US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

StringerBell

Water John wrote: »

Thomas Friedman had a great line on this about Pompeo and others; 'you know you're out of power when your limousine is yellow and the driver speaks Farsi'.

Wasn't about pompeo was it? Thought that was a pretty old quote, open to correction though

brooke 2

Headshot wrote: »

I like that smirk from Biden when mentioning Pompeo

Haha! Loved that!! :pac:

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1325951831667699712

It is a great day for content on this.

eire4

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1325951831667699712

It is a great day for content on this.

Classic stuff and so Republican too. They so often accuse others of exactly that which they themselves are doing.

Water John

StringerBell wrote: »

Wasn't about pompeo was it? Thought that was a pretty old quote, open to correction though

Yes, it is an old one and he applied it mainly to Pompeo.

prawnsambo

Seems the Project Veritas USPS guy has recanted his allegations that a supervisor tampered with ballots. Doubt O'Keefe will be getting his money back though.

Manic Moran

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Tangental to this; in your experience as (iirc) an army officer, what proportion of the rank and file would support Trump or perhaps Trumpism more generally? Does it contrast much with the attitudes of the officer corps for that matter? My recollection on the matter is vague but I have memories of one navy officer telling me the armed forces in the US drew most of their manpower from either the inner cities or the rural areas with a tradition of service, does that still hold true? And I guess beneath all of this is the question, when push comes to shove, how many would cross the Rubicon with Trump or someone like him?

Difficult to give a figure. There are a fair few who support Trump and his policies, without necessarily supporting Trump as a person, but as a rule, the folks I run into are fairly overwhelmingly Republican. Statistically, I believe officers are more likely lean Democrat than enlisted, and I do know some enlisted who are definitely on the progressive end of the scale, but they are all in the overall minority.

That said, I have seen absolutely nothing from anyone to indicate that any of us want the military to get involved in taking sides as an organisation. We've over two centuries of, shall we say, militant neutrality on the matter starting with George Washington, that sort of tradition is hard to break.

Of course, what they -want- and what they're -ordered- are two separate things. The Eisenhower vs Arkansas incident in the 50s showed that soldiers will carry out instructions to the best of their ability from one side one day, and then from the other side the next day, pursuant to the lawful chain of command at the time. In that, they place trust in the senior leadership that they are being given lawful orders. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Joint Chiefs or Combatant Commanders (Technically, the Joint Chiefs are not actually in the chain of command) would be willing to partake in an unlawful destruction of the peaceful or smooth transfer of civilian power, the President is quite limited in what he can do with troops inside the US (Another advantage of the US being 50 independent States). A more interesting question is what a State governor could do, but even if the most irrational Red state governor in the country decided to order his soldiers to take action (As Governor Faubus did in 1957), what would they do? Invade Pennsylvania from Kentucky to take over the counting centers? There would be nothing for them to do in their own jurisdiction.

That leaves one, very large wildcard. The DC. National Guard, located, coincidentally enough, right where the transfer of power is located. And unlike any other Guard, it's both able to lawfully conduct operations in the city normally prohibited to the military and has President at the top of the chain of command. Which is a full battalion of military police, and a bunch of other folks like transportation, Air force security, etc. So, if Trump ordered the DC Guard to fortify the White House and turn it into a fortress, I presume they'd do it. Probably half-heartedly (eg I can't imagine they'd dig trenches in the Rose Garden), but they'll do it.
And then, at 12:01 on 20th January, someone would relay a message to them from the new commander in chief across town to stand down, and that would be the end of it.

Your Naval Officer friend is correct. It's been a note of some concern that military service is now considered to be almost a family affair, with a very large proportion of folks in the service with relatives who served. And they, in turn, tend to be from where their folks are/were serving, which tends to be in the rural areas since that's where many of the bases are. And, yes, there's a large cohort from the inner cities, as it's viewed as a way out which gives free job training and other benefits. Those folks tend to gravitate to the support roles. (Not many post-army civilian jobs for infantry, but helicopter mechanics are another matter entirely, for example).

everlast75

So it would the famed whistleblower accepts it was all BS??

https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1326289047933816836?s=19

prawnsambo

And there's a GoFundMe for him too. Probably not for long by the look of it.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

So it would the famed whistleblower accepts it was all BS??

Hope he does time if he made it up.

However, he's standing by his original affidavit according to O'Keefe.

We'll see.

serfboard

440Hertz wrote: »

What they're doing is incredibly dangerous. Even though it probably will not succeed, it's sowing the seeds of a conspiracy theory that could destabilise the US for years.

Two commentators from very different sides of the fence (Paul Krugman in his New York Times column, and John Bolton on RTE Drivetime this evening) have made the same comment in relation to this - they are concerned that the Trumpists will foment a stab-in-the-back myth around Trump losing the election, and that this could be very dangerous territory indeed.

More conspiracy theory believers hired

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html

Controversial official who pushed conspiracy theories taking top Pentagon policy role

Controversial retired Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata is being moved into the Pentagon's top policy role, taking over the duties of James Anderson, who resigned Tuesday, according to a US defense official.

Tata was previously nominated to be undersecretary of defense for policy this summer but his nomination was withdrawn because of bipartisan opposition.


Only the best people.

kowloon

How do you manage to "accidentally" embed another message, out of line with the original text and faded heavily in a tweet?
It takes extra steps for that result. Someone is 'avin a larf in No. 10

Linky

440Hertz

It happens when you’ve pissed off every competent member of staff around you and they’ve all left and everyone is desperately trying to avoid being sullied with the reputation of having worked for your administration.

jam_mac_jam

serfboard wrote: »

Two commentators from very different sides of the fence (Paul Krugman in his New York Times column, and John Bolton on RTE Drivetime this evening) have made the same comment in relation to this - they are concerned that the Trumpists will foment a stab-in-the-back myth around Trump losing the election, and that this could be very dangerous territory indeed.

I genuinely think this situation is getting a bit frightening and out of hand. The continuing narrative of a stolen election, the idea that there is no smoke without fire. All the buildup of stories that are later debunked but will people know they are debunked.

I can see why people would get angry and it's starting to look worrying.

440Hertz

440Hertz wrote: »

It happens when you’ve pissed off every competent member of staff around you and they’ve all left and everyone is desperately trying to avoid being sullied with the reputation of having worked for your administration.

Or been sacked for disagreeing with you/having a bit of integrity.

440Hertz

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I genuinely think this situation is getting a bit frightening and out of hand. The continuing narrative of a stolen election, the idea that there is no smoke without fire. All the buildup of stories that are later debunked but will people know they are debunked.

I can see why people would get angry and it's starting to look worrying.

The whole long interregnum period is ridiculous, although I don’t think anyone ever imagined someone so malevolent in the Oval Office.

Even Nixon is looking like a perfect gentlemen in comparison to this stuff, which just shows how far outside the norms of the presidency this has gone.

I used to think that when American presidents were talking about the great tradition of the peaceful transfer of power (it comes up in a few recent inauguration speeches) that they were being a bit ridiculous and indulging in American exceptionalism, thinking it didn’t happen anywhere else, but I’ve come to realise they were probably just trying to calm the waters in the US itself.

If you don’t get a peaceful transition of power, you’re potential looking at a civil war or a coup d’état of some sort. It seems ludicrous and extremely unlikely, but it didn’t take much more than a sequence of events to kick off every other mess that’s ever happened in Europe or elsewhere historically.

Democracy is largely a state of mind and an agreement to accept that government will be decided by the ballot box and that people will respect the outcome of a vote. Once that’s been undermined, anything is possible, as the social mores, the etiquette and culture that allow democracy to function dissolve.

The frightening bit is nobody should have to explain this in a developed, functioning and very well established democracy. It’s looking a lot more like the unstable full presidential republics that we’ve seen, particularly in Latin America - high profile cult of personality president & totally unstable government based on whims.

When you look at the list of countries using full presidential systems, the USA is one of only a very few that are traditionally stable.

The GOP need to snap out of it and call time on this mess. At this stage it’s not even about policy differences. It’s about either respecting or undermining democracy.

My view of this is what happens over the next 10 weeks could well decide the future of the USA for many years to come. It’s a choice between stable democracy or chaos.

dwayneshintzy

Given their record, why would you trust Project Veritas or anybody involved with them?

They have a proven record of fraudulent claims.

virginmediapls

Honestly, with a country that large, with that many crazy people - it's really surprising more people with fake stories have yet to come forward.

Really speaks for how secure the vote likely was.

Graham

virginmediapls wrote: »

it's really surprising more people with fake stories have yet to come forward.

Hasn't someone put up money for evidence of voter fraud?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Hasn't someone put up money for evidence of voter fraud?

Only in Texas I think,
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/10/texas-dan-patrick/

bilbot79

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Indeed it sounds strange when you hear it first (I first really learned about it in Bush v Gore) but there is a logic behind the electoral college.

I agree. I think the UK would really benefit for the purposes of unity. Scotland resents being run from and deprived by England due to the popular vote

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Few posts deleted along with a few replies quoting them.

As the charter states:

Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned.

Midlife

So I think it's 10 cases now thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

I'm not sure what the game is.

I think it may be just 'keep on fundraising'

It's quite clear none of this is going anywhere.

I'd imagine most republicans would like a clean break now looking likely that Trump will take half their support and head off to OANN.

LuckyLloyd

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3ED

80% of American adults think Biden won. Of the 20% who don’t, most see it as still undecided. Only 3% reckon Trump won.

harr

It’s getting dangerous over there now .. a lot of people starting to roll in behind the idea of the so called fraud.
Some very wealthy individuals are starting to fund trumps campaign to have it over turned/ full recount.
Trump also rearranging top jobs for people he knows will probably support him in any situation.
It might seem sensational to say it’s beginning to look like he is starting the process of a sort of coup ..
We won’t know for certain till the election is officially called , I also believe at this stage he should pulled off Twitter .

spacecoyote

Midlife wrote: »

I think it may be just 'keep on fundraising'

I think this is a big part. The emails that the campaign keep sending out to people had that provision in them at the bottom. Basically a chunk of any donations made to support the legal cases will actually be used to service the debt they've accumulated.

prawnsambo

Governor of Pennsylvania is a funny guy. But I'm agog to see if the Governor of Texas pays up. Seems like he should.

listermint

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hope he does time if he made it up.

However, he's standing by his original affidavit according to O'Keefe.

We'll see.

You can't recant your story and stand by it. I'd suggest muting o Keefe from your twitter feed.

Timberrrrrrrr

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hope he does time if he made it up.

However, he's standing by his original affidavit according to O'Keefe.

We'll see.

What was in his original affidavit? If he has recently another one what in your mind makes his original one believable?