5 ms·

> the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse How so? The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the mili

by DenisM 6y ago

> the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse How so? The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse? The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book?

jakelazaroff 6y ago
> The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. "Collapse of democracy" doesn't impute lawlessness. The attempt to cripple the USPS under DeJoy was legal, for example. If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality. But that aside, Trump has indicated that he won't honor the election result [1]. GP's link mentions that as well, and links to the article: > “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” the president said. There are also many scenarios in which the election result leads us into Constitutionally uncharted territory. The Atlantic painted some plausible pictures recently [2], including a quote from a Trump campaign legal advisor about appointing electors that don't match a state's popular vote result: > According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-t... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if...
- DenisM 6y ago
  > If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality And how is this going to happen? The Constitution puts firm limits on the President's power, the Supreme court will not approve of anything contrary to that (no matter who appointed the justices), and the Congress is not going to change the constitution by a vote of 2/3rd. What is the mechanism of usurping power that you see?
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? Republican congresspeople continue to rubber stamp his agenda and Democrats offer only token resistance? The courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations? Trump has spent the last four years flagrantly breaking the law and suffered no real consequences. It strains credulity that he wouldn’t accelerate this with another four years and a solid Supreme Court majority.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      > Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? He already had four years. What exactly did he dismantle? The courts, the congress, the senate, the elections, the state rights? Did anything change at all in the "political infrastructure"? > courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations This trope is getting old. Justices are not puppets of their presidents. Sometime a conservative appointee turns out liberal and serves out their term long after the president is gone and forgotten. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" apply to justices only very loosely. I invite you to read opinions of, say, Justice Scalia [1] - he's not the freedom-crusher you imagine them to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia's_dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia's_dis...
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
slg 6y ago
>The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse? The signs? The words of the president and the people around him. The article I linked is one example in which people are having to seriously consider dangerous situations that were thought impossible during all recent presidential elections. The edge of collapse also doesn't mean it has collapsed yet. I wouldn't even say it is a likelihood that it will collapse, but there is some non-trivial chance that the US democracy fails between now and the end of the year. It has been at least decades since anyone would have said something like that previous sentence. The cold war might have been the last time in which there was this high of a chance of catastrophe. >The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book? It is talking about Trump potentially deploying military in either the lead up to the election, on election day, or in the wake of election day. This can be done for any number of reasons. It can be done to rile up his base like he did with his photo-op at St John's. It can be done to intimidate people away from voting. I can be done in the wake of the election to challenge it's legitimacy or to quell protests and civil unrest in response to him challenging the election's legitimacy. The first example is clearly not a coup. The second probably doesn't qualify either even though it would be illegal. The third one is using military violence or the threat of it to illegally seize power from rightful leaders. Isn't that a text book definition of a coup?
- DenisM 6y ago
  > Isn't that a text book definition of a coup? Yes, also completely made up. Trump talks a lot, often times incoherently and faster than he thinks. This is not the greatest quality in a president, but also not the worst.
  - slg 6y ago
    The New York Times is stating "senior leaders at the Pentagon, speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that they were talking among themselves about what to do if Mr. Trump, who will still be president from Election Day to Inauguration Day, invokes the Insurrection Act and tries to send troops into the streets". This is only "completely made up" in the sense that every hypothetical the military prepares for is a made up scenario.

by DenisM 6y ago

jakelazaroff 6y ago

> The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. "Collapse of democracy" doesn't impute lawlessness. The attempt to cripple the USPS under DeJoy was legal, for example. If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality. But that aside, Trump has indicated that he won't honor the election result [1]. GP's link mentions that as well, and links to the article: > “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” the president said. There are also many scenarios in which the election result leads us into Constitutionally uncharted territory. The Atlantic painted some plausible pictures recently [2], including a quote from a Trump campaign legal advisor about appointing electors that don't match a state's popular vote result: > According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-t... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if...

DenisM 6y ago
> If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality And how is this going to happen? The Constitution puts firm limits on the President's power, the Supreme court will not approve of anything contrary to that (no matter who appointed the justices), and the Congress is not going to change the constitution by a vote of 2/3rd. What is the mechanism of usurping power that you see?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? Republican congresspeople continue to rubber stamp his agenda and Democrats offer only token resistance? The courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations? Trump has spent the last four years flagrantly breaking the law and suffered no real consequences. It strains credulity that he wouldn’t accelerate this with another four years and a solid Supreme Court majority.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    > Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? He already had four years. What exactly did he dismantle? The courts, the congress, the senate, the elections, the state rights? Did anything change at all in the "political infrastructure"? > courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations This trope is getting old. Justices are not puppets of their presidents. Sometime a conservative appointee turns out liberal and serves out their term long after the president is gone and forgotten. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" apply to justices only very loosely. I invite you to read opinions of, say, Justice Scalia [1] - he's not the freedom-crusher you imagine them to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia's_dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia's_dis...
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago

slg 6y ago

>The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse? The signs? The words of the president and the people around him. The article I linked is one example in which people are having to seriously consider dangerous situations that were thought impossible during all recent presidential elections. The edge of collapse also doesn't mean it has collapsed yet. I wouldn't even say it is a likelihood that it will collapse, but there is some non-trivial chance that the US democracy fails between now and the end of the year. It has been at least decades since anyone would have said something like that previous sentence. The cold war might have been the last time in which there was this high of a chance of catastrophe. >The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book? It is talking about Trump potentially deploying military in either the lead up to the election, on election day, or in the wake of election day. This can be done for any number of reasons. It can be done to rile up his base like he did with his photo-op at St John's. It can be done to intimidate people away from voting. I can be done in the wake of the election to challenge it's legitimacy or to quell protests and civil unrest in response to him challenging the election's legitimacy. The first example is clearly not a coup. The second probably doesn't qualify either even though it would be illegal. The third one is using military violence or the threat of it to illegally seize power from rightful leaders. Isn't that a text book definition of a coup?

DenisM 6y ago
> Isn't that a text book definition of a coup? Yes, also completely made up. Trump talks a lot, often times incoherently and faster than he thinks. This is not the greatest quality in a president, but also not the worst.
- slg 6y ago
  The New York Times is stating "senior leaders at the Pentagon, speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that they were talking among themselves about what to do if Mr. Trump, who will still be president from Election Day to Inauguration Day, invokes the Insurrection Act and tries to send troops into the streets". This is only "completely made up" in the sense that every hypothetical the military prepares for is a made up scenario.