Democrats to wage endless, fact-based war on Trump's legitimacy

WASHINGTON — The battle over Monday’s Electoral College vote is the beginning, not the end. A larger campaign to undermine the legitimacy — and constitutionality — of Donald Trump’s presidency is likely just getting underway.

Discomfort with Donald Trump before and since Election Day, the divisiveness of the 2016 election more broadly, and the popular vote mismatch with the Electoral College result have produced yet another unusual moment in an unusual year.

Many Democrats and other opponents of Trump have been working to change the results of the election through the Electoral College vote on Monday — an almost-impossible-to-succeed effort to deny Trump a majority of the electoral votes as required to become president. Presuming that mission is unsuccessful, prepare for the next phase: Jan. 6, when Congress formally tallies the results of those votes.

At that time, as few as two members of Congress — one in the House and one in the Senate — could lodge an objection to the results of the vote in a particular state or overall. While similarly unlikely to change the outcome, given current circumstances, it would be another wrench thrown into the transition of power — and another effort to make the case of opposition to the coming Trump presidency.

But even then, don’t expect it to end. Efforts to undermine Trump’s presidency by Democrats and those Republicans who believe Trump is unfit for office — or violating his oath of office — almost certainly will continue, a cascading series of constant challenges.

In short, Monday could be the opening salvo of a new campaign against a president’s legitimacy — a fact-based version of the racist, fact-free birther conspiracy. This time around, the questions raised appear to be legitimate — Trump’s international conflicts of interest are real and, according to the unanimous view of US intelligence agencies, Russian attempts to influence the election are likewise real. The problem this time, however, is that — for the most part — these are uncharted waters and there are no established solutions.

Ben Reilly wrote:

WASHINGTON — The battle over Monday’s Electoral College vote is the beginning, not the end. A larger campaign to undermine the legitimacy — and constitutionality — of Donald Trump’s presidency is likely just getting underway.

Discomfort with Donald Trump before and since Election Day, the divisiveness of the 2016 election more broadly, and the popular vote mismatch with the Electoral College result have produced yet another unusual moment in an unusual year.

Many Democrats and other opponents of Trump have been working to change the results of the election through the Electoral College vote on Monday — an almost-impossible-to-succeed effort to deny Trump a majority of the electoral votes as required to become president. Presuming that mission is unsuccessful, prepare for the next phase: Jan. 6, when Congress formally tallies the results of those votes.

At that time, as few as two members of Congress — one in the House and one in the Senate — could lodge an objection to the results of the vote in a particular state or overall. While similarly unlikely to change the outcome, given current circumstances, it would be another wrench thrown into the transition of power — and another effort to make the case of opposition to the coming Trump presidency.

But even then, don’t expect it to end. Efforts to undermine Trump’s presidency by Democrats and those Republicans who believe Trump is unfit for office — or violating his oath of office — almost certainly will continue, a cascading series of constant challenges.

In short, Monday could be the opening salvo of a new campaign against a president’s legitimacy — a fact-based version of the racist, fact-free birther conspiracy. This time around, the questions raised appear to be legitimate — Trump’s international conflicts of interest are real and, according to the unanimous view of US intelligence agencies, Russian attempts to influence the election are likewise real. The problem this time, however, is that — for the most part — these are uncharted waters and there are no established solutions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-electoral-college-vote-isnt-just-about-the-electoral-col?utm_term=.mmxm4AeW#.ik8xK258

I've already seen a number of commentators who say the best option now is to keep up a constant barrage of withering criticism on all fronts that pushes Trump into some sort of psychotic episode or physical breakdown, and I'll be doing my part

nicko wrote:So you will be helping to send a man to a Mental Hospital?    what a nice man you are !

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:All this anger and bitterness.  The next 8 years are going to be long ones for the Liberals.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
All this anger and bitterness.  The next 8 years are going to be long ones for the Liberals.

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:So you will be helping to send a man to a Mental Hospital?    what a nice man you are !

I have to weigh that damage against the damage Trump will wreak. I wish Trump would do the right thing and resign voluntarily, but that doesn't seem likely. So he has to be pushed out with brute force.

Handy Andy wrote:Trumpf is quite insane. A beserk megalomaniac with an outsized ego. It say a lot about the intelligence and wisdom of those who support him and his appalling policies.
Putin now has control over the Northern Hemisphere now he has installed his puppet into the White House.
Is it part of Putin's plan to have another nuclear power onside to destroy China?
There is growing evidence that the differences between the West , which includes Russia and China is growing.
America has given its power to a madman who is controlled by a puppetmaster

Florida, Sen. Ted Cruz warned that Democrats will become “obstructionists at a level we’ve never seen” under a Donald Trump administration.  In what has to be a giant fit of irony, the Texas lawmaker — who single-handedly shut the government down because Democrats wouldn’t repeal their signature health care law — predicted to Turning Point USA that Democrats will “filibuster absolutely everything they can,” according to Texas Tribune reporter Patrick Svitek.
Apparently Cruz, whose stunt was described by a Senate aide as “a toddler’s version of legislating,” is now worried that the minority party will resort to what was essentially the only page of the Republican Party playbook from 2010 to now. Since 2010 GOPers have filibustered hundreds of bills passed by the House of Representatives explicitly because they wanted to make Obama “a one-term president.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/master-troll-ted-cruz-predicts-democrats-will-become-obstructionists-at-a-level-weve-never-seen/  

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:All this anger and bitterness.  The next 8 years are going to be long ones for the Liberals.

nicko wrote:Ben,    seriously do you think that Trump can be denied the presidency ?

nicko wrote:So you will be helping to send a man to a Mental Hospital?    what a nice man you are !

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:So you will be helping to send a man to a Mental Hospital?    what a nice man you are !

I have to weigh that damage against the damage Trump will wreak. I wish Trump would do the right thing and resign voluntarily, but that doesn't seem likely. So he has to be pushed out with brute force.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I have to weigh that damage against the damage Trump will wreak. I wish Trump would do the right thing and resign voluntarily, but that doesn't seem likely. So he has to be pushed out with brute force.

That is, at least, an interesting approach to the democratic process, Ben.  Do I take it that you are in favour of violent insurrection against the majority decision?

And before the usual suspects start screaming "Fascist" and "Nazi" at me [ (a) I ain't and (b) I couldn't care a fish's tit what anyone else thinks about me] my long held opinion of both candidates in your Presidential election reflected the view of the Duke of Wellington as he inspected his troops on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo: "I don't know what they will do to the enemy, but by God they frighten me."

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

That is, at least, an interesting approach to the democratic process, Ben.  Do I take it that you are in favour of violent insurrection against the majority decision?

And before the usual suspects start screaming "Fascist" and "Nazi" at me [ (a) I ain't and (b) I couldn't care a fish's tit what anyone else thinks about me] my long held opinion of both candidates in your Presidential election reflected the view of the Duke of Wellington as he inspected his troops on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo: "I don't know what they will do to the enemy, but by God they frighten me."

No one is criticizing you, Fred.  But, nor do you need to question Ben's loyalty.  He started this thread, and the article suggests--so far from insurrection--an endless campaign of factual and logical criticism of Trump and his inevitable foibles.  

Trump has no history or experience.  He is less than intelligent.  He can't maintain a single thought for too long.  He is impatient.  Moreover, he has these severe personality defects: bullying, thin-skinned; racism; unpleasant; unable to resist responding (particularly criticism); anti-Hispanic; lack of any curiosity; misogyny; inability to learn; needing of flattery; carries grudges; lacks empathy...and poor taste in women...or, that is to say, unable to commit.

What the article suggests is, we need to marginalize and isolate him...and otherwise, wait out the 4-years, when people can again express their revulsion.  Hopefully next time, we won't have the hitch in our electoral college get-a-long.  

A resignation would short-cut the process.  There is precedent in Nixon.  Trump has conflicts-of-interest galore, and he will most assuredly be hounded by people, the press, and lawsuits every move he makes.  There will be many missteps each week.  He may well simply choose to step down of his own accord, finding its easier and life in the presidency isn't what he thought it would be.

Look at it this way: he was about to get indicted for bribery, fraud and income tax evasion.  He avoided those pitfalls, so he's already ahead.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think it's that easy to push someone into a psychotic episode really. Why not wait to see what he actually does before you try?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think it's that easy to push someone into a psychotic episode really. Why not wait to see what he actually does before you try?

I've been paying attention for more than two years now, do you really think I need to see any more than what I've already seen?

Here we go:

Build a wall, pussy grabber, Muslim ban, dead troop basher, Mexican rapists, McCain is not a hero

Twitter war, fight with China, Russia is his data miner, Tic-Tacs, protesters whacked, cabinet full of billionaires



I simply plan to treat Trump exactly as the GOP treated Obama from Day 1. Is that in any way unfair? And if you think it is, please explain.

Raggamuffin wrote:Trump hasn't had a chance to do any of those things yet, and he might not do them. In fact, it would be impractical for him to do some of them. That's what I mean by waiting to see what he does. I don't think that attempting to drive someone to having a mental illness for something they might do is very fair. In any case, you can't make someone psychotic, you can probably only make them a bit neurotic at a pinch, but if he was that way inclined he would have shown signs of it already.