Trump did try to ask his secretary of defense to invoke the insurrection act and essentially rule by martial law. He also considered cancelling the 2020 election. in those cases he was stopped by members of his own administration. Including his VP who refused to agree to accept false electors. Trump clearly tried to overturn the election. And still frequently refers to himself as the legitimate president. This argument that Trump left office without being dragged out somehow means that he never had any intention of overturning the election ignores that he actually tried. It
Ah, I take it fine-grained semantic arguments are the last bastion of "Trump is just fine" (burning house gif) today. LOL and sigh. Let me rephrase then: When 30% of a population embraces the cult of personality over basic reason and evidence, when they are ready to subvert all our political norms and disbelieve election results all to support one person, then our ... democratic republic ... is in huge trouble. It will be painfully easy for it to become a broke-down, rag-tag imperial republic (to use the technical term).
link should work for everyone Opinion: Amy Coney Barrett is no handmaid to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority https://wapo.st/3QsWnmh excerpt: Justice Amy Coney Barrett is turning out to be the most intriguing — and to some extent, surprising — of the nine Supreme Court justices. Now in her fourth term on the bench, Barrett is certainly no liberal. As expected, she voted to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion. That was not a one-off; Barrett has also joined majorities to dramatically expand gun rights, limit affirmative action and curtail the power of regulatory agencies. Nor is she in danger of disappointing conservatives in the mode of a Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens or David Souter, Republican nominees who turned out to be reliable liberal votes. She’s not even a Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony M. Kennedy, swing justices who voted with liberals on key occasions. Still, benchmarking Barrett against her conservative colleagues — and against expectations at the time she was confirmed — she has been what passes for a pleasant surprise since being named to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. Barrett’s long-standing ties to a conservative Catholic group, People of Praise, raised warnings that she would be an eager handmaid to the conservative male majority; in reality, Barrett has been no submissive pushover. more at the link
The fact that any Trump efforts gained little to no traction should give you confidence in the strength of our Democracy and its institutions. Which is the point I’ve been making. I never felt our Democracy was in any serious danger. Dont think I ever said Trump didn’t try and subvert it. Thats what people attempt to read into it. People like to argue with things they wish you had said vs what you did say. Which is an extremely common fallacy on this board.
The fact that Trump wants to change that is the concern. There is now a MAGA infiltration in the GOP willing to oust anyone not with them. Trump wants to have more power, to hire loyalists and fire those who disagree that he won in 2020. That includes those He calls RINOs. He wants to fire DAs who don't want to prosecute who he wants them to. He wants to rule with complete immunity. Things are different now. He wants to pardon J6 thugs, and have his little band of extremists to engage again at his orders. The list goes on and on, and it's not anything like what Democracy is all about.
So you believe Trump would appoint people that wouldn't approve of his efforts to circumvent democracy? He will appoint people that aren't on board with his efforts? You might not have been listening to Trump. He intends to appoint people who will, in fact go along with efforts. The main reason he was stopped before is that a few people in his administration wouldn't do what he wanted. Trump is telling you that he won't have those people in his administration next time.
Why didn't he appoint yes men and stooges who would be complicit in a coup attempt in his first term? I was told Democracy would be ending in his first term.
He tried, but as with most things, he was a failure. He was also arrogant enough to believe he wouldn't need to appoint a yes-man.
If he "tried" to appoint yes-men and stooges who would be complicit in a coup in his first term but "failed" why would he be more successful at doing this in his second term?
Been documented on these boards many times. I'm sorry you missed it, but you can go back and read it all you wish.
Once again, you're incorrect. Stop being lazy and look up any number of the posts on these boards or the sworn statements and evidence. You aren't required to follow these issues. That's okay. There's plenty of issues that are discussed which I don't follow. But if you are going to try and attempt to engage in the conversation on the topic, don't expect others to bring up the posts you didn't read the first time, or the sworn testimony, documents, and indictments. You're a big boy. You can do the research yourself.
This is a good, solid point. Often, the argument here is not about what was said or done, but rather about what you thought or think they said, or what you project onto others regarding what was said or done (or what you WISH, if you prefer). Let's also apply the same standard as before: what was said or done, not what you think/wish/thought was said or done. During his initial campaign, there were discussions about Trump being a highly disruptive force, challenging traditional norms and structures, and potentially endangering democratic institutions due to his unconventional approach and rhetoric. While there may have been more emphatic assertions that I might have overlooked, I honestly can't recall any claims suggesting that 'Democracy would be ending in his first term.' The assertions made about him were accurate—he did disrupt norms. His rhetoric that incited the events of January 6th, his efforts to overturn the election results, and his refusal to accept defeat and move forward are evident examples of this disruption. I think he would be more successful because he has now learned his lesson and will be vetting differently - will be vetting yes-men. Where he might fail is if Congress restrains him - if Congress refuses to approve his nominees if they are way too extreme. In this first term, many of Trump's hires said he's unfit to serve. These were people that weren't "yes-men". They did say no. There were lawyers that constrained him, raised legal objections. The lawyers from his first term were picked from the Federalist Society pipeline. These did not need any Congressional approval, so he could pick as he liked. From what I've read, Trump had a falling out with them (it makes sense, since they objected and pushed back legally on what he could do). And so he has moved away from the traditional Federalist Society pipeline of lawyers and judges (that he would nominate) and is now vetting a different group of people. The American First Legal group, started by Stephen Miller in 2021, is doing this already - vetting this new crop of lawyers and judges for a potential second term. These would be people who won't directly break the law but would push the boundary and find creative ways to accomplish what Trump wants. Think of the alternate slate of electors scheme (which we know now failed and is being prosecuted in some states). Selecting cabinet members is not as easy as they require Senate approval. So he might not get yes-men easily here, unless Republicans control the Senate (a likely scenario if he wins a second term). Now, Republicans did have control in his first term, but several non-Trump or even anti-Trump Republican members have either retired or lost re-election. It's more likely that a Republican Senate majority in his second term is more favorable to him than in his first term. The pressure he put on them to approve his picks would be pretty enormous, risking losing re-election in 2 to 4 years or even his social mob that potentially could be harmful to them and their families. In addition, he could choose to simply assign an acting member, which doesn't require Congressional approval, but is subject to certain legal requirements, practices, and oversight from Congress. I doubt there would be any meaningful oversight, and as far as legal requirements, I think it's likely they would be yes-man as mentioned above. Beyond the lawyers and cabinet members, which are typically political appointments, there are lower-level positions that are typically non-partisan civil servants, which are typically protected from POTUS whims (fire and replace at will). However, Trump's Schedule F EO allowed him to fire and replace at will. It's estimated that it would impact about 50k non-partisan positions. Trump issued the EO in his first term but didn't take action on it (Covid was a big reason for this). When he does, and he has stated he will, it will likely be challenged, and it's up to the Court. These are a few of the reasons why he would be more successful at "yes-man" appointments in his second term to accomplish what he wants.
