Conspiracy Theory? US civil war if Trump loses election but won't relinquish power?

[Venom]

Imagine another Brooks Brothers riot in a battleground state. Only this time with MAGA hats.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Okay so the most important rule about coups is that you have to be all in. Once you start, there's no going back home and returning to your normal life. You win, you get killed, you get arrested and go away for a long time. There's not percentage in it for a career person to risk everything on such a long shot.

The other thing to remember about coups is that only the capitol really matters. The police here in the DC are won't back Trump. Most of them hate him. The DC police certainly do.

Trump could try to get his armed followers to install him as president for a second term. The problem with that is that they have no organization, command and control or a cohesive plan.

He will try to delegitimize the election and his loss as well as sabotage the transition. However, there won't be a civil war.

I'm more concerned about him sabotaging the transition than that he will try to retain power. There's a whole lot of trouble he could cause between Nov. and Jan. if he's so inclined. If the 25th amendment is to be invoked on Trump, this could be the time. I think that is an extreme longshot, but if Trump goes completely off the rails, I could see Pence, the cabinet and Congress taking that route, with Pence perhaps having visions that being the savior of the country after Trump went nuts helping is political future.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Masque

I have a tendency to keep saying this, but you don't need an amendment; you just need to replace the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

While that would change the number of delegates, it wouldn't change the fact that the electoral college still exists.

You could still have it where the popular vote doesn't match the electoral college vote. You could probably fix it in the same manner as not having every state winner takes all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...other-systems/

Plus, that would make California relevant as far as voting goes. If you aren't a democrat, even if you are, there is no reason to campaign there. Those 55 votes are going to be for whomever they nominate without question. Sure, go there, have a few fundraising dinners, but beyond that, it doesn't matter.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Doesn't a conspiracy theory need a conspiracy? Where's the conspiracy here?

Like any other conspiracy theory, it's all wish fulfillment. People are theorizing that Trump will conspire with various government agencies to keep him in power. The wish fulfillment is that this will be the tangible proof that he wants to be a dictator, that he has a dangerous mental illness, and is a fascist.

It fits here than it does in politics or anywhere else because it's ******* crazy.

[Craig4]

I actually think this isn't conspiracy because no one appears to be conspiring. To be successful in war, you need to put superior force at the key point(s) and time in the battle space. That requires a great deal of coordination and communication. I suspect what happens will be individual actors who have localized tragic consequences but no national impact.

[Trebuchet]

It's not a conspiracy theory that self-professed boogaloo boys exist, that they are armed, and that they are looking forward to the next civil war in which they will play the leading role.
I have no doubt that some of them will engage in acts of violence if Trump is not reelected; but it will not reach the level of civil war.

[Leftus]

I'm still a bit confused as to how the battle lines will be drawn. Will it be the coasts against the center? Or will it just be an unorganized mess, like the CHOP and whatever is going on in Portland?

I really doubt that it will be anything like the, how do we say it, the war of northern aggression.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Leftus

I'm still a bit confused as to how the battle lines will be drawn. Will it be the coasts against the center? Or will it just be an unorganized mess, like the CHOP and whatever is going on in Portland?

I really doubt that it will be anything like the, how do we say it, the war of northern aggression.

Exactly. States aren't going to secede. That's not to say that a few idiots won't declare themselves to be a new state and declare war on libruls. Some of these idiots, unfortunately, may actually be in law enforcement. Especially sheriffs.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

It's not a conspiracy theory that self-professed boogaloo boys exist, that they are armed, and that they are looking forward to the next civil war in which they will play the leading role.
I have no doubt that some of them will engage in acts of violence if Trump is not reelected; but it will not reach the level of civil war.

I'm sure they exist. I don't get the sense from their performance thus far they are actually conspiring. They have some sort of loose organization but not the command and control necessary to have a national or long term meaningful impact.

[Masque]

Originally Posted by bknight

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

https://history.house.gov/Historical...t-Act-of-1929/

That is unless you have incite that is not included in the abstract of the act in the above link.

From the U.S. Constitution: The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, provides that the district constituting the seat of the federal government (currently, the District of Columbia) is entitled to the number it would have if it were a state, but in no case more than that of the least populous state.

From the article you quoted: "...the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depended on its population. But the founders were vague as to how large future Congresses should be and what method to use to reapportion the House after each federal census."

The smaller, less urban states are disproportionately represented in the Electoral College because each state must have a minimum of three electors and the number of Representatives is limited by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. If you divided the population of the U.S. (328,000,000) by the population of the least populous state(Wyoming, population 586,000), there should be 560 Representatives in the House and 660 Electors in the Electoral College. Most of those new electors would go to high population, blue states. Revise the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, and the imbalance in representation between the states doesn't go away (because of the Senate), but it becomes much more equitable.

The Act does not directly act on the Electoral College; it acts on the Electoral College by changing the size of the House of Representatives.

[Masque]

Originally Posted by Leftus

While that would change the number of delegates, it wouldn't change the fact that the electoral college still exists.

You could still have it where the popular vote doesn't match the electoral college vote. You could probably fix it in the same manner as not having every state winner takes all.

You are quite right: changing the number of electors won't fix the situation, but it would improve it.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 also allowed states to draw districts of varying size and shape. The previous apportionment acts (for example, the act of 1911, immediately preceding the act of 1929) required that congressional districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated, hampering tendencies toward gerrymandering. That's another improvement.

The important part, as I see it, is that a revised Act improves the situation without requiring an amendment to the Constitution. I don't see an amendment happening as it would mean the less populous states would be giving up power voluntarily.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Masque

You are quite right: changing the number of electors won't fix the situation, but it would improve it.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 also allowed states to draw districts of varying size and shape. The previous apportionment acts (for example, the act of 1911, immediately preceding the act of 1929) required that congressional districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated, hampering tendencies toward gerrymandering. That's another improvement.

The important part, as I see it, is that a revised Act improves the situation without requiring an amendment to the Constitution. I don't see an amendment happening as it would mean the less populous states would be giving up power voluntarily.

And increasing the number of house seats does the same thing. That might be a hard sell in those same states. Let's also not forget about infrastructure. If you were to balance out the house, you would need to find seats for the additional members. And office space. Now it might be a good idea to do the house virtually, keep the members in their districts and not off in Washington but there are consequences to just adding members to the house beyond the EC.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Exactly. States aren't going to secede. That's not to say that a few idiots won't declare themselves to be a new state and declare war on libruls. Some of these idiots, unfortunately, may actually be in law enforcement. Especially sheriffs.

Which leads to a whole host of problems. Even if the great state of Texas, tries to take its ball and go home, my guess is people here in the peoples republic of Austin would, rightfully pitch a fit.

We can't even figure out how to fund schools in a rational manner, a proper civil war? I'm not seeing that happen.

[Masque]

Originally Posted by Leftus

And increasing the number of house seats does the same thing. That might be a hard sell in those same states. Let's also not forget about infrastructure. If you were to balance out the house, you would need to find seats for the additional members. And office space. Now it might be a good idea to do the house virtually, keep the members in their districts and not off in Washington but there are consequences to just adding members to the house beyond the EC.

I agree it wouldn't be an easy thing, but it is easier than an amendment. If the Democrats held both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, they could do it, although the weeping and gnashing of teeth would be fearsome. The infrastructure question was raised in the 1920's, too. A traditional reapportionment after the 1920 census would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats and the House chamber did not have adequate seats for 483 members. (Although, at least in my mind, the real reason for limiting the number of representatives was much more political. In 1920, the Republicans took the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Due to immigration and rural-to-urban shifts in population, the Congress refused to reapportion the House because such a reapportionment would have shifted political power away from the Republicans and many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts.) A lack of seating space seems to be a piss poor excuse for undoing the concept of equal representation. It is clear evidence of 100 years of Republicans trying to fix the game.

[Orphia Nay]

Trump has launched an Army for Trump site/app to get people to support him campaigning.

Is he trying to con people into thinking the army supports him?

Is he trying to wind people up?

Is he trying to get his non-reading supporters who hear about it thinking he wants militia backup?

[Orphia Nay]

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/progr...l-war/12365280

A sociological paper written nearly 30 years ago predicted civil war now via modelling of inequality, selfish elites, and "polarisation that have crippled the ability of the US government to mount an effective response to the pandemic disease".

[Orphia Nay]

However... I doubt many Americans will get off their arses to fight.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Trump has launched an Army for Trump site/app to get people to support him campaigning.

You will enjoy this. Here is the web-page for application.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/t...2020-election/

“The Army for Trump website is one of the most powerful tools we have to re-elect President Trump," said Brad Parscale, Trump 2020 campaign manager."

However...

Brad Parscale replaced as Trump's campaign manager - BBC ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53426285

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

You will enjoy this. Here is the web-page for application.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/t...2020-election/

“The Army for Trump website is one of the most powerful tools we have to re-elect President Trump," said Brad Parscale, Trump 2020 campaign manager."

However...

Brad Parscale replaced as Trump's campaign manager - BBC ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53426285

I saw the second one and to see it with the campaign tactic is delightful schadenfreude. Thanks.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

However... I doubt many Americans will get off their arses to fight.

It's easy when you're a tons-of-fun Gravy SEAL with a knock-off AR-15 tricked out with the special cool guy rig and "Special Ops" sunglasses to stand on the corner and protest to get a haircut. It's another thing move to contact with people you know are planning to shoot back.

You're right, as I've said before, most of them will be real mad and stay at home and masturbate to the latest issue of "Guns and Ammo".

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Trump has launched an Army for Trump site/app to get people to support him campaigning.

Is he trying to con people into thinking the army supports him?

Is he trying to wind people up?

Is he trying to get his non-reading supporters who hear about it thinking he wants militia backup?

It's fairly common to use military allusions during a campaign. It's a call to arms, so to speak, but it's not really a request to ammo up. Wasn't when Reagan did it either in his farewell speech either:

Quote:

If we're to finish the job, Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Leftus

There is a bit of a cart before the horse going on here in that Biden and co have yet to win, but as I said in another thread, this is pure political porn level fantasy. Remember, Trump wasn't "supposed" to win the first time.

That being said, even if he doesn't concede, so what? It's not a requirement. If he loses and Roberts swears in Biden, then the machinery of the federal government moves forward. It's not like Trump has the keys to the oval office. Fun fact, most of the interior doors in the WH have Marines guarding them. Had an associate go to the White House for some ceremony, got a bit lost, but the Marines were opening doors for him because he was wearing his agency credentials.

And the Marines also control the helicopters, a very important element of this kind of hypothetical.
I’ll admit to being a little worried about this stuff until someone told me that in the Pentagon they have written plans for an unbelievable number of situations, conditions, and contingencies. There must be a Trump-doesn’t-leave plan.

[Ladewig]

“Presidetial coup” involves others fighting the system in an attempt to overthrow a president. Is there a word to describe a president fighting the system to overthrow everyone else?

[Halcyon Dayz]

Self-coup.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

It's not a conspiracy theory that self-professed boogaloo boys exist, that they are armed, and that they are looking forward to the next civil war in which they will play the leading role.
I have no doubt that some of them will engage in acts of violence if Trump is not reelected; but it will not reach the level of civil war.

What is that level? What metrics are you using to determine civil war or just widespread political violence?

The presumption here is that there is a clear victory in the election, well the faith in the system has been under attack by Trump for years with his claims of voter fraud. So you get people both credibly believing that their candidate really won.

I mean we are slouching toward authoritarian leadership for a while now, why is postulating going further along that path remarkable?

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

“Presidetial coup” involves others fighting the system in an attempt to overthrow a president. Is there a word to describe a president fighting the system to overthrow everyone else?

Given that any attempt to stay in power would require the efforts of more than one person, the word "coup" still holds. If the situation is just Trump petulantly refusing to leave, it's called "trespassing." I'm pretty sure the Secret Service could end that crime pretty quickly given that the moment a new POTUS is sworn in the former one instantly becomes a private citizen with no special status beyond the ceremonial.

ETA: I feel compelled to note, with some amusement, that the President is not required to attend the inauguration of their replacement. Given Trump's general attitude, it seems less likely that he'll try to overstay his presidency and very likely that he won't even be in DC if a new president is taking office. In fact, if he loses the election, I think it's entirely possible that he will go to Florida in mid to late November and not come back to DC at all.

[The Great Zaganza]

It is a GIVEN that Trump will, if defeated, for the rest of his life insist that he actually won and that the election was stolen.

Does anyone disagree with this?

[eerok]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It is a GIVEN that Trump will, if defeated, for the rest of his life insist that he actually won and that the election was stolen.

Does anyone disagree with this?

That would be tantamount to claiming that Trump is not a douche. Yeah, no.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

“Presidetial coup” involves others fighting the system in an attempt to overthrow a president. Is there a word to describe a president fighting the system to overthrow everyone else?

Like when Stalin purged his military commanders?

[Allen773]

The issue here is the decline in legitimacy of America's political institutions (and institutions in general) - a decline that this President and his party have accelerated.

Of course, there are insane and unhelpful assertions on the Democratic side (e.g. that Trump is a Kremlin operative going back to 1987), but not to the unifying extent that is on the Republican side, which has a conspiracy theorist President and a conspiracy theorist electorate - all of whom have absolute contempt for democracy, the rule of law, logic, empirical evidence, etc.

I'm sorry if I sound like a liberal hack here, but facts don't care about your feelings.

[Orphia Nay]

The Atlantic repeated a story that Trump has called military servicemen "suckers" and "losers".

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uckers/615997/



Trump blames John F. Kelly, a 4-star general he worked with at the time for the "fake news".

Trump says Kelly "Didn’t do a good job".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/u...ns-losers.html


The person mentioned in the OP is saying the military are very fired up about this.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My only concern is once the US Army gets involved will we be able to manufacture all the need Darwin Awards for his MAGA Followers?

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

My only concern is once the US Army gets involved will we be able to manufacture all the need Darwin Awards for his MAGA Followers?

The problem is that the armed forces are filled with individuals who may or might decide to follow their political feeling instead of orders or their oath to support the constitution.

In my time in the army officers were about 70% Republican and NCO's 70% Democrats. Make what you will of those numbers.

A political rupture in the armed forces would be very troubling especially those that have control of the nuclear arsenals.

However, I consider that possibility to be very remote.

[EHocking]

The Transition Integrity Project ran a series of "war games" testing different outcomes of the 2020 elections. The short answer from chair (on Samantha Bee's show) was "CHAOS!"

From the report, which can be read here;

We... assess that the [sic] President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election, the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims, and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests, underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office.
..
The report's intention was to inspire the necessary changes to ensure a fair election in 2020. "These risks can be mitigated; the worst outcomes of the exercises are far from a certainty. The purpose of this report is not to frighten, but to spur all stakeholders to action.""

[Orphia Nay]

I had a dream/nightmare I was in America and there was a civil war on.

I was making sure I had enough food such as potatoes planted to feed myself.

I think I'd overheard something about a civil war in the news the day before, which must have got to me.

I just keep seeing the hatred that Dems and Repubs have for each other, and the vicious things they say. It's ridiculous, and mostly contains overexaggerated facts.

[EHocking]

We do not wish to know the details of the fertiliser used, thank you.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by EHocking

We do not wish to know the details of the fertiliser used, thank you.

Why would you think that's relevant to say?

[EHocking]

Not a Matt Damon fan then

[Naval Diplomat]

Don't think there will be a war in the traditional sense. And you could even say that the war is ongoing now. Like a political Cold Civil War kinda thing... Either way, I'm getting prepped.

[Hans]

One item against the idea is that Trump himself is a coward. He would be willing to risk killing off millions of Americans but he would not risk his own life and fortune. He would of course enjoy immediately starting his re-election campaign for 2024.