Trump wins bigly in 2020. What then?

Just wondering...If (fingers crossed) by the end of all this Trump if not impeached and convicted, at least becomes unelectable, who are the Republicans going to field in the next election? Have they shot themselves in the foot by deciding not to hold primaries?
 
Susheel said:
Just wondering...If (fingers crossed) by the end of all this Trump if not impeached and convicted, at least becomes unelectable, who are the Republicans going to field in the next election? Have they shot themselves in the foot by deciding not to hold primaries?
Click to expand...

it's a very good question, one that IMO deserves its own thread.
 
Susheel said:
Just wondering...If (fingers crossed) by the end of all this Trump if not impeached and convicted, at least becomes unelectable, who are the Republicans going to field in the next election? Have they shot themselves in the foot by deciding not to hold primaries?
Click to expand...

I fear that Trump, bumbling as he is, might've set a precedent for future administrations to ignore the law and act to enrich themselves and carry their weight around. A more clever and savvy president in these circumstances might do a lot more damage.
 
Susheel said:
Just wondering...If (fingers crossed) by the end of all this Trump if not impeached and convicted, at least becomes unelectable, who are the Republicans going to field in the next election? Have they shot themselves in the foot by deciding not to hold primaries?
Click to expand...

That's a mighty big if.

There's no evidence of President Trump's base abandoning him - if anything they're doubling down. His base is also the core of GOP support.

The GOP are taking steps to ensure that the 40% or so support President Trump commands is sufficient to get him reelected. I'm not sure what it would take for him to be unelectable. Each new revelation seems to be just fine as far as the GOP is concerned - reflecting the opinions of GOP supporters.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wrong. Again, he isn't even trying to expand presidential power.
Click to expand...

That is complete and utter garbage, Zig and you know that it is. His assertions of "unitary executive" alone are an unprecedented expansion of presidential power.

Then there's his shyster lawyers arguing in court the other day that the President is 100% immune from even being investigated for anything while in office.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nity-from-criminal-investigations/3935796002/
 
ChristianProgressive said:
That is complete and utter garbage, Zig and you know that it is. His assertions of "unitary executive" alone are an unprecedented expansion of presidential power.
Click to expand...

This is historically ignorant. People made the same complaints about Bush.
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-c...dency-consistent-with-a-democratic-state.html

In fact, "unitary executive" in one form or another has been part of standard American constitutional doctrine since the very drafting of the constitution.
 
Belz... said:
Could it not be said that this argument is unconstitutional, since it would presumably block impeachment inquiries?
Click to expand...
I don't think they've gone that far. They're talking about criminal investigations. Impeachment is not a criminal investigation.
 
Belz... said:
You don't think it's on the back of Trump's mind? Any investigation includes all of them.
Click to expand...
But they didn't say literally any investigation. The argument is about criminal investigation. It does not include congressional oversight.

The latter would be an even harder argument to make, since impeachment is an explicit power of Congress and hence impeachment inquiries must be too.

Let's focus on the asinine argument presented, not an even more asinine argument.
 
Belz... said:
You don't think it's on the back of Trump's mind? Any investigation includes all of them.
Click to expand...

The law is probably the only place where technically correct is not only the best kind of correct, but also the only kind of correct. Any serious analysis of a legal claim must depend on the exact wording of the claim, in the specific context of precedent and statute. It's not a situation where you can casually point to a term in the claim, apply a lay definition uncritically, and have any confidence that you're correct.
 
Since the last Trumpers standing are only interested in pearl clutching over anything "hyperbolic" said at the expense of anything else in the discussion, I'll lay it out.

I actually don't think a fall into some sort of over the top dystopian nightmare if Trump wins in 2020 is probably. I still think there is enough good in the basic structure of American the country and in most, or at least a tipping point, of Americans to stop it before it gets that bad. I do think there is a limit to how bad things can get.

But here's the thing... I don't want to find out. I want to live in a country where I'm sure of the country's future, not "pretty sure." Where not living in a country that is recognizable as a functioning Western Style Secular Democracy is statistically nil, not just "Yeah... I think it's not gonna happen." I want to be able to say "Everything is going to be okay" with an easy confidence, not a resigned "I'm halfway trying to convince myself..." way.

I don't think Trump, his inner circle, and his supporters are actually capable of destroying this country. But I have no intention of watching them see how much damage they can do before they stopped.

I'm done, across the board done, with this infantile "I want to be as bad as I can possibly be and still be technically in the right" stress testing from Trump and his supporters.

I'll never understand the childish, nihilistic philosophy that if your neighbor wakes up screaming in the middle of the night because he says his house is "engulfed in flames" but the fire has actually only engulfed the two west facing bedrooms, the far wall of the kitchen, and the laundry room but so far the living room and dining room aren't touched is to take him to task for "hyperbole" instead of calling the fire department or helping to put out the fire.

Trump is bad for the country. He is a not a good leader. He is not taking the country in right direction. I don't give a goddamn tin whistle **** about anyone's moral conundrum about "Oh but you didn't define the exact level he's uniquely bad..."
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Since the last Trumpers standing are only interested in pearl clutching over anything "hyperbolic" said at the expense of anything else in the discussion, I'll lay it out.

I actually don't think a fall into some sort of over the top dystopian nightmare if Trump wins in 2020 is probably. I still think there is enough good in the basic structure of American the country and in most, or at least a tipping point, of Americans to stop it before it gets that bad. I do think there is a limit to how bad things can get.

But here's the thing... I don't want to find out. I want to live in a country where I'm sure of the country's future, not "pretty sure." Where not living in a country that is recognizable as a functioning Western Style Secular Democracy is statistically nil, not just "Yeah... I think it's not gonna happen." I want to be able to say "Everything is going to be okay" with an easy confidence, not a resigned "I'm halfway trying to convince myself..." way.

I don't think Trump, his inner circle, and his supporters are actually capable of destroying this country. But I have no intention of watching them see how much damage they can do before they stopped.

I'm done, across the board done, with this infantile "I want to be as bad as I can possibly be and still be technically in the right" stress testing from Trump and his supporters.

I'll never understand the childish, nihilistic philosophy that if your neighbor wakes up screaming in the middle of the night because he says his house is "engulfed in flames" but the fire has actually only engulfed the two west facing bedrooms, the far wall of the kitchen, and the laundry room but so far the living room and dining room aren't touched is to take him to task for "hyperbole" instead of calling the fire department or helping to put out the fire.

Trump is bad for the country. He is a not a good leader. He is not taking the country in right direction. I don't give a goddamn tin whistle **** about anyone's moral conundrum about "Oh but you didn't define the exact level he's uniquely bad..."
Click to expand...
It's also clear the the Trump presidency is a lot less harmless than defenders claim. They often say that the only really long lasting impact is the court appointments which they favor. Not only has Trump worked hard to normalize foreign interference, his Syria stunt has significantly weakened trust in the US as an ally. That effect will be detrimental for years if not decades.

The same goes for his willingness to toss treaties aside.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
That is complete and utter garbage, Zig and you know that it is. His assertions of "unitary executive" alone are an unprecedented expansion of presidential power.

Then there's his shyster lawyers arguing in court the other day that the President is 100% immune from even being investigated for anything while in office.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nity-from-criminal-investigations/3935796002/
Click to expand...
His shyster lawyers did not argue "the President is 100% immune from even being investigated for anything while in office."
 
theprestige said:
Why phrase it at all? Why not simply report the legal argument they actually made, as such?
Click to expand...

Because that is the argument they made.

But you now this, this is just more "Now jump through the hoops to reestablish the thing that's already a known fact" contrarian stalling from you.
 
theprestige said:
Why phrase it at all? Why not simply report the legal argument they actually made, as such?
Click to expand...

sure:

Crucial quote: Judge Denny Chin asked Consovoy, “What’s your view on the Fifth Avenue example? Local authorities couldn’t investigate, they couldn’t do anything about it?” Consovoy said no⁠—not while a president was in office.
Click to expand...

all of this is based on the DOJ memo, which obviously doesn't even suggest that kind of immunity.
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
eeyore1954 said:
His shyster lawyers did not argue "the President is 100% immune from even being investigated for anything while in office."
Click to expand...

How about if we amend it to say that he could not be criminally investigated for any charge at all? Is that your point?

If not, don't be coy. Tell us where you think it goes wrong. I don't think anyone is keen on guessing.
 
Trebuchet said:
Just a thought experiment, I hope.
Assume:
Trump has a solid win in both the EC and popular vote.
Republicans get to 60 Senators.
Republicans retake the House.
Republicans increase their control of governorships and state legislatures.

What happens?
Constitutional amendment to remove presidential term limits?
Selling off the National Parks?
Declaring war on Ukraine?
Ok, maybe those are ridiculous. Or not. What do you think might happen?
Click to expand...
Trump wins in 2020? YAHOO. I'd rather this happen than attend a full-fledged Roman orgy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom