The Countdown begins

Tomorrow Congress will count the electoral votes

20 January will be the Inauguration

How bizarre will it get?

«13456710

Comments

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Your question needs to start with a calibration of the current level of bizarre.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Tomorrow Congress will count the electoral votes

    20 January will be the Inauguration

    How bizarre will it get?

    Not tomorrow, but on Wednesday, Jan. 6 ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Tomorrow's the Georgia senate runoff elections.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Tomorrow's the Georgia senate runoff elections.

    [... X X fingers crossed ...] but I don't have my hopes up ...
  • I thought they were counting on the 6th not the 5th. You're a day off and a dollar short.
  • :praying
  • Although everyone says that Trump's shenanigans are futile, I still think he has at least one last trick up his sleeve. Wish I knew what it was. Perhaps we need to watch Pence carefully.
  • The GOP has been big on having Republican poll watchers to monitor the 2020 election and its fallout. Will there be poll watchers for the Electoral College count?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Memo to me. Stop watching Rachel Maddow as I am typing.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited January 5
    The Guardian is carrying a report suggesting that a military jet used in the past by Trump is to fly to Scotland just before the inauguration. Does any Shipmate know if a President has failed to attend the inauguration of a successor (excluding death or for health of course)? There may have been some in the early days of the new republic, where distance intervened.
  • It would be a relief, really. Inagine having him sitting there scowling like a malignant toad...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    The Guardian is carrying a report suggesting that a military jet used in the past by Trump is to fly to Scotland just before the inauguration. Does any Shipmate know if a President has failed to attend the inauguration of a successor (excluding death or for health of course)? There may have been some in the early days of the new republic, where distance intervened.

    I'm sure the ABC had a story on this, or I've read it somewhere. There have been a few previous instances of refusal to attend, yes. All in the 19th century.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    The Guardian is carrying a report suggesting that a military jet used in the past by Trump is to fly to Scotland just before the inauguration. Does any Shipmate know if a President has failed to attend the inauguration of a successor (excluding death or for health of course)? There may have been some in the early days of the new republic, where distance intervened.

    As of now Scotland's borders are closed, without very good reason to cross them - the FM said so yesterday. I guess seeking refugee status might be good reason, but not just coming on holiday!
  • Adams/Jefferson?
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    The Guardian is carrying a report suggesting that a military jet used in the past by Trump is to fly to Scotland just before the inauguration. Does any Shipmate know if a President has failed to attend the inauguration of a successor (excluding death or for health of course)? There may have been some in the early days of the new republic, where distance intervened.

    As of now Scotland's borders are closed, without very good reason to cross them - the FM said so yesterday. I guess seeking refugee status might be good reason, but not just coming on holiday!

    A little googling suggests prosecution for crimes against humanity under Section 6 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) for the family separations policy might be possible. Just a thought.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 5
    Adams/Jefferson?

    Yes, and Adams Jr/Jackson, and Johnson/Grant.

    There are several other non-attendances that are not, for various reasons, regarded in these press articles as a deliberate choice to snub the incoming President.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks for the info.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    It would be a relief, really. Inagine having him sitting there scowling like a malignant toad...

    I can imagine it all too easily. But I think he should be made to suffer it. Chain him down! 🤣
  • Boogie wrote: »
    It would be a relief, really. Inagine having him sitting there scowling like a malignant toad...

    I can imagine it all too easily. But I think he should be made to suffer it. Chain him down! 🤣

    Nah. Lock him in a soundproof perspex box and pipe the audio to)o him and let him rage impotently and silently within. Without his phone.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    It would be a relief, really. Inagine having him sitting there scowling like a malignant toad...

    An insult to decent toads

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    300 National Guard members have been called up to support the Washington DC police tomorrow. I am sure if the DC police need more, the Guard will be there PDQ.

    In the meantime, the leader of the Proud Boys was arrested at the DC airport on weapons and property damage charges as he arrived for the "rally"
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 5
    orfeo wrote: »
    Adams/Jefferson?
    Yes, and Adams Jr/Jackson, and Johnson/Grant.

    There are several other non-attendances that are not, for various reasons, regarded in these press articles as a deliberate choice to snub the incoming President.

    Yes, for example Andrew Johnson's predecessor did not attend Johnson's inauguration either, but it's not really regarded as a deliberate slight.

    I believe the most recent president who was still alive during a transfer of power who didn't attend his successor's inauguration was Richard Nixon, who took that famous helicopter flight before Warren Burger administered the oath of office to Gerald Ford. I'm guessing that's not a case of Nixon snubbing Ford but rather no one wanting Nixon's corrupt self anywhere in the official photos of the event.
  • Are there specific threats of violence in an organized way intending on doing something to overturn the election result? riots in a disorganized way? something else?

    There was a brief piece on Dwelle (German public broadcaster, in English) that trump had killed the Iranian general when he was in Iraq in hope that this would trigger a war with Iran and thereby assist him in this election. Which suggests how far he is willing to go. War crime came up on another thread. I believe the bomb attack qualifies, but as noted on the Palestinian/Israel topic, war crime isn't very much of interest these days.
  • I dread our seditionist and democracy-trampling senators and representatives. I dread our vice president who welcomes these bad faith machinations. I dread our president declaring a national emergency and mobilizing the military. I pray that our military leaders recognize the unconstitutional nature of all this crap and refuse to obey wrongful orders.

    I dread the shockingly large proportion of my fellow citizens who have swallowed the lies peddled by Republican “leadership”.
  • "I dread our president declaring a national emergency and mobilizing the military."

    I have to admit that this is a scenario which I think is only too possible. And I am really not sure how it would play out if he did so. Given the conservative nature of most of the military, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a significant number of the military chose to follow his lead.
  • Although everyone says that Trump's shenanigans are futile, I still think he has at least one last trick up his sleeve. Wish I knew what it was. Perhaps we need to watch Pence carefully.

    Pence need to be careful ... Unlike his Master, Mike is simply a very conservative politician, not crazy or evil ...
  • "I dread our president declaring a national emergency and mobilizing the military."

    I have to admit that this is a scenario which I think is only too possible. And I am really not sure how it would play out if he did so. Given the conservative nature of most of the military, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a significant number of the military chose to follow his lead.

    I'm guessing that the Secretary of Defense has quietly issued orders down the ranks reminding of The Oath ...
  • Although everyone says that Trump's shenanigans are futile, I still think he has at least one last trick up his sleeve. Wish I knew what it was. Perhaps we need to watch Pence carefully.

    Pence need to be careful ... Unlike his Master, Mike is simply a very conservative politician, not crazy or evil ...

    But he is a Believer (in all senses of the word). Which could make him a bit of a loose cannon in the wrong situation. And Trump has given enough nudges and winks recently to indicate that he seems to think that Pence may be about to Save The Day.
  • And having just written that, I find this article:

    Trump makes false claim Pence has power to alter election result

    This says Trump has tweeted:
    “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.”

    Heaven help us all!
  • Although everyone says that Trump's shenanigans are futile, I still think he has at least one last trick up his sleeve. Wish I knew what it was. Perhaps we need to watch Pence carefully.

    Pence need to be careful ... Unlike his Master, Mike is simply a very conservative politician, not crazy or evil ...

    I'm pretty sure "very conservative" overlaps with both crazy and evil. Pence is a Domionist so who the fuck knows what he's capable of.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 5
    "I dread our president declaring a national emergency and mobilizing the military."

    I have to admit that this is a scenario which I think is only too possible. And I am really not sure how it would play out if he did so. Given the conservative nature of most of the military, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a significant number of the military chose to follow his lead.
    I'm guessing that the Secretary of Defense has quietly issued orders down the ranks reminding of The Oath ...

    I think you mean the Acting Secretary of Defense. The Trump loyalist from the National Security Council who was installed when Trump fired the previous Secretary of Defense right after Election Day 2020. The guy who doesn't have to get Senate approval because he's only the acting secretary. That guy.

    I'm not sure why you would guess anything about what Chris Miller would or wouldn't do. My guess is that Miller didn't issue any orders like that and may be planning something . . . quite extraordinary. That's why every living former Defense Secretary (including Trump appointees Mattis and Esper) wrote that joint editorial in the Washington Post reminding the military that it shouldn't get involved in a coup. (Here's a CNN link discussing the Post editorial for those who don't want to deal with the WaPo's paywall.)

    A sample:
    Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

    These are ten guys who don't agree on anything, but they all felt the need to draft this thing saying things that shouldn't need to be said, and then to get it published in as big an outlet as they could find. Dick Cheney signed this thing. Think about that for a moment! Cheney has no problem with electoral shenanigans of dubious legality/Constitutionality but apparently he heard something that made his chest pump run cold. The most logical conclusion is that the current Acting Secretary of Defense has not "quietly issued orders down the ranks reminding of The Oath". What he's done instead is speculative, but it's made Ash Carter and Donald Rumsfeld agree on something and that should give us all pause.
  • And having just written that, I find this article:

    Trump makes false claim Pence has power to alter election result

    This says Trump has tweeted:
    “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.”

    Heaven help us all!

    Except ... No, he has no such authority, either under the Constitution or in the laws ...
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    "I dread our president declaring a national emergency and mobilizing the military."

    I have to admit that this is a scenario which I think is only too possible. And I am really not sure how it would play out if he did so. Given the conservative nature of most of the military, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a significant number of the military chose to follow his lead.
    I'm guessing that the Secretary of Defense has quietly issued orders down the ranks reminding of The Oath ...

    I think you mean the Acting Secretary of Defense. The Trump loyalist from the National Security Council who was installed when Trump fired the previous Secretary of Defense right after Election Day 2020. The guy who doesn't have to get Senate approval because he's only the acting secretary. That guy.

    I'm not sure why you would guess anything about what Chris Miller would or wouldn't do. My guess is that Miller didn't issue any orders like that and may be planning something . . . quite extraordinary. That's why every living former Defense Secretary (including Trump appointees Mattis and Esper) wrote that joint editorial in the Washington Post reminding the military that it shouldn't get involved in a coup. (Here's a CNN link discussing the Post editorial for those who don't want to deal with the WaPo's paywall.)

    A sample:
    Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

    These are ten guys who don't agree on anything, but they all felt the need to draft this thing saying things that shouldn't need to be said, and then to get it published in as big an outlet as they could find. Dick Cheney signed this thing. Think about that for a moment! Cheney has no problem with electoral shenanigans of dubious legality/Constitutionality but apparently he heard something that made his chest pump run cold. The most logical conclusion is that the current Acting Secretary of Defense has not "quietly issued orders down the ranks reminding of The Oath". What he's done instead is speculative, but it's made Ash Carter and Donald Rumsfeld agree on something, and that should give us all pause.

    I find it appalling that there obviously were/are guys like Mike Flynn who rose to high rank, but I simply don't believe that there are a lot like him ...

    After My Lai the question of legality of orders has been a big deal in the American military ...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I find it appalling that there obviously were/are guys like Mike Flynn who rose to high rank, but I simply don't believe that there are a lot like him ...

    It doesn't take a lot of guys like Flynn, only a few plus a lot of guys willing to just follow orders and do what they're told.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I find it appalling that there obviously were/are guys like Mike Flynn who rose to high rank, but I simply don't believe that there are a lot like him ...

    It doesn't take a lot of guys like Flynn, only a few plus a lot of guys willing to just follow orders and do what they're told.

    If that were the case there would have been many lots more atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I find it appalling that there obviously were/are guys like Mike Flynn who rose to high rank, but I simply don't believe that there are a lot like him ...

    It doesn't take a lot of guys like Flynn, only a few plus a lot of guys willing to just follow orders and do what they're told.

    If that were the case there would have been many lots more atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

    Lots more than what? What had been proven in court? Than has been reported in the mainstream press? I'd have thought that was a no-brainer. Atrocities by the US and its allies that get reported on are the exception, not the rule, and those that lead to prosecution let alone conviction are about as common as dentition among domesticated avians.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I find it appalling that there obviously were/are guys like Mike Flynn who rose to high rank, but I simply don't believe that there are a lot like him ...

    It doesn't take a lot of guys like Flynn, only a few plus a lot of guys willing to just follow orders and do what they're told.

    If that were the case there would have been many lots more atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

    Lots more than what? What had been proven in court? Than has been reported in the mainstream press? I'd have thought that was a no-brainer. Atrocities by the US and its allies that get reported on are the exception, not the rule, and those that lead to prosecution let alone conviction are about as common as dentition among domesticated avians.

    No, secrets are hard to keep ...
  • Sojourner wrote: »
    It would be a relief, really. Inagine having him sitting there scowling like a malignant toad...

    An insult to decent toads

    I did say a malignant one. But I take your point. My sincere apologies, O toads!
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I find it appalling that there obviously were/are guys like Mike Flynn who rose to high rank, but I simply don't believe that there are a lot like him ...

    It doesn't take a lot of guys like Flynn, only a few plus a lot of guys willing to just follow orders and do what they're told.

    If that were the case there would have been many lots more atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

    Lots more than what? What had been proven in court? Than has been reported in the mainstream press? I'd have thought that was a no-brainer. Atrocities by the US and its allies that get reported on are the exception, not the rule, and those that lead to prosecution let alone conviction are about as common as dentition among domesticated avians.

    No, secrets are hard to keep ...

    Depends on how many are keeping the secret and the consequences of not doing so. Sure, the gratuitous stuff tends to come out, but the three guys who shot a Taliban POW in the back of the head rather than take him back to base because the guy had just killed their buddy? 9 times out of 10 that's never going to see the official record.
  • And having just written that, I find this article:

    Trump makes false claim Pence has power to alter election result

    This says Trump has tweeted:
    “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.”

    Heaven help us all!

    Except ... No, he has no such authority, either under the Constitution or in the laws ...

    But the point is not whether or not he has the authority - it is whether or not the attempt will be made.

    Because if such an attempt IS made, then chaos ensues for some time to come. If the attempt is made, how long will this take to go through the courts? If the attempt is made, how many people will not pay any attention to such arcane things as constitutions and laws? All Trump requires is that Pence tries to do this (reject "fraudulently chosen electors"). I am sure that he believes that the chaos that would ensure might give him the opening he needs.

    I think Americans need to stop assuming that "the Constitution will protect us" - Trump clearly believes he can roughride over the Constitution and that he can get enough people to go with him.
  • Well, we will see. And not long from now.

    But I think we'd do well not to assign almost supernatural powers to Trump.
  • Well, we will see. And not long from now.

    But I think we'd do well not to assign almost supernatural powers to Trump.

    But we also do well not to misunderstimate his devotion to self and to Fascism ...
  • Believe me, I don't.

    Well, maybe fascism. Because I suspect he couldn't define it with a dictionary open in front of him. Self-ism is more like it, to an almost solipsistic degree.

    But I've been rather bemused by the tendency some Shipmates (generally not Americans) show to attribute to Trump amazing, nearly omnipotent abilities, including a supernatural cunning and ability to plot--when all I see is an over-moneyed elephant trampling his way over American institutions, aided by any number of venal treasonweasels.

    Trump succeeds so often because of his money and recent (last four years') ability to bestow offices, as well as his almost complete ignorance of the customs and mores he treads on. I judge that he genuinely has no clue. And when a clue is beaten into him, as in the last election, he rejects it because he has no desire whatsoever to think of anyone else's wishes. Probably no ability, even.

    I really think it's that simple.
  • Believe me, I don't.

    Well, maybe fascism. Because I suspect he couldn't define it with a dictionary open in front of him. Self-ism is more like it, to an almost solipsistic degree.

    But I've been rather bemused by the tendency some Shipmates (generally not Americans) show to attribute to Trump amazing, nearly omnipotent abilities, including a supernatural cunning and ability to plot--when all I see is an over-moneyed elephant trampling his way over American institutions, aided by any number of venal treasonweasels.

    Trump succeeds so often because of his money and recent (last four years') ability to bestow offices, as well as his almost complete ignorance of the customs and mores he treads on. I judge that he genuinely has no clue. And when a clue is beaten into him, as in the last election, he rejects it because he has no desire whatsoever to think of anyone else's wishes. Probably no ability, even.

    I really think it's that simple.

    Trump is a malignant narcissist, a classic psychopath, as well as hugely stupid ...
    No, he is not clever at all ...
    But he IS dangerous ... and he is a Fascist ...
    Just because he doesn't know that about himself is irrelevant ...
    The KKK - American Nazis - White Supremacists LOVE the guy and eagerly support him ...
  • I dread the damage that can be done by an over-moneyed elephant and a horde of venal treasonweasels. (Props to @Lamb Chopped for the imagery!)

    January 20, 12:01 pm can’t come soon enough.
  • I stole the treason weasels from @questauthority on Twitter. He does hilarious analyses of Trump’s ridiculous lawsuits.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited January 6
    As a former composition teacher, I adore the way he skewers their writing style. Besides the legal analyt, of course!
  • But I've been rather bemused by the tendency some Shipmates (generally not Americans) show to attribute to Trump amazing, nearly omnipotent abilities, including a supernatural cunning and ability to plot--when all I see is an over-moneyed elephant trampling his way over American institutions, aided by any number of venal treasonweasels.

    Trump is not clever - that is obvious. He is barely literate - equally obvious.

    But as a malignant narcissist he is also very crafty. His modus operandi is to cause chaos and hope that people are so busy fighting fires that they don't see him walking off with stolen goods.

    I wouldn't say that he has a Masterplan - but he's crafty enough to know that if he can cause enough uproar, he might just get something out of it - even he probably doesn't know quite what.

    Reason says that Pence can't do anything to alter the election, other than to allow more peddling of lies. But my gut will be a lot happier once Biden is "officially" confirmed. Trump can rant and rave all he wants then. Until then, I think it is prudent to "expect the unexpected".
This discussion has been closed.