Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[AnTabolic73]

Of course, already laying the groundwork to de-legitimize the 50/50 possibility of a 2020 loss. If Trump loses, he will claim (without proof) that millions of illegal votes were cast. It'll get fucking scary. He'll call his base to the streets (heavily armed of course) to protest the 'illegal results.' Saying shit like "the left has been trying to out me from day one with the phony Russian witch hunt, perfect Ukraine Conversation, etc." Why would he go through all this and not simply return to billionaire life you may ask, simple: once Trump leaves office he will 100% be indicted. He'll try to bring the country down with him. A tiny part of me hopes Trump wins in a landslide (not bloody likely) in order to avoid the certain chaos from a loss.

You, my friend, sound a bit crazy.

 

[Senorman]

You, my friend, sound a bit crazy.

You think Trump will go quietly if he loses the election?

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[AnTabolic73]

You think Trump will go quietly if he loses the election?

Well I dont think he will lose.

But, hypothetically speaking, let's say he loses. Are you suggesting that American people are gonna revolt? And trump will remain in office as some form of dictator?

That's makes for a great movie.

If he loses he goes away. Country continues as normal. The media wrongly accuses trump supporters of being violent extremist. You would think white supremacy (or any other extremists groups) started in 2016 as a result of trump the way the media and the left push that narrative. They've been around forever, theyll be around forever.

A lot of people will be upset, sure. But, a dictator? In the greatest country in the world? Be realistic.

 

[Senorman]

Well I dont think he will lose.

But, hypothetically speaking, let's say he loses. Are you suggesting that American people are gonna revolt? And trump will remain in office as some form of dictator?

That's makes for a great movie.

If he loses he goes away. Country continues as normal. The media wrongly accuses trump supporters of being violent extremist. You would think white supremacy (or any other extremists groups) started in 2016 as a result of trump the way the media and the left push that narrative. They've been around forever, theyll be around forever.

A lot of people will be upset, sure. But, a dictator? In the greatest country in the world? Be realistic.

I honestly hope you are correct, I really do.

I think Trump will incite violence though if he loses. He'll claim how the whole system was rigged, illegal votes, YOUR election was stolen, etc. A few wack nuts will take action, like this guy did: Outspoken Trump Supporter in Florida Charged in Attempted Bombing Spree

Large scale revolt/violence....probably not.

Certainly Trump will try to tie up the election results (in the event of a loss) in the court system for as long as possible, and remain in office. This process could take a very long time, past inauguration day in 2021. His base, along with the GOP will rally and stand behind him. This is a very likely scenario.

Once Trump is out of office, he will no longer have the office of the presidency to defend him and associated GOP/base. If you aren't aware, I encourage you to look into the sheer number of investigations into Trump at the moment. And I don't mean congressional ones.

Remember in the 2016 election how Trump claimed over and over again that millions of illegal votes were cast with no proof? He even went so far as to do this, which found no widespread fraud: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity - Wikipedia


Keep an eye on how Trump and sycophants will start to sow the seeds of doubt about a fair election in the coming months. That way, it will be normalized when Trump tries everything he can think of to stay in office.

 

[johntt44]

I honestly hope you are correct, I really do.

I think Trump will incite violence though if he loses. He'll claim how the whole system was rigged, illegal votes, YOUR election was stolen, etc. A few wack nuts will take action, like this guy did: Outspoken Trump Supporter in Florida Charged in Attempted Bombing Spree

Large scale revolt/violence....probably not.

Certainly Trump will try to tie up the election results (in the event of a loss) in the court system for as long as possible, and remain in office. This process could take a very long time, past inauguration day in 2021. His base, along with the GOP will rally and stand behind him. This is a very likely scenario.

Once Trump is out of office, he will no longer have the office of the presidency to defend him and associated GOP/base. If you aren't aware, I encourage you to look into the sheer number of investigations into Trump at the moment. And I don't mean congressional ones.

Remember in the 2016 election how Trump claimed over and over again that millions of illegal votes were cast with no proof? He even went so far as to do this, which found no widespread fraud: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity - Wikipedia


Keep an eye on how Trump and sycophants will start to sow the seeds of doubt about a fair election in the coming months. That way, it will be normalized when Trump tries everything he can think of to stay in office.

It's funny how you mention this but not Antifa or that professor in Cali who smashed a guys skull with a bicycle lock. Both sides have idiots, outliers. Its gonna be just like the last election. Most people that vote for Trump dont talk about it, they just do it.

 

[johntt44]

The dems tried to impeach him with no proof! What's the difference? Someone heard that someone heard Trump say, blah, blah, blah. With as many people who hate him in politics, media, entertainment you'd think he'd be gone, right? Theres a reason hes not. You cant be convicted,impeached, censured for just being a prick. People who dont see this just lack logical ability.

 

[AnTabolic73]

I honestly hope you are correct, I really do.

I think Trump will incite violence though if he loses. He'll claim how the whole system was rigged, illegal votes, YOUR election was stolen, etc. A few wack nuts will take action, like this guy did: Outspoken Trump Supporter in Florida Charged in Attempted Bombing Spree

Large scale revolt/violence....probably not.

Certainly Trump will try to tie up the election results (in the event of a loss) in the court system for as long as possible, and remain in office. This process could take a very long time, past inauguration day in 2021. His base, along with the GOP will rally and stand behind him. This is a very likely scenario.

Once Trump is out of office, he will no longer have the office of the presidency to defend him and associated GOP/base. If you aren't aware, I encourage you to look into the sheer number of investigations into Trump at the moment. And I don't mean congressional ones.

Remember in the 2016 election how Trump claimed over and over again that millions of illegal votes were cast with no proof? He even went so far as to do this, which found no widespread fraud: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity - Wikipedia


Keep an eye on how Trump and sycophants will start to sow the seeds of doubt about a fair election in the coming months. That way, it will be normalized when Trump tries everything he can think of to stay in office.

The seeds of doubt are there, put there by democrats and their Russia got trump elected/Ukraine quid pro quo election tampering impeachment.

The republicans will forget about trump just as quickly as they took him in.

Election tampering is a real thing. It's been going on forever. And I'm not talking Russian memes and trolling campaigns. Real election tampering.

Theres always gonna be zealots. But they're on both sides not exclusive to trump. Look at antifa. They go to trump rallies just to beat up trump supporters.

But aside from the extremes on both ends the vast majority isnt gonna respond with overthrowing the government just to keep trump there.

 

[AnTabolic73]

It's funny how you mention this but not Antifa or that professor in Cali who smashed a guys skull with a bicycle lock. Both sides have idiots, outliers. Its gonna be just like the last election. Most people that vote for Trump dont talk about it, they just do it.

You beat me to it.

 

[johntt44]

You beat me to it.

Yeah, anybody who would destroy property or hurt someone over politics is a pos.

 

[Senorman]

It's funny how you mention this but not Antifa or that professor in Cali who smashed a guys skull with a bicycle lock. Both sides have idiots, outliers. Its gonna be just like the last election. Most people that vote for Trump dont talk about it, they just do it.

Good point. Or the Charlottesville guy that killed 1 and injured 28 by ramming a group with his car.

 

[johntt44]

Pause a moment over the senator’s logic. She seems to be saying that because the House’s product was hasty and deficient and partisan, the Senate should punish the body by proceeding in a fashion that is hastier, more deficient, and every bit as partisan. She will vote to prevent the Senate from hearing evidence, to blind herself to information relevant to her own obligation to decide the president’s case, she says, because “I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything.” It won’t change anything, that is, except whether she and her colleagues have access to more, rather than less, probative evidence on the question before them. If the House decision was hasty and partisan and left a record that is incomplete, that would seem to argue for the Senate proceeding in a fashion that was careful and deliberative, and it would seem to argue for senators to behave in a nonpartisan fashion.

Sen. Rob Portman was a trifle more coherent in his https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-statement-witnesses-senate-impeachment-trial (explanation) of this point. He offered that “it sets a dangerous precedent—all but guaranteeing a proliferation of highly partisan, poorly investigated impeachments in the future—if we allow the House of Representatives to force the Senate to compel witness testimony that they never secured for themselves.”

Portman did not, unfortunately, reflect on what precedent it sets for the Senate to impose a no-new-evidence rule on the House, disabling the House from presenting at trial any evidence it did not acquire itself before impeachment. This will of course incentivize presidents (and judges) to withhold material as long as possible during impeachment investigations, thus either delaying impeachment or creating an argument for the evidence’s inadmissibility if impeachment proceeds without it.

Since the Senate did not hear testimony from any of the witnesses who did testify before the House investigation, the rule Portman endorses is really a no-witnesses-at-all rule. If a witness has testified before the House, after all, her testimony is not needed in the Senate. If not, Portman would preclude it because the House did not secure it earlier. Portman’s rule would turn the Senate into an appellate body. The Constitution, by contrast, gives the Senate the role of trying impeachments.

The icing on this ridiculous cake is the notion that hearing witnesses would take too long. Sen. Portman frets that “processing additional witnesses will take weeks if not months, and it’s time for the House and Senate to get back to addressing the issues the American people are most concerned about—lowering prescription drug costs, rebuilding our roads and bridges, and strengthening our economy.” Leave aside for a moment that the Senate hasn’t been doing a lot of lowering drug prices or dealing with infrastructure of late. Portman’s argument might have been a good one to make at the Constitutional Convention against giving the impeachment trial function to the Senate in the first instance. It may be a good argument for, as the Senate trial rules contemplate, assigning the evidence-taking function to a committee (see Rule XI). It is a singularly lousy argument for interpreting the Senate’s clear constitutional responsibility to try impeachments as including the option of not trying impeachments.

When smart people, capable people, advance arguments so resoundingly and pervasively terrible—when they advance a proposal for a trial that offends the very idea of a trial—you have to ask what role the argument is playing other than seeking to persuade people. That these arguments persuade nobody is clear from the poll data, in which support for hearing from witnesses reached https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/29/yes-75-percent-americans-support-calling-witnesses-maybe-not-same-witnesses/ (as high as 75 percent) and did not decline over the period in which the president’s lawyers made their case.

But persuasion, I think, is not the point. The point, rather, is tribal affiliation. This is a credo of sorts, a public affirmation of the party line designed to ensure that one is not Romneyed—that the leader’s tyrannical rage is directed elsewhere, that his self-appointed enforcers do not deprive one of the benefits of being in the herd.

Yes, inside the herd, life is abusive. But outside, it is very very cold and one is very exposed.

Well, if Congress was serious, they should have done their fucking homework. Did those stupid fucks actually believe they'd get a 2/3 vote in the rep controlled Senate? How come I can figure that out but they cant? Waste of time and money.

 

[johntt44]

Good point. Or the Charlottesville guy that killed 1 and injured 28 by ramming a group with his car.

Yeah hes a piece of shit too. You did say not grand scale violence anyway so that's what you meant.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]