Comment by logicslave
5 years ago
"they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office"
I think you are very far from reality
5 years ago
"they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office"
I think you are very far from reality
I'd love to live in this world, but it is not one I think anyone can afford to live in. This man is a true narcissist who has very little respect for the office, the institutions he's responsible for, or more than half the country. All sorts of things that were very far from reality are no longer.
But I would love to be able to agree with you. That would be a better world. But the world we live in is where the President says "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," a racist dog whistle to the 1960s, who "jokes" about staying past any term limits, where enablers in Congress and in the media allow him to toe the line of criminal behavior with no accountability as long as it benefits them. That's reality. I wish it were different, but I cannot take your position and reconcile it with what's in front of us today.
It's not about what Trump does. It's about what everyone else does. He's very good at getting attention with stunts that have no practical or legal effect. This includes signing executive orders, which sounds like doing something but it's not necessarily so.
So you need to look at scenarios where other people do stuff, and why it happens. Are there orders he can give and will people follow them? If not directly due to an order, how does it happen?
Trump barely has support now, nothing close to the widespread popularity he’d need to refuse to leave office. There’s about a 0% chance the Supreme Court goes along with it, and without an election the Presidency automatically transfers.
He’d also have to be astoundingly popular among the Secret Service for them to betray their oaths. His military support would tank, and him, his family, and administration would be in constant fear for their lives. IMO, he’s just not that insane, stupid, or popular enough to even try.
I think you're basically making an "it can't happen here" argument, and I wholly disagree. I worry this kind of thinking effectively guarantees it will happen here eventually, because it relies on dynamics that govern legitimacy remaining the same as they have been in the past. The way it would happen is specifically if the dynamics of loyalty and who has legitimate authority change, and we've seen over the last four years that that's 100% happening. The only question is how deep the distrust of institution goes and how far the people in key positions will go to defend a President they are loyal to. If you can convince enough people to distrust the process of picking the President, you can create enough chaos to break apart the forces that would normally counter that kind of thing.
Look at any nation that underwent major coups; factions form, and it tears the organizations you've listed apart at the seams. Because a conflict of legitimacy exposes those seams, and those seams are absolutely present today. A Secret Service agent, an army colonel, armed militia, border patrol agents—if they can be made to believe the results of the election are illegitimate, they may consider the best way to fulfill their oaths to be stopping the "illegitimate" president from taking office. They will think of themselves as the ones stopping the coup.
I'd love to believe that all of those dynamics you're describing are the same as they were 20 years ago. I'd also make your argument then. But they aren't anymore. It can happen here.
5 replies →
Not going to weigh in more generally - but he seems to be doing pretty fine according to recent polls
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
6 replies →
> without an election the Presidency automatically transfers.
Says who? You've never had a President try to suspend or tamper with an election.
1 reply →
In order for trump to make a military coup and disband elections, he need more than the title of office. Even for something like sending in the military in order to push demonstrators, you need the direct support of the military. Is there any evidence that he as that kind of support?
Without such support, all the can do is push peoples buttons. He can ask the national guard to go to the location, which the national guard will likely accept in order to look helpful and useful. He might be able to impose a curfew, through the courts will fight him there. He might even be able to impose rules against large gatherings, which again the courts would fight him over. But I don't see how officers and generals would accept an order to start shooting civilians. Even if we disregard the moral question, just the liability risk from "just following orders" makes me question how much control a president have over the military to do acts which the law and common understanding of the law says are illegal. Intentionally killing your own civilians is a pretty major step for any nations military.
Sending in the national guard is naturally still a terrible idea as someone is likely to get shot accidentally. There was a good reason why the 9/11 military posted at airports wielded guns with empty magazines. Trump has likely the ability to cause accidentally shooting when the looting starts by placing the wrong people at the wrong location with the wrong training and wrong gear. He has a much harder time to accidentally cause a military coup and disband elections.
very very far from reality. i heard the same thing from liberal friends about GWB and i heard the same thing from conservative friends about Obama.
During his 'The president has total power' gaffe he at one point said something along "I am president, the president isn't a person, but the office. I have the office now. Then the next guy will have the office..." You know, the kind of thing a dictator would say. Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.
The context for this is also that although Democrats wanted Obama to use executive orders to advance their agenda, Obama understood that future presidents would use his use of executive orders as precedent for their own--regardless of to what party they belong.
> Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.
You feel the urge to defend someone whose actions are indefensible. Why is that? If I had to guess, I would say it's because you feel the urge to always be the contrarian. Whatever you feel the majority opinion is, there is an urge to go against it. This is probably because your feeling of self-worth is attached to the notion of being a contrarian. Going against the majority opinion makes you feel special, and in a way, it makes you feel superior. In my experience, it is a symptom of deeper issues - insecurity, fear of the unknown. The risk, if you don't address this issue, is that you will find yourself defending more and more extreme positions, and even seeking out more extreme positions to defend. This will cause social isolation, as people with more maintstream opinions such as "dangerous criminals should not be elected president" start avoiding you, and are replaced by other "contrarians".
3 replies →
Vladimir Putin talks about his office in a similar way. Yet he's managed to hold it for 20 years even though the Russian constitution was supposed to limit him to two four-year terms.
At least since Augustus, dictators have been diligent in paying lip service to law and established tradition while trampling over both.
Out of interest, what public statements from Obama did your conservative friends use to justify those beliefs?
Did you read the end of the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
The opinions of your friends on subjects they don't understand are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of actual experts on the topic of autocracy. There is strong consensus among those experts that the Trump administration is, in fact, implementing a transition to autocracy. Specifically a kleptocratic autocracy following the Russian model.
You are free to ignore the scientific consensus about the rise of autocracy in the US. Just like you are free to ignore the scientific consensus about global heating. But the facts remain the facts.
> What is relevant is the opinion of actual experts on the topic of autocracy.
What happens to the “experts” when they are wrong?
2 replies →
You mention unnamed "experts" and "consensus" without citation.
Post your sources.
2 replies →
Comparing GWB to Trump is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Trump is an actual wannabe autocrat, as opposed to GWB and Obama.
And yet Obama jailed journalists and worked towards instituting Socialist ideas - which include a ruling class.
Meanwhile, Trumps only "autocrat" proof is words? He talks snit... What has he done to become a King? Nothing he's done so far isn't powers used by previous Presidents - including Obama.
What actual has Trump taken to expand Presidential powers? And what steps has Trump taken to become a King?
Because until actual actions are taken... words are just Trump talking shit. Which he's allowed to do...
3 replies →
I did too, but the funny thing about "this time is different", is that sometimes it is true. Consider the fact that Trump is the only president that said he would not respect the results of an election if he lost. Also consider the dramatic backsliding in democracy we've seen in other countries throughout the world in the last decade. Vladimir Putin never explicitly called himself Emperor for Life, but for all practical purposes, he is just that.
At the end of the day there is no such thing as "the law". They are just words written on paper.
I heard those things too. This is the first time I've considered it even slightly plausible. I'd give it a 20% chance that he calls on his most fanatical base to march armed on DC if he loses the election.
Go check into the Qanon cult and similar circles. There are conservatively probably a few hundred thousand people in this country that would take up arms against the (literal) baby eating pedophile illuminati. All he has to do is say "the storm is upon us" and provide instructions. "Where we go one we go all."
Can any constitutional scholars comment on what happens then? What if he as commander in chief orders the military to stand down? Would they obey him or protect the constitution? What about the national guard? Local police? What would any of these agencies do if removing Trump required opening fire on tens of thousands of Americans?
Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were much more broadly popular than Trump, but the thought of them attempting this and having any chance of success is laughable. I don't even think Bush II could have pulled it off right after 9/11 at the peak of his popularity and with his powerful religious right base.
Trump on the other hand has a fan base unlike any I've ever seen. If you don't believe me research Qanon. There's a shockingly large group of people who worship him as something almost akin to a prophet. I'm sure there's some percentage who would die for him. It's a bit disturbing.
I agree that it's unlikely, but it is plausible.
Personally I think he will leave office, but what he has accomplished is to pave the way for an actual future dictator.
If the COVID recession plus unlimited QE results in further divergence between the real economy and the financial economy I could definitely see real fascism or totalitarian socialism winning some day. As I've been saying for a while, which one we get probably depends on which side is able to field the most compelling demagogue. I don't think people will care about left or right as long as there are pitchforks being handed out.
I think it's impossible to predict whether he makes such a call, it's the realm of psychology. What's the trigger? Let's say he loses the election. Does his decompensation happen so fast and so hard that he turns into Jell-O? Or does he rage tweet (or go on Facebook or TV or all of the above) that the election is rigged, illegal, invalid, and must be challenged with violence, before it's too late?
shrug
At that moment it is less about law than it is about character of other leaders. Does the Vice President, who is still the VP following his own election loss, contradict the POTUS' election fraud claims and call for violence? Necessarily on the table is 25th amendment and/or impeachment. A call for violent revolution to achieve the dissolution of constitutional order is unquestionably a violation of oath of office for any elected official.
People are conditioned to think that an impeachment would take a week or more. If Congresscritters actually get scared? They can follow strict rules of order and still get it done very quickly. Hours. The real impediments to speed are physical presence in the chamber. Not opposition. They will not wait for TV cameras, spectator chairs or tickets to get printed. If they really believe the POTUS is trying to incite an overthrow of the government, which is what autocracy means, they know full well they are inside the blast radius of imploding power.
2 replies →
I dont.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/trump-jokes-rigg...
> Since assuming office in January 2017, Trump has made at least 27 references to staying in office beyond the constitutional limit of two terms. He often follows up with a remark indicating he is “joking,” “kidding,” or saying it to drive the “fake” news media “crazy.” Even if Trump thinks that he’s only “joking,” the comments fit a broader pattern that raises the prospect that Trump may not leave office quietly in the event he’s on the losing end of a very close election.
"What if I...didn't leave office, as a joke...aha ha, just kidding... unless?"
OTOH people who hated Bush Jr. thought there was a good chance, and some evidence, that he'd find a way to stay in office past his term. Same with Obama.
This is how he uses the Overton window to change the conversation. He's very good at this sort of thing.
When Trump leaves office he will be open to an enormous amount of investigation, litigation and prosecution. I don't know how probable it is that he tries to stay in office, but I don't think it is zero. Twitter planning around that possibility seems be less likely.
How far do you think he would go in order to try?
My personal estimate is zero. He can't really cash in until he leaves office.
I'm not certain that is true. Wouldn't the most effective way to profit from the presidency be to cultivate your persona as a twitter troll, and tip someone off when you are about to make a market moving tweet so they can place a leveraged bet?
I don't think insider trading law would apply, but in any case we seem to have established that he's above the law and can't be impeached. He, or friends beholden to him, could be trillionaires by the time they leave office.
It would certainly explain why he continually makes inflammatory statements about China and everything else, without seeming to consistently pursue anything.
3 replies →
> My personal estimate is zero. He can't really cash in until he leaves office.
This seems true for a normal president, but Trump has never been shy about self enrichment even while in office, so it's not clear what incentive there is for him to leave.
What makes you think that? What do you think "cashing in" entails, and what do you think prevents the Trump family from doing it now?
Also, how would he and his family stay out of jail if they can no longer control the judiciary and FBI?
3 replies →