Ok, The EC Chose Trump. What Are Our Hopes for the Future?

Our hopes, not our predictions.

I hope for lawsuits that will challenge his refusal to divest himself of interests that may bring him benefits that are out of proportion to the benefits they may bring the rest of us.

Views: 162

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm thinking a couple things:

  1. His inauguration is liable to be met with protests.  Ditto the drive to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  The smart money says, "STAY IN THE FUCKING CAR" ... unless he wants eggs for breakfast.
  2. Protests up the ying-yang about his cabinet choices are already happening.  Do not expect those to let up.
  3. He wants to make noises about "bringing the country together."  His "progress" on this issue (if it may be called that!) will be constantly called into question, never mind his competence.
  4. Don't be surprised that talk of impeachment gets underway before January is out.
  5. Comparisons will be made between Obama's cool and Drumpf's utter lack thereof and rightly so, and those won't be the only ones.

Overall, I think Drumpf is in for the discovery of his life: that the First Amendment is there for a reason, one he's not likely to enjoy very much, and the second he talks about muting free speech will be the same second in which the necessity of his continued presence in the Oval Office comes into severe question.

...the second [Trump] talks about muting free speech....severe question.

When Rudy Giuliani was NYC's mayor, his muting free speech brought him multiple ACLU lawsuits. He became the mayor who lost more First Amendment lawsuits than any other mayor in the nation.

Trump might know that.

Lawsuits? LOL Trump will shortly control the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the reminder, Ruth, that back in the 1930s FDR tried to pack SCOTUS. I was about seven then and wasn't paying a lot of attention. Trump won't let FDR's failure discourage him.

We'll need to remind him endlessly of his own words: No one will be forgotten. [For the record, I typed that with a straight face.]

The golden-keyboarded Mr. Pierce again:

Donald Trump Is President Because We Cannot Face the Truth
Our nation can't stomach the stark reality of its history.

Correction: SOME of us can't face the truth ... or can't be bothered with it ... or with reality, for that matter.  That also doesn't mention the fact that the Electoral College couldn't suck it up and do what they should have, even if it meant going for a Republican other than Drumpf.

It may be that a significant portion of our nation can't face a less than perfect history, but that is no reason to paint everyone with the same stupid brush.

As far as I can tell the US public consensus is that we're a great heroic nation, without moral flaw. Yeah, makes me barf too.

Pessimism, NAKA (not also known as) realism strikes again, this time on Mr. Pierce's tarnished golden keyboard.

I'm okay with his implying that he knows more of America's history than many others.

I'm also okay with his being more dyspeptic than they.

I'm not okay with his concluding that they "can't stomach the stark reality of its history."

His dyspepsia is due to:

1) his lacking a feeling of power, and

2) his needing a headline sensational enough to have the power he lacks.

@ Tom & Loren - re: Pierce: Geez, cut the poor guy some slack. He's grieving the repudiation of all the values he holds most dear. Go watch Grumpy Old Men or something.

My hopes at this point, now that the Electoral College utterly failed to do its job to deliberate and to protect against an unqualified, unfit demagogue (such action would have been the only possible silver lining in keeping that undemocratic institution):

Still, that tRump/Pence not take office at all. Specifically, here's a possible mechanism that doesn't involve untimely deaths...

That investigative results be released within the next week or two detailing the extent of tRump's complicity in Russia's interference with the election. And/or that information about the extent of his unconstitutional foreign entanglements comes to light that will shock even a majority of Republicans. (You said hopes, not predictions....)

And that when Congress assembles on January 6 to count the electoral votes, most enough of tRump's votes are objected to, and the objections sustained.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. [source]

Our congresscritters can still get an earful between now and then....

GC, Trump's many attacks on establishment Repubs surely made him some enemies and it seems reasonable that those in Congress might do as you say.
Does anyone else remember the US Supreme Court's 1960s 'one man one vote' ruling?

Until then, state legislatures had refused to obey their Constitutions and reapportion after each census so that legislative districts would have approx. the same number of voters. The Court had refused to hear lawsuits, saying they were political cases. I was in Florida then and city populations had increased so much more than rural populations that critics said legislators represented pine trees, not people.

Will SCOTUS ever decide that the EC, by ignoring popular vote leads as big as Clinton's almost three million votes, in effect disenfranchises voters?

Many law suits are filed, not because A hates B, but to have the courts suggest how to interpret out-dated or poorly-worded laws.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service