Trump declares in advance that he will regard a loss as illegitimate ("The only way they can win is by cheating"). It's obviously a manifestation of his narcissistic pathology -- which won't accept that he could ever not be the winner of everything - encouraged by the teaching of Roy Cohn: "Always claim victory, never admit defeat. Attack, attack, attack."
Most people probably don't know about the Roy Cohn doctrine, but the extreme narcissism is impossible to miss. I suspect that some Trump apologists know deep down that it's the real basis of his "stolen election" claims, but they found it useful to their purposes to pretend that their political enemies have corruptly robbed them of victory -- and then use it as a pretext to cook up their own corrupt schemes to "fight back."
While it is refreshing to read what happened on January 6th accurately described as an attempted coup, can we please call the "fake electors scheme" what it really was? It was election fraud, pure and simple.
Not a single comment you’ve ever left on our site, including this one, has ever substantively addressed anything we’ve posted. So I guess why start now, right?
Why don’t you sign up to work an election then you would see that both parties are already represented. Most people think that running an election is easy but just being responsible for a precinct where people vote can be eye-opening; especially now. It is serious business. You take an oath and you try your best to be nice to everyone who comes in to do their civic duty. It’s a long day but you’ve been trained to fill the position you’ve signed up for. If more people would do this there would be less disinformation flying around.
Though you may have a point -- for example, I sure didn't see, on a quick skim, any smoking gun that Trump's explicitly stated intent is to "mount another coup".
Trump is obviously not going to provide an “explicitly stated intent” to mount a coup. He didn’t do that last time, and yet his unremitting election delegitimization, his various schemes to stay in office, and his actions on Jan. 6 all amounted to a coup attempt. He has a natural disincentive to characterize his intentions as being to plot another coup. But that’s what his actions will *amount to* if he loses.
Just like last time, many of his recent pre-election actions are aimed at delegitimizing the election in the event that he loses. It’s not like he’s acting very differently this time around. And, last time, he ended up attempting a coup. If you think it’s yellow journalism to see many of the same behaviors this time around, and then to sensibly draw the inference that he’s doing so to try a similar thing, we simply view both Trump and that term very differently, I guess.
If you had some photographs of Trump's "Schlieffen plan" to "mount a coup" -- maybe from Stormy Daniel of Trump's desk in the hotel where they had their "assignation" -- then you could clearly justify your "preparing".
Well, we discovered "The Eastman Plan" for the 2020 coup after the fact.
Why would we doubt that there isn't a plan for 2024?
I just think it will be a different coup for which he doesn't have to leave Mar-a-Lago to accomplish. No violence needed and against which, because there is no identifiable source, Harris cannot fight.
Roy Cohn taught Trump that the first principle is NEVER accept defeat. And Trump never will.
Everything depends on the partisan composition of Congress. It will be the only defense against Trump's reign as the King of Misrule.
There’s a lot of sturm und drang here, and I agree with the author that DJT has little, if any, respect for the law or process. But for all the word count here, there is absolutely zero evidence of a planned coup.
Lotta that still going around. Though -- "speaking as a Canuck (Canadian)" -- I can sympathize with Amurica's quandary -- Trump is, at best, a rather "flawed" individual. Still rather moot whether Harris or Trump is the lesser of two weevils.
Reminds me of Sam Harris willing to accept virtually any crime at all from the Democrats rather than allow Trump to get re-elected:
"In that episode, [Sam Harris] says that a conspiracy was fully warranted to keep Trump from getting re-elected. He, a father of two little girls, says that he wouldn’t have cared if Hunter Biden’s laptop had evidence that he had a basement full of the corpses of children. He expresses a utilitarian view that all previous moral limits no longer apply to the task of keeping Trump out of office. Stopping Trump from winning a second term justifies any moral offense, including the one he published a book-length argument asserting we should all wholly reject as a baseline principle."
I -- and Andrew Sullivan and many others -- seem to feel pretty much the same thing about Kamala Harris:
"Rachel Levine Must Resign: A case study in politics and ideology overruling science. With children as victims. .... I have to say that the news this week has made me reconsider voting for Kamala Harris."
Rachel Levine will resign when Biden leaves office as is customary in order for a new administration to make an appointment and the Senate to confirm.
Rachel Levine as an ASSISTANT Secretary of Health and Human Services has no independent power that is not circumscribed by the Secretary and the President.
So you are 100% wrong that Rachel Levine is the problem. The problem is with the President. So the surest way of eliminating Levine (and anyone who holds her opinions) is to vote for Donald Trump. It is rather interesting that anyone would make their final decision based on who is the assistant secretary to a Cabinet member. This seems to lack all perspective with regard to the larger issues of this election.
Rachel Levine was confirmed by the Senate along party lines so issues with her conduct and abilities were fully vetted prior to her confirmation. To avoid this happening again there needs to be a Republican Majority in the Senate.
The question really is who will Harris appoint when it is her choice?
I disagree with both Harris and Sullivan. Sullivan is a bit of a drama queen in search of relevance and always has been. Sullivan could be Ann Coulter's gay brother.
As for Harris I believe he is simply responding to the dilemma of how one can be expected to fight fairly when the opponent refuses to adhere to the The Marquess of Queensberry Rules. How does one fight lawfully when the opponent is lawless? It is the same dilemma faced by prosecutors who try a mob boss: how does one overcome lying defense witnesses, witness and jury tampering, and an endless appeals process with corrupt judges waiting to get the case.
Harris is wrong. Sometimes one just has to accept the results no matter how unpalatable and regardless of the consequences.
Levine is just the tip of a Titanic-sinking iceberg of a problem. Another salient "tip" is the Title IX claptrap that mandates putting transwomen -- i.e., fully "intact" males, or sexless eunuchs as the case may be -- into women's sports.
I don't think Kamala Harris -- not Sam, though the question might be moot in his case -- has a flaming clue about the bedrock difference between men and women which has more than passing relevance to a great many issues. For example, see this image and caption from another Substack post which gives chapter and verse on those problems:
"Dylan Mulvaney (left)—a man who 'identifies as a woman'—who produced sexism-drenched videos about his 'girlhood' was invited to the White House by Joe Biden. In a letter to Mulvaney, Vice President Harris said 'I send you my warmest greetings as you celebrate your 365th day of living authentically.' The photo on the right shows Mulvaney after facial feminization surgery."
"living authentically" -- what an ignoramus, being charitable; dangerously and scientifically illiterate at best.
Too many on the Democrat side are turning a blind eye to the many problems that they've contributed to or are chief proponents of, problems which, for all the rot on the Republican side, only they show any willingness to address. That's why the election is a toss-up.
ICYMI, y'all might take a gander at a NY Times article from David Brooks asking, "What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?"
Well then if trans issues are the existential threat you claim then Trump and a Republican Congress is the only solution because Democrats will never attempt to sufficiently neutralize the threat that the 1 to 3 million transpersons present to the Republic. They will be always erring on the side of compassion and inclusion which is one of their weaknesses.
No it’s not too much to ask for, except for ppl who want to cheat and other folks like the Unpopulist crowd & their TDS brethren who *actually* destroy our institutions & democracy by permitting or sanctioning it just to stop Trump.
Wherein this substack Unpopulist just demonstrates how Uninformed (willfully?) it is on the topics it purports to cover. If you can’t even accurately describe the subject matter you’re covering, don’t be surprised when no one is buying the unfounded & ridiculous TDS hysteria you’re selling.
MAGA, you may cast your vote for your Chosen One, but doing so will only result in President JD Vance. If Agent Orange makes it to the 100th day of his administration, I’ll be surprised. If he even gets elected.
Donald Trump loses the election but Republicans retain a House majority with Trump toady Mike Johnson as Speaker. Republicans regain a Senate majority with a new more "Trump Adjacent" leadership. This is a real possibility in swing states that will split their tickets rejecting Trump but voting Republican down ballot as happened in 2020. Congressional Republicans formally accept that Harris is President but treat it as a legal fiction.
If Trump loses the his MAGA base, now a vital component of the Republican electorate, will be furious. Congressional Republicans will be expected to harry and harass a Harris administration and they will do as expected.
Trump can and probably will establish a shadow administration at Mar-a-Lago. He will still have the power to control the RNC. He will still be a threat to any Republican who steps out of line by organizing primary challenges. He will weigh in on social media and the mainstream media will echo every weird thing he says just as they do now. He already has been carrying on a parallel foreign policy while out of office. Congressional Republicans (especially any Speaker of the House) will have to listen to whatever Trump wants.
Not every Republican will submit to this--- but enough of them will so that he can control the flow of legislation and what gets passed.
The new Senate majority will eliminate the filibuster as Trump has often demanded but Mitch McConnell (and Joe Manchin) refused to do. Harris may not have a cabinet for months into her administration. Judicial appointments could stop altogether. If any Justice dies does anyone believe she will actually be allowed to fill that seat?
Threats to shut down the government will become actual events if Harris does not do as Republicans demand. She will still have the veto and Republicans will flood her desk with things to veto and then charge her with being controlled by leftist socialists who want the country to collapse and refusing to work with Congress. Republicans can override her executive orders (in itself not a bad thing) or defund agencies or most likely tie them up in courts. The current SCOTUS seems inclined to only impinge on executive authority when that authority is in the hands of a Democrat.
Harris will have expanded executive immunity and all of her acts must be presumed official until after she leaves office--- but as an institutionalist faithful to the Constitution she will never go there.
So I don't see a coup in the making just a world in which the de jure President operates in tandem with someone who, for half the country is the de facto President.
Everything hinges on who controls Congress and not the White House.
Trump declares in advance that he will regard a loss as illegitimate ("The only way they can win is by cheating"). It's obviously a manifestation of his narcissistic pathology -- which won't accept that he could ever not be the winner of everything - encouraged by the teaching of Roy Cohn: "Always claim victory, never admit defeat. Attack, attack, attack."
Most people probably don't know about the Roy Cohn doctrine, but the extreme narcissism is impossible to miss. I suspect that some Trump apologists know deep down that it's the real basis of his "stolen election" claims, but they found it useful to their purposes to pretend that their political enemies have corruptly robbed them of victory -- and then use it as a pretext to cook up their own corrupt schemes to "fight back."
While it is refreshing to read what happened on January 6th accurately described as an attempted coup, can we please call the "fake electors scheme" what it really was? It was election fraud, pure and simple.
Is it really too much to ask for voter ID? Counting ballots with both parties in attendance?
I don't like to assume bad intentions on your part, but this seems like a PLA post.
Not a single comment you’ve ever left on our site, including this one, has ever substantively addressed anything we’ve posted. So I guess why start now, right?
Why don’t you sign up to work an election then you would see that both parties are already represented. Most people think that running an election is easy but just being responsible for a precinct where people vote can be eye-opening; especially now. It is serious business. You take an oath and you try your best to be nice to everyone who comes in to do their civic duty. It’s a long day but you’ve been trained to fill the position you’ve signed up for. If more people would do this there would be less disinformation flying around.
PLA? Polylactic acid? People's Liberation Army? 😉🙂
Though you may have a point -- for example, I sure didn't see, on a quick skim, any smoking gun that Trump's explicitly stated intent is to "mount another coup".
Trump is obviously not going to provide an “explicitly stated intent” to mount a coup. He didn’t do that last time, and yet his unremitting election delegitimization, his various schemes to stay in office, and his actions on Jan. 6 all amounted to a coup attempt. He has a natural disincentive to characterize his intentions as being to plot another coup. But that’s what his actions will *amount to* if he loses.
"amount to" is still seems rather short of smoking-gun evidence of "preparing to mount a coup" ...
Putting your thumbs on the scales is more typical of the yellow press:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Just like last time, many of his recent pre-election actions are aimed at delegitimizing the election in the event that he loses. It’s not like he’s acting very differently this time around. And, last time, he ended up attempting a coup. If you think it’s yellow journalism to see many of the same behaviors this time around, and then to sensibly draw the inference that he’s doing so to try a similar thing, we simply view both Trump and that term very differently, I guess.
If you had some photographs of Trump's "Schlieffen plan" to "mount a coup" -- maybe from Stormy Daniel of Trump's desk in the hotel where they had their "assignation" -- then you could clearly justify your "preparing".
Otherwise ...
Well, we discovered "The Eastman Plan" for the 2020 coup after the fact.
Why would we doubt that there isn't a plan for 2024?
I just think it will be a different coup for which he doesn't have to leave Mar-a-Lago to accomplish. No violence needed and against which, because there is no identifiable source, Harris cannot fight.
Roy Cohn taught Trump that the first principle is NEVER accept defeat. And Trump never will.
Everything depends on the partisan composition of Congress. It will be the only defense against Trump's reign as the King of Misrule.
There’s a lot of sturm und drang here, and I agree with the author that DJT has little, if any, respect for the law or process. But for all the word count here, there is absolutely zero evidence of a planned coup.
TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome)? 😉🙂
Lotta that still going around. Though -- "speaking as a Canuck (Canadian)" -- I can sympathize with Amurica's quandary -- Trump is, at best, a rather "flawed" individual. Still rather moot whether Harris or Trump is the lesser of two weevils.
Reminds me of Sam Harris willing to accept virtually any crime at all from the Democrats rather than allow Trump to get re-elected:
"In that episode, [Sam Harris] says that a conspiracy was fully warranted to keep Trump from getting re-elected. He, a father of two little girls, says that he wouldn’t have cared if Hunter Biden’s laptop had evidence that he had a basement full of the corpses of children. He expresses a utilitarian view that all previous moral limits no longer apply to the task of keeping Trump out of office. Stopping Trump from winning a second term justifies any moral offense, including the one he published a book-length argument asserting we should all wholly reject as a baseline principle."
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/a-prayer-for-sam-harris
I -- and Andrew Sullivan and many others -- seem to feel pretty much the same thing about Kamala Harris:
"Rachel Levine Must Resign: A case study in politics and ideology overruling science. With children as victims. .... I have to say that the news this week has made me reconsider voting for Kamala Harris."
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/rachel-levine-must-resign-2d7
Rachel Levine will resign when Biden leaves office as is customary in order for a new administration to make an appointment and the Senate to confirm.
Rachel Levine as an ASSISTANT Secretary of Health and Human Services has no independent power that is not circumscribed by the Secretary and the President.
So you are 100% wrong that Rachel Levine is the problem. The problem is with the President. So the surest way of eliminating Levine (and anyone who holds her opinions) is to vote for Donald Trump. It is rather interesting that anyone would make their final decision based on who is the assistant secretary to a Cabinet member. This seems to lack all perspective with regard to the larger issues of this election.
Rachel Levine was confirmed by the Senate along party lines so issues with her conduct and abilities were fully vetted prior to her confirmation. To avoid this happening again there needs to be a Republican Majority in the Senate.
The question really is who will Harris appoint when it is her choice?
I disagree with both Harris and Sullivan. Sullivan is a bit of a drama queen in search of relevance and always has been. Sullivan could be Ann Coulter's gay brother.
As for Harris I believe he is simply responding to the dilemma of how one can be expected to fight fairly when the opponent refuses to adhere to the The Marquess of Queensberry Rules. How does one fight lawfully when the opponent is lawless? It is the same dilemma faced by prosecutors who try a mob boss: how does one overcome lying defense witnesses, witness and jury tampering, and an endless appeals process with corrupt judges waiting to get the case.
Harris is wrong. Sometimes one just has to accept the results no matter how unpalatable and regardless of the consequences.
Levine is just the tip of a Titanic-sinking iceberg of a problem. Another salient "tip" is the Title IX claptrap that mandates putting transwomen -- i.e., fully "intact" males, or sexless eunuchs as the case may be -- into women's sports.
I don't think Kamala Harris -- not Sam, though the question might be moot in his case -- has a flaming clue about the bedrock difference between men and women which has more than passing relevance to a great many issues. For example, see this image and caption from another Substack post which gives chapter and verse on those problems:
"Dylan Mulvaney (left)—a man who 'identifies as a woman'—who produced sexism-drenched videos about his 'girlhood' was invited to the White House by Joe Biden. In a letter to Mulvaney, Vice President Harris said 'I send you my warmest greetings as you celebrate your 365th day of living authentically.' The photo on the right shows Mulvaney after facial feminization surgery."
"living authentically" -- what an ignoramus, being charitable; dangerously and scientifically illiterate at best.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc00e3123-1916-4c0e-a32b-cdd0d45b49c8_962x340.heic
https://caroldansereau.substack.com/p/cliff-notes-for-my-progressive-friends
Too many on the Democrat side are turning a blind eye to the many problems that they've contributed to or are chief proponents of, problems which, for all the rot on the Republican side, only they show any willingness to address. That's why the election is a toss-up.
ICYMI, y'all might take a gander at a NY Times article from David Brooks asking, "What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?"
Archive link: https://archive.ph/DCsMq
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html?ogrp=dpl&unlocked_article_code=1.T04.HVtR.woQgiXjD2WFw&smid=url-share
Well then if trans issues are the existential threat you claim then Trump and a Republican Congress is the only solution because Democrats will never attempt to sufficiently neutralize the threat that the 1 to 3 million transpersons present to the Republic. They will be always erring on the side of compassion and inclusion which is one of their weaknesses.
No it’s not too much to ask for, except for ppl who want to cheat and other folks like the Unpopulist crowd & their TDS brethren who *actually* destroy our institutions & democracy by permitting or sanctioning it just to stop Trump.
Maybe Harris voters show up in person to protest a coup attempt. Thats where we kind of are.
Wherein this substack Unpopulist just demonstrates how Uninformed (willfully?) it is on the topics it purports to cover. If you can’t even accurately describe the subject matter you’re covering, don’t be surprised when no one is buying the unfounded & ridiculous TDS hysteria you’re selling.
Oh honey, dear Donald has deranged his followers more than any critic you care to name.
Does he understand how widely and heartily his passing will be celebrated throughout the world!?
CELEBRATED!!!!!!
MAGA, you may cast your vote for your Chosen One, but doing so will only result in President JD Vance. If Agent Orange makes it to the 100th day of his administration, I’ll be surprised. If he even gets elected.
Dear Donald did not try to overturn the 2020 election, he tried to steal it. There is a difference.
Donald Trump loses the election but Republicans retain a House majority with Trump toady Mike Johnson as Speaker. Republicans regain a Senate majority with a new more "Trump Adjacent" leadership. This is a real possibility in swing states that will split their tickets rejecting Trump but voting Republican down ballot as happened in 2020. Congressional Republicans formally accept that Harris is President but treat it as a legal fiction.
If Trump loses the his MAGA base, now a vital component of the Republican electorate, will be furious. Congressional Republicans will be expected to harry and harass a Harris administration and they will do as expected.
Trump can and probably will establish a shadow administration at Mar-a-Lago. He will still have the power to control the RNC. He will still be a threat to any Republican who steps out of line by organizing primary challenges. He will weigh in on social media and the mainstream media will echo every weird thing he says just as they do now. He already has been carrying on a parallel foreign policy while out of office. Congressional Republicans (especially any Speaker of the House) will have to listen to whatever Trump wants.
Not every Republican will submit to this--- but enough of them will so that he can control the flow of legislation and what gets passed.
The new Senate majority will eliminate the filibuster as Trump has often demanded but Mitch McConnell (and Joe Manchin) refused to do. Harris may not have a cabinet for months into her administration. Judicial appointments could stop altogether. If any Justice dies does anyone believe she will actually be allowed to fill that seat?
Threats to shut down the government will become actual events if Harris does not do as Republicans demand. She will still have the veto and Republicans will flood her desk with things to veto and then charge her with being controlled by leftist socialists who want the country to collapse and refusing to work with Congress. Republicans can override her executive orders (in itself not a bad thing) or defund agencies or most likely tie them up in courts. The current SCOTUS seems inclined to only impinge on executive authority when that authority is in the hands of a Democrat.
Harris will have expanded executive immunity and all of her acts must be presumed official until after she leaves office--- but as an institutionalist faithful to the Constitution she will never go there.
So I don't see a coup in the making just a world in which the de jure President operates in tandem with someone who, for half the country is the de facto President.
Everything hinges on who controls Congress and not the White House.