• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

(Politico) The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
103,115
Reaction score
93,342
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
(Politico) The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway
--
Dozens of interviews with people deeply familiar or involved with the election process point to a clear consensus: Not only could Trump make a second attempt at overturning an election he loses, he and his allies are already laying the groundwork.
Click to expand...
--

I was originally thinking of commenting,

"It looks like I'm not the only one seeing Trump & his party preparing to steal the election"

But now after reading this article, and examining the intricacies & fragilities of the electoral process, my comment has become,

"How did we ever end-up with such a cockamamie, fragile, complicated, easily corruptible system?"

Prepare to be astonished!
 
The OP article scenario is plausible but very unlikely, he would need enough operatives in key states to throw the election results into a court fueled mess.

A more likely scenario is Trump wins a tight EC win were perhaps a state becomes a challenge point, say North Carolina and/or Georgia where especially the latter starts throwing out certain county results until the case plays out but handed to Trump. No matter which the popular vote ends up out of alignment with the EC.

But Trump would need the military, push comes to shove I am unsure he has that.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The OP article scenario is plausible but very unlikely, he would need enough operatives in key states to throw the election results into a court fueled mess.
Click to expand...

There is no "one" scenario in the article that I can see. The article offers a palette of scenarios & processes.


Yes, that's what I'm thinking and believe I see occurring in GA.

But a scenario like this still plays-out in the U.S. House, as the Speaker decides the Electors the House will or will not accept.

OrphanSlug said:
But Trump would need the military, push comes to shove I am unsure he has that.
Click to expand...

There's no "need" for military. The military is not going to interfere with the Constitutional processes occurring in the Statehouses or House of Representatives.

Remember, these processes proposes are legal & Constitutional. This is how are system was designed. States run the elections, and Governors & Legislatures choose the Electors - in accord with the State Constitution & Legislation.
 
Does the link offer any scenarios in which the VP refuses to accept the results and names herself the next president? That's about as likely to happen as anything else in that nutty fearmongering tripe..
 
eman623 said:
Does the link offer any scenarios in which the VP refuses to accept the results and names herself the next president? That's about as likely to happen as anything else in that nutty fearmongering tripe..
Click to expand...
The scenario you just named is pretty much zero chance of happening no matter what conspiracy fueled MAGA fantasy reality might come up with.
 
eman623 said:
Does the link offer any scenarios in which the VP refuses to accept the results and names herself the next president? That's about as likely to happen as anything else in that nutty fearmongering tripe..
Click to expand...

I didn't see that scenario. I believe Harris' position in the process is purely ceremonial.

However, who knows? I suppose anyone involved in the process can claim they are righting fraudulent results. Then, off to the courts!

BTW - My sig refers to Harris counting her votes!
 
verrip1 said:
Astonishing!!! Please stop astonishing me so much.
Click to expand...

Haha!

If MAGA did one thing, it forced us to learn the Constitution and legislative & electoral processes!
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Haha!

If MAGA did one thing, it forced us to learn the Constitution and legislative & electoral processes!
Click to expand...
You're astonishing me again!!!!!! And after I said 'please', too.
 

"Fragile"?
"Easily corruptable?"

Did you even read the article? It would be simpler to juggle a dozen chainsaws while standing one legged on a balance beam.

And the thing is, even if a candidate were to pull this off, it all assumes that the 'president elect' becomes the 'president elect' upon the assent of Congress.
Yet the Constitution is clear-- the candidate with the whole majority of the electoral vote "shall be" the president.
 
"But to a person, election observers, elected leaders and some of Trump’s own allies agree on one operating premise: On election night, no matter what the results show, how many votes remain uncounted and how many advisers tell him otherwise, Donald Trump will declare himself the winner."

If this is the foregone conclusion, now is the time for the most read and most watched media to step up to deflate the electoral "Distrust" balloon. How? Beginning yesterday, publish articles and broadcast white papers educating the electorate on both the election process and the security of state elections. Reenforce the message with public service announcements throughout the day right up to the inauguration.
 
Athanasius68 said:
"Fragile"?
"Easily corruptable?"

Did you even read the article? It would be simpler to juggle a dozen chainsaws while standing one legged on a balance beam.
Click to expand...

That the process is so easily thrown into chaos is *fragile*.

Watch GA.


The "assent of Congress" only means the elector slate Johnson & his Republican collages choose to accept.

If GA doesn't send electors, or Johnson claims the electors are disputed, he can put the election to a House state-by-state vote.
 

This means little if the party controlling the U.S. House moves forward with it.
 
Chomsky said:
This means little if the party controlling the U.S. House moves forward with it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Only because the education blitz will not happen. But if it did happen, pressure might be felt in the House to demonstrate fidelity to their state's elector selection. Or, either face a tough reelection for defiance or plan on retirement.
 
Along Came Jones said:
Perhaps. Only because the education blitz will not happen. But if it did happen, pressure might be felt in the House to demonstrate fidelity to their state's elector selection. Or, either face a tough reelection for defiance or plan on retirement.
Click to expand...

I would be happy if only we'd require a civics class to graduate from high school.

It's pretty sad when naturalized immigrants-turned-new-citizens know more civics than the average "landed" American!
 
Chomsky said:
I would be happy if only we'd require a civics class to graduate from high school.

It's pretty sad when naturalized immigrants-turned-new-citizens know more civics than the average "landed" American!
Click to expand...
This is the closest I can come to giving your comment a double "LIKE!"
 
As I post, it seems few people have taken the time to read the Politico article. THE one point that could lead to some serious problems for VP Harris as she sits before Congress to certify the 2024 Presidential election - WHICH group of electors are to be counted?


Here is the problem -- What if a Republican-majority state legislature disagrees with the governor of their state, as to whether or not the vote numbers are to be accepted?



What happens if two groups of electors are sent to DC?
 
The Electoral Reform Act of 1922 makes governors the sole official responsible for submitting the identification of a state's presidential electors unless another official is otherwise identified by state law.
 
Along Came Jones said:
The Electoral Reform Act of 1922 makes governors the sole official responsible for submitting the identification of a state's presidential electors unless another official is otherwise identified by state law.
Click to expand...

You have the wrong date for the Electoral Reform Act - it was passed in 2022 NOT 1922


The problem of certification of the election results will land in the House and the Senate. If the Dems hold on to the Senate and gain a majority in the House, the electors chosen by state governors will decide the election. IF the GOPers control one or both of the Congressional chambers, America will be looking at some serious shit.
 
1922 vs 2022 explains why proofreaders are worth their weight in gold. Thanks for noting the typo.

How would GOPers controlling one or both of the Congressional chambers cause any distress? The Electoral Act of 2022 limits rather narrowly the basis by which Congress can reject a state's electoral votes. A problem which is possible but not probable is how Congress decides the election should Harris and Trump present an equal number of electoral votes.
 
Quite frankly I'm astonished that this kind of thinking still exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…