American Civil War II: Is It Coming?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Bubba

In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.....

https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/0...g-to-ny-times/

You are copying propaganda from the extremist right wing blogger and conspiracy theorist "The Pacific Pundit"

Media Fact Check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pacific-pundit/
"Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Lack of Transparency, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks"

This page offers direct examples of the Pacific Pundit webpage forging evidence and quotes

[Lurch]

For the US, I alternate between hope and despair, depending on the tone of the news of the day.

At the moment I'm leaning toward a fear of awful ruction. Not necessarily on a national scale. My pessimism is aroused by the widespread societal devolution into a broad acceptance of bat-**** crazy CTs. The mythical, stoic, self-reliant 'Marlboro man' is far more often a provincially-minded, corn-fed lardass cradling his AR-15, venting his fear-induced hate and rage against an illusion fed by an all-encompassing propaganda willingly swallowed.

I see this horrible feedback loop, becomingly increasingly amplified like the synchronized, harmonic oscillation that ends in catastrophic failure of a structure. On the one end, a sociopath desperate to remain out of prison. On the other end, a cult of unthinking zombies in thrall to their 'god.' And between, a cynical propaganda machine propping the one and goading the rest.

A downhill track that a crucial number must perceive and leap off of in order that the worst destination be avoided.

[Craig4]

I'm expecting lots of Portlands, with convoys of the Gravy SEALS driving through cities, turning Trump's predictions into self-fulfilling prophesy. There will probably be some anti immigrant violence like the Walmart shooting in El Paso by lone wolf actors. Sadly, the counter protestors won't have the good sense to stay home.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I'm expecting lots of Portlands, with convoys of the Gravy SEALS driving through cities, turning Trump's predictions into self-fulfilling prophesy. There will probably be some anti immigrant violence like the Walmart shooting in El Paso by lone wolf actors. Sadly, the counter protestors won't have the good sense to stay home.

I think it's going to get worse, too.

I live in Portland (actually Portland address, but not downtown), and I think the violent protesters are doing far more damage to their message than good and need to just stop this nonsense. They're defeating their own purpose at this point.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I think it's going to get worse, too.

I live in Portland (actually Portland address, but not downtown), and I think the violent protesters are doing far more damage to their message than good and need to just stop this nonsense. They're defeating their own purpose at this point.

Which is?

You may think violence detracts from what you are protesting about, and you would be right. But the real message is how angry they are about it. When peaceful protest doesn't get the message through, violent protest is the logical next step. And when that fails... welcome to Civil War II!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Which is?

You may think violence detracts from what you are protesting about, and you would be right. But the real message is how angry they are about it. When peaceful protest doesn't get the message through, violent protest is the logical next step. And when that fails... welcome to Civil War II!

Their purpose is to bring attention to the systemic racism in policing. But the violence in some place, specifically Portland, is having an overall negative effect. Support for the BLM is falling and it is largely due to the violence.

Quote:

Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020). Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/dem...r-summer-2020/

[chrispy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x76cmGMfCQ

Maybe not music for all, but something to think about. And I think all sides would hear their anger in this.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Their purpose is to bring attention to the systemic racism in policing. But the violence in some place, specifically Portland, is having an overall negative effect. Support for the BLM is falling and it is largely due to the violence.

That's what you say, but is it true?

I think the violent protesters are sick of having to passively put up with police brutality etc., and need something to lash out at. Obviously they can't do that to the object of their ire, so they attack what they can.

And the public is aghast. Not understanding the real motivation and spurious association to BLM, they feel embarrassed about their support for it. And of course latent racist thoughts get stirred up as well. As your link pointed out:-

Quote:

“deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population

[Craig4]

When considering the idea of a post election civil war, people need to open their minds to the whole parade of horribles for what is doctrinally known as "Conflict short of war". There are a slew of options in between a peaceful transition of power and civil war. All of them involve, to go a bit Shakespearean, bloody constraint, heads bashed into walls by their venerable beards, and mad mothers with their howls confused that do break the clouds.

From what I said in previous posts, I expect our cities to burn in meaningless conflicts, the outcome of which will do nothing to change the outcome of the Electoral College vote in December.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Nope BOTH sides are guilty, and thus suck. Orange Man Bad doesnt exist in a vaccuum

The are all manner of orbital launches these days.
Wouldn't it be interesting if he tried?

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by fishbob

The are all manner of orbital launches these days.
Wouldn't it be interesting if he tried?

Yes, like Clin Ton and Dole!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

tl;dr

https://youtu.be/sGvTzIOSFyc?t=275

[crescent]

Two items of interest. One suggests things are becoming ripe for civil conflict. The other suggests that America's current demographics disfavor such strife on the scale of a civil war:

1) Movements thrive on martyrs, they provide a focus for anger and grief, and nurse the idea that things have moved beyond the point of no return. Salon describes the issue here, suggesting that both sides now have such martyrs to focus on:

American bloodlands: In a deeply polarized nation, mass violence is not far away

Quote:

The spark that usually sets such tinder ablaze is martyrdom. Aaron "Jay" Danielson, a supporter of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, was wearing a loaded Glock pistol in a holster and had bear spray and an expandable metal baton when he was shot dead on Aug. 29, allegedly by Michael Forest Reinoehl, a supporter of antifa, in the streets of Portland, Oregon. A woman in the crowd can be heard shouting after the shooting: "I am not sad that a ******* fascist died tonight." On Thursday, Reinoehl, allegedly armed with a handgun, was shot and killed by federal agents in Washington state.

Once people start being sacrificed for the cause, it takes little for demagogues of the radical left and the radical right to insist that self-preservation necessitates violence and is a prerequisite for victory.

2) The counter to that idea is that the population of America may just be too old to have itself a civil war. Old men may decide to send the young off to fight far away, but a civil war requires conflict and sacrifice and practical support from a much wider proportion of the population compared to say, deciding to send some hundreds of thousands of young men off to Vietnam. Too many Americans are too old to be willing to fight themselves, and there are not enough young people full of fire to really kick things off.

Population Age Structure and Its Relation to Civil Conflict: A Graphic Metric

Quote:

• Of countries without recent civil conflict, 24 percent of all states with more than 60 percent of their population under 30 years of age (i.e., a young age structure) experienced at least one incident of civil conflict during
the following decade. Among countries with less than 60 percent under 30 years of age, just 7 percent experienced civil conflict.

Conclusion: One-fourth of all non-conflict countries with young age structures will likely experience a new civil conflict during the next decade.


• About 86 percent of all countries that experienced a new outbreak of civil conflict had age structures with 60 percent or more of the population younger than 30 years of age. Although country age structures in many
regions matured between 1970 and 1999, this “outbreak benchmark” remained virtually constant.

Conclusion: This “60-percent-under30” benchmark could serve as a means to identify and track a state’s demographic risks of civil conflict (see figures below).

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Quote:

Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property”

And 43% of respondents nationwide approve of Trump. Coincidence? I think not.

The (lack of) violence isn't changing people's minds. The Deplorables hate civil rights and brown people, so of course they say that BLM is inciting violence. They would say that anyway. Because they are deplorable.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

And 43% of respondents nationwide approve of Trump. Coincidence? I think not.

The (lack of) violence isn't changing people's minds. The Deplorables hate civil rights and brown people, so of course they say that BLM is inciting violence. They would say that anyway. Because they are deplorable.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if there isn't a connection. After all, they seem to swallow whatever other nonsense Dear Leader spews forth from his mouth.

[The Atheist]

If Civil War is coming, at least the participants will be well-armed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN26622A

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If Civil War is coming, at least the participants will be well-armed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN26622A

The thing about US sales of guns is that the numbers are very misleading: the people who rush to buy guns usually already have guns in their home.
Unless I see some data to the contrary, I think that the number of people owning guns isn't rising significantly.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The thing about US sales of guns is that the numbers are very misleading: the people who rush to buy guns usually already have guns in their home.
Unless I see some data to the contrary, I think that the number of people owning guns isn't rising significantly.

The number of guns sales may be steady or going up but the number of gun owners has gone down. It varies regionally, but over all, only about a third of households have guns in them. It's more guns in the hands of fewer people.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Craig4

The number of guns sales may be steady or going up but the number of gun owners has gone down. It varies regionally, but over all, only about a third of households have guns in them. It's more guns in the hands of fewer people.

And, let's be honest, most of those gun-owning people are fat, old, and riddled with diabetes and COPD and heart conditions. They may imagine themselves as mighty warriors but if it came down to actual combat they'll be wiped out by a set of stairs or a gentle slope. The recoil of their own guns will do more damage to themselves than they could realistically hope to deal out to others.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

They may imagine themselves as mighty warriors but if it came down to actual combat they'll be wiped out by a set of stairs or a gentle slope.

*Makes note*

Ensure defence positions are on hills too steep for motorised mobility machines.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And, let's be honest, most of those gun-owning people are fat, old, and riddled with diabetes and COPD and heart conditions. They may imagine themselves as mighty warriors but if it came down to actual combat they'll be wiped out by a set of stairs or a gentle slope. The recoil of their own guns will do more damage to themselves than they could realistically hope to deal out to others.

There's a reason I like to call the right-wing militias the Gravy SEALS.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

*Makes note*

Ensure defence positions are on hills too steep for motorised mobility machines.

This is where I don't take most of the militias all that seriously. Having a firearm is not the same as having combat power. Combat power is the ability to apply lethal force at a decisive place in the battle space. Applying force at decisive point requires having a force over which someone exercises a great deal of command and control so they can direct that force to the decisive place in the battle space.

Mostly what I see in the Gravy SEALS are people who treat a firearm as if it were a fetish item to ward away evil. The weapon itself requires a great deal of training and discipline to master. The ability to shoot, move and communicate as part of a unit with a common mission, requires even more training and discipline to master.

So far, what I see is an armed mob. What I saw in Portland two weekends ago showed a level of organization to spread the violence that I didn't expect. However, that was an effort to sow chaos. I didn't see anything that makes me think these militias can achieve and hold military objectives. So I don't expect civil war but I do expect a great deal of chaos.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Craig4

There's a reason I like to call the right-wing militias the Gravy SEALS.

I prefer Meal Team Six.

Originally Posted by Craig4

Mostly what I see in the Gravy SEALS are people who treat a firearm as if it were a fetish item to ward away evil. The weapon itself requires a great deal of training and discipline to master. The ability to shoot, move and communicate as part of a unit with a common mission, requires even more training and discipline to master.

Ironically the justification behind founding the NRA, when the Union discovered that their city boy conscripts couldn't shoot for crap.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The thing about US sales of guns is that the numbers are very misleading: the people who rush to buy guns usually already have guns in their home.
Unless I see some data to the contrary, I think that the number of people owning guns isn't rising significantly.

I think that's true. I don't own a gun and I'm certainly not going to go out and buy one. Nor is anyone I know. I think it's the gun nuts and their paranoia running rampant who are fueling this.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Mostly what I see in the Gravy SEALS are people who treat a firearm as if it were a fetish item to ward away evil.

Cowards' guns.

Trouble is, with the kind of firepower available to people in USA, you can do an immense amount of damage with very little skill.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I prefer Meal Team Six.

Also acceptable as is Ya'll Qaida.

[Mike!]

Well Glenn Beck is now saying a civil war is coming, so it isn't, and this thread can be closed.

[Puppycow]

RBG dying makes the Boogaloo somewhat more likely.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Also acceptable as is Ya'll Qaida.

As a side note about all these Gravy Seals and wannabe freedom fighters, the new film by the guys and gals who made Four Lions is phenomenally good. It's called The Day Shall Come, and it also explores (and satirizes) the FBI's entrapment of possible terrorists. If you liked Four Lions, I highly recommend it. Also, we all need a laugh in times like these.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

RBG dying makes the Boogaloo somewhat more likely.

Yeah, I trimmed the odds a couple of points after seeing she'd died. Maybe 10% more likely than it was yesterday.

[The Great Zaganza]

When the Civil War comes, we non-gun owners will be glad that all the gun nuts paid for and maintained such nice arsenals for us to come and get.

[The Atheist]

And a couple more points shaved off the odds today: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12367652

[The Great Zaganza]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Cases like the Taylor shooting, blocking Garland but nominating RBG replacement, messing with mail-in ballots and refusing to accept peaceful transition all push Democrats to stop looking for peaceful ways to politically establish the popular support they have.

I wonder if this, too, isn't the GOP plan.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

And a couple more points shaved off the odds today: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12367652

For the last two years, some of us have been warning this could happen.... and we have been mocked and ridiculed for it.

Well mock no more friends... this is really happening, in real time, in front of your eyes. If Trump isn't reined in by the rest of GOP, y'all will have a front row seat to watch blow-by-blow as "The Great Experiment" fails and American democracy dies.

[crescent]

I posted this in another thread a while back, some of it seems more likely now than when I wrote it:

Originally Posted by crescent

This article seems relevant:

Where the System May Break




If the link to that article is paywalled, Vox has similar coverage of the same "war game". How to avert a post-election nightmare

From that article:




Essentially, mess with the electoral college. I can see that happening. A state with a GOP governor goes narrowly Democratic? - then Governor declares all mail-in votes suspect and invalidates them. Orders election workers to look more closely for spoiled ballots - starting in Dem districts. Its not about creating fake votes, that's too hard. But it is easy to throw away valid votes.

There have even been scenarios proposed where a single state sends two conflicting delegations to the EC - one from a governor, one from the legislature. And the legal remedies to that are not all that clear cut.

I keep thinking of Texas. Many Republicans love Texas, they imagine a state filled with well-armed big men named "Hoss" and "Bubba", who drive big trucks. They feel that Texas is pure GOP territory, I think they can't imagine Texas voting Dem - but it could happen. (Personally, I don't think it will, not yet, but for the sake of argument we'll imagine it does as some models suggest is possible.) One could imagine the state GOP machine kicking into overdrive to ensure that the EC from Texas stays Republican - it has to. It is their state, their Republican state, no election can change that. So they mess with the EC somehow.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, expect the lame duck Senate to try to impeach RBG by claiming she is no longer mentally competent. Regardless of how the election goes, Mitch McConnell will still be the Senate Majority leader until inauguration day. I he thinks he needs to get rid of Dem SC Justice, he'll try, he's shown himself to be partisan to the point of immorality.

Remember that if anything happens, it will all be couched in very legalistic terminology. It won't be Trump crying and whining and throwing a tantrum. It will be lawyers citing laws, citing the constitution as reasons for throwing away votes, for sending EC delegations that don't match a given state's popular vote. Lots of legal cites of state laws and constitutions are they relate to appointing EC delegates and determining how those delegates vote.

If things go really, really south (which I don't actually expect), then one would expect Trump (or Pence) to cite this or that portion of the Constitution as the justification for suspending certain other parts of the Constitution and inconvenient laws. Look at most third-world coups, that's how they often do it, citing the legal national charter as the justification for suspending that charter. For example, they could make claims about threats to the Second Amendment as justification for this or that - enough rabid militia and Qanon gun nuts would accept any justification if it is coached as a defense of the 2nd.

Don't expect the military to do squat. They'll mostly sit it out, a surprising number of civil wars feature a national military watching from the sidelines until things are more advanced. Some military people may take action, but the big assets will just sit and watch.


I mostly don't think any of that will actually happen - but I would be much happier if I felt more certain of that. Things are pretty bad. We'll have a nice clear winner and peaceful inauguration of the winner. I think.

There was a pretty long, detailed and disturbing article today in the Atlantic. Worth a read:

The Election That Could Break America

Quote:

Just under a year ago, Justin Clark gave a closed-door talk in Wisconsin to a select audience of Republican lawyers. ....

At the time, Clark was a senior lieutenant with Trump’s re*election campaign; in July, he was promoted to deputy campaign manager. “Wisconsin’s the state that is going to tip this one way or the other … So it makes EDO really, really, really important,” he said. He put the mission bluntly: “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes … [Democrats’] voters are all in one part of the state, so let’s start playing offense a little bit. And that’s what you’re going to see in 2020. That’s what’s going to be markedly different. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program, and we’re going to need all the help we can get.” ....

Of all the favorable signs for Trump’s Election Day operations, Clark explained, “first and foremost is the consent decree’s gone.” He was referring to a court order forbidding Republican operatives from using any of a long list of voter-purging and intimidation techniques. The expiration of that order was a “huge, huge, huge, huge deal,” Clark said.

.... The 2020 presidential election will be the first in 40 years to take place without a federal judge requiring the Republican National Committee to seek approval in advance for any “ballot security” operations at the polls. In 2018, a federal judge allowed the consent decree to expire, ruling that the plaintiffs had no proof of recent violations by Republicans.....

Quote:

Trump’s instinct as a spectator in 2018—to stop the count—looks more like strategy this year. “There are results that come in Election Night,” a legal adviser to Trump’s national campaign, who would not agree to be quoted by name, told me. “There’s an expectation in the country that there will be winners and losers called. If the Election Night results get changed because of the ballots counted after Election Day, you have the basic ingredients for a *********.”

There is no “if” about it, I said. The count is bound to change. “Yeah,” the adviser agreed, and canvassing will produce more votes for Biden than for Trump. Democrats will insist on dragging out the canvass for as long as it takes to count every vote. The resulting conflict, the adviser said, will be on their heads.

“They are asking for it,” he said. “They’re trying to maximize their electoral turnout, and they think there are no downsides to that.” He added, “There will be a count on Election Night, that count will shift over time, and the results when the final count is given will be challenged as being inaccurate, fraudulent—pick your word.”

The worst case for an orderly count is also considered by some election modelers the likeliest: that Trump will jump ahead on Election Night, based on in-person returns, but his lead will slowly give way to a Biden victory as mail-in votes are tabulated. ....

Quote:

Suppose that caravans of Trump supporters, adorned in Second Amendment accessories, converge on big-city polling places on Election Day. They have come, they say, to investigate reports on social media of voter fraud. Counter*protesters arrive, fistfights break out, shots are fired, and voters flee or cannot reach the polls.

Then suppose the president declares an emergency. Federal personnel in battle dress, staged nearby in advance, move in to restore law and order and secure the balloting. Amid ongoing clashes, they stay to monitor the canvass. They close the streets that lead to the polls. They take custody of uncounted ballots in order to preserve evidence of fraud.

“The president can’t cancel the election, but what if he says, ‘We’re in an emergency, and we’re shutting down this area for a period of time because of the violence taking place’?” says Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. If you are in Trump’s camp and heedless of boundaries, he said, “what I would expect is you’re not going to do one or two of these things—you’ll do as many as you can.”

There are variations of the nightmare. The venues of intervention could be post offices. The predicate could be a putative intelligence report on forged ballots sent from China.

Quote:

According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

...

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

“If you have this notion,” the adviser said, “that ballots can come in for I don’t know how many days—in some states a week, 10 days—then that onslaught of ballots just gets pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?”

Quote:

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

Quote:

In any of these scenarios, the Electoral College would convene on December 14 without a consensus on who had legitimate claims to cast the deciding votes.

Rival slates of electors could hold mirror-image meetings in Harris*burg, Lansing, Tallahassee, or Phoenix, casting the same electoral votes on opposite sides. Each slate would transmit its ballots, as the Constitution provides, “to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” The next move would belong to Vice President Mike Pence.

Quote:

Suppose Pennsylvania alone sends rival slates of electors, and their 20 votes will decide the presidency.

One reading of the Electoral Count Act says that Congress must recognize the electors certified by the governor, who is a Democrat, unless the House and Senate agree otherwise. The House will not agree otherwise, and so Biden wins Pennsylvania and the White House. But Pence pounds his gavel and rules against this reading of the law, instead favoring another, which holds that Congress must discard both contested slates of electors. The garbled statute can plausibly be read either way.

With Pennsylvania’s electors disqualified, 518 electoral votes remain. If Biden holds a narrow lead among them, he again claims the presidency, because he has “the greatest number of votes,” as the Twelfth Amendment prescribes. But Republicans point out that the same amendment requires “a majority of the whole number of electors.” The whole number of electors, Pence rules, is 538, and Biden is short of the required 270.

On this argument, no one has attained the presidency, and the decision is thrown to the House, with one vote per state. If the current partisan balance holds, 26 out of 50 votes will be for Trump.

....House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expels all senators from the floor of her chamber. Now Pence is prevented from completing the count “in the presence of” the House, as the Constitution requires. Pelosi announces plans to stall indefinitely. If the count is still incomplete on Inauguration Day, the speaker herself will become acting president.

Pelosi prepares to be sworn in on January 20 unless Pence reverses his ruling and accepts that Biden won. Pence does not budge. He reconvenes the Senate in another venue, with House Republicans squeezing in, and purports to complete the count, making Trump the president-elect. Three people now have supportable claims to the Oval Office.

There are other paths in the labyrinth. Many lead to dead ends.

I quoted a lot - but it is really just a fraction of a long and detailed article. My guess we'll have an election, lots of courtroom drama, followed by some general legal agreement as to the winner - like Bush v Gore only longer, louder, and messier but eventually leading to a mostly legally accepted conclusion. Sadly, the antiquated EC setup and general emotional intensity leave room for me to be wrong about that. Too much room to be wrong, much to much. I'm not feeling real good about the prospects, to be frank.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

For the last two years, some of us have been warning this could happen.... and we have been mocked and ridiculed for it.

Pah, a couple of years - I'll have most of a decade.

I must try to find the thread somewhere in which I had a huge fight with RandFan, where I was arguing that America was irreversibly broken into two opposing camps. He disagreed vehemently.

I'd love to see him back here!

What an unbelievably historic year we're having, and I fully expect the US election to surpass the rest of it. Watching the American empire crumble from the inside is fascinating, and I'm glad to be watching from a long way away.

Originally Posted by crescent

I'm not feeling real good about the prospects, to be frank.

I fear for the Americans who aren't scum.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by crescent

I posted this in another thread a while back, some of it seems more likely now than when I wrote it:



There was a pretty long, detailed and disturbing article today in the Atlantic. Worth a read:

The Election That Could Break America


I quoted a lot - but it is really just a fraction of a long and detailed article. My guess we'll have an election, lots of courtroom drama, followed by some general legal agreement as to the winner - like Bush v Gore only longer, louder, and messier but eventually leading to a mostly legally accepted conclusion. Sadly, the antiquated EC setup and general emotional intensity leave room for me to be wrong about that. Too much room to be wrong, much to much. I'm not feeling real good about the prospects, to be frank.

That was a depressing read. Seems pretty certain this is what is going to happen, and then we'll have all the resident Trumpkins running their mouths about how it's in the interest of democracy to stop counting votes.

How do Democrats and others who don't wish for US democracy to die respond to this? If the election is stolen in this manner, is it time for arms?

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by uke2se

That was a depressing read. Seems pretty certain this is what is going to happen, and then we'll have all the resident Trumpkins running their mouths about how it's in the interest of democracy to stop counting votes.

How do Democrats and others who don't wish for US democracy to die respond to this? If the election is stolen in this manner, is it time for arms?

Its the right that tends to have all the arms.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Its the right that tends to have all the arms.

So we know where to get them - very considered for some few gun-nuts to buy all the weapons and ammo so we don't have to.

[carlosy]

There are two important answers missing in the poll:

- When is it going to end?

and

- Who is going to win?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by carlosy

There are two important answers missing in the poll:

- When is it going to end?

and

- Who is going to win?

Those answers wouldn't fit the question "American Civil War II: Is it Coming?"