Try visiting boards you don't normally visit, starting with the 'All Boards' link above. Or request a new board by posting to 'Any Missing Board Requested Here'.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
I saw this suggestion elsewhere, but it seemed interesting.
We all know that the ex-president will claim he won as soon as the polls close.
We will then have a couple of months of mischief making before the electoral college counting, followed by the inauguration a couple of weeks later.
If Joe Biden would simply resign (maybe plead a health issue or something) as soon as the polls close (so as not to interfere with the voting), Harris would become president and take the oath of office.
She would then be commander-in-chief and fully in charge - able to sign legislation, deploy troops and issue executive orders.
She would then have the authority to do whatever is necessary to put down any rioting or insurrection. Perhaps go so far as to suspend the electoral vote if some states get up to hanky-panky with their electors or certification.
That's assuming she wins.
If she doesn't win, she would still be the first woman president, and hopefully presides over a smooth transition of power, and we try and survive the next 4 years. If she fails to do that, we're doomed as a democracy, and it doesn't matter who's in charge.
No. of Recommendations: 12
She would then have the authority to do whatever is necessary to put down any rioting or insurrection. Perhaps go so far as to suspend the electoral vote if some states get up to hanky-panky with their electors or certification.
Why would you need Harris to do that? Why not just have Biden do what's necessary to ensure that the law is obeyed and things go smoothly with the transition of power, whether to Harris or Trump?
There's no need to have Harris in that role rather than Biden.
No. of Recommendations: 9
There's no need to have Harris in that role rather than Biden.
I agree.
One other note worth mentioning. The concern may be rising that this 2024 post-election period won't be the first rodeo for those that would like to thwart the outcome if it doesn't go Trump's way. The fear is that the, ahem, "brains" of the MAGA forces have had four years to devise their strategy for using local election officials and the courts to generate chaos and try to produce opportunities to interfere with the actual process. And it will be a second chance for the, ahem, "brawn" of the MAGA forces to attempt to do their thing at the appropriate time when directed by the, ahem, "brains." Or do do whatever they want with no one's command.
All of that may very well be true...
But this post-2024 election period won't be the first rodeo for a lot of other forces involved either, including the current President (and upcoming President in this scenario) and police forces all over the country. Those offices might have had legitimate uncertainty about the intent of participants who rallied at the Ellipse or showed up on the Capital steps or even broke a few windows in 2021. That uncertainty may have convinced those officials to err on the side of caution and leniency, not wanting to be the ones who "panicked" and opened fire, Kent State style, on "innocent civilians."
There won't be any benefit of the doubt this time. If protesters show up on the Capital steps at any point between November 6, 2024 and January 6, 2025 in large numbers dressed in camo and wanna-be tactical gear, no officer will bat an eye at taking them out the minute they threaten an officer or breach a federal building. That still offers a wide berth of acts of protest those so inclined can perform but anything trending towards violence will likely be squelched IMMEDIATELY, with 100% justification.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 1
Haters of democracy - not happy with just one coup.
LOL
No. of Recommendations: 1
Agree with albaby. Harris doing it would be a bad look, even if it were to accomplish the same thing.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Haters of democracy - not happy with just one coup.
Keep in mind that this is a description of the guy you claim to have voted for.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Haters of democracy - not happy with just one coup.
Keep in mind that this is a description of the guy you claim to have voted for.
***
I didn't. I'm claiming to vote for that numb-nuts tomorrow.
And he didn't take an elected President out.
And he isn't saying to take him out of office now and put Harris in.
Nor is he sympathetic to non citizens voting.
He is more for free and fair and legal elections - than you are.
BTW congrats in advance.
You might get that big 2% win - and then earn the privilege of kissing the bush Cheney Goldman Sachs ring for 4 years :)
It's come to that.
I wanted to be first to say - attaboy. And 1 attaboy is a lot! Because it takes 3 awshits to cancel out one attaboy.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I agree it's a bad look but:
I think Joe might be too nice a guy to do what might be necessary.
He still believes there's a viable republican party (understandably after his long career in Congress).
I think the prosecutor might be more willing to take action.
In either case, it's different than 2020 because the outbound president will not be inciting insurrection, only putting it down.
The last thing we want is some doubt as to which president (or ex-president) is in power.
Also, surely, in modern times we don't need such a lag to get to the electoral voting. Travel and communication is almost instantaneous. Formality is for show.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think the prosecutor might be more willing to take action.
****
That's true. She did toss a lot of people in jail.
And We Sheeple Liberals are all for Cops, and all for Law and Order.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think the prosecutor might be more willing to take action. - Neuromancer------------
You mean the steely tough on crime prosecutor who refused to say if she voted for Prop 36 (re-criminalize bad behavior in CA).
Perfect opportunity to advance a position she claims she has.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/03/ka...Kamala Harris dodged a question on Sunday on if she voted for California’s Proposition 36, a controversial ballot measure that increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.
“I am not gonna talk about the vote on that because, honestly, it’s the Sunday before the election and I don’t intend to create an endorsement one way or the other,” the US vice-president and Democratic presidential nominee, who votes in California, told reporters at a rally in Detroit.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I saw this suggestion elsewhere, but it seemed interesting.
Oh, no, please. This would feed right into the fever dream fantasies of the far right.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, no, please. This would feed right into the fever dream fantasies of the far right.
****
And feed into the coup desires of our communist friends on the Left.
The commies tried that with Gorbachev didn't they.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I didn't. I'm claiming to vote for that numb-nuts tomorrow.
Same, same. My point stands.
And he didn't take an elected President out.
No. The elected President took himself out with an absolutely terrible performance.
And he isn't saying to take him out of office now and put Harris in.
Just proof that Republicans aren't the only ones to say stupid things. Democrats can do it too. Just not nearly as often as of late.
Nor is he sympathetic to non citizens voting.
That's a strawman erected by Trump. Democrats as a whole aren't in favor of non-citizens voting in federal elections, either. Even if some stupid Democrat somewhere said that.
He is more for free and fair and legal elections - than you are.
There are two sides to that coin. Free and fair elections require both easy access for those who *can* legally vote AND making sure those who are not legal voters can't vote. When you look at the facts instead of the rhetoric, there is astonishing little of the latter. Maybe a few dozen to a couple hundred illegal votes in any given election over the entire country. But Republicans seem to want to keep multitudes of legal voters from voting just in case it might keep one of the handful of illegal votes from voting. (Which is probably going to be a Republican vote, anyway.)
You might get that big 2% win - and then earn the privilege of kissing the bush Cheney Goldman Sachs ring for 4 years :)
I doubt there will be any ring kissing. This is a brief bit of cooperation to accomplish a single mutual goal - getting rid of Trump. Something that both democrats and sane republicans want. If that is successful tomorrow - a very big IF - there will be a brief bit of mutual congratulations followed quickly by a return to the usual partisan bickering. And perhaps a token Cabinet position given to the least offensive Republican that can be found. A RINO in MAGA (formerly Tea Party) speak.
I wanted to be first to say - attaboy. And 1 attaboy is a lot! Because it takes 3 awshits to cancel out one attaboy.
Your attaboys and awshits are about as useful as the points on "Who's Line Is It, Anyway?", the ad-lib comedy show where the points don't matter.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 0
Too much personal stuff - -don't become like Sheeple - your obsession will go years. Mind you I think your meltdown potential is less than Sheeple's .
Back to the latest Democracy Undermining Coup Minded Left:
NO, you will not be taking out our Democratically Elected President - again.
Wait until the election and then inauguration please.
Signed, us on the Right - defenders of Democracy.
No. of Recommendations: 30
<<You mean the steely tough on crime prosecutor who refused to say if she voted for Prop 36 (re-criminalize bad behavior in CA).>>
Do you realize how small and desperate you look in picking at third-order minutia to find something--anything--to rationalize voting for a clearly unfit, mentally impaired, racist thug? Do you watch him at his rallies? Aren't you embarrassed?
Are you so afraid of dark-skinned immigrants and runaway violent crime that you'd vote for a fascist huckster as long as he promised you that he'd make everything all better for you? What happened to you to make you that way?
