In Sweden they are talking about that US is risking civil war due to Trumps agitation and encouragement of violence, provocation and antagonism
Our former prime minister (Conservative party in Sweden) has written a book on USA and Trump that is very scary.
Here are some facts on the writer:
The first election after he had become his parties leader the results was the party's best since Sweden became a democracy. He is the first conservative prime minister to sit in office for eight years in a row. Since he resigned his party lost more than 10% of their voters. He also kept a four-party coalition together for all his time as party leader, which gave the conservatives a stable majority in Sweden, for the first time. After he resign the coalition has broken apart.
Here are some of the things he says in his book:
Trump is about to dismantle democracy in the United States, and is moving the country towards dictatorship. He warns that there are no longer forces within the Republican Party that can act as a counterweight to the president. Four more years will not just be "more of the same". Trump will continue the dismantling of American democracy
"He has shown that he does not respect the rule of law, he attacks the judiciary, he criticizes judges, he harasses witnesses, he does not respect free speech, he does not respect free and independent media, he attacks individual journalists. It is quite clear that he mixes his own and the family's private finances with the public sector,"
Partisanship and the special interests of lobbyists has already dismantled democracy in the USA. Their system is uninspiring.In Sweden they are talking about that US is risking civil war due to Trumps agitation and encouragement of violence, provocation and antagonism
Our former prime minister (Conservative party in Sweden) has written a book on USA and Trump that is very scary.
Here are some facts on the writer:
The first election after he had become his parties leader the results was the party's best since Sweden became a democracy. He is the first conservative prime minister to sit in office for eight years in a row. Since he resigned his party lost more than 10% of their voters. He also kept a four-party coalition together for all his time as party leader, which gave the conservatives a stable majority in Sweden, for the first time. After he resign the coalition has broken apart.
Here are some of the things he says in his book:
Trump is about to dismantle democracy in the United States, and is moving the country towards dictatorship. He warns that there are no longer forces within the Republican Party that can act as a counterweight to the president. Four more years will not just be "more of the same". Trump will continue the dismantling of American democracy
"He has shown that he does not respect the rule of law, he attacks the judiciary, he criticizes judges, he harasses witnesses, he does not respect free speech, he does not respect free and independent media, he attacks individual journalists. It is quite clear that he mixes his own and the family's private finances with the public sector,"
At Pentagon, fears grow that Trump will pull military into election unrest
The president's raised deep anxiety among military and Defense Department leaders, who insist they will do all they can to keep armed forces out of the elections. Officials say top generals could resign if he orders the military into the...www.seattletimes.com
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump gave officials no solace Wednesday and Thursday when he again refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power no matter who wins the election, and Thursday, he doubled down by saying he was not sure the election could be “honest.”
“I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in written answers to questions from House lawmakers released last month. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law, U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S. armed forces in this process.”
But that has not stopped an intensifying debate in the military about its role should a disputed election lead to civil unrest.
Do you think he will lose election night?
At Pentagon, fears grow that Trump will pull military into election unrest
The president's raised deep anxiety among military and Defense Department leaders, who insist they will do all they can to keep armed forces out of the elections. Officials say top generals could resign if he orders the military into the...www.seattletimes.com
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump gave officials no solace Wednesday and Thursday when he again refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power no matter who wins the election, and Thursday, he doubled down by saying he was not sure the election could be “honest.”
“I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in written answers to questions from House lawmakers released last month. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law, U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S. armed forces in this process.”
But that has not stopped an intensifying debate in the military about its role should a disputed election lead to civil unrest.
grip:
Please define what you mean by civil unrest. Is a peaceful march an act of civil unrest? Are sit-ins at government buildings civil unrest? Are virtual petitions declaiming the election process as it was conducted in 2020 civil unrest? Are anti-racist protests, in no way related to the election results, but which happen to occur immediately after the election counted in your definition of civil unrest relating to the transition of power?
On the other side of the coin would the use of Homeland Security enforcers or mercenary contractors to intimidate angry citizens be civil unrest either before or after the election? Would the seizure of mail-in ballots by presidential order, conducted by federal agents or contractor proxies be civil unrest? Is a sitting president refusing to follow the constitutionally mandated electoral process an act of civil unrest?
What is meant by you when you use the phrase, "civil unrest" here?.
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
I hope you’re right. I know people who are very concerned. I also think if Trump goes to the Supreme Court, they will rule in his favor. If Biden sweeps too many states, that is less likely. According to polls, Trump will lose the vote. I am just concerned what he will do to try to maintain powerYes. I believe there's too much momentum against Trump and the GOP.
I hope you’re right. I know people who are very concerned. I also think if Trump goes to the Supreme Court, they will rule in his favor. If Biden sweeps too many states, that is less likely. According to polls, Trump will lose the vote. I am just concerned what he will do to try to maintain power
I hope you’re right. I know people who are very concerned. I also think if Trump goes to the Supreme Court, they will rule in his favor. If Biden sweeps too many states, that is less likely. According to polls, Trump will lose the vote. I am just concerned what he will do to try to maintain power
I don't know if you saw this link I posted above but it's a unanimous vote by the Senate to ensure a smooth transition. And I've been told here that the SCOTUS has no way of enforcing their decisions.
Republican-Controlled Senate Passes Peaceful Transfer of Power Resolution In Response to Trump
The Senate passed a resolution reaffirming its "commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power," after President Donald Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer if he loses.www.mediaite.com
There wasn't much (or any? - can't remember) unrest when Trump won in 2016. I doubt there will be any this time no matter who wins. The presidential election doesn't seem to be what gets the rioters riled up.
We reaffirm as the Senate our commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the United States and intends that there shall be no disruptions by the president or any person in power to overturn the will of the people in the United States.I don't know if you saw this link I posted above but it's a unanimous vote by the Senate to ensure a smooth transition.
Republican-Controlled Senate Passes Peaceful Transfer of Power Resolution In Response to Trump
The Senate passed a resolution reaffirming its "commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power," after President Donald Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer if he loses.www.mediaite.com
If Trump contests the election and stops the vote count on the grounds of suspected fraud or Biden loses by a very slim margin, I think the protesters will go bananas. It depends on what scenario unfolds.
If Trump contests the election and stops the vote count on the grounds of suspected fraud or Biden loses by a very a s lim margin, I think the protesters will go bananas. It depends on what scenario unfolds.
grip:
On the other side of the coin would the use of Homeland Security enforcers or mercenary contractors to intimidate angry citizens be civil unrest either before or after the election? Would the seizure of mail-in ballots by presidential order, conducted by federal agents or contractor proxies be civil unrest? Is a sitting president refusing to follow the constitutionally mandated electoral process an act of civil unrest?
What is meant by you when you use the phrase, "civil unrest" here?
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Would anyone here on DP take to the streets over the election goings-on? I thought the Women's March on Washington the day after the Inauguration in '17 was just right--massive and entirely peaceful, but it still got its message across that we are here, with our own ideas and that we would be watching.
The current racial protests don't really seem to be tied to a political preference--they seem to be equally willing to war with whomever is in power. I don't see that crowd suddenly causing mayhem over Biden losing. Did the Bernie crowd burn the country down when he lost the primary? Of course not. This is a bunch of manufactured Alt Right huffing and puffing.
The military will have nothing to do with it. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, the idea is preposterous that they would 'remove' an unwilling loser. I think the people around Trump will know best how to handle his fragile ego. They will convince him to do the heroic thing and admit defeat if that comes to pass. Oh, he'll put up a fight, but in the end he will accept it.
I am sure the secret service has issues with serving Trump. He put them at risk of COVID, and many got sick. I have heard reports that Trump treats them like personal servants. I trust them. I don’t trust Trump.It's agreed unanimously as I understand it the Secret Service is the legitimate authority to remove an electorally disqualified Potus who is as you say, a loser unwilling to vacate the office.
Thanks for all the information. As I understand, the ballots are basically property of the state. The president can’t intervene to toss ballots, intercept, or stop a vote count. That’s very good that he cannot interfere with a count. I guess that means his only option would be to file lawsuits and allege fraud, then try to get ballots delegitimized. It normal times, it seems like a long shot. Times are crazy, and Trump is chaos.There are military brass who want to remove Trump now which is probably too soon.
The poster you addressed has replied respectably and I'd like to add a few salient and material points of federal law that prohibit Potus from interposing in a state while the state is conducting its election (except against "armed enemies of the United States" that are creating a situation in which it would be "necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”).
Potus has zero legal and Constitutional authority to do anything with the ballot of a state(s) at any time in the process of setting up a polling station, the voting, transporting and delivering ballots, counting 'em reporting 'em, recording 'em, certifying them and so on to include ballots being processed by the USPS.
Potus has nothing to do with the election that is conducted by each state while the process is underway, from start to finish. If a Red Army governor requests the interposition of the Potus in the state's election the Potus must decline because he hasn't any authority over a state conducting its election.
The laws are specific.
Federal Laws Specifically Prohibit Election Interference by Federal Officials
Several provisions of federal law prohibit (and punish) election interference by federal employees, federal law enforcement, and the military. [Title] 18 U.S.C. § 592 Prohibits both military and armed federal law enforcement from being present at the polls. Specifically, the statute prohibits officers in the military “or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States” from bringing or keeping “any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) clauses 3 and 4), prohibits conspiracies to intimidate or injure voters, whether by private or government actors. Section 131(b) of the) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act both also prohibit voter intimidation by private and government actors. Moreover, a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 594, makes voter intimidation a crime. Any attempt by Trump (or Wolf, or another federal official) to deploy the military or armed federal agents to a polling place, or near a polling place in a manner that is likely to intimidate voters or interfere with the election, would likely run afoul of these laws.
Trump Can’t Lawfully Use Armed Forces to Sway the Election: Understanding the Legal Boundaries
No matter how broad a president’s discretion on matters of national security, the executive does not have authority to interfere with an election. Our authors explain the constitutional and statutory limits.www.justsecurity.org
Thanks for all the information. As I understand, the ballots are basically property of the state. The president can’t intervene to toss ballots, intercept, or stop a vote count. That’s very good that he cannot interfere with a count. I guess that means his only option would be to file lawsuits and allege fraud, then try to get ballots delegitimized.
There are military brass who want to remove Trump now which is probably too soon.
The poster you addressed has replied respectably and I'd like to add a few salient and material points of federal law that prohibit Potus from interposing in a state while the state is conducting its election (except against "armed enemies of the United States" that are creating a situation in which it would be "necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”).
Potus has zero legal and Constitutional authority to do anything with the ballot of a state(s) at any time in the process of setting up a polling station, the voting, transporting and delivering ballots, counting 'em reporting 'em, recording 'em, certifying them and so on to include ballots being processed by the USPS.
Potus has nothing to do with the election that is conducted by each state while the process is underway, from start to finish. If a Red Army governor requests the interposition of the Potus in the state's election the Potus must decline because he hasn't any authority over a state conducting its election.
The laws are specific.
Federal Laws Specifically Prohibit Election Interference by Federal Officials
Several provisions of federal law prohibit (and punish) election interference by federal employees, federal law enforcement, and the military. [Title] 18 U.S.C. § 592 Prohibits both military and armed federal law enforcement from being present at the polls. Specifically, the statute prohibits officers in the military “or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States” from bringing or keeping “any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) clauses 3 and 4), prohibits conspiracies to intimidate or injure voters, whether by private or government actors. Section 131(b) of the) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act both also prohibit voter intimidation by private and government actors. Moreover, a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 594, makes voter intimidation a crime. Any attempt by Trump (or Wolf, or another federal official) to deploy the military or armed federal agents to a polling place, or near a polling place in a manner that is likely to intimidate voters or interfere with the election, would likely run afoul of these laws.
Trump Can’t Lawfully Use Armed Forces to Sway the Election: Understanding the Legal Boundaries
No matter how broad a president’s discretion on matters of national security, the executive does not have authority to interfere with an election. Our authors explain the constitutional and statutory limits.www.justsecurity.org
Tangmo:
The sitting president has amply demonstrated his indifference to constitutional limits on his powers and has repeatedly over-reached in circumventing obstacles to achieving his desired policies. Now that same president is, by omission, threatening the democratic and peaceful transition of power should he not be reelected as POTUS in November 2020. Mr. Trump does not care a fig for the US Constitution (except perhaps the 2nd Amendment for cynical political reasons). There are many ways he can directly or indirectly (by proxies) interfere with a federal election and while the Senate and the Attorney General support him without reservation and while the Justice Department is unwilling to prosecute him, there are no real constraints on his power. This is because the Rule of Law is broken in the USA with respect to constraining the powers of the president. Power trumps the Rule of Law unless a society and its state institutions are willing to exercise coercive force to maintain the Rule of Law. That willingness to use countervailing legal force to constrain the president does not exist in America right now so the Rule of Law is a hollow fiction and the US Constitution is a lame-duck, historical document in the face of presidential power.
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?