President Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

Armed protesters entered Michigan’s state Capitol during rally against stay-at-home order

Katelyn Burns

6-7 minutes

---

Hundreds of demonstrators — some of them heavily armed — crowded into Michigan’s state Capitol Thursday afternoon to protest against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s shelter-at-home order.

The demonstration began outside the Capitol early in the day in heavy rain, but later in the afternoon, police allowed several hundred protesters — many not wearing masks — inside the building itself.

Protesters stood in the gallery while others attempted to gain access to the House floor, cramming themselves into the entryway chanting “Let us in!” They were held at bay by the chamber’s sergeant at arms.

Protest moves inside Michigan Capitol. Crowd attempts to get onto Hoise floor. Lots of Michigan State Police and House sergeants at arms blocking door. pic.twitter.com/4FNQpimP4W

— Rod Meloni (@RodMeloni) April 30, 2020

While not all the protesters were armed, there were some armed men in the crowd inside. Michigan is an open-carry state, and people are allowed to openly carry inside the state Capitol, though signs and banners are banned from the building to prevent potential damage to the architecture.

Democratic state Sen. Dayna Polehanki tweeted that some of her colleagues had worn bulletproof vests to cast their votes.

Directly above me, men with rifles yelling at us. Some of my colleagues who own bullet proof vests are wearing them. I have never appreciated our Sergeants-at-Arms more than today. #mileg pic.twitter.com/voOZpPYWOs

— Senator Dayna Polehanki (@SenPolehanki) April 30, 2020

Journalist Anna Liz Nichols of the nonprofit news organization Michigan Advance tweeted that she was hit by the butt of a protester’s rifle, later clarifying that she’s “completely fine.”

As the protests progressed, chants of “lock her up,” and “heil Whitmer,” broke out inside the Capitol building.

The “American Patriot Rally” was organized in response to a vote being debated in the state legislature Thursday on whether to continue Michigan’s state of emergency, which was declared on March 10 to address the coronavirus pandemic.

The Republican-held legislature ultimately voted to revoke the emergency declaration Thursday as protesters looked on. Republican state legislators are now preparing to sue the governor over her shelter-at-home order, despite a state court ruling Wednesday that said the order was constitutional.

As of April 30, Michigan has over 41,300 confirmed coronavirus cases and over 3,700 deaths, according to state government data.

Whitmer’s shelter-at-home order has been in place since March 23, but she loosened the order’s breadth in her latest extension last Friday, allowing landscapers, lawn-service companies, plant nurseries, and bike repair shops to reopen under strict social distancing measures. The order also allows some outdoor recreational activity to be resumed.

According to NBC News, a group called Michigan United for Liberty (MUFL) organized Thursday’s rally. The same group organized the first protest against social distancing in the state on April 7.

MUFL’s Facebook event group for Thursday’s protest was taken down by Facebook last week, according to VICE News. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Good Morning America on April 20 that groups organizing social distancing protests classify as “harmful misinformation” and said the company would take down posts promoting such events.

Michigan has been a hot spot for right-wing protests against the governor’s social distancing policies. On April 16, a different conservative group, Michigan Conservative Coalition, along with the Education Secretary Betsy DeVos-linked group Michigan Freedom Fund, organized “Operation Gridlock” to protest against Whitmer’s executive actions.

Operation Gridlock was initially supposed to consist of protesters driving around in their cars and trucks, honking their horns, and creating noise to protest against the shelter-at-home order.

But some protesters eventually left their vehicles, snarling traffic, and preventing health care workers from getting to work on time, turning the event into a makeshift political rally. Some attendees wore “Make America Great Again” gear while others displayed confederate flags. As with Thursday’s protest, some armed men gathered on the steps of the state Capitol.

The next morning, President Donald Trump tweeted in support of the protest.

The Michigan protests are part of a larger series of conservative protest campaigns against shelter-at-home orders and other social distancing policies that have spanned multiple states. Many of the protest groups rely on a small pool of conservative financiers; organizers of the actual protests are typically locally-based.

As Vox’s Jane Coaston explained, these protests in Michigan and elsewhere are partly about the specifics of the lockdowns put in place in the various states and the economic hardship they’ve created. But, Coaston says, “many of those involved in the protests are connected not by mere concern” over these policies, “but by their efforts to reelect the president.”

“Trump’s political gambit requires that the coronavirus becomes a pandemic of Democratic governors and the fault of blue states while other states get right back to business as usual,” Coaston wrote.

 

pretty sure these were trump supporters...............

---

Pretty sure this is irrelevant to the subject at hand.  If you can't see that, leave the forum.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Thank you.

Noon, 1-20-2021 The American Military will cease to have to take orders from him. It will end then either peacefully or violently. The Orange Man will choose peacefully. 
Guys, the American Military have no oath to Trump. In Nazi Germany, something that apparently 90% of this board doesnt know s*** about, the Army was sworn to...ADOLPH HITLER. 

Nazi Oath: 

Führer oath[edit]

Wehrmacht oath[edit]

On 16 March 1935 the German government renamed the Reichswehr, it became the Wehrmacht (defence force)^[7]

Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid,
daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes
Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht,
unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will,
jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.

Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler

"I swear to God this holy oath
that I shall render unconditional obedience
to the Leader of the German Reich and people,
Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces,
and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared
to give my life for this oath."^[8]

When the oath became law in July 1935, civilian officials would swear a similar oath.

Civil servant oath[edit]

Diensteid der öffentlichen Beamten

Ich schwöre: Ich werde dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes
Adolf Hitler treu und gehorsam sein, die Gesetze beachten,
und meine Amtspflichten gewissenhaft erfüllen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.

Public servants Oath to Adolf Hitler

"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient
to the leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler,
to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God!"^{[8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

US Military Oath: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Big difference. Nazis swore oath to Hitler by name. American Military swear oath to Constitution and Legal Officeholders in WH and Congress. We defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, Foreign & DOMESTIC. 

It's scary that you even know where to find that!

[DKW 86 7,428]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

It's scary that you even know where to find that!

This is pretty common knowledge to anyone that watches AHC.

It always just struck me as odd that anyone would swear any kind of oath to a another human. Screw that. And then we had all that talk of "88" on the forum here, it just reminded me about it. Screw that too. Anyone that cant openly say that all humans are screwed up, is themselves jacked up worse than the rest of us. If the Nazis, had a REAL epiphanal change as part of coming to know Christ, I do not think that even one of them could have made the leap to swear any oath to a common screwed up man like Hitler. That would be a non-starter for me. I am swearing no oath to any man or woman. 

"I swear to God this holy oath
that I shall render unconditional obedience (WTF were these people, these so-called Men of Honor, thinking)
to the Leader of the German Reich and people,
Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces,
and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared
to give my life for this oath."^[8]

This oath, or any like it, should be THE Red Flag for Zealotry and Fascistic Behavior. The German Army Officers thought of themselves as Teutonic Knights. Hitler had promised them huge chunks of land in the Ukraine for their Service to the Fatherland, the Lebensraum, just like in the Middle Ages. The "Transactional Nature" of the bargain was there in the upper level Nazi discussions. Bismarck and others held scorn up for how the rest of Europe had conquered colonial areas, while the German "Teutonic Knights" had missed out on the Colonial Period for their Elites. That's why the Steppes had to be purged of the slavic peoples. Their Colonial Period was going to occur in the Ukraine. These Army Officers were going to forever change the history of their families after WWII. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

13 hours ago, bigbird said:

I'm sure he'll claim something, but do people really think he could get away with it?  If he didn't transfer power, he would be forcibly removed. Congress, the court, and the military would ensure it. He wouldn't have a choice, no matter what plans or groundwork he has in place. JMO

He says a lot of things he wouldn't be able to get away with.

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

And that's the problem if you are speaking generally. 

But there's no real logic behind it

We are an advanced country who can put people on the moon.  There is no reason for any of us to think we are incapable of counting the votes in an election.  Trump is clearly laying the groundwork in anticipation of another Florida 2000. 

IMO, that was an aberration of poor technology, politics and an unimaginably close election.  Hopefully at least the technology issues were addressed.  The political issues still exist (see laws restricting eligibility) but I doubt counting the votes will be corrupted politically.  We'll just have hope for larger margins between the votes.

Trump is not making his statements about "the coming Democratic election scam using mail in ballots" because he's honestly unsure of the legitimacy of the voting process. 

He's making them because he's anticipating ways for him to steal the election.

 

I agree with you. Trump should have lied and said that he would ensure a smooth transition even if the election was obviously tainted and still being contended in the courts and congress. Then nobody would be freaking out right now.

[aubiefifty 16,807]

56 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Pretty sure this is irrelevant to the subject at hand.  If you can't see that, leave the forum.

hey

 

56 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Pretty sure this is irrelevant to the subject at hand.  If you can't see that, leave the forum.

how about you hold your breath until i do. those people stormed the capitol because trump was on the mask thing. and if you bothered to read the damn post trump called them and praised them. you show yourself every single day to be more and more scummy like trump. you post nothing but fly by insults. tell you what. you can judge me any way you want to but you will never ever get to say i voted for that piece of trash whose sack you hug regularly. yeah a bunch of you boys want me to leave because you cannot handle the truth and i am nervy enough to call you on it and blunt enough to piss you off. if i ever leave this forum it will not be because of you. you got anything else?

[jj3jordan 2,056]

7 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

hey

 

how about you hold your breath until i do. those people stormed the capitol because trump was on the mask thing. and if you bothered to read the damn post trump called them and praised them. you show yourself every single day to be more and more scummy like trump. you post nothing but fly by insults. tell you what. you can judge me any way you want to but you will never ever get to say i voted for that piece of trash whose sack you hug regularly. yeah a bunch of you boys want me to leave because you cannot handle the truth and i am nervy enough to call you on it and blunt enough to piss you off. if i ever leave this forum it will not be because of you. you got anything else?

What are you rambling about? What is the mask thing?  Why are you obsessed with Trumps sack?  The situation in Michigan in NO WAY AT ALL relates to whether Trump will leave office if he loses. It is just another way for you to Trump bash. No one wants to hear your hatred of Trump manifest itself on this forum. We know you hate him.  No one cares who you voted for that is your business. Truth? Hardly. When you say I am hugging Trumps sack regularly you are a liar. Worse than even Trump. Get your face out of the sack of life.

[aubiefifty 16,807]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

What are you rambling about? What is the mask thing?  Why are you obsessed with Trumps sack?  The situation in Michigan in NO WAY AT ALL relates to whether Trump will leave office if he loses. It is just another way for you to Trump bash. No one wants to hear your hatred of Trump manifest itself on this forum. We know you hate him.  No one cares who you voted for that is your business. Truth? Hardly. When you say I am hugging Trumps sack regularly you are a liar. Worse than even Trump. Get your face out of the sack of life.

trump rebelled against the mask thing and he got his boys to take over the capitol armed. he called and thanked them even though they broke the law. now he is setting up the crooked election thing and most of the people will buy it. you think he will not get folks to rise up when he cries the election was stolen? give me a break. better yet go play with someone else. all you have done is take up for that scum for over three years. you are a moron who tries to pretend to take the high road but you cannot. you have that trump taint on you. i have zero respect for you. you bring nothing but insults when people show you the truth.

[homersapien 11,388]

33 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I agree with you. Trump should have lied and said that he would ensure a smooth transition even if the election was obviously tainted and still being contended in the courts and congress. Then nobody would be freaking out right now.

Sounds to me like you agree the election is (already) "obviously tainted". 

Trump said: "The only way we could lose this election is if the election is rigged." 

No qualifiers, no conditions.  How do you defend that?

If any POTUS  says that, "freaking out" is a natural, rational response - at least from anyone who isn't a sycophant/cultist of said POTUS. 

Yet you persist in trying to normalize the behavior of someone who is anything but. 

(And you're nowhere near as clever as you think you are in doing it.  )

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

you have that trump taint on you.

Yeah. I mean, he did repeatedly reference trump's sack. If he's got trump's sack on his brain, that means he's got trump's taint right there on his face. Ew. 

By the way, some of us want to hear your hate for trump manifest itself on this forum, Fitty, although I wouldn't word it so poorly myself. That dude's the one on my ignore list, not you, so there's one right there. Keep doing your thing, Bro Nix.

[aubiefifty 16,807]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Yeah. I mean, he did repeatedly reference trump's sack. If he's got trump's sack on his brain, that means he's got trump's taint right there on his face. Ew. 

By the way, some of us want to hear your hate for trump manifest itself on this forum, Fitty, although I wouldn't word it so poorly myself. That dude's the one on my ignore list, not you, so there's one right there. Keep doing your thing, Bro Nix.

i am sick and tired of people acting like trump is a great guy with morals who is not harming this country right now badly only to throw out but dems.......... i am pissed about people daring to lecture me on anything because of what i say on a message board when they give trump a pass. all it does is encourage other morons down the line. now people will probably be hurt and we will have to make new laws we should not have to make to protect scum and the people who support and enable them. and you boys do not like what i say or how i say it or want to make fun of my little two year college go right ahead. i am right and in my heart i know it. i have given thirty years of my life to government service which includes four during nam and i will be damned if i keep my mouth shut when people are willfully trying to destroy this country. i will be here until i die or titan drags me screaming out of the political boards. i do not love a man i love my country and if you people think i will shut up you would be wrong. but hey maybe one of you can make me mad enough to get me banned. rant over.....i think.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yeah. I mean, he did repeatedly reference trump's sack. If he's got trump's sack on his brain, that means he's got trump's taint right there on his face. Ew. 

By the way, some of us want to hear your hate for trump manifest itself on this forum, Fitty, although I wouldn't word it so poorly myself. That dude's the one on my ignore list, not you, so there's one right there. Keep doing your thing, Bro Nix.

First sack mention belongs to fitty. I would have no reason to refer to it. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

Trump is not "just messing with the media." He is using the media's stupid question to excite his base.

Do you think the question was reasonable? If I ask you, "Will you accept the results of the upcoming election?" you will not say "yes" because you have no idea what might happen. There would be no good reason for you to answer the question without knowing how the election results will be determined. I think Trump feels the same way about the question that he was asked.

Trump may be a scumbag, but he's not stupid all of the time.

I think the actual question from the Playboy reporter was "Will you accept a peaceful transfer win, lose or draw ?" Think about that, how stupid is it to ask about a win or a draw ? In a win there is no need. A draw hell yes he will fight a draw and he should. A loss, all pols will just say they will win. In all 3 scenarios how can he say it will be peaceful after he has seen all the things the insane left wing supporters of the Dems have done in the cities all summer ? The answer is, he can't.

No, it was a stupid question by a previously banned and notoriously stupid reporter who was posturing and wagging his finger at him. POTUS gave an answer that triggered the left which is all that reporter deserved. As someone said earlier, most Dems by their own actions and deeds have yet to accept the 2016 loss. The reporter can ask them.

 

[aubiefifty 16,807]

53 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I agree with you. Trump should have lied and said that he would ensure a smooth transition even if the election was obviously tainted and still being contended in the courts and congress. Then nobody would be freaking out right now.

no. trump needs to keep his mouth shut until some kind of cheating actually happens. he is a cancer.

[IronMan70 3,277]

18 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because he's not a president, he's a mob boss.

That's just stupid. 

[Grumps 3,704]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sounds to me like you agree the election is (already) "obviously tainted". 

Trump said: "The only way we could lose this election is if the election is rigged." 

No qualifiers, no conditions.  How do you defend that?

If any POTUS  says that, "freaking out" is a natural, rational response - at least from anyone who isn't a sycophant/cultist of said POTUS. 

Yet you persist in trying to normalize the behavior of someone who is anything but. 

(And you're nowhere near as clever as you think you are in doing it.  )

I think Trump was an idiot for saying that. I don't defend it.

Do you commit to accepting the results of the election no matter how it turns out?

[homersapien 11,388]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I think Trump was an idiot for saying that. I don't defend it.

Do you commit to accepting the results of the election no matter how it turns out?

As long as Trump doesn't intervene to reverse or confuse the results,  yes.

But he'll try.   I don't think he will succeed.

[aubiefifty 16,807]

"There's an information ecosystem that is different than what everybody else in America is digesting, and in it, Trump is, what he's doing — and this is how all dictators rise, right? — he's on a freedom crusade, and none of this information is getting through. They never will listen to the [Bob] Woodward tapes, they never read the Mueller report. They listen to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity's version of these documents and they have constructed an alternative reality that started in the Jim Jordan part of the party but goes through the rank and file now, and that is a key feature."

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

As long as Trump doesn't intervene to reverse the results,  yes.

But he'll try.   I don't think he will succeed.

Exactly, you won't commit to an unconditional acceptance of the election results and neither will Trump. He was stupid enough to say it to a reporter and you only said it on a message board. By the way, this is a completely trivial matter because there is no way in the world that Trump can refuse to leave the White House. He can be unhelpful if he chooses to and be thought of as a sore loser in addition to all of the other bad things that people think about him. But he cannot refuse to leave his job as POTUS.

In a whataboutism moment, do you agree with Ms. Clinton that Biden should not concede no matter what?

[Grumps 3,704]

Two questions:

1. If Trump loses in a close election, do you think the republicans will riot?

2. Which police/military group will be responsible for physically removing Trump from office after he loses and refuses to leave?

[Leftfield 2,610]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Exactly, you won't commit to an unconditional acceptance of the election results and neither will Trump. He was stupid enough to say it to a reporter and you only said it on a message board. By the way, this is a completely trivial matter because there is no way in the world that Trump can refuse to leave the White House. He can be unhelpful if he chooses to and be thought of as a sore loser in addition to all of the other bad things that people think about him. But he cannot refuse to leave his job as POTUS.

In a whataboutism moment, do you agree with Ms. Clinton that Biden should not concede no matter what?

Trump gets no benefit of the doubt because he has been steadily trying to undermine the legitimacy of the election results for months. He also easily could have answered, "Yes, I will accept the results, barring proof of significant fraud." That wouldn't have completely silenced his critics, but it would have been much better than what he did say.

As to Trump refusing to leave the White House, the real concerns are best laid out in the article @McLoofusposted earlier in this thread. It's lengthy, but please read.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/?fbclid=IwAR17S56qOw4JUzIoM5dIcpfksvIqfx0f0PGgMM9VPgOJ_-KIMieXvFVOoyE

[homersapien 11,388]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

Exactly, you won't commit to an unconditional acceptance of the election results and neither will Trump. He was stupid enough to say it to a reporter and you only said it on a message board. By the way, this is a completely trivial matter because there is no way in the world that Trump can refuse to leave the White House. He can be unhelpful if he chooses to and be thought of as a sore loser in addition to all of the other bad things that people think about him. But he cannot refuse to leave his job as POTUS.

In a whataboutism moment, do you agree with Ms. Clinton that Biden should not concede no matter what?

"Exactly", because Trump has made many statements that give us reason to believe he will try to steal or distort the results of said election.

And I am not president, I don't have the responsibility of encouraging faith in our system.

No responsible POTUS would respond to a question of accepting the results conditionally, the way Trump has. It clearly implies there is a possibility - or even a probability - the election will be rigged.  It's been a constant theme with him.  Yet, there are no serious, rational reasons to suspect it will be rigged.  (But it is what our enemies want us to believe.)

Bottom line, his response is not the response of a normal president in spite of your effort to portray it as "normal". 

It's a deliberate ploy to cast doubt on the outcome in case he loses.

[Grumps 3,704]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There you go, normalizing Trump again.

No respectable POTUS would respond to such a question the way Trump has.  It inherently implies that our elections are possibly - or in Trump's case, likely corrupt - the sort of thinking that is promoted by enemies of the country.

I agree with you. Does your comment have a point?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, IronMan70 said:

That's just stupid. 

I mean, there's the inordinate demand for loyalty, the boss as the dominant center of everything, everyone is only valuable in terms of how they serve the boss, all that matters is what's in the boss's interests. All about the "family."  The "you're with us or against us" mentality.  The punishing of those who are disloyal or oppose him.  The threats to cut off money to states that don't support him or do what he likes.  And now even the insinuation that there might be wiggle room not to have a peaceful transfer of power.

The similarities are pretty striking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Regardless of outcome, I would not be surprised at all if this ends up in SCOTUS as it has previously.