• 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!

Will the presidential election lead to civil unrest?

Will the presidential election lead to civil unrest?

  • Congress will not get involved or become dysfunctional

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Certainly not anything illegal prior to January 20th 2021. After then however Trump would hit full stride. Which is why it is incumbent on a civilian - military counter action to remove Trump between November 3rd and January 20th and that will occur at the propitious time, if need be. Because there's no guarantee Trump will succeed in these designs that are so precisely directed and so intensely sensitive to the slightest deviation that it's too easy for Trump to fail, especially when the patriot deep background is working efficiently and effectively to foil it.

This is hard if not impossible to dispute or dismiss as Trump has already laid it all out before all of us in public, with emphasis and repeatedly. It's classic Triumph of The Will stuff.

I agree. I agree his supporters would argue he did nothing illegal. He has Christian supporters who think he is doing the will of god, and would support him defeating Biden by any means possible for the greater good.

As for the military counter action, why are you so convinced of that? Do you have
inside information?

Apparently, the courts could make rulings, giving Trump the presidency. Senate can remove and impeach him, but I have never heard of this military removal option. How is it even legal? Trump would just accuse the military of treason.

I have heard reports of commanders in the White House saying he is unfit, and discussing some form of removal based on unfitness. I assumed it meant going public against him. What am I missing?

thanks
 

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.
I don't think the military will have any role.
 
I agree. I agree his supporters would argue he did nothing illegal. He has Christian supporters who think he is doing the will of god, and would support him defeating Biden by any means possible for the greater good.

As for the military counter action, why are you so convinced of that? Do you have
inside information?

Apparently, the courts could make rulings, giving Trump the presidency. Senate can remove and impeach him, but I have never heard of this military removal option. How is it even legal? Trump would just accuse the military of treason.

I have heard reports of commanders in the White House saying he is unfit, and discussing some form of removal based on unfitness. I assumed it meant going public against him. What am I missing?

thanks

Sure.

I ask only that you stay with me on this.

The armed forces would never act to destroy democracy yet they would definitely act to restore it.

As president of the Constitutional Convention Washington successfully proposed a military oath to the Constitution. This is a radical break with history when troops pledged loyalty and obedience to their commander. Indeed, when Washington commanded the Continental Army the oath Washington himself wrote was to be loyal to the Continental Congress and to obey the Continental Congress, to include himself of course, as he reported to the Congress.

One of Washington's motives in presenting a military oath at the Convention was to ease Madison's concerns that a tyrant ruler could gain power. Washington established the oath to the Constitution as the final bulwark against a tyrant ruler gaining power. Washington also noted that the oath to the Constitution was an oath to "We the People," and not to any single person or individual government official.

Indeed, in respect of Washington the first session of the first Congress enacted as the first law of the United States the military oath to the Constitution. Which takes us full cycle to the fact the armed forces would never act to destroy democracy yet they would act to restore a democracy destroyed by a tyrant ruler who has gained power and position.

Given the recent revelations about Trump's garbage mouth the armed forces haven't any reason to respect him. So rest assured however it would be a civil-military collective action and in no way only a military action singularly or alone. The interest at stake is democracy, not the military usurping civilian authority. The military would act in a coalition led by civilians to restore democracy, peace, the rule of law; order and respect. An initial measure of normalcy.

I don't have any inside info as that would be well beyond my pay grade while I was in the Military District of Washington DC, which is now the Joint Force Headquarters, National Capital Region. I was however in the Old Guard of the Army in the MDW of the time and I am a member of The Old Guard Association -- TOGA -- 3rd Infantry Regiment in MDW of all ranks and dates of service of all the many interested members.

I have contacts there, which infantry regiment s by statute "The Official Escort To The President." It's on a sign over the door of 3rd Infantry Headquarters at Ft. Myer next to the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery. It's a ceremonial unit where almost everyone is political and that is accepted because it's the nature of the beast.

Presently 3 IR and all services in Washington DC will escort the President to the WH door, or so I've been advised for some time now. A long time now, aggravated by Trump saying US KIA since 1776 are "suckers and losers." 3 IR is the oldest active infantry regiment of the Army, since 1784. We believe in the Constitution whereas PutinTrump & Rowers hate it. Consequently, their dayze are numbered in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Sure.

I ask only that you stay with me on this.

The armed forces would never act to destroy democracy yet they would definitely act to restore it.

As president of the Constitutional Convention Washington successfully proposed a military oath to the Constitution. This is a radical break with history when troops pledged loyalty and obedience to their commander. Indeed, when Washington commanded the Continental Army the oath Washington himself wrote was to be loyal to the Continental Congress and to obey the Continental Congress, to include himself of course, as he reported to the Congress.

One of Washington's motives in presenting a military oath at the Convention was to ease Madison's concerns that a tyrant ruler could gain power. Washington established the oath to the Constitution as the final bulwark against a tyrant ruler gaining power. Washington also noted that the oath to the Constitution was an oath to "We the People," and not to any single person or individual government official.

Indeed, in respect of Washington the first session of the first Congress enacted as the first law of the United States the military oath to the Constitution. Which takes us full cycle to the fact the armed forces would never act to destroy democracy yet they would act to restore a democracy destroyed by a tyrant ruler who has gained power and position.

Given the recent revelations about Trump's garbage mouth the armed forces haven't any reason to respect him. So rest assured however it would be a civil-military collective action and in no way only a military action singularly or alone. The interest at stake is democracy, not the military usurping civilian authority. The military would act in a coalition led by civilians to restore democracy, peace, the rule of law; order and respect. An initial measure of normalcy.

I don't have any inside info as that would be well beyond my pay grade while I was in the Military District of Washington DC, which is now the Joint Force Headquarters, National Capital Region. I was however in the Old Guard of the Army in the MDW of the time and I am a member of The Old Guard Association -- TOGA -- 3rd Infantry Regiment in MDW of all ranks and dates of service of all the many interested members.

I have contacts there, which infantry regiment s by statute "The Official Escort To The President." It's on a sign over the door of 3rd Infantry Headquarters at Ft. Myer next to the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery. It's a ceremonial unit where almost everyone is political and that is accepted because it's the nature of the beast.

Presently 3 IR and all services in Washington DC will escort the President to the WH door, or so I've been advised for some time now. A long time now, aggravated by Trump saying US KIA since 1776 are "suckers and losers." 3 IR is the oldest active infantry regiment of the Army, since 1784. We believe in the Constitution whereas PutinTrump & Rowers hate it. Consequently, their dayze are numbered in the United States.
If they stop listening to Trump as commander in chief, then who would become their leader? I am curious about this, and does Trump have authority or ability to fire that person?
 
If they stop listening to Trump as commander in chief, then who would become their leader? I am curious about this, and does Trump have authority or ability to fire that person?

Only two officers of the federal government have the Constitutional and statutory authority to issue orders to the armed forces.

Potus and Sec Def.

That's currently Trump and Mark Esper. No one else in the government has the authority to issue a valid order to the military that the armed forces are compelled to obey. Trump has said he knows from Nixon and Watergate the worst thing Nixon did was fire people all over the place, which is why he didn't fire Mueller, Rosenberg et al. Comey was a piece of cake firing in contrast and comparison as nobody respected him.

Esper is a graduate of USMA who was almost immediately fast tracked for promotion on eligibility to the rank of lieutenant colonel, then he retired suddenly to work for Ratheon, but as a weapons lobbyist. Esper as SecDef is consistent with the approach of former SecDef Mattis and the current chairman JCS Gen. Mark Milley to increase US weapons lethality, which they have done and continue to do.

For instance and as an aside to your salient inquiry, when Esper was SecArmy and Milley was chief of staff of Army they doubled the range of Army long range heavy artillery, among other weapons super lethalities. They initiated R&D on a new main battle tank for urban warfare that can among other features angle its barrel higher than any tank ever could. Because, as we remember Falluja and the many urban battles post 9/11, the majority of the world population lives in cities now.

In the current context, Esper talked Trump down from the Insurrection Act in Seattle, Portland and other cities, telling Trump nothing occurring in those cities or in the USA justified implementing the extreme provisions of the Insurrection Act. Trump has considered Esper disloyal since and the word is big that if Trump continues as potus Esper is a goner. Milley has meanwhile issued a statement the armed forces will not participate in any election operations whatsoever. Milley knows he speaks 100% for the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces for sure and absolutely.

So if Trump is removed as Potus / CnC before January 20th, Esper is the guy Constitutionally and statutorily to issue orders to the armed forces, no problem. Esper would effectively be commander in chief, no problem.

Esper, Milley and JCS also know fully well a Potus official proclamation of the Insurrection Act would by law place the Attorney General in charge of the armed forces Trump would send into the cities of America. It's always been in the law that the AG would exercise civilian control of the armed forces under the Insurrection Act. Indeed, no one in Congress ever foresaw the fact of the AG and the Potus being active agents of a hostile foreign state. It was just inconceivable.
 
Only two officers of the federal government have the Constitutional and statutory authority to issue orders to the armed forces.

Potus and Sec Def.

That's currently Trump and Mark Esper. No one else in the government has the authority to issue a valid order to the military that the armed forces are compelled to obey. Trump has said he knows from Nixon and Watergate the worst thing Nixon did was fire people all over the place, which is why he didn't fire Mueller, Rosenberg et al. Comey was a piece of cake firing in contrast and comparison as nobody respected him.

Esper is a graduate of USMA who was almost immediately fast tracked for promotion on eligibility to the rank of lieutenant colonel, then he retired suddenly to work for Ratheon, but as a weapons lobbyist. Esper as SecDef is consistent with the approach of former SecDef Mattis and the current chairman JCS Gen. Mark Milley to increase US weapons lethality, which they have done and continue to do.

For instance and as an aside to your salient inquiry, when Esper was SecArmy and Milley was chief of staff of Army they doubled the range of Army long range heavy artillery, among other weapons super lethalities. They initiated R&D on a new main battle tank for urban warfare that can among other features angle its barrel higher than any tank ever could. Because, as we remember Falluja and the many urban battles post 9/11, the majority of the world population lives in cities now.

In the current context, Esper talked Trump down from the Insurrection Act in Seattle, Portland and other cities, telling Trump nothing occurring in those cities or in the USA justified implementing the extreme provisions of the Insurrection Act. Trump has considered Esper disloyal since and the word is big that if Trump continues as potus Esper is a goner. Milley has meanwhile issued a statement the armed forces will not participate in any election operations whatsoever. Milley knows he speaks 100% for the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces for sure and absolutely.

So if Trump is removed as Potus / CnC before January 20th, Esper is the guy Constitutionally and statutorily to issue orders to the armed forces, no problem. Esper would effectively be commander in chief, no problem.

Esper, Milley and JCS also know fully well a Potus official proclamation of the Insurrection Act would by law place the Attorney General in charge of the armed forces Trump would send into the cities of America. It's always been in the law that the AG would exercise civilian control of the armed forces under the Insurrection Act. Indeed, no one in Congress ever foresaw the fact of the AG and the Potus being active agents of a hostile foreign state. It was just inconceivable.
Omg. Some of that is very concerning, but think you for explaining this. So there is word if Trump wins, he will fire Esper... then what? He installs the person he wants? What will the military do? Who do they listen to in that case?
 
If this ends up in the Supreme Court there will be an uprising unlike anything ever seen in this country. Americans have one thing of power, their one vote. Other than that, American citizens are mere pawns of government, like chess pieces used to move political agendas and policies. An American's only voice is their one little vote, and every one of them should count. If the republicans put it into the hands of the Supreme Court to choose our next president, there will be a great upheaval in this country from coast to coast.
 
Omg. Some of that is very concerning, but think you for explaining this. So there is word if Trump wins, he will fire Esper... then what? He installs the person he wants? What will the military do? Who do they listen to in that case?

Methinks we might be getting ahead of ourselves at this point because Trump will be removed by one Constitutional means or the other. The armed forces do not accept being controlled by hostile foreign powers via the White House and, post November 3rd, the Pentagon if Trump were to remain as Potus and can Esper.

As if Trump's garbage mouth weren't enough the military has had their fill of Trump as it is. Senior officers and NCO are well aware of Trump's contempt and disparaging of people who put in a career with the government and in public service. Trump is actively hostile towards career service of any kind whether civilian or military.

Nor would there be anything positive about yet another turnover at the top of DoD, as we know. A guy such as Sen. Tom Cotton as secdef is the last thing military chiefs would want given Cotton is more mouth than brain. Contested elections and election legitimacy is a dark room to almost everyone despite the high profile Bush v Gore nightmare of 2000. As I've boned up on this stuff it's also taken me to places I'd never have thought of otherwise.
 
There will be riots if Trump wins or Biden loses.
 
The civil unrest will continue until there are massive police reforms that are effective in preventing the disproportionate killing of black people. If Biden doesn't deliver on police reforms, the civil unrest will continue under his watch too.

Expecting Biden (or any POTUS) to ”deliver on police reforms” at the state/local level is not consistent with the Constitution. The problem with Liberal (Progressive?) thinking seems to be that if something (anything?) is deemed “important“ then it automagically becomes a (new) federal government power.
 
Its going to be so much fun. What they dont realize is that after Trump wins the second term its time to lay a smackdown on these rioters.
Yes indeed.These filthy liberals days are numbered
 
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.

The wording sounds good, but when Trump is talking about mail in ballots being a huge fraud, and we shouldn’t count them “then there will be a continuation of power,” that is the concern. Bush v Gore stopped a recount in one state, and that decision made Bush the president.

Whatever Trump can take to court, I think he will try. I wouldn’t put it past him, but it would be hard if it doesn’t come down to one state like Bush v Gore. If Biden has an electoral college blow out, that seems less likely.

Experts in Pennsylvania have already dismantled his fraud allegations. I trust election officials, but Trump has a history of not accepting facts and promoting conspiracy theories. He then takes his misinform to Fox, and his base eats it up.

Thanks for sending that article. If Trump loses, I feel strongly that the transfer of power will occur. The issue will be convincing Trump he actually did lose and the election wasn’t rigged. I believe Trump is dangerous to our system, and a person like him should never be elected to the highest office.

Bush v. Gore was not over a Florida (statewide) recount - it was over the Gore demand of a very selective recount in only (4?) Florida counties which Gore won by a significant margin.
 
Expecting Biden (or any POTUS) to ”deliver on police reforms” at the state/local level is not consistent with the Constitution. The problem with Liberal (Progressive?) thinking seems to be that if something (anything?) is deemed “important“ then it automagically becomes a (new) federal government power.

You missed the point. Police reforms are what will end the protests. They won't end or continue based on the outcome of the Presidential election.
 
Its(sic) going to be so much fun. What they dont(sic) realize is that after Orestes becomes Ceasar, its(sic) time to lay a smackdown on these rioters.
 
Last edited:
You missed the point. Police reforms are what will end the protests. They won't end or continue based on the outcome of the Presidential election.

You mentioned Biden winning and “delivering” those police reforms. That certainly implied that federal government action was involved.
 
You mentioned Biden winning and “delivering” those police reforms. That certainly implied that federal government action was involved.

I was responding to the notion that civil unrest would magically go away if Biden wins. That would only be the case if Biden can deliver police reforms.

The protesters don't care how they come about. Biden could send nice hallmark cards to all of the State Legislatures, asking them nicely to enact police reforms. Or he could follow Trump's lead and declare a national emergency. Martial law is an emergency power, so Biden could declare martial law and ensure the necessary reforms through the military as Commander in Chief until the emergency had passed.

The protesters don't care how the reforms come about, or whether they are constitutional or not. They just want the disproportionate violence against black and brown people by police to stop.
 
I think if Trump wins, there will be riots in major cities, not sure how bad. If Biden wins, Trump will contest the election and call voter fraud, setting off a Constitutional crisis.
The only Constitutional crisis that arises will be due to mail in ballots. Who wants them? Democrats. Every vote should matter, but if your vote cast by mail in ballot is not counted it makes for an illegitimate election. And if it’s not counted by Dec 14th you’ll have another crisis. All of this may fall upon the SC to settle (as in Gore vs Bush). That is why it’s imperative that we have full court.

Oh yea, your poll.

If Biden wins there will be no civil unrest. If Trump wins all hell will break out. In which case the National Guard will be called out and should be.
 
I was responding to the notion that civil unrest would magically go away if Biden wins. That would only be the case if Biden can deliver police reforms.

The protesters don't care how they come about. Biden could send nice hallmark cards to all of the State Legislatures, asking them nicely to enact police reforms. Or he could follow Trump's lead and declare a national emergency. Martial law is an emergency power, so Biden could declare martial law and ensure the necessary reforms through the military as Commander in Chief until the emergency had passed.

The protesters don't care how the reforms come about, or whether they are constitutional or not. They just want the disproportionate violence against black and brown people by police to stop.

Yep, the “mostly peaceful” protestors do not care one bit about Trump or Biden. The disproportionate (criminal) violence against black and brown folks is being perpetrated by other (their fellow) black and brown folks - not (white racist) police officers.
 
Yep, the “mostly peaceful” protestors do not care one bit about Trump or Biden. The disproportionate (criminal) violence against black and brown folks is being perpetrated by other (their fellow) black and brown folks - not (white racist) police officers.

Black men are more than twice as likely to be killed by police than white men are. That is disproportionate, and it is being protested.

Many believe that these changes will reduce this disparity:

- A ban on chokeholds and knee restraints on handcuffed suspects
- A ban on no-knock raids
- Mandatory body cams and dash cams
- Overhaul Qualified Immunity
- An independent misconduct review board
- Better training in de-escalation techniques and dealing with the mentally ill
- Repeal of Federal drug laws

This is what many of the protesters care about, not the Presidential election.
 
No, there will be no "civil unrest."

Facebook & Twitter (neither of which I have ever visited) along with cable TV make us think that the nation is coming apart at the seams.

Well, a president was assassinated in the 1960s.
A president was forced to resign in the 1970s.
A president was impeached in the 1990s and just recently.

There was no civil unrest.

Truth be told, most Americans are more interested in their personal lives than who the president is.
I'm less concerned about the actual transfer of power than the reaction to it from the citizenry, whatever the outcome.
 
Black men are more than twice as likely to be killed by police than white men are. That is disproportionate, and it is being protested.

Many believe that these changes will reduce this disparity:

- A ban on chokeholds and knee restraints on handcuffed suspects
- A ban on no-knock raids
- Mandatory body cams and dash cams
- Overhaul Qualified Immunity
- An independent misconduct review board
- Better training in de-escalation techniques and dealing with the mentally ill
- Repeal of Federal drug laws

This is what many of the protesters care about, not the Presidential election.

Of your listed “reforms” only the repeal of federal drug laws could be accomplished at the federal level (maybe even by EO). There is also the possibility of charging state/local police officers with federal (civil rights violation?) crimes, but that would likely result in an increase of the “Ferguson effect”.
 
The 'don' has all his ducks in a row, preparing for the takeover.

tenor.gif
 
Of your listed “reforms” only the repeal of federal drug laws could be accomplished at the federal level (maybe even by EO). There is also the possibility of charging state/local police officers with federal (civil rights violation?) crimes, but that would likely result in an increase of the “Ferguson effect”.

That isn't really relevant to my point.

Regardless, if you want to want to debate the powers of the President, I'm game.

You seem to have a good understanding of the division of powers in theory, but perhaps less understanding of how laws and sausages are made. You are correct that Congress can't pass a Federal law requiring those things, and Biden can't sign one, but that doesn't mean he's completely powerless. Here is how it goes:

BIDEN: The Federal Government has been very very good to Utah. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the Federal Government has been very very good to Utah.

HERBERT: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of Federal Aid. It was a tremendous help, but we are really in need of some more.

BIDEN: I would like you to do us a favor though, because our country has been through a lot and Utah knows a lot about it. I would like you to do whatever it takes to get some police reforms in your state. I'll have my personal lawyer send you a list.
 
Back
Top Bottom