42 was my snarky comment about being a "good americans." Yet, how many would just sit back and do nothing if the election was stolen by the republicans? Republicans verifiably lie and cheat constantly so it's a perfectly valid question. I have no idea what many in the thread would do but I find the sentiment expressed - paraphrasing; 'I respect the law under any circumstances...' to be disturbing.

I see threads get derailed because of some perceived slight, that I'm inclined to believe is often 'ginned up.' Coming to the
rescue of DUers. For example, you're on me because of a perceived 'slur.' It was snarky, I'll give you that - but what would this
place be without snark? We aren't in friggin kindergarten and you aren't the teacher. I mean really?

Since this thread is being commented on by Blackskimmer as well - I'll answer the question posed in #58. No, I am not gay (you win I guess). That said, my daughter is and I support her and the entire LGBTQ community wholeheartedly. However, my comment to William769 has nothing whatsoever to do with that. There is a whole goddamn pecking order in this world - and although it's wrong and hurtful, many people, whether gay, straight - whatever think that being part of a traditionally disadvantaged group means that they can't be criticized for their opinions which are unrelated to sexual orientation. If that's the case, pack up DU right now. I have had my own struggles that made living very difficult for me - but you'll never know those details. However, I've done the best I could.

[BlackSkimmer]

80. Wow, if you think for one second that being part of a "traditionally disadvantaged" group as William

and I are - if you think for one skinny second that we think we won't be criticized...well dear, you've not only not been around this forum very long, but you appear to have not been living in this culture for very long either...or you are doing so blindfolded.

Oh my goodness, the stuff I read here sometimes.

[harumph]

85. Red herring.

What chaps me is Muriel apparently feeling the need coming to the rescue for some alleged slur. Two things: what I said about "good americans" was aimed squarely at the sentiment expressed by William and also implied by others upthread. Just because something is law does not mean it is just or equitable. The abortion ban is legal in some states - but gosh, it's the law and I must respect it (sarcasm intended).

Let me go on the record right now for agent Mike. Very plainly, I don't consider that it is possible for Trump to win legally. Period. Hence I cannot support his installation under any circumstances. If the "law" allows it -then the law is a sham and deserving of nothing but contempt.

The term "traditionally disadvantaged" was my attempt to use a catch all term that encompasses out groups targeted by republicans in general - not only LGBTQ. I believe it's apt because while some out groups may face relatively greater hurdles, they're all thrown together into the big republican bucket-o-contempt, and their existence used as talking points to further an anarcho-capitalist agenda.

In 2019 I was called into jury duty to a large municipal court. I refused to take the oath. I was the only one. People stared at me and I was sincerely frightened that I might go to jail for contempt. Try that sometime if you feel so inclined. Most of the cases on the docket were landlord evictions - and suits for damages. I figured there was a good chance I'd sit for one of those. I'm not participating in such farce. Neither will I participate in, pay homage to the law, or respect any "law" that permits that human piece of filth to again inhabit the White House.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. So you're saying that DUers shouldn't even stand up against slurs aimed at fellow DUers?

You are arguing that we should not morally support each other here on DU, but that you'd feel justified in breaking the law if Trump won an election under the current laws - and that no-one can criticize you for that. Would that extend to President Biden? Your attitude is "I know right, and no-one else does."

You've admitted your "good American" slur was aimed at William769. And that you'd apply it to other DUers in this thread. Do you really think DU should be a place where one member says another would ignore fascism, and that no-one should point out how insulting that is? Should DU really be a playground for your taunts?

[BlackSkimmer]

99. It seems pretty obvious what a couple of posters are up to here.

Fascinating.

You'd think they'd be better at it!

[BlackSkimmer]

60. Thank you.

Good luck!

[maxrandb]

95. I think this is the problem

Here is no equivalent example on the "left", of a presidential candidate inciting violence, pledging to use the DOJ, DOD, IRS and other government agencies to go after political opponents, just for being political opponents.

Despite their fevered dreams, President Biden is not threatening to lock Donnie Dipshit up, like Donnie Dipshit vowed to do to Secretary Clinton.

No former 3-Star General on President Biden's team advised that the military be sent into blue states and cities and seize voting machines.

There is also no equivalent example on the "left" to Hate-Radio, where on 1,000+ stations in every nook and cranny in this country, you can find the most vile and violent rhetoric you can imagine.

There is no "left" equivalent to Faux News.

We "are NOT" the same as the right.

When one party supports freedom and Democracy, and one party supports authoritarianism and fascism, there are not "good people in both sides"

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

67. The OP will stand on saying the election of trump demands civil war.

The idea of it "if it gets really bad" is a separate discussion.

BTW, the laws already have been "really bad" and there actually was a civil war!

I believe that the punishments for many of our criminal laws are currently unjust; all of the ones that have money being used as a fine or other tool.
Using money to decide bail is unjust.
Money as a fine, is unjust.

Even the crime of Murder in the USA sometimes uses a fine as part of the punishment.
Fines, have no effect of the billionaires and are often life changing for a poor person.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

64. You're saying that if you insult trump, you've already lost the arg

[William769]

46. I am a Gay man that lives in the State of Florida. Yea I'm so privileged.

P.S. Welcome to ignore.

[harumph]

48. So, you cannot be (part) of a privileged group

for the simple reason that you're gay and in Florida? Gotcha. Note that I said (part).
I stand by my observations.

[BlackSkimmer]

58. I'm guessing you're not gay, are you?

Oh my.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

69. The ones that agree with the OP

appear, in some peoples estimations, to be "war types" who probably would not mind the conflict.
They state that the OP is simply stating what needs to be done to stop trump.
They will be fine when the country devolves into a conflict zone by simply being who they are, they may even improve their station in life.

I do not agree with that. It is not my 'estimation'

You are attacking a message by trying to get others to judge the messengers.
I know that is a great way to win debates.

I'd love to discuss this, at this time, without that technique.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

78. They're war types

As long as someone else does the fighting. AKA Chickenhawks.

I bet a very rare few of them backed up their willingness to fight by signing up for the military. If you're so into fighting a war, then why not go to the place that pays you for it?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

72. Six week

abortion ban okay then?

[William769]

97. You are looking at absolutes.

Laws are not absolute, they can be changed.

As a Gay man I can attest to that fact. I could not serve in the military, now I can. I could not get married, now I can. Before 1973 abortion was illegal, then it wasn't. Abortion now? Abortion in the future? I go back to my original post The Rule of Law.

Care to change your argument now to try to fit your narrative?

[harumph]

39. This post speaks to the asymmetry of the democratic and republican mindsets.

If Trump wins it will no longer be our country inasmuch as Trumpism is a force antithetical to democratic
ideals and is all about anarcho-capitalism. If a country's checks and balances are destroyed, the agencies
like the dept. education and EPA eliminated, US assets sold off to billionaires, and you have
widespread voter suppression - I ask you, is it the same country? If it's NOT the same country and the
only way to reinstate democracy is by force - is that a crazy idea? I don't think so, and if you don't think
that can happen here, I respectfully suggest you all have your heads in the sand (and I'm being polite).
Maybe you guys need to watch Inglorious Basterds, and understand just what the fuck Tarrantino is
trying to convey regarding moral "asymmetry." There is a faction of the left that constantly opines about how
doing this or that "...makes us as bad as them!" It sure as fuck does not. So, I agree in general
with the OP, if not in the particulars.

[Hotler]

52. If the repugs take power no matter who it is, democracy will die and the christian nutjobs will rule

with an iron fist.

[stuck in the middle]

70. I'll pass.

If it even means declaring martial law, …

I do like your title, though.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

74. "He is an absolute

threat to America, and he should be treated as such."

I agree, completely. That he is playing at a presidential campaign to grift and spew hate, and to imagine it will protect him from what's already happening to him, makes me sick.

Through Manafort and other Russian tools, he infested the White House for four long horrible years. Of course he'll cheat, it's as essential to his existence as breathing. But I don't think a civil war will be necessary, or even feasible. trump made January 6 happen, because he could. Now, he can't. He's done. His "militias" are in jail or prison, any leftovers will be dealt with quickly, if they ever leave the couch, fridge and keyboard.

He's pathetically meek and cowardly in the courtroom, probably constructing mean fake tweets in his head for his pathetic fake twitter. If he's such a bad ass, why doesn't he mouth off to "deranged" Jack Smith or the judge, or even Pence, to their faces? If he took one feeble step toward any of them, he'd be tased and dropped like a dead bug.

His power is over estimated, he's an old sad man the world despises, and he will never be president of anything, ever again.

[harumph]

79. I've gone back to this b/c my comments were highjacked (IMO) downthread

I think there is no way he should be allowed to take office. Full stop. That should not have to be stated - but
we're in a time when so many of our checks and balances have proven to be toothless and enforcement mechanisms have been undermined by big $. Compare the number of right leaning think tanks by wealthy individuals to those on the left. It seems like the rich (both rich left and rich right) are more alike than we care to admit. If only the mythology of Soros pushed by the right was real. I'd have him cloned.

Trump man poses innumerable dangers. What if we have another COVID epidemic - but with an even more serious variant?
Wanna see immigrants just shot when crossing the border? Trump is the man. How about abolishing the Dept. Education, EPA,
SEC. State Dept.? How about no-bid contracts in the billions - no make that trillions - doled out to Trumps friends and family. School
lunches - fuck that! So, I respectfully disagree with some who say, "Well, if he wins fairly..." There is no fair. If he
wins, he'll employ the FBI to investigate and prosecute "unamerican activities" which will of course include online
dissent. A lot of big money wants this to happen, or all these G-damn right wing think tanks and astroturfing entities could
not exist.

There is no technical impediment to looking into the online hx of everyone commenting here.
Having been in the military you probably have some idea (no details) of capabilities. So, yes we can expect to descend into
a dystopian big brother eye in the sky hellhole if Trump is reelected (and allowed to take office). The following lock down will be such that no political solution will be available in our lifetimes. Voting meaningfully will be shining artifact of the past. They're not even hiding what they intend to do: dismantle the administrative state. Goodbye national parks. Which one(s) will Musk or the Mercers purchase?

But what's the motivation some will ask - surely destabilization would hurt big money. Not if you've hedged your money with
tangible assets (land, water rights, mines, etc.). Let me suggest the motivation is that the very rich see the handwriting on the wall - both demographically, and of course ramifications stemming from climate change. You can be sure they'll have their lifeboats so to speak, while we are left to languish. But the fly in their ointment is democracy. Gotta get rid of that to make way for all the necessary changes.

[stuck in the middle]

88. I can't tell who's replying to who, above.

But I seldom invoke MLK’s name when calling for civil war and martial law.

[brooklynite]

83. Now that your rant in finished...

If Trump receives 270+ Electoral Votes, he's President. Period.

[BlackSkimmer]

100. And there it is.

No doubt some of these brave warriors will be the first on the front lines ready to object.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

84. The media needs to stop

treating him like he is mentally all there and would capable of being president again.

[ForgedCrank]

92. In the

unfortunate case that Trump managed to get elected again, that is just how it is. Voters decide it, and that must be respected.
We don't accept all of the denial garbage from him, and we shouldn't be doing anything similar ourselves.
Frankly, I don't believe he can get elected again, but that is beside the point.

[liberal_mama]

96. Trump belongs in an insane asylum! If he gets re-elected, there will be no rule of law anymore. He

will make himself a dictator and when he dies, we can look forward to Donnie Jr and Ivanka taking turns inheriting the presidency. Frankly, I'm surprised this didn't happen the first time when he lost.

[Patton French]

101. Uh, no.

Not sure the point of this.