Hahahahaha

Don't break the law kids. Easy.

See, this is why I was supporting Trump throughout most of his presidency and to this day defend his track record. I liked most of his policies and gave that higher priority than the bad optics he was producing. But when it comes to upholding basic democratic traditions, like a peaceful transfer of power, rhetoric does matter. Riling up half the country to not believe in the legitimacy of the new, duly elected president - in spite of dozens of federal judges which he had appointed himself telling him that his claims are baseless - is extremely reckless and corrosive to democracy. It was very damaging for the country when many Democrats and aligned groups refused to accept Trump's legitimacy in the wake of the 2016 election, you yourself have said as much. Likewise, it was very damaging when Trump outright denied the legitimacy of Biden's election in 2020. Undermining the basis of democracy, namely the loser accepting the result of elections and transferring power to the winner, is not "meaningless semantics/rhetoric".


And again: it was not just empty rhetoric, he explicitly pressured elected officials to not certify election results against better knowledge, he explicitly riled up his hardcore supporters on Jan 6 and sent them to the Capitol as a show of force aimed at "wavering" (from his pov) Republicans.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 9 2022 12:51am

In action, he accepted his loss. In rhetoric, he kept being a crybaby.
Trump left office when he was supposed to, and didn't even strip all the B's off the keyboards on his way out.


Sounds like pretty standard political rhetoric. When Democrats point to "fight like hell" as his most inflammatory remark, that stands as a ludicrous contrast to everything surrounding BLM and the progressive left's many riots. Could it be any farther removed from the proximate, imminent lawless action standard? If Brandeis were alive today, do you think he'd get a chuckle out of the logical contortion required to stretch a politician not even present at an event and putting out statements calling for peace, to the strict standard that struck down 'bad tendency' and 'clear and present danger'? To Douglas's concept of 'speech brigaded with action'? Not sure how much more explicit they could have been in carving out that advocacy, especially political advocacy by politicians, especially citizens petitioning their government for redress of grievances, can't be infringed.

In action, he "accepted" his loss only after his desperate last ditch effort on Jan 6 had failed, after it became apparent that a majority of the country just didn't buy into his claims of a stolen election and that no institution would side with him if he tried to remain in office via force. He stopped trying because he had run out of feasible options. If "not delusionally holding on to the WH carpet as secret service agents literally drag him out of the building on the day of Biden's inauguration" clears your bar for "acceptance", then you have lower standards than I thought.





Whether Trump's actions and rhetoric on Jan 6 rise to the level of legal culpability is a different question than whether he is guilty, morally and in spirit, of riling up a rowdy crowd of supporters and sending the mob to the Capitol with the explicit goal of pressuring lawmakers into not certifying Biden's election.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 9 2022 01:11am

And what was his action to cling to power? What did he do beyond exhausting legal challenges and trying to press for a constitutional gimmick?
If someone loses a court case and keeps making spurious appeals and presses for their verdict to be overturned on a technicality, and keeps pressing it until they finally run out of options and submit, well that's just the system working. They can press their options, and they'll lose. If they try to hold the court hostage with an explosive belt or flee overseas to escape justice, that's an 'action'.



There's no question of legal culpability for Trump's actions and rhetoric, and that leaves bare the Democrats wielding the department of justice against him in an overt attempt to suppress the self determination of the electorate in the next presidential election. Why should I care about Trump's personal moral or spiritual guilt? The man who defeated Roe v Wade probably paid for a dozen abortions over his lifetime. Its a reason to judge him in an election, a reason not to vote for him. Its not a reason to burn down the civil fabric of our republic.

Uh, he had several "actions" where he clearly didn't accept the loss. Is calling the Sec of State of Georgia not an action? What about the coordination of "fake electors?" Trump's actions were so bad that he was stripped of all power by the West Wing and the rest of his cabinet (not officially of course). He tried everything except proclaim martial law because that would have ended with his head on a spike. We live in an extraordinary violent country by Western standards and Americans have a short fuse.

But that's the thing: Trump did NOT stop pressing and submit when he ran out of legal/legitimate options. He improperly pressured elected officials into not doing their duty, he improperly sent a mob to the Capitol to pressure or intimidate "weak Republicans" into not certifying an election result whose legitimacy had been confirmed by the courts (including dozens of Trump-appointed judges).

Submitting would have meant publicly conceding the election at some point in December when the last of his lawsuits were tossed out in court...



Well, like I've said on page 2 of this thread: if the DoJ turns Trump into a martyr and somehow bars him from running for president again, they're doing the GOP and Trump's own movement a big favor. He has long outlived his usefulness and become a liability. From a Machiavellian perspective, providing the GOP a way to get rid of him without risking intraparty civil war would be a boon. Even better if the DoJ/FBI fully enrage and turn one half of the electorate against themselves in the process.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 9 2022 01:29am

Pursuing his fruitless legal challenges and vain constitution gimmicks. No different than the Democrats who tried to hold up Trump's ratification 4 years earlier. The system is resilient enough to shrug off baseless challenges. If Pence had joined in the effort and refused to certify the vote like Trump wanted, what would have happened? It would be challenged in court, and within 24 hours the Supreme Court would have ruled that Pence holds only a formality not a constitutional power and nothing would have changed. Same for presenting a contesting slate of electors or begging investigators to find some non-existent evidence of fraud he could latch onto.



I'd also like to think that even stretched as it is now, our nation is resilient enough that a civilian president simply lacks the capacity to cling to power, that any attempt to force the issue by action and declare martial law or roll in tanks or crown himself king would be scoffed at and fail. We don't need Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell carrying daggers under their toga to intercept Trump as he walks to the theater.

I'm not convinced that the DOJ can stop Trump from being President. MAYBE, there are some states that could prevent him from being on the ballot but it's not even clear that the 14th amendment insurrection clause applies to the President. It's an interesting question from a constitutional perspective but I don't think we're going to get that far. It seems to me that Trump has the necessary infrastructure, institutional support, and democratic support to go through the primary without a sweat. Given the reaction the right has had over a fairly minor raid, what could possibly convince folks to NOT support Trump?