The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway

[Legato]

A more probable scenario is Trump wins and Harris go's back to to being a middle class housewife with nannies and all.

[BeaverFever]

29 minutes ago, User said:

There are several scenarios here:

-He wins, of course he declared himself winner

-A close race he barely loses, but there are clear issues and legal challenges to be made, just like anyone else does. 

-Harris clearly wins, almost certainly Trump bows out

1) It is not almost certain that Trump bows out if he clearly loses. On fact that is highly unlikely  

2) What about one of the most plausible scenarios, a close election that he barely loses where there are no clear issues or grounds for a challenge?  Of course he will falsely allege there are issues and you will believe him. 
 

It’s almost certain that in either case he will claim fraud and whip out his new and improved 2020 election lie playbook 

 

29 minutes ago, User said:

Will he pursue legal challenges in a tightly contested race? Of course. Just like everyone does. 

Just like you supported and defended Gore and still claim that Gore should have won... 

1) Pressuring election officials, state and federal legislators, forging fake electoral certificates, filing dozens of baseless junk lawsuits with fabricated and false claims as Trump did in 2020 and will likely do again in 2024 is not anything remotely comparable to Bush v Gore dispute over how a mandatory recount should be conducted

2) I didn’t say Gore “should have” won. In fact pointed out that if the recount had happened in the districts Gore had proposed he still would have lost. However I point out a simple fact that a state-wide recount, which he didn’t request, would have resulted in a Gore win. 
 

33 minutes ago, User said:

The issue is, can he simply install himself as ruler of America? No. There is no path to doing that any more than him just asserting it now and doing it now. 

 

If he convinces swing states to certify his electors regardless on the actual vote count he could become president. As I said failing that he still will commit these acts just to cause as much damage to a Harris presidency as possible by causing a half of the population to falsely believe Kamala stole the election. 
 

37 minutes ago, User said:

It is just silly fear-mongering. 

 

38 minutes ago, User said:

Sigh... yeah, there is that IF again, its the same absurd IF as if he declares himself King, he doesn't need "everybody" just enough people... *facepalm*

Yeah exactly and MAGAs have  been grooming, cultivating, and placing people at all levels of government for 4 years now.
 

I will say it again: if it’s so far fetched for him to do exactly what he did last time the. put your money where your mouth is. 
 

 

28 minutes ago, Legato said:

A more probable scenario is Trump wins and Harris go's back to to being a middle class housewife with nannies and all.

When was she ever a middle class housewife?

[Legato]

30 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

When was she ever a middle class housewife?

almost forgot....and a nagging wife.

[User]

59 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1) It is not almost certain that Trump bows out if he clearly loses. On fact that is highly unlikely  

This is all us just guessing at what will happen in the future. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

2) What about one of the most plausible scenarios, a close election that he barely loses where there are no clear issues or grounds for a challenge?  Of course he will falsely allege there are issues and you will believe him. 

Then he loses on his challenges. 

Why would I believe him? If it is false, I wouldn't.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s almost certain that in either case he will claim fraud and whip out his new and improved 2020 election lie playbook 

That will lead to nowhere. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Pressuring election officials, state and federal legislators, forging fake electoral certificates, filing dozens of baseless junk lawsuits with fabricated and false claims as Trump did in 2020 and will likely do again in 2024 is not anything remotely comparable to Bush v Gore dispute over how a mandatory recount should be conducted

Yeah, what Gore did was worse. He tried to have military votes thrown out to disenfranchise a voter base he knew would be more in favor of Bush. He then tried to selectively recount districts that he thought would favor him most. 

Everything he did was outright dishonest attempts to steal an election. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

2) I didn’t say Gore “should have” won. In fact pointed out that if the recount had happened in the districts Gore had proposed he still would have lost. However I point out a simple fact that a state-wide recount, which he didn’t request, would have resulted in a Gore win. 

You repeatedly said he would have won. Feel free to articulate at great lengths here as to what the meaningful difference is here between constantly arguing he would have won vs should have won. 

Also, no, he would not have won. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

If he convinces swing states to certify his electors regardless on the actual vote count he could become president. As I said failing that he still will commit these acts just to cause as much damage to a Harris presidency as possible by causing a half of the population to falsely believe Kamala stole the election. 

Oh man, here is that IF I was talking about. 

Except, what happens when everyone sees that those states certify electors against the law? 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I will say it again: if it’s so far fetched for him to do exactly what he did last time the. put your money where your mouth is. 

He didn't do anything last time. Note that he is not president right now. 

 

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, User said:

This is all us just guessing at what will happen in the future. 

It’s not just blind guessing. Predictions are informed by what actually happened in the past and continues to happen in present 

 

5 minutes ago, User said:

Why would I believe him? If it is false, I wouldn't.

Not believing Trump would be a first for any Trump supporter. If you’ve managed to believe him up to now you’re probably never going to disbelieve him in the future. 
 

8 minutes ago, User said:

That will lead to nowhere. 

At the very least in will incite his followers and opportunistic republicans to cause more chaos and obstruction 

 

11 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, what Gore did was worse.

Lol no way!  Ridiculous Trump has convinced nearly half the population to believe the country is run by a secret cabal amd the elections are fixed. 
 

12 minutes ago, User said:

He tried to have military votes thrown out to disenfranchise a voter base he knew would be more in favor of Bush.

Another republican lie. He did not try to have all military ballots thrown out. He tried to have mail-in absentee ballots that were postmarked after the deadline or missing a postmark thrown out, as per Florida law. Something Republicans would especially support now given their mail-in voting lies which will feature prominently again in their 2024 election lies.

 

17 minutes ago, User said:

He then tried to selectively recount districts that he thought would favor him most. 

So did Bush. That was the whole crux of the lawsuit, Gore stating that the president’s brother Jeb shouldn’t get to unilaterally pick and chose a recount districts that benefit his brother. And Bush got his way the Supreme Court says it’s the state’s prerogative to selectively recount in whatever way they want for whatever reason they want.  So again it’s dishonest of you to suggest Gore was up to something sneaky 

And neither of the 2 items you mentioned above are worse than Trump’s assault on democracy which not only sought to install him as President via undemocratic means based on fabricated lies, forged documents and secretly pressuring officials, but also attempting to discredit the entire election system and US democracy with his claims that they system is rigged from top to bottom by a secret shadowy cabal. 
 

24 minutes ago, User said:

You repeatedly said he would have won. Feel free to articulate at great lengths here as to what the meaningful difference is here between constantly arguing he would have won vs should have won. 

Also, no, he would not have won. 

No as point of fact I didn’t, not even once much less repeatedly. I just told you what I said. Go back and read that thread if you don’t believe me.   As a side note if you don’t know the difference between would and should then you need to consult a dictionary. But the only time I ever said “would have won” is when I said ‘if the entire state had been recounted, which Gore didn’t request. ‘
 

29 minutes ago, User said:

Except, what happens when everyone sees that those states certify electors against the law? 

I’ll explain it again:  it is not against the law. States can certify anyone they choose they are not required to follow the vote count results that is just a norm and custom not a law. Of course they will have to explain why and so they will just cite the lies that Trump and republicans will be putting out about illegals voting, 2000 mules, mail-in ballot fraud, etc.  Remember I said republicans have been planting election deniers and even some of their 2020 fake electors in county election offices for years now Some of the sources they will cite will be those people. Let me play it out for you

 

GOVERNOR:  “Dear citizens of the Great State of x, it is with great regret that we have learned the election in our fine state has been stolen, as but one example here is Bubba Gump, the election official from lower Butfuk County:

BUBBA:  “A-yep I done see’d me a fraud!  I seen it reel good heh heh”

GOVERNOR:  “Due to this disturbing and irrefutable news, which we continue to learn more about every day, we cannot confirm the integrity of the vote. We will share the unsettling evidence with the public sometime in the future , in the meantime I have asked the state legislature to nominate and certify for Congress our state’s electors, ensuring that the will of the people of State X is not circumvented. Let me assure that that if the Republican majority elects Republican electors its just a pure coincidence, nothing more as our fine members of the legislature would never do anything unethical. “

[BeaverFever]

53 minutes ago, User said:

He didn't do anything last time.

LMAO Is that a joke?  He did everything  that was described in the OP last time, just not as well as he didn’t have 4 years to plan it lkke he will this time 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I never said you have short posts. I said you demand OTHERS have short posts. 

So having been caught out in one lie you decided you try out another and see if you had better luck  

 

 

Quote

1) The article does not “radically embellish” anything.  

It does. 
 

Quote

3) Even if he can’t convince Kamala or congress to certify him as the winner he will of course say that the certification is “rigged” because Kamala in her role as VP is overseeing her own certification. 

And? The democrats spread the entire argument that trump's presidency was rigged because of Russians. I have absolutely no doubt they'll say something similar when he wins. At the moment americans have so little faith in their electoral system that whichever side wins the other side says it's rigged. Polling strongly supports that as being the case going back to about 2000 At least. I've written extensively about why that needs to change and why measures should be taken to make sure that people can have more faith in the election results

 

Quote

Do you honestly believe if he loses on November 5 he will gracefully concede defeat and support a peaceful transition of power?  

Not really, I expect threats of lawsuits and unsubstantiated claims that the whole thing was rigged and all kinds of shouting and yelling. I kind of expect that regardless of who wins. But for sure trump won't go down easy

But that's a far cry from the scenario painted above. That's an area was just ridiculous

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s not just blind guessing. Predictions are informed by what actually happened in the past and continues to happen in present 

Sure... and guess what, Trump is not President. Trump conceded and then got on the Helicopter and flew away on his last day. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Not believing Trump would be a first for any Trump supporter. If you’ve managed to believe him up to now you’re probably never going to disbelieve him in the future. 

It seems like you have some mischaracterization of some "Trump supporter" here then. Not me. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

At the very least in will incite his followers and opportunistic republicans to cause more chaos and obstruction

No more so than those on the left typically do. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Lol no way!  Ridiculous Trump has convinced nearly half the population to believe the country is run by a secret cabal amd the elections are fixed. 

Yes, way! Gore has convinced Democrats to this day he "would" have won if only they counted all the votes the special way he wanted them to. 

I am still here arguing with you folks over this today. LOL

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Another republican lie. He did not try to have all military ballots thrown out. He tried to have mail-in absentee ballots that were postmarked after the deadline or missing a postmark thrown out, as per Florida law. Something Republicans would especially support now given their mail-in voting lies which will feature prominently again in their 2024 election lies.

No lie. Those were military ballots. It was the military who primarily voted at that time and their ballots face unique issues because they are not there... they are overseas, deployed, or stationed elsewhere. 

Him and his lawyers and strategists all sat around trying to scheme up all the ways they could try to challenge things and this was one of them. The fewer overseas ballots counted for them, the better. 

Hell, they tried to send Joe out to defend the practice and he came out and said it was not right to throw out those military ballots trying to find some technicality. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

So did Bush.

He didn't have to. He won. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Gore stating that the president’s brother Jeb shouldn’t get to unilaterally pick and chose a recount districts that benefit his brother.

This is why you ran away from our last discussion on this. The machines did the recounts the machines showed Bush won. Bush won the first count. Bush won the machine recounts. 

It was the whole hanging chad thing that brought about all these hand recounts Gore wanted to conduct so they could "interpret" the will of the voters who didn't clearly mark their ballots. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

No as point of fact I didn’t, not even once much less repeatedly. I just told you what I said. Go back and read that thread if you don’t believe me.   As a side note if you don’t know the difference between would and should then you need to consult a dictionary. But the only time I ever said “would have won” is when I said ‘if the entire state had been recounted, which Gore didn’t request. ‘

Wait, so now you are denying saying he would have won? LOL 

I understand what would and should mean, I am making the point that it is meaningless complaint on your part that you said "would" instead of should here. 

But fine, I amend my statement, you keep saying he would have won. He would not have. The outcome of this and the point I am making is the same:

Just like you supported and defended Gore and still claim that Gore would have won... 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I’ll explain it again:  it is not against the law. States can certify anyone they choose they are not required to follow the vote count results that is just a norm and custom not a law.

Yes, States can pass laws on how their electors will vote, and those laws must be followed. It is not a mere custom. 

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Let me play it out for you

So your big argument is that a State's elected body, the Governor, if they all just decide one day to say hey, screw the law, we are going to do what we want and say whatever we want... then there is no recourse? It just magically has to be followed. 

So, back to the absurd conclusion here... that Trump can just declare himself to be King! And only IF just enough people go along with it, he will be!

This is just silly fear porn you are getting off on. Good luck with that. 

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO Is that a joke?  He did everything  that was described in the OP last time, just not as well as he didn’t have 4 years to plan it lkke he will this time 

If he did everything described... he would be President still. 

This was a thread describing how he would theoretically steal the next one. 

[Moonlight Graham]

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

But the article suggests she may not have a choice if a GOP state legislature decides to endorse them 

I guess that's true.  That would create a crisis if the electors go against the will of the voters.  It would cause riots and possibly a civil war.

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, User said:

Sure... and guess what, Trump is not President. Trump conceded and then got on the Helicopter and flew away on his last day. 

Yeah 2 months later, after all his efforts failed and the day after an assault on the Capitol attempted to prevent certification on the date required by the constitution. Your take away from all that is that he won’t try again?  That’s like saying if someone shoots at you misses, it means they won’t try to shoot at you again.   In 2020 they came up with all these schemes at the last minute. This time his people have been planning this for 4 years now. 
 

6 hours ago, User said:

It seems like you have some mischaracterization of some "Trump supporter" here then. Not me. 

You’d be the first. We’ll see. 
 

6 hours ago, User said:

He didn't have to. He won. 

No you’re mistaken.
 

1)The vote in Florida was so close the Florida law required a mandatory recount and no winner was declared 

2) Because the method of recounting isn’t specified in law the state of Florida under Jeb Bush decided to only machine recount and a quarter the districts didn’t even do it  

3) Gore exercised his right under Florida law to request manual recounts in districts of his choice  The is explicitly provided for in Florida law, so the fact you would say this is same or worse than Trump’s many 2020 lies scams and steal attempt is ridiculous  

4) Gore’s requested recount was not completed because federal law also required counts to be completed by a specified date so Florida stopped the manual recount at a specified deadline even though it wasn’t complete. Florida had the power to grant extensions but chose not to  

5)In 5-4 split decision USSC ruled Florida can recount in any which way it pleases and doesn’t need to follow a mutually agreed upon method…so ONLY THEN DID BUSH WIN AND GORE IMMEDIATELY CONCEDED The FOLLOWING DAY

6) It was Bush, not Gore who appealed to the USSC after Gore won at the state supreme court.  It’s absolutely unfathomable that you can compare this to Trump’s baseless junk lawsuits that were so bad they thrown out dozens of times over and the lawyers who prepared them faced professional discipline  

7) A post election analysis revealed that Gore still would have lost had his requested manual recount proceeded but WOULD have won had the entire state been manually recounted, which he never asked for  

The issue with dimpled and hanging chads was also not as simple as you suggest as different counties counted them differently and some counties changed the rules repeatedly during the vote counting and recounting  

The irony here is that Republicans today are screaming for what Gore had wanted method: manual counting and scrutinizing the  postmarks on mail-in ballots  

But to summarize you’re trying to push a false narrative that Bush won Florida decisively and Gore was trying to sabotage it with baseless specious lawsuits like Trump but the fact that lower courts sided with him and the USSC’s split decision proves otherwise  

 

6 hours ago, User said:

Wait, so now you are denying saying he would have won? LOL 

I understand what would and should mean, I am making the point that it is meaningless complaint on your part that you said "would" instead of should here. 

But fine, I amend my statement, you keep saying he would have won. He would not have. The outcome of this and the point I am making is the same:

Just like you supported and defended Gore and still claim that Gore would have won... 

 FFS you’re not reading. You keep misrepresenting what I said are doing this purpose or are you just slow to catch on? I have said REPEATEDLY now that even if Gore had won the court case he would have still lost the election because the districts where he asked to recount weren’t enough to change the outcome. How can I get this through your thick skull?? Why is that not sticking with you?

 

6 hours ago, User said:

Yes, States can pass laws on how their electors will vote, and those laws must be followed. It is not a mere custom. 

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON

1) I fail to see your point as we’re not talking about faithless electors here 

2) That decision is specific to the laws in Washington State, every state has its own rules. 
 

6 hours ago, User said:

So your big argument is that a State's elected body, the Governor, if they all just decide one day to say hey, screw the law, we are going to do what we want and say whatever we want... then there is no recourse? It just magically has to be followed. 

1) There’s no federal law requiring that a state appoint the electors of the candidate who got the most votes. If a given state has a state law, Im sure in this scenario the governor and his colleagues in the house and senate will amend it accordingly in an emergency session with all proper due process followed Sure some citizens will file lawsuits and so one but those take time, it’s not clear if they would win especially with a Trump Supreme Court in power and even if they did somehow win it’s unlikely that the remedy would be to remove the sitting president and replace him with the other candidate.  Obviously this is something that would only be useful or feasible in a swing state where there is already a substantial Trump base to begin with and the politicians have calculated that they can survive politically by catering to this base. 
 

I don’t know why you keep using this silly “king” language   These are the tricks he already tried to pull to win swing states where he lost or at least delegitimize his opponent’s presidency in the eyes of the American electorate, and he will try to do it again. The “king” metaphor you’re using doesn’t even make sense as that refers to how someone rules not how they gain office.

6 hours ago, User said:

If he did everything described... he would be President still. 

This was a thread describing how he would theoretically steal the next one. 

No because he failed that time, which doesn’t guarantee that he’ll fail every time especially now that this time he and his minions have had 4 years to refine and prepare. 

He only has to stop Harris from getting 270 electoral votes to get the presidency and he can still do irreparable damage to the country just by trying even if he’s unsuccessful 

[WestCanMan]

Obviously Beave is talking out of his ass again, the OP is straight out of a leftard cultist's fever dream, but he has a flawless record when it comes to pimping the Dems litany of Big Lies.

If he says it, the DNC and their MSM minions are guaranteed to push it hard.

Although it sounds like he's just making another baseless attack on Trump - this time just based on what they say he might do - this could mean that the DNC are expecting another sham election result, so they're already calling his legitimate election concerns "AN ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY!!!!" in advance.

It reminds me a lot of when CNN was already calling the 2020 election results "legitimate" on election night, after crying foul about 2016 for 4 years.

Edited October 22, 2024 by WestCanMan

[User]

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Your take away from all that is that he won’t try again?  

Won't try what again?

No, he can't install himself as dictator. I already outlined the various possibilities as I see them.

Also, Gore did not concede until over a month later... after dragging this recount process through the courts as much as he could. 

54 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

This time his people have been planning this for 4 years now. 

Spoiler alert: both parties are planning for all the possible ways they can contest the next election. 

54 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You’d be the first. We’ll see. 

Well, your inability to even be honest in how you characterize me with your extreme exaggerations certainly speaks to why you are getting off on this fear porn you are making for yourself here. 

55 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No you’re mistaken.

No, I am not mistaken. Bush won. He won the machine recounts. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

2) Because the method of recounting isn’t specified in law the state of Florida under Jeb Bush decided to only machine recount and a quarter the districts didn’t even do it  

No, the method of recounting is specified in law. It was not Jeb Bush who just got to arbitrarily decide. He recused himself. It is only in hindsight that it was found those counties did not do a recount and Gore didn't make any challenges on that anyhow. He didn't need to for his scheme to possibly work, in only selectively recounting some counties that most favored him.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

3) Gore exercised his right under Florida law to request manual recounts in districts of his choice  The is explicitly provided for in Florida law, so the fact you would say this is same or worse than Trump’s many 2020 lies scams and steal attempt is ridiculous  

The fact that something is lawful, doesn't change the nefarious tactics employed here by selecting only the counties that would most likely benefit him. Of course it is a scam, nevermind all the crap behind the hanging chads and how they were fighting to "interpret" those as well. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

4) Gore’s requested recount was not completed because federal law also required counts to be completed by a specified date so Florida stopped the manual recount at a specified deadline even though it wasn’t complete. Florida had the power to grant extensions but chose not to  

Not sure where you are getting some of this from. I'm pretty sure it was Flordia law that mandated a deadline,and something like a weeks long battle went on between Gore, the Secretary of State, Federal, and Local Courts all going back and forth on continuing manual recounts. Once that progressed to a finality that was going to be the SOS not certifying any of the hand recounts as they were not completed by the reporting deadline. Then Gore went to the Flordia Supreme Court. Where they did basically rewrite election law in their decision to not only keep on going but with their rules on how those votes would be interpreted, e.g. there was no equal standard being used here. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

5)In 5-4 split decision USSC ruled Florida can recount in any which way it pleases and doesn’t need to follow a mutually agreed upon method…so ONLY THEN DID BUSH WIN AND GORE IMMEDIATELY CONCEDED The FOLLOWING DAY

Well, the little known fact is that on the merits that really mattered, the court was a 7-2 split. The 

Also, the conclusions of Bush v Gore were 2 fold: 

1. The recount was a violation of the equal protection clause as there was no standard for recounting the ballots from the ballots, to the precints to the counties. 

2. That the Florida Supreme Court was creating new election law after the fact, which was not Constitutional. 

LOL, you mean only after Gore drug this out for over a month trying every legal scheme he could up to the Supreme Court, only then did he concede? LOL, oh yeah, capitalize that. *eye roll*

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

The issue with dimpled and hanging chads was also not as simple as you suggest as different counties counted them differently and some counties changed the rules repeatedly during the vote counting and recounting  

I was not making it simple, I was pointing out the complexity of this and mocking that they could interpret them. 
 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

But to summarize you’re trying to push a false narrative that Bush won Florida decisively and Gore was trying to sabotage it with baseless specious lawsuits like Trump but the fact that lower courts sided with him and the USSC’s split decision proves otherwise  

Bush did win Florida decisively. A definite result was produced. The fact that Gore muddied the water for a month doesn't change that. 

So... here you are again, 24 years later, and you are STILL trying to act like Bush did not win by saying it was not decisive. 

And no, not all of the lower courts sided with Gore in this process. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

How can I get this through your thick skull?? Why is that not sticking with you?

You have repeatedly, and even here again, claimed he would have won. 

No, he would not have won. 

There is no such definitive recounting of ballots after the fact that show this. At all. You have run away from our past discussions where I called this out to you before. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

1) I fail to see your point as we’re not talking about faithless electors here 

2) That decision is specific to the laws in Washington State, every state has its own rules. 

The case started with faithless electors, but the significance of the ruling is that electors are in fact bound to follow the laws of their state. Faithless or not. This was a SCOTUS ruling, it applies to all states now. Yes, states still have their own laws, and the electors are bound to them. 

Remember, you are the one here trying to make this fear porn argument that the Trump team can somehow get these electors to just do whatever they want them to and there is no legal recourse. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

There’s no federal law requiring...

 Holy crap. Lets review Bush v Gore again shall we, that equal protection does in fact apply at a federal level here to the states. They can't just rewrite the laws after the fact or fail to follow their own laws. 

All you have is 100% unmitigated fear porn you are fabricating here. 

 

 

[SkyHigh]

On 10/20/2024 at 11:37 PM, BeaverFever said:

What do you mean aren’t probable?  He did or attempted all of these things mentioned n 2020. This article just describes how they’ll be refined for the current election. 

They did attempt it last time, but it failed.

Last time, they had the white house , the Senate and the full power of government.

They brought dozens of court cases that were mostly dismissed due to standing or merit, often by trump appointed judges.

They will most likely attempt it again, but I doubt Harris will approve false electors.

So yes, possible but not probable 

[Deluge]

On 10/20/2024 at 7:27 PM, BeaverFever said:

 

The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway

If Trump overturns the 2024 election, here’s how it could happen.
 

Dozens of interviews with people deeply familiar or involved with the election process point to a clear consensus: Not only could Trump make a second attempt at overturning an election he loses, he and his allies are already laying the groundwork.

….
 

The answer, according to lawmakers, congressional investigators, party operatives, election officials and constitutional law experts, goes something like this:

— He will deepen distrust in the election results by making unsupported or hyperbolic claims of widespread voter fraud and mounting longshot lawsuits challenging enough ballots to flip the outcome in key states.

— He will lean on friendly county and state officials to resist certifying election results — a futile errand that would nevertheless fuel a campaign to put pressure on elected Republican legislators in statehouses and Congress.

— He will call on allies in GOP-controlled swing-state legislatures to appoint “alternate” presidential electors.

— He will rely on congressional Republicans to endorse these alternate electors — or at least reject Democratic electors — when they convene to certify the outcome.

— He will try to ensure Harris is denied 270 votes in the Electoral College, sending the election to the House, where Republicans are likely to have the numbers to choose Trump as the next president.

Some of the necessary ingredients for this extraordinary campaign are in place. Trump has already embarked on a clear mission to stoke as much uncertainty as possible about the results of the election. He claims that the only way he can lose to Harris is if Democrats cheat — despite no evidence that any significant fraud occurred in 2020 or is underway in 2024. Dutiful allies have amplified these messages. And many of the officials who stood in Trump’s path four years ago have been ousted or retired, ceding power to more compliant Trump-aligned successors. 
 

 

…

It’s possible Trump and his allies won’t make a sustained effort to overturn his election defeat. An overwhelming Harris victory would make it harder for Trump to rally Republicans to his side. (If Trump wins, no one expects a comparable effort by Democrats to subvert the election.) But to a person, election observers, elected leaders and some of Trump’s own allies agree on one operating premise: On election night, no matter what the results show, how many votes remain uncounted and how many advisers tell him otherwise, Donald Trump will declare himself the winner.

And from there, he could embark on a risky but plausible challenge to overturn the legitimate election results and install himself in the White House. Here’s how it could happen.
 

Breeding Distrust

What Trump will do first is what he’s already doing: stoking deep, unfounded doubts about the integrity of the election. Trump has spent weeks promoting unsupported claims of mass voter fraud by Democrats, suggesting they’re illegally registering thousands of non-citizens to vote and soliciting unlawful votes from foreigners. He’s also raised doubts about the Postal Service’s ability to process mail ballots, even as he’s worked to reverse Democrats’ edge in the format…

…

 

Pressuring County and State Election Boards

…

In 2020, Trump leaned on state and county election officials, pressuring them to refuse to certify the results. He personally called officials in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan but made little headway.

Since that failed attempt, Trump allies have won seats on county and state election boards across the swing states likely to decide the 2024 contest. He recently identified by name three members of the Georgia State Elections Board at a rally, calling them “pitbulls” fighting for his “victory.” (In recent weeks, the board adopted a slew of changes to election procedures that state officials warned could wreak havoc on the counting of votes on Election Day, including requiring poll workers to hand-count ballots within hours of the polls closing. Democrats are suing to block some of those policies, and earlier this week, a state judge struck down the changes as unconstitutional.)

In this new atmosphere, it’s easy to envision a perilous scenario:

A key swing state takes several days to finish counting votes. Harris edges Trump by a few thousand ballots, appearing to clinch the election. Trump then blankets the state with ads exhorting officials to “stop the steal,” sends top allies to rail daily outside counting facilities about a crooked process, files a blizzard of litigation urging judges to throw out ballots being counted after Election Day and spreads claims that the vote was swung by non-citizens. Threats rain down on election officials and vote counters, with protests driving up the local and national temperature. Then, Trump allies on a handful of county election boards resist certification, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters and disrupt the state’s effort to finalize an accurate count.…

…

 

The Role of Lawsuits

…

 

In 2020, as the Trump campaign’s lawsuits failed or stalled, he increasingly pinned his hopes on fringe lawyers who mounted improbable, easily refuted claims of fraud — a bid to keep his election hopes alive months after Election Day.

In those cases, the points won or lost in the courtroom are beside the point. In 2020, as courts turned aside Trump and his allies’ litany of lawsuits, they became fuel for his attacks on the legal system and traditional processes for resolving disputes, further evidence for his supporters that the only path to power was through statehouses and Congress.

…

Convincing Republican-led state legislatures to appoint alternate electors to send to Congress

 

…

The Constitution empowers state legislatures to deliver the electoral votes for their state in whatever manner they choose. And every swing state has, by law, chosen to designate their presidential electors according to the results of the statewide popular vote.

In 2020, however, some Trump allies argued that legislatures have unilateral, incontestable power to change their minds — and could simply claim lack of faith in the results to snatch the decision back for themselves. Conservative attorneys like John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, who have both been criminally charged for their roles in the 2020 election process, developed this theory and lobbied for such an outcome. Under their theories, state legislatures would send their own competing slate of electors to Congress — alongside the slates submitted by governors — and urge Congress to choose between them. Trump increasingly leaned on these fringe ideas as his traditional routes to power began to close.

At the time, Republican-led legislatures in six swing states rebuffed Trump’s entreaties, though some showed signs of softening after weeks of pressure. Some of the leaders who resisted him — like Arizona’s then-House Speaker Rusty Bowers — are no longer in office.

In hindsight, the resistance of Republican state legislators may have been the most significant bulwark against Trump’s bid to subvert the election in 2020. After they balked, the Trump campaign assembled informal slates of electors and had them sign paperwork claiming to be the legitimate slate.

Then-Vice President Mike Pence, who presided over Congress’ counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, refused to consider those fake slates of electors because they hadn’t been endorsed by a government authority. But a little-noticed memo sent by Pence’s top legal adviser suggested Pence’s choice might have been different — in fact, it may have had to be — if legislatures had endorsed the pro-Trump slates….

 

Presidential electors meet in an atmosphere of threats

 

State election officials across the country say they are already bracing for the possibility of unruly protests and violence at every phase of the election process — but especially when it’s time for the electors to meet. Given the tight deadlines set out in state and federal law to finalize and deliver election results, disruptions that cause state officials or electors to miss key steps in the process could cast a cloud over the results.
…

Civil unrest could have a direct impact on election procedures before Dec. 17 as well. Special counsel Jack Smith’s evidence against Trump included a text conversation between an unnamed Trump campaign aide and an ally inside a Detroit ballot-counting facility. The campaign aide, described as one of Trump’s alleged co-conspirators, encouraged the other to “make them riot” after he was told the scene was a tinderbox. This year, law enforcement at all levels have described unprecedented levels of threats targeting every phase of the process. These days, the Justice Department routinely announces arrests of people sending vile messages to lawmakers, election officials and judges.
 

Persuading a GOP-led Congress to endorse Trump’s electors and spurn Harris’ set

 

Even if they manage to mount challenges, Republicans will not have a chance at overturning the election results unless they have a majority in the House. In the event of a Democratic House takeover, the House would brush aside challenges to Harris’ electors and, if necessary, shoot down alternate slates.

Likewise, if Democrats hold the Senate, they’ll easily approve the slates of electors for Harris. And even if Republicans narrowly take the upper chamber, at least a few key GOP senators seem certain to resist any effort to depart from the state certified results. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), for example, helped author the Electoral Count Act reforms meant to prevent a repeat of Trump’s 2020 gambit.

But if Republicans retain the House and affirm their grip on key state legislative chambers in the swing states, a slim and dangerous path remains.

Leading up to Jan. 6, Trump and his allies would be engaged in a relentless pressure campaign to convince House GOP lawmakers to block Harris’ victory. The existence of alternate slates of electors sent by Republican-led legislatures would be a tool in their arsenal.

Some Democrats are nervous that even if they narrowly appear to take back the House, enough races could remain locked in recounts or legal protest to ensure that Republicans hold the majority when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3, 2025.

Though Congress was the target of violence after the 2020 election, federal officials have taken pains to avoid a recurrence. The Biden administration recently labeled the Jan. 6, 2025, session of Congress a “National Special Security Event,” which unlocks resources akin to the Super Bowl or presidential inauguration. Expect the U.S. Capitol to look like a fortress soon after Election Day.

…

The final move to seize power at the joint session of Congress

 

…It begins with whoever is the speaker of the House. Though Rep. Mike Johnson holds the job today, he’s no lock to win renewed support from his restive Republican conference. Trump would once again likely play kingmaker, with the power to extract promises for his endorsement. In a scenario in which Trump is still challenging the election, a commitment to side with him during the Jan. 6 session of Congress would be at the top of his list.

…

 

If Johnson believes, like Eastman, that the laws governing the joint session are unconstitutional, he could assert unprecedented authority to affect the process — all under the guise of following the Constitution. That could include taking steps to ensure that pro-Trump electors embraced by state legislatures get an up-or-down vote, even if they conflict with slates endorsed by governors. It could include permitting hours of floor time to air theories of voter fraud, while holding the presidency in limbo. It could also include lobbying allies to reject pro-Harris electors in order to prevent either candidate from receiving 270 Electoral College votes. And it could also include simply gaveling the House out of session to prevent the joint session from continuing. Each move would likely trigger intense legal battles, putting the courts — and most likely the Supreme Court — in the position of deciding how to resolve unprecedented power plays by the most prominent actors in government.

This phase would mark the culmination of Trump’s ceaseless campaign to cast doubt on any election defeat and lay the groundwork for an alternative reality. After all, Republicans would say, there’s real uncertainty about the outcomes in the swing states, with millions of voters convinced Trump was the rightful winner — the very uncertainty Trump had been stoking all along.
 

….

The House Picks a President

If Republicans, through the speaker’s maneuvering, prevent either candidate from garnering an Electoral College majority, it would trigger what’s known as a contingent election in the House, with each state delegation getting a single vote. Republicans control 26 state delegations to Democrats’ 22, with two others evenly split. The GOP is favored to maintain that advantage, and Republicans would almost certainly choose to elect Trump president.

…

 

Ultimately, a handful of key pieces would have to fall into place to prevent the certification of a Harris victory: It would require a good election night for Republicans and significant complicity among Trump allies at virtually every level of government.

And it would be a brazen display of power that would outstrip the multifaceted gambit of 2020.

“Then you’re really getting into the realm of lawlessness,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA. “If people are going to be willing to just ignore the law and declare someone the winner, then you’re talking about a real coup.”
 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/10/20/trump-overturn-2024-election-plan-00184103?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=topic%2Fu.s.politics

If Trump were able to overturn the election, it would be because the democrats were finally caught cheating. 

[Fluffypants]

On 10/21/2024 at 3:34 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I guess that's true.  That would create a crisis if the electors go against the will of the voters.  It would cause riots and possibly a civil war.

Which swing states are currently controlled by the GOP? Michigan isn't, Georgia has shown they won't do it, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin aren't either.

I think it would be far more likely that the Dems would pull that stuff rather than the Republicans.

 

[SkyHigh]

On 10/20/2024 at 11:17 PM, Hodad said:

Yes, Trump absolutely will try to seize power if he loses the election. This isn't even a question--or even new information. They've been laying the groundwork for 4 years. 

And all of the MAGA "patriots" who pay lip service to the Constitution and to democratic principles are ready--eager--to let it happen. They will applaud it just as the lionize the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.

They have no honor, no decency and value nothing above power.

I'm sorry, but how is this "a little much"? It's exactly what he already tried to do once. Why wouldn't we expect him to try again?

It's a little much (well a lot much) because it's just speculation.

Yes they tried, but to quote a great "man"

There is no try, just do or do not 

(I wrote above the why I don't think it will happen)

This line of attack is to me, not  something that will move the electoral needle, therefore not effective.

I think the focus should be on actual problems and not what may potentially happen, and when we're talking about a man that has just recently fracked like a duck , and talked about a dead golfers penis size on stage, that seems not only more pertinent but more effective.

His supporters are more easily swayed by their homophobia than by their respect for democracy.

[Fluffypants]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

If Trump were able to overturn the election, it would be because the democrats were finally caught cheating. 

Who is going to investigate it? The dems control almost all the swing states and the DOJ so unless they are literally caught red handed, on tape openly admitting to it these election officials will claim it was the most secure clean election ever.

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, Fluffypants said:

Who is going to investigate it? The dems control almost all the swing states and the DOJ so unless they are literally caught red handed, on tape openly admitting to it these election officials will claim it was the most secure clean election ever.

You may have a point there. 

Trump can draw the big crowds, but the dems still have the world's largest dumbass magnet. 

[SkyHigh]

On 10/20/2024 at 10:46 PM, CdnFox said:

This is been my point like a thousand times! Are we seriously saying there isn't enough real and absolutely legitimate things to criticize trump over and we have to make up fake stuff?

I mean if that's the case maybe he should be president again.   But I think we all know that there are many of his previous activities which are absolutely true and well documented as well as potential flaws in his future plans (his actual ones, not the 2025 nonsense the dems are pushing) to keep the non-trump crowd making arguments for 2 elections. 

Now they just sound like "The boy who cried trump!"  And that plays in trump's favour. 

I just seriously believe this is a horrible horrible tactical error that the democrats have been making for over a year now.

I agree? I think, but with some pretty big caveats.

First, this kind of rhetoric is prevalent on both sides. In this case it's a politico article, which I know, you know, doesn't compare to Trump calling Harris things like Marxist 

Second, Trump is maybe the least qualified person to run for office in my life time and regardless of his hyperbole wasn't very effective in implementing policies he ran on. 

Third, I don't think project 2025 should be dismissed that easily. I don't think trump was involved in or even understands the  inner workings of government (or tariffs, health care, taxes, the constitution, etc, etc etc.) but It was written by many former Trump staffers, through the heritage foundation, who we know were very influential particularly in the selection of supreme Court justices. (Another thing he doesn't understand)

[Deluge]

On 10/20/2024 at 7:41 PM, Matthew said:

It's only a matter of time. Certainly Team Trump tried to pull some major shenanigans last time and they didn't succeed.

But someday a state run by a Republican Legislature and a Republican governor will oversee a presidential election in their state won by a Democrat. Instead of allowing the Democratic Party electors to go vote for them, they will pass a new law to make it so that their state legislature will assign a slate of republican electors to go instead. Constitutionally there is nothing upholding the state elections for President.

When this happens the Republican voters will get behind this as obvious and reasonable and pretend that democracy was never very American after all, and that freedom is best upheld by not allowing people to vote for the president.

Well, when leftoids hijack the media & entertainment industries as well as key political roles throughout the entire f*cking governmental system, you have to start doing your own drastic measures. 

[Hodad]

33 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

It's a little much (well a lot much) because it's just speculation.

Yes they tried, but to quote a great "man"

There is no try, just do or do not 

(I wrote above the why I don't think it will happen)

This line of attack is to me, not  something that will move the electoral needle, therefore not effective.

I think the focus should be on actual problems and not what may potentially happen, and when we're talking about a man that has just recently fracked like a duck , and talked about a dead golfers penis size on stage, that seems not only more pertinent but more effective.

His supporters are more easily swayed by their homophobia than by their respect for democracy.

Eh, I think if someone just tried to stab my, I wouldn't hand them a knife and just hope they don't try again. Rather, one should have every expectation that they will try again.

Maybe the difference though is the desired outcomes. I agree that his voter base--definitively--does not have any respect for democracy. If they did, they wouldn't be backing a guy who tried to overthrow it. 

I lean on this argument to motivate those who are invested in the preservation of democracy. Who see it as important and vital, so they can be aware of what he's done and motivated to turn out and prevent it from happening again.

[Five of swords]

This was a long post and I would never bother reading it because it is based on a very foolish premise: that politicians have any power.

 

They don't. Politicians all just do what they are told. Real power is not visible because real power would rather not be accountable.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Five of swords

[SkyHigh]

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

, I think if someone just tried to stab my, I wouldn't hand them a knife and just hope they don't try again. Rather, one should have every expectation that they will try again

To continue with your analogy, I think it's more like someone tried to stab you with one of those knifes that the blade folds into the handle and you hand them a straw. Again he had the full weight of the US gov't behind him, well accept for the staff members that came out and continue to against him and most of those were sycophants. He has none of that this time.

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I lean on this argument to motivate those who are invested in the preservation of democracy. Who see it as important and vital, so they can be aware of what he's done and motivated to turn out and prevent it from happening again.

Educated voters already know this, and the undecided (which I can't understand) voters are much more likely to respond to a positive vision of the future and not just orange man bad

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Eh, I think if someone just tried to stab my, I wouldn't hand them a knife and just hope they don't try again. Rather, one should have every expectation that they will try again.

Maybe the difference though is the desired outcomes. I agree that his voter base--definitively--does not have any respect for democracy. If they did, they wouldn't be backing a guy who tried to overthrow it. 

I lean on this argument to motivate those who are invested in the preservation of democracy. Who see it as important and vital, so they can be aware of what he's done and motivated to turn out and prevent it from happening again.

You are full of crap. You don't really believe any of this. Its just wildly exaggerated political rhetoric to spew on a forum. 

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

To continue with your analogy, I think it's more like someone tried to stab you with one of those knifes that the blade folds into the handle and you hand them a straw. Again he had the full weight of the US gov't behind him, well accept for the staff members that came out and continue to against him and most of those were sycophants. He has none of that this time.

Educated voters already know this, and the undecided (which I can't understand) voters are much more likely to respond to a positive vision of the future and not just orange man bad

The only reason that he failed to throw us into an unprecedented (and highly combustible) constitutional crisis is that Mike Pence found his backbone and upheld his oath. Everyone else went along. They tried to hand him the fake electors on the floor of the Senate.-- This was not an idle threat. It was a very near miss.

And don't mistake the situation now. The OP covered it, so I don't need to rehash, but because of our near miss they clarified that law regarding the VPs responsibility and eliminate the specious Eastman argument. But that also binds Harris. If those alternate electors come to her backed by state officials (some of whom are friendly to the effort) it creates a gray area where we could very easily end up in contingent election.

Ask yourself this, if that threat is a "straw" then why did the MAGA acolytes spend 4 years and millions of dollars to put their people in key positions? It clearly matters to them, so it should be of concern to everyone else. 

Many otherwise educated voters DO NOT understand how close we came to losing the republic 4 years ago. You are educated, and you don't take that incident seriously.🤷‍♂️