Trump's Coup d'état.

[The Atheist]

82% of Trump voters believe Biden's win isn't legitimate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...isinformation/

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

82% of Trump voters believe Biden's win isn't legitimate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...isinformation/

Trump primed his supporters for months. He's used this technique successfully his entire life. He simply repeats a lie over and over again until people believe it. It's how he ran his businesses and convinced everyone he's a fantastically successful businessman when he wasn't. He repeated his "mail-in ballots will be fraudulent and the Dems will steal the election from me" for months and prepared his supporters to believe it so that when he lost they were well primed to accept it. He's a consummate con artist and his followers just can't see it. As the saying goes "It's easier to con someone that convince them they're being conned." We've got a few in this very forum.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

82% of Trump voters believe Biden's win isn't legitimate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...isinformation/

Wow that few - I’m surprised - I’m sure with another couple of months of lies we will see that hovering at 100%....

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Trump primed his supporters for months. He's used this technique successfully his entire life. He simply repeats a lie over and over again until people believe it. It's how he ran his businesses and convinced everyone he's a fantastically successful businessman when he wasn't. He repeated his "mail-in ballots will be fraudulent and the Dems will steal the election from me" for months and prepared his supporters to believe it so that when he lost they were well primed to accept it. He's a consummate con artist and his followers just can't see it. As the saying goes "It's easier to con someone that convince them they're being conned." We got a few in this very forum.

I’m waiting to hear that John Barron has been calling journalists.....

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

82% of Trump voters believe Biden's win isn't legitimate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...isinformation/

Hmmm......

Looks like the "40% of Republicans think that Biden won" poll has changed somewhat

[The Great Zaganza]

If Trump supporters really believed the election was stolen, they would start a General Strike or indeed make a March on Washington or anything beyond just voicing their opinion.

The vast majority of Trump supporters only do so when it doesn't cost them anything.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Don

Hmmm......

Looks like the "40% of Republicans think that Biden won" poll has changed somewhat

So much for the theory that the Trump base is shrinking.

This is the type of thing that happens.

Trump does some obviously ridiculous thing

THEN

There's a bit of silence and confusion while his supporters struggle with their cognitive dissonance

THEN

The marching orders are agreed on

THEN

What Trump said isn't only NOT ridiculous, but the obvious truth!

[The Don]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

So much for the theory that the Trump base is shrinking.

This is the type of thing that happens.

Trump does some obviously ridiculous thing

THEN

There's a bit of silence and confusion while his supporters struggle with their cognitive dissonance

THEN

The marching orders are agreed on

THEN

What Trump said isn't only NOT ridiculous, but the obvious truth!

....and this is why I'm not 100% sanguine about Joe Biden becoming President. It seems that the Republicans are prepared to do anything necessary to get the result(s) they want and that the overwhelming majority are perfectly happy to toe the company line, regardless of their personal feelings.

If faithless electors in Pennsylvania can turn the election in President Trump's favour then that's what they'll do.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Which makes it hypothetical!

Only if they don't actually have a plan to overturn the apparent results. Seems like an odd thing for anyone to infer, given that they aren't mounting legal and/or legislative challenges to the electoral process in the states with close margins except for the ones they appear to have narrowly lost. The question isn't whether they hope to overturn the results, the only question is how they are hoping to get there. Again, I recommend the Four Seasons video in which Rudy straight up talks about equitable relief from the courts.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by The Don

....and this is why I'm not 100% sanguine about Joe Biden becoming President. It seems that the Republicans are prepared to do anything necessary to get the result(s) they want and that the overwhelming majority are perfectly happy to toe the company line, regardless of their personal feelings.

Trump probably will not get his way (however, folk need to not operate based on this assumption —and if they are not totally incompetent, I'm sure that, behind the scenes, the Biden campaign is not). However, the most troubling part of this is that it is clear that most Republicans are not acting in good faith. They will stop putting on a show of support for Trump when it is clear that they are no longer benefiting from doing so & not earlier. If that means standing by (or actively collaborating) as some seemingly unlikely strategy manages to overturn the electoral results, they are all fine with it.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by deadrose

Apparently only 50% of each donation to his vote-counting fund goes towards the actual vote-counting fund. The rest, IIRC, goes to retiring his election debts. Which is probably exactly why he's doing all this. He just wants to vacuum up all the money he can before he slinks off.

The fine print suggests that the percent that goes towards vote counting is far less than 50%. It might be in the neighborhood of 0%.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by The Don

If faithless electors in Pennsylvania can turn the election in President Trump's favour then that's what they'll do.

Right now they are trying very hard to figure out if they can do it. It's hard & they probably can't and if they do not do it, that is why they will not (it is probably not something that they would do if doing so changed nothing about the election so unless Trump has more than that, they won't —Biden probably has 306 EC votes so flipping 16 still leaves him the winner). Do not think that they won't because of previous statements saying that they will not. Such statements carry no weight.

In PA, Republicans have repeatedly said that this won't happen (I believe that they have even written an editorial to that effect). But if they can get away with it, they will do it. Here's a more recent article where one Jake Corman dismisses the question saying he does not wish to address "hypotheticals" but he gives Republicans an out by making sure to point out that previous comments on the matter applied to "normal circumstances":

Quote:

When asked Friday to confirm if the state legislature will award the state electors to the party that wins the popular vote, Corman said he does not like “to get into hypotheticals” but outlined his understanding of the election code.

“We will follow the law,” Corman said. “That’s all we’ve asked for in this process all along.”

“Under normal circumstances,” the legislature plays no role in selecting electors, he said.

So now statements to the effect that they will not do such a thing have become dismissive, generic non answers indicating that they "will follow the law" (is doing this illegal? My understanding is that it is not or that at a very minimum whether it is is open to interpretation) and that the legislature having no role in selecting electors is how things are done under "normal circumstances" (does this election qualify as "normal circumstances"?).

[d4m10n]

This is the sort of thing I've been seeing from #MAGA world:
https://twitter.com/TonyWillk/status...67727307829250

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This is the sort of thing I've been seeing from #MAGA world:
https://twitter.com/TonyWillk/status...67727307829250

Yeah, this is referring to the court case I described in the other thread. It only applies to mail-in ballots that 1) contained errors, that 2) were not corrected by the voter by Nov 9, which 3) the voter wanted to correct in the days Nov 10 - 12.

All ....10 of them....

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by The Don

....and this is why I'm not 100% sanguine about Joe Biden becoming President. It seems that the Republicans are prepared to do anything necessary to get the result(s) they want and that the overwhelming majority are perfectly happy to toe the company line, regardless of their personal feelings.

If faithless electors in Pennsylvania can turn the election in President Trump's favour then that's what they'll do.

Unless Trump somehow overturns another 2 states, all the electors in PA placing faithless votes for Trump wouldn't be enough.

And while I know Trump is a destroyer of norms, there has never in the history of the country been a case where faithless electors have changed who became president. Most faithless votes are protest votes, making a position heard. None of the 7 faithless votes in 2016 were for the opposing candidate.

Electors are selected by state parties.

For Trump to win by faithless electors, he'd need to have unprecedent and based on the current evidence, unwarranted success in overturning current state counts, more than any recount has ever offered. Then at least ten people, vetted by the PA democratic party would need to be secret MAGA hats in waiting, willing to essentially sleep with one eye open the rest of their lives after doing something we haven't come close to in 244 years of existence as a country.

There's still room for shenanigans, but that's not a plausible way it could go down.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Huh??? What are you talking about?

You are using the Tweets from a journalist quoting an aide as evidence that Trump is taking baby steps to accepting a loss.

My point is that this is not evidence!!!

If that's evidence, here we have another journalist talking to a Trump advisor more recently and the advisor is saying the opposite:

https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1326989666055299074:

Quote:

I'm in a zoom mtg now w/top #Trump advisor:
- Says he ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT concede
- few legal options right now to contest
- Electoral College is next target: claims there are "faithless electors" who can be turned for 20 states. Working on it now.
Electors meet Dec 14th.

Do we believe the first, this one or do we provisionally ignore both?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Me too. I knew it was coming but couldn't avoid it. Kinda like a drum solo or orgasm.

Why would you want to avoid an orgasm?

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Why would you want to avoid an orgasm?

Think temporally.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I would guess... I would guess... sorry, who is extrapolating?

That would be why I used the phrase "I would guess". That signals (quite clearly) that it is speculation... as opposed to this:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

the question is supporters, and voters clearly support him

Which is phrased as an assertion.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

To argue that a mere 60% of them or even a mere 40% or a mere 30% of them refuse to accept the result

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

{Has not accepted the results that are not yet officially nailed down} <> {Will always refuse to accept the results no matter what and will stage a co****

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's no evidence the SCOTUS is going to overturn the election and install Trump.

The others do not have the power to support a coup.

Additionally, I sincerely doubt the SC would ever do so. Regardless of their personal political preferences, most Judges in general, and ones qualified for SC positions in particular, tend to take their jobs pretty seriously.

Honestly folks. You've got me and Skeptic Ginger in agreement on this. If nothing else, that ought to give you pause to consider whether you're maybe overreacting a bit, hmm?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Why do you trust the word of his aide? How do we know the aide was faithfully representing his words?

Why do you trust the words of various anonymous leakers with inside knowledge when they support your viewpoint?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I never said that. That’s desperate.

I said I see no evidence his base is shrinking. You were the one arguing otherwise.

Now you are arguing that Trump is slowly accepting his loss. I see no evidence of that either.

{assume popcorn smiley here}
At this point, I'm wondering how long it will be before someone accuses SG of "carrying water" for Trump.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

If that's evidence, here we have another journalist talking to a Trump advisor more recently and the advisor is saying the opposite:

https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1326989666055299074:


Do we believe the first, this one or do we provisionally ignore both?

The latter is good practice when all the sources are completely anonymous.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Think temporally.

Oh right. This is one thing that women have a bit of an advantage on. Many of us can just have another!

[Modified]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If Trump supporters really believed the election was stolen, they would start a General Strike or indeed make a March on Washington or anything beyond just voicing their opinion.

The vast majority of Trump supporters only do so when it doesn't cost them anything.

Which is why these polls are mostly meaningless. If they asked "Do you believe Joe Biden is actually a vampire who feeds on Republican children and their pets, then secretly pees in their parents' lemonade?", 40% would answer yes. Results are hugely skewed by support or hatred for the person in question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Huh??? What are you talking about?

You are using the Tweets from a journalist quoting an aide as evidence that Trump is taking baby steps to accepting a loss.

My point is that this is not evidence!!!

You have claimed that because Trump's Tweets are crazy the aide's words are suspect.

"so now we can stop believing that tweet quoting the aide"

Edited to add after reading your other post: I didn't say it was absolute proof did I? Convincing or not, it's still evidence.

Trump's Tweets OTOH, have proven completely unreliable.

[The Atheist]

It occurs to me that if this situation were reversed and happening in say, Venezuela, USA would be claiming a coup had already taken place.

So far we have:

Failure to accept the result
Excluding the legitimate winner from information on security and Covid
Pushing ahead with budget planning for 2021
Secretary of State planning for inauguration of Trump's 2nd term

Hasn't the coup already happened?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Only if they don't actually have a plan to overturn the apparent results. Seems like an odd thing for anyone to infer, given that they aren't mounting legal and/or legislative challenges to the electoral process in the states with close margins except for the ones they appear to have narrowly lost. The question isn't whether they hope to overturn the results, the only question is how they are hoping to get there. Again, I recommend the Four Seasons video in which Rudy straight up talks about equitable relief from the courts.

Do you have evidence the legislators have a plan?

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

{Has not accepted the results that are not yet officially nailed down} <> {Will always refuse to accept the results no matter what and will stage a co****

In addition, we have a long history in Donald Trump of someone who has always been seen acting with maturity, honor & integrity. We can extrapolate from this, as well as from his empathetic & selfless character, that he wouldn't subvert democracy, if he could, merely because it might keep him out of jail for at least another 4 years.

Repeat after me, Trump is not like a normal president; Trump is not like a normal person.

Maybe some members of his cabinet can trick him or otherwise "coerce" him into desisting even as he continues to deny the results (presumably with the hope of continuing on as the "true president" in exile for the next few years until he gets tired, dies or runs again —whichever comes first). That is, pressure from people managing him might get him to make a non-concession concession. That's probably about as good as we can hope for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Right now they are trying very hard to figure out if they can do it. It's hard & they probably can't and if they do not do it, that is why they will not (it is probably not something that they would do if doing so changed nothing about the election so unless Trump has more than that, they won't —....

The electors aren't random people.

Quote:

Conservative talk radio show host Mark R. Levin declared in an all-caps Tweet Wednesday that Republican state legislatures “have the final say over choosing the electors” and told them to to “do your constitutional duty.”

Twitter has since flagged the message — which was retweeted by Republican National Committee spokesperson Elizabeth Harrington and Donald Trump Jr. — as possibly misleading. ....

State political parties each choose a slate of electors ahead of the general election. ...

“Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party,” ...

IOW the electors have already been chosen and they were chosen by the parties. The Democrats would have already chosen the electors in the states where Biden won.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This is the sort of thing I've been seeing from #MAGA world:
https://twitter.com/TonyWillk/status...67727307829250

Wasn't this already overturned on appeal?

The point is moot because it's not enough to change the outcome, but even if it was, wouldn't Trump want ballots that could help him counted?

This nonsense is silly (not you).

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Do you have evidence the legislators have a plan?

They said that the plan is to delay official certification, at least until they can find out where all those pesky Biden ballots came from and the perhaps throw some of them out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Cain]

It came down to tenths of a percentage point in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Can we just acknowledge that it sucks to lose an election you'd otherwise win because of razor thin margins in three states? The only way it would suck more is if a foreign government stole information, a "showboat" re-opened a BS criminal investigation 11 days before the election, you were leading in the polls all along, and you ended up getting millions more votes overall.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The electors aren't random people.IOW the electors have already been chosen and they were chosen by the parties. The Democrats would have already chosen the electors in the states where Biden won.

Sorry. I was responding to a post referring to faithless electors (which I assume refers to already appointed electors choosing to change their vote) which made my response confusing since that is not what I was trying to address. I meant to address the notion of a state legislative body replacing electors with their own choice and that is what the article I linked to was referring to (which is clear in what I quoted).

We have a politician saying that the legislature would not have such a role under "normal circumstances". This implies that this legislator thinks that the legislature could actually have such a role in some circumstances (just not normal ones). That does not mean that everyone thinks this but at least some Republican legislators in PA seem to think this.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It occurs to me that if this situation were reversed and happening in say, Venezuela, USA would be claiming a coup had already taken place.

So far we have:

Failure to accept the result
Excluding the legitimate winner from information on security and Covid
Pushing ahead with budget planning for 2021
Secretary of State planning for inauguration of Trump's 2nd term

Hasn't the coup already happened?

No, it hasn't already happened.

Failure to accept the result - the official results aren't technically out yet. The apparent results are, well, obvious to most anybody, but they aren't technically done yet.

Excluding the legitimate winner from information on security and Covid - this is a dick move, but it's not a requirement to share that information. And it's not uncommon for access to that information be delayed while the results are being contested - it was delayed for Bush too.

Pushing ahead with budget planning for 2021 - I'm less certain here, but I'm under the impression that budget planning for the coming year routinely starts in the prior year, even if that's an election year. I don't think this is at all out of the ordinary, and IIRC, the incoming president has opportunity to make budget adjustments once he takes office.

Secretary of State planning for inauguration of Trump's 2nd term - I'm currently planning for a major effort at work, for a thing that is contingent. The thing itself may not happen, but planning has to go forward as if it were certain, otherwise we wouldn't have time to get it done. That may not be the case here, but I'll refer you back to item 2, and remind you that it's Trump, so a jackass move shouldn't surprise anyone.

And at the end of all of that... The coup hasn't actually happened, because, well, it' hasn't actually happened. Trump has not stayed in office beyond his term, the election results haven't been overturned or ignored. You might think that Trump is in the process of attempting a coup, which is your prerogative, but it still hasn't yet occurred.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And it's not uncommon for access to that information be delayed while the results are being contested - it was delayed for Bush too.

Hence the bits of the 9/11 report recommending a smoother, faster transition.

ETA: Might should make Americans wonder whether the current "coup" (whether theatrical or actual) is actively endangering national security.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

No, it hasn't already happened.

Failure to accept the result - the official results aren't technically out yet. The apparent results are, well, obvious to most anybody, but they aren't technically done yet.

Has any candidate ever failed to acknowledge the result in these circumstances? W isn't comparable, because the election hinged on hundreds of votes in one state, not hundreds of thousands in multiple states.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Excluding the legitimate winner from information on security and Covid - this is a dick move, but it's not a requirement to share that information.

I'm reminded of the 1984 election in NZ where the loser failed to accept the Opposition's position, and remarkably, his own party told him to pull his head in.

Has a similar situation ever occurred in USA?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And it's not uncommon for access to that information be delayed while the results are being contested - it was delayed for Bush too.

As above, Bush isn't relevant, and the result isn't being contested. The Trumpers have presented zero evidence. It's being cried about, but not actually contested.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And at the end of all of that... The coup hasn't actually happened, because, well, it' hasn't actually happened.

The apocryphal analogy of boiled frogs springs to mind.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Has any candidate ever failed to acknowledge the result in these circumstances? W isn't comparable, because the election hinged on hundreds of votes in one state, not hundreds of thousands in multiple states.



I'm reminded of the 1984 election in NZ where the loser failed to accept the Opposition's position, and remarkably, his own party told him to pull his head in.

Has a similar situation ever occurred in USA?



As above, Bush isn't relevant, and the result isn't being contested. The Trumpers have presented zero evidence. It's being cried about, but not actually contested.



The apocryphal analogy of boiled frogs springs to mind.

None of that suggests that a coup has already occurred.

[eerok]

I think Trump's coup d'etat is doing as well as his coupe de cheveux.