How so? Seems like slightly more organized group would have been able to either kill enough members to flip the chamber or force reluctant members at gunpoint to give them what they want.

what makes you think that any person in this country would consider that legitimate

If it’s considered legitimate by enough people with arms, it’s not really important whether or not you or I would consider it legitimate.

i would consider reading literally any work on this topic before commenting on it.

I would suggest saying it couldn’t have been successful because a counter-revolution may have been successful isn’t a strong argument.

idk, i could easily see dems in congress folding under the pressure to formalize a 3rd term for trump because of obviously fake concerns about fraud. that doesn’t sound implausible to me if there are troops lining the streets and ICE at the capitol building

I don't think all of this is going to be over when Trump goes, but a third term for him would definitely be a ticking clock for him because of his clear future of Alzheimer's. I think twerps like Miller and Noem are going to face a "death of Stalin" situation the longer this continues.

sure like even if that happens i can imagine huge swaths of the public rejecting it, but then we are in something approaching a fragmented state that’s way too chaotic to make an confident predictions of how it’d play out

He's making lots of friends among the military brass by having Drunk Pete fire people for giving him a sad

I really really can't easily see Democrats in Congress conceding the Oval Office in an election that they appear to have won, or even conceding the right to run. This isn't an unprecedented constitutional provision, this is the same limit every president since Roosevelt has adhered to

I would like to point to the Ohio dems choosing to legitimize the flagrantly unconstitutional maps (as ruled as a matter of law) under threat of worse overreach

I dont think its particularly likely, but there is recent parallels.

I certainly don’t see them conceding to a third Trump term. The 22nd is extremely clear and its intent is even more clear. I just don’t see a series of events short of literal guns to their literal heads where they give in on that

the 14th amendment is also clear! he’s already serving in open violation of the constitution!

I get what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree, but 3 terms is different. It’s basically the only unwritten rule of American politics we ever got around to writing down. He may very well knock it over, but I don’t think the Dems will just get out of his way

Incredibly easy to expect this court to roll out some non-consecutive term bullshit to let him stay in office

idk man “all these institutions that already folded to him multiple times will definitely stand up to him when there are guys with guns hovering over them” just isn’t very convincing to me. that doesn’t mean life goes on after such a scenario but what follows isn’t pretty and is actually really bad

Also, to be clear I do think they’d fold if actual guns were pointed at them

Bush v. Gore should have driven us over this ledge, but Dems gave up a stolen 8 years. And for what? Current congressional leadership would roll over. Think our current slate of governors might react differently, but that leaves us in a tenuous place.

four. as baffling as W winning in 04 is, it did happen.

I presume this is a "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument

sure and im saying that doesnt make sense here, they absolutely would have nominated him again

and everything else is getting into crazy counterfactuals

poisonous*

Talk about norms you're willing to violate, 'counting votes until you're done' is something we do infinitely more often than selecting a president.

I get what you're saying but I think the definition of "insurrection" is actually harder to define than "three", even if I think he was guilty and justice was not done.

To the reverse, I think it’s meaningfully harder to create a legalistic dispute over “3 actually means 3 consecutive” or whatever they land on. We’ll see, I guess. They have won the media though, which would both-sides the story if they claimed π=3

They conceded the Oval Office in an election they appeared to win in 2000. Not saying nothing has changed, but the baseline scenario has a precedent

You mean an election where the Republican led in the decisive state throughout the entire contested period? That's an awfully flattering definition of "appeared to win"

hold on a second, what lol

democrats thought they may have won for long enough to take it to SCOTUS, who gifted it to the republicans on some bullshit, and D's folded immediately. I don't think it would go the same way today, but I think there's a real analogy to be made there

They won’t have a choice on the right to run. Roberts will absolutely green-light it.

I won't pretend it's impossible for John Roberts to so wholly compromise his position, but I would not make this prediction with any confidence if I were you

Have you seen anything from Roberts to suggest he won’t give Trump what he wants?

the fact that he categorically refused to do this in 2020.

He didn’t have a vehicle for it in 2020.

what the fuck are you talking about.

What’s the case that would have overturned the result? Roberts will do it as long as there’s any procedural fig leaf.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v...

The elite media will put on a full court press like nothing we’ve seen before demanding that Dems acknowledge fake slates of electors for national unity’s sake