Joe Biden can save America

[Cyrano]

I did a post yesterday stating that Joe has "immunity" for anything he does in his role as president.

https://democraticunderground.com/100219715542

Most replies were negative and included comments like "you don't understand that SCOTUS decision," or, "So you'd rather have Joe as dictator than Trump," or. "I don't know what you're smoking."

Here's our current reality. As of next January 20th, America is over. In a short period of time, our Constitution will be gone, along with all of our government benefits and all of our freedoms. And there won't be another election in four years. Trump, or Vance, or one of the other fascist thugs will be "president for life." Anyone who doesn't see this isn't paying attention.

I'm suggesting that Joe Biden has the power to stop this with the "immunity" thing. He took an oath to defend the Constitution. They are on the verge of shredding it. Biden can do whatever is necessary to see they don't come to power. And, yes, that means playing really dirty. and going against everything we Democrats ever believed in. But consider the alternative.

And please don't ask me what he can do. He holds "immunity." Use your imagination.

And if you have a better suggestion to stop the impending end of America, let's hear it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. You're confusing immunity with impunity

Impunity requires enough Good Germans, who are not immune from criminal prosecution, to agree to carry out Biden’s illegal acts.

[Cyrano]

3. Do you think Trump is going to make that distinction?

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. He will have plenty of Good Germans

Not sure that Biden does, even if he was inclined to act illegally with impunity.

[Farmer-Rick]

51. It doesn't have to be illegal

Isn't he convicted of 34 counts for fraud? Has he followed through on sentencing? Did he pay his legal judgements? Has he been on his best behavior so he doesn't go to jail like all the rest of us would?

He could be put in jail, in a perfectly legal manner. Garland must be giving Dumpy Trumpy a special favor.

He has already tried to violate the US Constitution by having a loyalty board for military members which is outright illegal according to the US Constitution.

So how about pre-trial detention? Pedo Trump is a flight risk. Tell me Joe does not know one judge who would give the American Hitler pre-trial detention.

There are laws Trump has violated and pre-trial detention is very common for the average criminal. Then keep him there until you can do a full investigation. He can take the presidential oath of office in jail.

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. So Biden should order Trump jailed?

That’s a fascist solution to a fascist problem, which , rather than preventing fascism, would only breed more of it.

[Linda ladeewolf]

94. No he shouldn't for now, but

He should authorize an investigation into this election. He can do that. Harris is going to demand a recount in certain states. I’m pretty certain of that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

131. Harris has conceded

There will be no recounts.

[Linda ladeewolf]

134. Concession means nothing

If there has been election tampering.

[Fiendish Thingy]

138. It does if the person with standing to challenge the results has conceded.

Nobody else can demand a recount.

[KS Toronado]

101. Jail him for being a Russian agent, no doubt he's a Putin PAWN

When Russia flat out comes out and says "We got you elected now do as you're told you owe us"
Indicates there was cheating plus will TSF put America First or Russia First? Right there is Biden's
message to us "We can not have a Russian agent in charge of this Country.



Maybe just maybe if we had large rallies across this Country asking Biden to save the world from TSF
might motivate him into action. I'm sure behind closed doors they are throwing ideas around how to
implement a strategy that doesn't start a civil war.

[Farmer-Rick]

109. The Dumpy Trumpy has violated the law

Already, right now, he is in violation of the US Constitution. Yeah put his huge diapered butt in jail. If you had done it, you would be in jail.

We all pretend like he hasn't committed new crimes. He has. And even the old crimes have not been fully paid for.

[EdmondDantes_]

7. And those acts have to be within his duties as president

It's a tough case to argue that becoming a dictator would qualify.

[V850i]

107. He could simply pardon them

Their actions that lead to criminal liability would be federal in nature, so Biden, and Trump in the future can simply pardon them.

[Easterncedar]

2. Dictator Biden? Sure!

I don’t mind dreaming. Not going to happen, but it would feel good to see some initiative on offense.

[Walleye]

4. Joe in charge? Hell, yes, a better man was never created

[Cyrano]

6. Just until the threat is removed

[Magoo48]

58. I would support Joe. This as a potential form of resistance for timid Dems is highly unlikely.

I’m pledged to resist in any way I possibly can.

[DENVERPOPS]

62. I have thought

what we need is a "Benevolent" Dictator.........

[bucolic_frolic]

5. There is swearing an oath to defend what you're already destroying

Should the crowd boo? Or laugh?

Seems to me insurrection is the best available card. How could SCOTUS refuse to see what it saw with its own eyes, and J6 Committee told the nation about? Oh right, SCOTUS(R).

[CrispyQ]

8. You would think this alone would have been enough to quartz him.

The scope of his betrayal is simply boggling. There's not one other American who would have gotten away with this. Not Biden, not either of the Clintons, certainly not Obama.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. And where is the Intelligence community on this larceny and its consequences?

Government workers go to jail for years or decades.

[Cyrano]

19. Joe can pardon them all

[bucolic_frolic]

25. That is so true!! Bravo for stating the subtly implied. /nt

[hawkeye21]

9. You get it. You are absolutely right. Many of our Dems are too naive. They'd rather be Chamberlain than Churchill.

They think this is just a bump in the road instead of the end of the road. Play nice with America's Hitler and see how that goes.

And yes, of course Dictator Biden would be a gazillion times better than Dictator Trump. A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. The trouble with it, of course, is finding a dictator who is benevolent. But with Biden, problem solved. I sure as hell would prefer that to another round of Trump and MAGA depravity.

Trump is a cruel, malicious, vengeful, egomaniac psychopath who would have NO restraints--NONE. Why don't people get that?

[peregrinus]

11. I get it

[usonian]

12. Joe can make some irreversible decisions that 💩 can't walk back.

He can give Ukraine what it needs to smash Putin.
He can release all court documents filed by prosecutors before they're burned in a bonfire.
He can turn over the office of POTUS to the first female President.

Given the propaganda machine's 24 by 7 by 365 brainwashing of racism and misogyny, that might come by electoral means in another 200 years, should the country last the next 4.

I am asking the universe to inform Joe: "DO THE WRONG THING, JOE"
Cuz doing the right thing sent us straight to hell.

What can they do? Fire him?

[EarlG]

13. Here's our current reality

Donald Trump just won the election. More people voted for him than for Joe Biden. That's how democracy works, I'm afraid. The people wanted it, the people got it, and now we all have to live with the consequences.

You seem to be suggesting that Joe Biden should throw out the election results and take the country by force -- basically what Trump tried and failed to do on January 6.

Can I ask, if he did this and succeeded, have you given any thought to what happens next?

Do we put down the inevitable mass protests by force? Declare martial law? If Congress and the courts push back, do we get rid of them too? Do we have elections again in the future? And if so, do we police every election to make sure the voters don't choose the "wrong" option?

Just wondering how you see this playing out down the road if Biden does what you're asking him to do.

[Drum]

15. Thank you, EarlG!

[Cyrano]

27. I don't have any of the answers, EarlG

I'm suggesting what I believe to be a perhaps better alternative to the implementation of Project 2025 next January 20th.

However, there is one more thing of which I'm certain. A free press, (liberal internet sites included), will be over. And that, of course includes DU. We won't be able to have these discussions anymore. Removing all opposition is in the playbook of all dictatorships.

Joe is surrounded by many smart people who can perhaps use the "immunity" power to stop the impending Hellscape, and then, somehow, restore democracy. Wish I had a better solution.

[rubbersole]

54. DU will be targeted.

And all the other "liberal" sites. Count on it.

[DENVERPOPS]

77. And knowing Trump's need for vengeance

He might target everyone posting on it........There is no end to what a psychopathic Narcissist will do, given supreme power.
And in this case, with the USSC backing him all the way...............

I truly believe, that Trump and his CABAL, are the most frightening thing we have ever faced.........especially when our "leader" will be under the command of Putin and Saudi's.......

[usonian]

36. There are reasonable things Joe can do. I pray that he does. See my post just above yours.

Joe Biden appointed an Attorney General who spent much time and money protecting billionaires from bitcoin theft, and protecting 💩from assassination attempts by Iran. Look it up.

Appointing incompetents has its downside for the appointer. Bill Barr was very good at what he did: covering up a tanker full of crimes.

In the past, I felt that extreme magats might take 💩 down for not going far enough.
Let's see when they are released from prison, and face an economic collapse due to tariffs and the predictable crash of the AI bubble.

Then again, we all hoped that the gangsters would kill each other off, but only a small number were knocked off.

Expect the unexpected.

[DaBronx]

44. Did you mean VP Harris?

Joe Biden had more votes than Trump in 2020.

[sarisataka]

106. I can't think of anything more Democratic

than a military overthrow of a government. Maybe establish a Praetorian Guard in case this happens again.

[SimplyHadEnough]

111. People are afraid

and I don't blame them. We're watching our country being destroyed from within by Trump. The question for me is why?

[EarlG]

117. I don't blame them either

This is a horrible situation.

I'll note that I don't have any problem with people rising up and throwing out abusive, oppressive, illegal regimes. I came of age during the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came down. It was remarkable to see millions of people rising up and throwing out their abusers, moving their countries moving from dictatorships to freedom and democracy. And revolution is obviously how this country got started.

Trump tried to throw his own revolution, but like everything else about him, it was fake. January 6 was a phony shadow of a revolution, carried out by a weird combination of violent white supremacists and middle class realtors and salespeople. It wasn't a real revolution because you only get real revolutions when people are really desperate. In fact, that's the only time you can morally justify them.

It may be morally right to overthrow an abusive, oppressive, illegal regime. But at this moment in time, the Trump administration is not an abusive, oppressive, illegal regime. It is certainly threatening to become one, and it seems quite likely to become one. But what we have right now is what people just voted for. That's representative democracy -- the thing we stand for. It has to be allowed to play out, otherwise we never believed in it in the first place. Elections really do have consequences. When people go without a taste of how bad those consequences can be, they do dumb shit like re-elect Trump, because "what's the worst that can happen?"

It remains to be seen where this choice will take us, but getting here was a choice.

[dweller]

14. Joe Biden already saved America

4 years of no crime no drama and successful economic repair .

He was then ‘encouraged’ to step aside .
He’s earned his success and his departure from public life .
I’ve no more to ask from him .



✌🏻

[Ocelot II]

16. You still don't get what the SCOTUS decision means.

It means that a president can't be criminally prosecuted for official acts. That's it. It doesn't give the president the power that he doesn't have under the law and the Constitution to do whatever he wants or thinks he should do (the same is true of Trump). Any such acts would be null and void and nobody would have to acknowledge or obey them at all. So he could decree that the election was invalid or that Trump should be arrested or that a new election should be held or whatever, but nobody would have to obey him and nobody would. And someone who did carry an illegal order would not be immune from criminal prosecution. Biden couldn't be prosecuted for issuing those orders if they are deemed to be within the purview of his official duties but he can't make them happen.

[harumph]

46. How is defending the constitution from those who would shred it NOT within his duties?

I don't think this is the no-brainer you seem to think it is.

[Ocelot II]

57. Again - the decision only protects him from criminal prosecution.

It doesn't mean whatever he might do to defend the Constitution is enforceable if it's something that isn't legal. He can't be prosecuted criminally for ordering a national recount, for example, where there's no current law allowing it. But he also can't make it happen. He can't force anyone to execute his order. He doesn't have the authority to do it per the SCOTUS decision. Or, he can't issue a warrant for Trump's arrest that any law enforcement officer would have to obey. He has a duty to defend the constitution, and if he breaks the law to do it he can't be prosecuted for it (maybe; depends on what he did). But the decision doesn't give him any new powers.

[Justice matters.]

47. Like Ford to Nixon: Preemptive Pardons?

To all who would be subjects or even up to targets of criminal prosecutions (with evidence).

Republicans have no problem being that much aggressive, while Democrats take the High Road and lose.

[sarisataka]

17. The way to save Democracy

is to destroy Democracy...

Then we will put it back in place with free and fair elections that reflect the will of the People, at least until they get it wrong again.

[Justice matters.]

52. Paper Ballots and Voter IDs

F the media outlets if it takes a full month to count them all by hand.

They'll have to wait for the results like everybody else!

[sarisataka]

64. I thought we were against voter ID

since it would disenfranchise marginalized groups. Has that changed?

[sarisataka]

84. That is what they have been saying

"They" being Republicans

[Farmer-Rick]

99. No they "Trump Humpers" never said that

They were saying people of color who did not have citizenship were voting and needed to be stopped.

They were saying voter IDs had to be saddled with elaborate bureaucratic nonsense and fees, yes I have to pay for my drivers license, to prevent the poor and non-Aryans from voting.

[JustAnotherGen]

122. Why would you support

The Republican Myth about 'them people' voting?

They've been saying this since the VRA was enacted.

Even when they got rid of the VRA - they continued to say it.

This is GOP hogwash.

[Justice matters.]

89. Canada's democracy has voter IDs

Checking a box on their federal tax declarations each year results in adding the taxpayers to the voters database automatically, and once added, proof of identity with a picture (driver's license, universal healthcare card, passport) is required at the tables before getting the paper ballot to vote on.

They can do it (by law), but the most technologically advanced democracy (for now...) on Earth can't?

Editted to add: They also have to check a box to declare if they are citizens (yes box) or not (no box).

[Farmer-Rick]

105. But it costs to get those IDs that

The Trump Humpers were allowing. We had to fight to get TN to accept military IDs as IDs for voting. I now have to pay to get my driver's license and they want to make that the only ID you can use. Sounds like a poll tax to me.

Also the new driver's license requires a birth cert, proof of where you live and elaborate forms to complete and a long wait. I had my form kicked back 3 times because they claimed I didn't fill them out correctly. I had filled them out correctly but the people who process the paperwork are very stupid.

So, it's all about bureaucratic hoops and paying money to vote

[Justice matters.]

127. It does cost to get a driver license in Canada's provinces

and, where applicable, government-managed across the board car insurance (mandated), all vehicles included, simply because too many drivers did not care to buy privately-managed insurance coverage before and collision victims were left with unpaid bills.

Driving is considered not a right, but a privilege.

[Farmer-Rick]

129. It becomes a right when

It is required in order to vote.

[Justice matters.]

130. Not in Canada

Those who don't purchase the privilege to drive any vehicle (except for bicycles... and roller-skates) can vote by mail if they want to exercise that right, or they can contact the party local HQ they want to vote for to help them get to the polling site.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&document=index&lang=e

Social Democracy works. Just get the right infrastructure in place to make it work for the people. Yes, it's not free of charge. Income taxes and VAT sales taxes are high (with brackets for returns), but it's for the common good.

[JustAnotherGen]

115. Did they have poll taxes

Up through 1964 for the descendants of the Canadian enslaved?

I consider it reparations to my grandfather and grandmother who lived and died in Talladega AL in Jim Crow - that I don't have to show a picture ID when I go to the poll in NJ.

Besides - I already had my 3 points when I got my driver's license when I moved down here in 2006.

AmeriKKKa is different - you have people who built this country that are continuously shit on - and now we are being shit on by the descendants of a bunch of people who didn't show up until Ellis Island was built. The Ellis Island descendants can go fuck themselves. We were here first.

[Abnredleg]

85. 98% of all ballots cast in 2024 were paper

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/some-good-news-donald-trump-we-already-use-paper-ballots

[Kid Berwyn]

18. SCOTUS gave him the authority.

If turning over the government to Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs isn't a threat, nothing is.

[Ocelot II]

21. No, it did not. It gave him immunity from criminal prosecution

for official acts and that's all. It did not give him the authority or power to do anything. He can order subordinates to do something illegal but they don't have to obey him; and if they did, they would not be immune from prosecution. So, for example, he could order the FBI to arrest Trump without a warrant and deny him legal counsel, but the so-ordered FBI agents could say, "Hell, no; that's illegal and I'm not going to do it. Do it yourself." So then if Biden showed up on Trump's doorstep with a Glock and a set of handcuffs, stuffed him in the trunk of his car, drove him back to Delaware and locked him in his basement with no help from anybody, and if the courts agree that personally arresting and imprisoning Trump was an official act (and even SCOTUS might not go that far) Biden wouldn't be prosecuted for it. But he can't make anyone else do it.

[tritsofme]

28. You are wasting your time.

[Kid Berwyn]

39. Right. Waste of Decades.

Like the time president-elect Nixon came into office in 1968 and asked FBI Director Hoover not to investigate his Attorney General-nominee John Mitchell. Hoover saluted Tricky and Mitchell slid past Senate confirmation.

My point? No Nixon. No Rehnquist. No Reagan. No Scalia. No Poppy Doc Bush. No Clarence Thomas NRA AK-47s in the hands of the KKK. No Baby Doc Bush. No Trump. No SCrOTUS 6. And thus, there'd be no existential threat to the Constitution today.

PS: Sorry I didn't fill in all the blanks for you. No time today.

[Kid Berwyn]

32. Not if he pardons them.

Like he did Flynn.

[ScratchCat]

20. No, Joe had his chance and passed on it

I'll keep saying this. Biden has complete authority to have Donald Trump detained for espionage for a)having those documents at Mar-a-Lago and b)being in communication with foreign nationals and foreign heads of State while illegally in possession of said documents. Trump has NEVER been interrogated. Why? He was afraid of the maga crowd. Why? All he had to do was hold a prime time press conference, tell the people what Trump had done and say we can't and wont stand for this. It would have been over. Remember, Trump was trying to claim the FBI planted the stuff before he realized how dumb that was. He hardly had half a leg to stand on and Joe could have kicked it out from under him with an appeal to Republicans and the country on this. Huge mistake.

[Ocelot II]

23. No, he doesn't. See posts #16 and #21.

[ScratchCat]

29. Your posts have nothing to do with what I said

Biden has Constitutional authority because the Constitution and Patriot Act say so, not because of the SCOTUS decision which I 100% understand. I've never interpreted the decision as saying a POTUS can do anything and I have been one of few pushing back against the silly "Seal Team Six" scenarios. Trump took classified documents to his house, and then was in contact with foreign nationals and heads of State. That's more than enough to have an individual detained under the law.

[onenote]

61. What gives the president "complete authority" to order anyone detained for anything?

The president doesn't have prosecutorial powers. And he is obliged to comply with lawful statutes and judicial rulings. Evidence was presented and Trump was indicted for certain crimes related to the classified documents he took from the White House. The case now is within the realm of the judiciary and the president has no authority to unilaterally charge him with additional offenses or otherwise interfere by ordering Trump's bail revoked. Moreover, federal prosecutors cannot unquestioningly follow the president’s orders that would interfere with the judicial process because doing so would violate ethical rules and professional obligations that are created by courts and endorsed by federal statute.

What you are proposing, in essence, is that Biden should have the constitutional authority to do the same sorts of things things that would violate the constitution if done by Trump. You are asserting that there should be no separation of powers and the president has dictatorial powers he or she can use.

[tritsofme]

24. Unhinged nonsense. nt

[harumph]

49. You appear to underestimate the prerogatives of executive power in extreme circumstances.

"unhinged nonsense" is what reasonable Tories were saying in 1776. I can asure you that the Republicans understand this
concept.

[tritsofme]

50. So will you be storming the Capitol on 1/6?

[harumph]

68. I would hope that won't be necessary.

Not necessarily speaking to your personal situation, but the "Oh well, tough shit...people have spoken, blah, blah" attitude peddled by "reasonable" people smacks of privilege and suggests the capability of insulating oneself from the worst of what is to come. I have people very close to me in the military and they are justifiably scared - you know, scared of dying because of incompetence. Are you in that position? Is your son or daughter? Is it reasonable to assume that Trump's actions will put them in extreme danger? Why don't you think about that and save me the tut-tutting.

[tritsofme]

73. Magical thinking and conspiracy theories don't change reality.

[onenote]

63. Actually, you appear to overestimate the prerogatives of executive power.

If the president has unchecked powers when he or she decides the circumstances warrant it, then you would have to concede that Trump, as president, will have those same powers. That is not how our constitutional democracy works.

[Autumn]

26. He has that power but he won't use it. The people have spoken and he

will honor that. The time to act to prevent him running for president began Jan 5, 2020. Nothing was done.

[onenote]

65. What is the source of this power you say he has?

[Sympthsical]

30. These are just attacks on President Biden at this point

It's been explained a hundred times that people legitimately don't understand the immunity decision, so 101 probably won't do it.

But it's like the Court ruled a President can legally swim. Except now people are claiming, "The Court ruled the President can breathe underwater!" No, they didn't. And any attempt at that would be doomed to fail.

But now, people are demanding President Biden should go dunk himself in the ocean with his new underwater breathing powers, and his refusal to drown himself is letting us all down. He's not even making the attempt! It's like he doesn't care at all.

And it's like, there are not enough facepalms in the world at this point.

[Ocelot II]

33. Well said.

And I hereby give up on explaining.

[Sympthsical]

38. You and others have been doing yeoman's work

I've admired the tenacity to try to get it to sink in.

The most simple and elegant explanation I saw - I can't remember if it was from you or another poster - was that "Immunity is not the same thing as authority."

That's the whole crux of the issue right there perfectly stated.

[harumph]

53. So if Trump gives an order to shoot a politician in the head,

because as you say, "the people have spoken.." as good citizens should we round up that person and hand him over? You know, because executive orders...

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
― Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

Let me tell you something about "authority." It's up for grabs in the country evidently. You know the "Rights of Man," well
those great ideas came out of the squishy brilliant mind of Thomas Paine. All rights, all laws are temporal. They are impermanent.

I will not put my head on a chopping block for your principles and neither should any sane person.

[Sympthsical]

69. Doesn't matter what justifications you conjure for yourself

"Dictatorship is ok, as long as it's my dictatorship"

Very democratic, very mindful.

[onenote]

66. +1

[milestogo]

31. He is not going to do anything that is inconsistent with his character.

[Cyrano]

35. I agree. My OP is a "Hail Mary" idea, and

perhaps the only way to avoid the total and permanent dismantling of the Constitution and America.

[Doodley]

34. The best Biden can do is make a prime-time statement to the nation warning us that Trump is filling

the next government with those who want to destroy it with examples of those appointed and their previous statements,
and that the people need to hold him to account.
But he won't even do that. He won't even communicate to the people what is happening.

[MichMan]

124. After meeting him yesterday and saying "Welcome Back" ?

[BlueKota]

37. My take which isn't worth much,

because none of us are going to change anyone elses personal opinion. We can also say what we would like to happen, but we here can't actually make it happen.

Here's my take on the immunity thing for what it's worth. The ass kisser 6 did say the President is allowed to do anything the Constitution allows him to do. The sitting President is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. according to the Constitution. He's takes an oath to protect, preserve, and uphold, the Constitution of the U.S. I say that gives him lattitude to take some steps outside of the normal bounds, like declaring🍊, an enemy of the state just like 🍊 wants to do to Democrats, but it's pointless to say that because he has made it clear he won't take them. Plus I think the Constitution is already DOA, but just like the death of anything we love, many people just want to stay in denial mode for as long as possible. But I could be wrong and am powerless to do anything to stop whatever happens anyway. End of rant.

[Baggies]

40. Looking forward to Installment #3

nt

[kelly1mm]

41. First, he personally has immunity for official acts. The people he orders to do X, do not. So unless

President Biden is going to PERSONALLY, PHYSICALLY try and keep President Trump from taking office he would have to get others to follow clearly illegal/unconstitutional orders.

[Cyrano]

42. To repeat what I said above, Joe can pardon them

By the way, when our founding fathers revolted against Great Britain, they were breaking the law.

Today we call them patriots.

[kelly1mm]

45. These 'Team Blue Benevolent Dictatorship' fantasies are getting old. They do apparently make

good fan-fiction e-books on Amazon. Perhaps you should write up you proposed version of events and monetize it.

[JustAnotherGen]

43. Why should he

The same people that screamed and harassed at him to step aside? The same ones (not all - but quite a few) are the ones demanding he do something.

For The Record - I did not want him to step down.

[themaguffin]

48. Stop fucking saying that the country is gone. Don't concede 1 fucking inch. Not one.

[liberalla]

76. THIS !!!

We are in a bad situation. Actions being taken by drumpf are even worse than I expected. The future looks bleak.... BUT, there's many actions the Dems can and will take to gum up the works. Things will not go smoothly. The plans the magats have in store for us will not all instantly be implemented. We resist at every juncture. We slow it down. We can't see the future and know what will happen. We DON'T give up now!

The country is NOT gone.
.
.
.
.
Plus, I think there's much going on behind the scenes, and I think there are some surprises coming our way. ( by the dems)

[Mountain Mule]

55. Biden would never do what you suggest and if he did

the result would be a civil war. The magats would go wild.

[tritsofme]

60. Completely unhinged nonsense.

[harumph]

74. Is "completely unhinged nonsense" your new slogan?

You seem to like using the term. Just sayin.

[tritsofme]

79. I've been seeing a lot of it.

[harumph]

71. 100%

[onenote]

72. And the courts can and will reverse his declaration of martial law.

The Supreme Court long ago explained what martial law is and the limits of its implementation under the Constitution:

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

So what you are essentially claiming is what you say you are afraid of -- that the president has unchecked power. I'm not willing to concede that and I suspect that you will have a different interpretation of the constitution if and when Trump acts contrary to the limits it places on him.

[harumph]

83. It is telling the way attorneys

think the law matters in times like this. After all, they work within it and for it. Without the LAW and the structure it provides, they have no career. I guess they'll sell hot dogs on the street corner. I wait with interest for the first AI entity to obtain a law degree.

There have been times when the executive completely ignores the courts. You think Trump
respects the law? Oh get ready for a paradigm shift. These people aren't about the LAW, they're about POWER.

https://revealnews.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-presidents-telling-so-called-judges-to-get-lost/

[onenote]

87. It's telling the way folks afraid that Trump will not follow the law think the solution is to throw out the law.

[jaxexpat]

95. You cite exactly what I wanted to hear, and I sincerely appreciate your response.

Where we part is this, " ....if and when Trump acts contrary to the limits it places on him". I have no doubt that Trump or his minions will violate the constitution at nearly every turn, and I also have no doubt they will use extra-legal means to quell citizen's resistance to their unconstitutional acts.

So it comes to this:
1> we can do nothing and allow the transfer of power on the vague hope we survive and do better at the polls in 2026. What are the odds that free and fair elections will restore sanity, really?
2> we pre-empt Trump's ascension, the sitting president installs a temporary governing body comprised of those elected officials who appreciate the threat Trump actually poses, arrest, try, convict and imprison the guilty, including the propagandists
3> we wait until the transfer is made, realize the error and then fight to temper Trump's excess without a single bit of effective constitutional support to aid a just cause and no real chance of anything but wasted sacrifice
4> it's too late and doesn't matter anymore

Henrik Ibsen, "The Enemy of the People" last scene, "....the majority is only right when it does right..."

[sarisataka]

82. That's a start

After that, he outlaws the Republican party (and the rest just to be sure) and calls for new elections.

Democrats then have the White House, and full control of Congress with a perfect democracy restored.



P.S. don't forget to arrest the SCOTUS justices so there won't be any whiny court saying 'you can't do that'

[Elessar Zappa]

90. No thanks.

I don’t want a dictatorship under Biden either.

[jaxexpat]

96. You won't have a choice with Trump, you know.

[Cyrano]

67. It amazes me that so many here don't

realize that all we Dems could possibly end up in "detention camps" under the upcoming fascist administration.

The "legality" of what I'm suggesting is incidental to a way to avoid our total destruction by Trump and the cabal of fascists using him as their point man.

As of next January 20th, the America we know is over unless we take some radical action now, which is what I've suggested in this OP.

And let me take my view of the future a step further. How many believe that "detention camps" won't become death camps?

Yeah, I know. It can't happen here.

And for those who are going to tell me to stop smoking or drinking, give some serious thought to what we're dealing with, what their goal is, and what they're capable of.

[onenote]

80. So, if what you fear happens are you going to say Trump had the constitutional power to do it?

My bet is that your interpretation of the constitution -- constitution you seem to think must be destroyed in order to save it -- will change.

[bigtree]

91. what do we call our new regime that we pledge fealty to with the promise they'll defend us

...as we roil democracy and law to avenge our own version of the democratic process of elections into our own form of government.

Asking because this isn't our democratic system of law that you're proscribing in post after post without identifying any lawful means of achieving all of that revolution you're calling for.

It's something else, and you're asking people to participate without spelling that out. Tell us what you intend for people to do, without all of the hyper rhetoric.

It sounds like you're advocating things outside of the law, to me, with no protection for anyone and no real path or actual means to what you say you want from them.

This is like poli-religious fervor, stirring folks to something imagined as real, and convincing others that it absolutely must be so, just on the power of their faith and conviction.

But where are the miracles? Quasi-religiopolitical movements always are preceded by miracles to spur the faithful to believe miracles can happen for them, instead of just the glorification of the prophets.

Miracles first, then comes the supplication to the myths. You're skipping a step.

[Cyrano]

92. I'm warning of the future that the fascists have planned for us

I'm warning of the near future.

They're not playing by any rules and we're being stifled by those rules.

I know enough recent and distant history to know we are well down a well trodden path. And it's one that doesn't bode well for most of us.

[bigtree]

93. postively

...evangelistic.

Needs weeping statues, or an apparition of Patrick Henry on a returned ballot or something.

[Cyrano]

97. Demeaning me doesn't change the reality of the

impending, deadly danger.

[bigtree]

102. your appeals to 'do something' without spelling it out have the look and feel of religion

..with imaginings presented as imperatives to act on.

And all of it appears to be a call to commit illegal acts to roil an election result.

All of this sounds familiar to this 64-year old.

[jaxexpat]

98. Apparently, deafness to your facts is a comfort to many. We are a peculiar species.

[bigtree]

123. Trump and the courts said we need to impeach him first

...so, come the midterms we'lll take back the Congress and the Senate and impeach him, remove him from office and recharge him.

Any attempt, my ass. No one is afraid of him or his truck convoy maggot supporters.

[bigtree]

75. you didn't suggest one thing you believe he can do

...the old 'do something' canard.

Imagining Pres. Biden has 'immunity' to stop Trump and Vance from assuming office, following the ultimate judgment of the maga majority on the Supreme Court which expressly said their protections of Trump against prosecution was limited to just his case, and not others, is, nonetheless, a really fast turnaround on the campaign we just ran against the election-denying insurrectionist.

[Iggo]

78. What crimes do you want Biden to commit?

He has immunity from prosecution for crimes he commits during official acts. (And remember, his accomplices don’t share this immunity from prosecution.)

Just give me a couple of rough examples of the kinds of crimes you think he should, could, or might commit during his official acts that’ll get us even one or two of the things we want.

[usregimechange]

88. Please read my signature line

[58Sunliner]

100. I feel the same way. Anyone saying we would be like Trump is taking a page out of the "both sides" BS.

We know what is at stake.

[oldmanlynn]

103. I personally think we have over reacting happening

Sure there will be issues but i personally dont think Americans will stand by while our constitution is dismantled.

We Americans should protest and even provoke a reaction from trump to send military to shoot at Americans. The coverage by the press when their is fighting going on between Americans and the trump government will bog him down substantially.

[lees1975]

104. He's the President of the United States so

can he not order a judge in the federal court system to expedite charges and indictments to trial? Get Trump convicted of Insurrection before January 20 gets here.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

116. No. Judges don't take orders from the Executive Branch

Separation of powers. The authority of one branch of government over another is limited by the Constitution.

[Zeitghost]

136. Yikes

The executive branch can't order around judges and a judge can't bring criminal charges, that's for prosecutors.

Not trying to be rude but you have some deeply flawed views on our entire system of government.

[SCantiGOP]

108. I couldn't disagree more

The OP is advocating the revocation of the Constitution, after misstating (or not understanding) the facts of the matter.

[Aviation Pro]

114. Why? You do know there is a precedent.

Suspending writ of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus come to mind.

[SCantiGOP]

118. The only time Habeus Corpus was suspended

was during the Civil War, and the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional at the time but didn’t try to stop it under the circumstances.

[Aviation Pro]

119. Yep, and yet the greatest President in our country's history preserved the union

Because he took the action.

[SCantiGOP]

120. Suspending Habeus didn't save the nation

Hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers in the most deadly war in our entire history did.

[Aviation Pro]

110. I gotta an instinctive feeling that a plan has been in place for about a year

It is inconceivable to me that contingency plans weren't drawn up for such a catastrophe.

"Timing is everything."

[Shrek]

113. The opportunity to "stop the impending end of America" was the election

You don't get to impose an alternative because that one failed.

[hunter]

121. I think the Republican Party is about to die like an addict after a big score.

That heroin they thought they were buying was fentanyl, 100% pure.

I won't cry for their passing, I'll cry for those they harmed.

[totodeinhere]

125. You are engaged in wishful thinking.

The Republican Party will have more power than it has had in decades. The Democratic Party is reeling. That is the reality. I wish it were not so but I don't think it will do any good to bury our heads in the sand. The Republican Party has changed. It is now the party of Trump. But it is not going anywhere.

[hunter]

128. I'm possibly the most pessimistic person you've ever replied to.

I won't enjoy watching this shit show, and I may not survive it, but I'm not going to be beaten down.

Beaten down is an ugly place to be.

I've been there before. Too many times.

[claudette]

126. He could

have done it sooner maybe. But there’s not enough time. He should pardon Hunter NOW

[thebigidea]

132. Yep, you still don't understand the SCOTUS decision. Double down on dumbass suggestions that will just cause frustration

Now I guess you can blame Joe for not taking your stupid, pointless "advice." Gee, I guess Joe is complicit because he doesn't subscribe to your silly fan fiction about immunity.

All you're doing is framing this as Joe's failure. This part isn't. He's got enough to feel guilty about.

[mathematic]

133. You don't want Biden to save America. You want him to destroy it.

"Use your imagination." Despicable.

[Meowmee]

135. I am not sure what you want him to do

but I am sure he wont do anything like that. He is already welcoming the psycho and congratulating him which makes me ill. If he does do something, anything to stop this, he has my full support.

[Blue Full Moon]

137. Place Holder

I think that the Russian Interference in not allowing citizens to vote is enough for a redo