If he does cling on after losing, the reaction in many Central/South America and African nations with similar tinpot regimes subject to UN monitoring will be worth watching.
The whole world will be.
I’ve never understood why there’s such a long gap between the election result in the first week of November and inauguration almost two months later.
Is this intended to be like the build up to the Oscars or the Super Bowl or something, or is there some rational reason behind it?
He wouldn’t need to arrest the opposition. Have you not been paying attention? The Senate, if it remains under the control of Republicans, will not move against Trump if he just says the election was illegitimate and refuses to leave. He will have some bullshit reason like it was rigged or whatever, and everyone will fall in line. There is no mechanism at that point to force him out.
I think it was so that people had time to get to the inauguration via horse and buggy.
1 Like
Ostensibly the military and the police (under the control of local officials) are obligated to follow the constitution as interpreted by the courts. The Senate does not have the power to call the election illegitimate and keep Trump as POTUS. They can refuse to remove, but they have no lawbro means of waiving off the election.
Now the police and military actually do have the power to call the election illegitimate. Actually they’re the only ones who have that power.
So in the unlikely event of Trump losing he’d still have two months to bribe and threaten people into not ejecting him?
Surely our institutions and democratic norms will save democracy just like the Founding Fathers intended.
1 Like
Where are you getting this?
I’m not an expert in this area, but I’m pretty sure the Constitution doesn’t directly deal with this or leaves it up to the Electoral College to sort out (there were a number of times when there were supposedly brokered deals that determined who became President, particularly in the 1800’s).
History
The Constitution grants neither the police nor the military the power to declare an election invalid.
The motherfucker with a gun clause
2 Likes
It’s ostensibly up to the courts to decide if it’s controversial who won, not the Senate. But you’re talking about the breakdown of the system.
As just posted, you’re talking about the breakdown of the system. The constitution doesn’t grant the Senate or the President the power to declare an election invalid either.
The people with guns are supposed to follow the constitution and that would mean they evict Trump regardless of what he or the Senate say, but when different groups are giving them different orders, we’ll see where their allegiance lies.
The power of Sheriffs is that they will stand by Trumpism because that’s were most all of this stuff came from, imo… With my short knowledge of the American towns they sure do have a shit load of power available to them.
I’d like to hear that that’s not the case though, please prove me wrong? 
I don’t know why you are bringing up the courts if your point is that the people with the guns will decide what happens. The courts don’t matter. We are basically in agreement.
The Sheriffs are certainly wildly pro-Trump. I’m not sure if sheriff means the same thing here as in Scotland, but it’ll be up to different groups of “police” here. Lawbros have faith in like Generals and FBI directors and people at that level (used to include the Attorney General) who actually command the relevant people with guns.
I have a little faith in the SCOTUS, but what happens if Barr sends people with guns to arrest one of the justices on complete BS?
1 Like
If the courts don’t matter, the Senate doesn’t matter - or who knows? Ultimately the motherfuckers with guns matter.
That’s the armed forces, then.