You are now going to tell me why this is impossible, can't work, etc. Save it. If you want to tell me that Democrats will never do it, I agree, so you can save that too. But it's what I believe should happen in the event of a Trump win. I pray we don't have to find out how wrong I am. - ThreadSky

lollardfish.bsky.social • 124 days ago

You are now going to tell me why this is impossible, can't work, etc. Save it. If you want to tell me that Democrats will never do it, I agree, so you can save that too.

But it's what I believe should happen in the event of a Trump win. I pray we don't have to find out how wrong I am.

Comments

bornonagreenlight.bsky.social•124 days ago

I think you could make the argument for “norms” in 2017, but today? It’s clear that waiting out MAGA is not an option, and anyone who would vote against the Dems for breaking protocol was just shopping for a reason to vote against them to begin with.

julianajess.bsky.social•124 days ago

It could absolutely work. And they should do it. They are legally and morally mandated to do it. But most likely won't. I appreciate you stating it so simply though. That could happen in a real democracy where it never would have gotten this far.

geoffthejohnson.bsky.social•124 days ago

Work how? I’m really asking, because I just don’t understand what, even theoretically, would happen at that point. The Democrats would rally the populous around their interpretation (unfortunately, it is just that) of the 14th amendment? That seems like a bad starting point for resisting fascism.

geoffthejohnson.bsky.social•124 days ago

But I could be wrong and maybe you have something specific in mind!

malaclypse.bsky.social•124 days ago

There is nothing I want to find out less than I want to find out the political leanings of the junior officer class as a group.

lollardfish.bsky.social•124 days ago

Yeah. Totally agree.

lollardfish.bsky.social•124 days ago

(last time I blocked a bunch of people, some of whom I had previously gotten along with and known for years on twitter. I'd rather not this time)

lollardfish.bsky.social•124 days ago

I also feel like every blue state sec of state should’ve just refused to put Trump on the ballot. Saying: “I wouldn’t put a 24-year-old on because they’re not eligible and I’m not doing this either.” And then ignore SCOTUS.

princejvstin.com•124 days ago

Especially if he ratfucks his way into being "elected"...then rubber has to hit the road. I know it would be terrible...but it wouldn't be bad as letting him take office without opposition. I already mentioned the bit in the Stirling book to you, so yeah.

lollardfish.bsky.social•124 days ago

I think these things because I believe we are already in a constitutional crisis. It’s true that it might work out if we can just win the presidency three more times in a row.

popeofchilitown.bsky.social•124 days ago

The constitution is dumb and bad. It should be ignored whenever it is convenient to do so.

popeofchilitown.bsky.social•124 days ago

What’s the constitution gonna do about it? Turn yellow in the National Archives at me?

charleskinbote.bsky.social•124 days ago

How many armored divisions does SCOTUS control again? None?

Good luck enforcing that piece of paper then I guess 🤷‍♂️

malaclypse.bsky.social•124 days ago

A Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell remains the best description.

axialagegamer.bsky.social•124 days ago

We've been in a continuous constitutional crisis ever since Trump's (unelected, executive branch) minions started counting on him forgetting orders or losing paperwork to prevent having to follow the decisions of the elected leader of the executive branch. So minimum past seven years, possibly more.

emilyrose.bsky.social•124 days ago

That would’ve been amazing, and now I’m kinda mad they didn’t. Like I also get why they wouldn’t do it, I think (although I kinda have to wonder about California — it seems like something we’d do even if we were alone in it), but…

emilyrose.bsky.social•124 days ago

… this whole fascism situation isn’t just gonna fizzle out on its own like democratic leadership seems to be counting on. They won’t be able to hold it together indefinitely, so why let him continue doing damage as long as possible?

lollardfish.bsky.social•124 days ago

I mean if we just keep winning the presidency for 12 more years it'll probably be ok ... (Note: I do not think this is a good plan)

luanneplatter.bsky.social•124 days ago

It's not impossible. Texas Dems broke quorum twice in recent history. I know it's different in Congress. But maybe Jasmine Crockett could encourage that sort of thing since she's experienced in dealing with state level autocracy.

slufi.bsky.social•124 days ago

The problem is that they haven't been saying it loudly up till now. This should have been the primary message from the Dems all along.

lollardfish.bsky.social•124 days ago

"but what about norms," a 1000 pundits cry. Which Democrats care about a lot.

slufi.bsky.social•124 days ago

For sure. The point they miss is that enforcing the constitution is the norm. Not permitting secessionists to hold office is the norm.

Of course, there is no "norm" for a candidate who echoes history but is an entirely different person than has previously sought power.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply