Could the Republican party oust Trump?

[stevil]

No not at all in any possible world

Do you dispute that Hillary got more votes than Trump in the 2016 election?

 

[disciple Clint]

Do you dispute that Hillary got more votes than Trump in the 2016 election?

Do you dispute that Trump got elected and is not the first or only president elected who did not have the popular majority. And what is the significant of making an issue out of that, come on even Hillary came up with better reasons than that for why she should have been elected president.

 

[jayem]

Do you dispute that Hillary got more votes than Trump in the 2016 election?

It can’t be denied that Hillary received about 2.9 million more votes. But he’s claimed—with no convincing evidence--that these were fraudulent votes. And he’s also fabricated the notion—again with no supporting facts—that Google manipulated millions of votes in CA. Sheer and utter lunacy. And more evidence of his bizarre conspiratorial fantasies. The man will not accept rejection. He will always cook up some preposterous excuse.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claim That Google ‘Manipulated’ Millions of Votes for Clinton

 

[stevil]

Do you dispute that Trump got elected

Trump definately got elected and is now the USA president, yes, noone has ever disputed that.

and is not the first or only president elected who did not have the popular majority.

Noone has ever disputed this.

And what is the significant of making an issue out of that, come on even Hillary came up with better reasons than that for why she should have been elected president.

You said in your post that I responded to

The people decided they wanted Trump that is how our country works.

Which wasn't actually correct. Trump did win the election, there is no disputing that.
But "the people" mostly voted for Hilary. Which would mean "the people" decided that Hilary should be president.

But, the way the election system works is that it is the "electorates" that decide who the president should be. The electorates rather than the people.
I pointed this subtlety out in my response to you, just correct the record and make sure we were aligned with facts.

Hilary got more votes from actual people than Trump. Trump won via the electorial system. The electorates decided that Trump would be president.

If you had simply said Trump won the election then I wouldn't have had a problem with your post.
But saying "the people decided they wanted Trump" is not actually or factually true.

But then the funny thing is, you accused my response as being MSM talking points, which I pointed out as "facts", which you then responded with

No not at all in any possible world

Which is a very weird response, because we both know that I stated the facts.

 

[disciple Clint]

Trump definately got elected and is now the USA president, yes, noone has ever disputed that.



Noone has ever disputed this.



You said in your post that I responded to

Which wasn't actually correct. Trump did win the election, there is no disputing that.
But "the people" mostly voted for Hilary. Which would mean "the people" decided that Hilary should be president.

But, the way the election system works is that it is the "electorates" that decide who the president should be. The electorates rather than the people.
I pointed this subtlety out in my response to you, just correct the record and make sure we were aligned with facts.


If you had simply said Trump won the election then I wouldn't have had a problem with your post.
But saying "the people decided they wanted Trump" is not actually or factually true.

But then the funny thing is, you accused my response as being MSM talking points, which I pointed out as "facts", which you then responded with

Which is a very weird response, because we both know that I stated the facts.

If we went by popular vote which by the way is what the Dems would like, there would be millions of Americans who would effectively have no input into who is elected the president. Those people are in the area commonly refereed to as the flyover states, in fact the coasts east and west would decide who runs the nation that would be totally unfair. There are good reasons why our nation has the laws that it has. And yes you stated all the common MSM talking points, which reflect only the liberal view and not the views of those people in the flyover states.

 

[disciple Clint]

It can’t be denied that Hillary received about 2.9 million more votes. But he’s claimed—with no convincing evidence--that these were fraudulent votes. And he’s also fabricated the notion—again with no supporting facts—that Google manipulated millions of votes in CA. Sheer and utter lunacy. And more evidence of his bizarre conspiratorial fantasies. The man will not accept rejection. He will always cook up some preposterous excuse.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claim That Google ‘Manipulated’ Millions of Votes for Clinton

possibly but then there are those times when he is absolutely right but people still think he is crazy.

 

[stevil]

If we went by popular vote which by the way is what the Dems would like, there would be millions of Americans who would effectively have no input into who is elected the president.

If you go by the popular vote then everyone's vote counts equally.
You add up all the votes in the country and the person with the most votes is president.

Under the electorial system, some people's votes carry more weight than the votes of others.

And yes you stated all the common MSM talking points

There really is no such thing as MSM. You use it to refer to the non far right wing media outlets, they aren't really a group, aren't coordinated and they don't subscribe to a club called MSM.
But if "they" concur with the facts that I stated then maybe they are guilty of reporting actual facts.

, which reflect only the liberal view and not the views of those people in the flyover states.

Huh?
I don't know why you bring the media into a discussion about people's votes.
If you have a popular vote system then everyone's votes count equally, doesn't matter what any media outlet says.

 

[disciple Clint]

If you go by the popular vote then everyone's vote counts equally.
You add up all the votes in the country and the person with the most votes is president.

Under the electorial system, some people's votes carry more weight than the votes of others.



There really is no such thing as MSM. You use it to refer to the non far right wing media outlets, they aren't really a group, aren't coordinated and they don't subscribe to a club called MSM.
But if "they" concur with the facts that I stated then maybe they are guilty of reporting actual facts.


Huh?
I don't know why you bring the media into a discussion about people's votes.
If you have a popular vote system then everyone's votes count equally, doesn't matter what any media outlet says.

How is it then that the MSM can come up exactly the same talking points in exactly the same words. how can that work if there is no such thing as a group that results in a MSM. I think I have explained the unequal representation problems associated with the popular vote.

 

[Kentonio]

So what do you want the President of the United States to do? Take tyrannical control over the States from the Governors? I'm not saying Trump did everything perfect but ask yourself the question does he actually have authority to get control of it like you suggest?

And pressure doesn't mean he has the authority to force such a thing. So who ultimately has to get control of the things on the ground. Not the Governors of each of the 50 states?

It’s amazing how you guys simultaneously believe Trump has the constitutional authority to be totally above the law (as he keeps claiming whenever it suits him) and yet when it comes to a situation where he might actually have to do something useful suddenly he has no power at all.

Oh and give me a break with this historical revisionism. EVERY modern national emergency until this one has followed the same blueprint with the federal government taking a leadership role and facilitating aid to the states. Yes states have the power to resist that help if they choose, but generally they don’t because in the face of disaster people just want to get through it quickly and efficiently. Except this time suddenly Trump decides it’s not his problem, states have to look out for themselves and his only role is to try and bully then in a partisan way to help his re-election. Meanwhile at least 130,000 Americans are now dead.

If you want his kind of missing leadership then just say so, but don’t pretend the federal government couldn’t have coordinated the whole effort because they’ve done it plenty of times before.

 

[disciple Clint]

It’s amazing how you guys simultaneously believe Trump has the constitutional authority to be totally above the law (as he keeps claiming whenever it suits him) and yet when it comes to a situation where he might actually have to do something useful suddenly he has no power at all.

Oh and give me a break with this historical revisionism. EVERY modern national emergency until this one has followed the same blueprint with the federal government taking a leadership role and facilitating aid to the states. Yes states have the power to resist that help if they choose, but generally they don’t because in the face of disaster people just want to get through it quickly and efficiently. Except this time suddenly Trump decides it’s not his problem, states have to look out for themselves and his only role is to try and bully then in a partisan way to help his re-election. Meanwhile at least 130,000 Americans are now dead.

If you want his kind of missing leadership then just say so, but don’t pretend the federal government couldn’t have coordinated the whole effort because they’ve done it plenty of times before.

wow talk about revisionist history, when Trump said he had the authority to take control of this problem the state governors immediately fought him on it and threatened to go to the courts to stop him. So he let them run their own states as they should and simply worked on supplying what the federal government could supply, this included ventilators, hospitals, medical personnel, two hospital ships, and misc supplies. While there was a world wide shortage on ppe the governors of New York and California both outspoken critics of Trump recognized what he did for them and that he had done everything possible and filled every request that he possibly could fill. The federal gov also supplied the technical guidance from the experts in the medical field. You can blame Trump all you want but the facts will remain that he did all that anyone else could have done under the circumstances and unknown factors that existed.

 

[Kentonio]

wow talk about revisionist history, when Trump said he had the authority to take control of this problem the state governors immediately fought him on it and threatened to go to the courts to stop him.

Then you should easily be able to back up that claim. Which states immediately threatened to take the government to court to stop them taking control over the pandemic response and when? Links please.

You can blame Trump all you want but the facts will remain that he did all that anyone else could have done under the circumstances and unknown factors that existed.

If his pathetic fumbling of the response is all you think anyone could have done, then I understand why conservatives are so anti-government. If any other national leader in a western democracy had do such a contemptibly awful job they'd have been out on their ear long before now.

 

[disciple Clint]

Then you should easily be able to back up that claim. Which states immediately threatened to take the government to court to stop them taking control over the pandemic response and when? Links please.



If his pathetic fumbling of the response is all you think anyone could have done, then I understand why conservatives are so anti-government. If any other national leader in a western democracy had do such a contemptibly awful job they'd have been out on their ear long before now.

Any Monday quarterback could have done a better job than Trump, hindsight is 20-20.
regarding your other question which you could have found the answer to yourself.
Can President Trump order them to change course? The short answer is no, unless he wants to disregard the Constitution. Here are the basics:

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, included in the original Bill of Rights, states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As University of Texas law professor Bobby Chesney has recently reminded us, the states are independent entities within our system of federalism, not mere subordinate jurisdictions of the national government. In areas reserved to the states, he says, the federal government “cannot coerce the states into taking actions to suit federal policy preference.”

In particular, states enjoy unchallenged primacy in what constitutional scholars call “police powers”—those involving the health, safety, and well-being of their citizens. In exercising these powers, they may require citizens to do things—such as staying at home or getting tested—that some may resist.
Trump or governors: Who’s the boss?

 

[Kentonio]

Any Monday quarterback could have done a better job than Trump, hindsight is 20-20.
regarding your other question which you could have found the answer to yourself.
Can President Trump order them to change course? The short answer is no, unless he wants to disregard the Constitution. Here are the basics:

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, included in the original Bill of Rights, states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As University of Texas law professor Bobby Chesney has recently reminded us, the states are independent entities within our system of federalism, not mere subordinate jurisdictions of the national government. In areas reserved to the states, he says, the federal government “cannot coerce the states into taking actions to suit federal policy preference.”

In particular, states enjoy unchallenged primacy in what constitutional scholars call “police powers”—those involving the health, safety, and well-being of their citizens. In exercising these powers, they may require citizens to do things—such as staying at home or getting tested—that some may resist.
Trump or governors: Who’s the boss?

You made a very clear claim that states threatened immediately to take the government to court if they tried to control the pandemic response. Either back up that claim with links or withdraw it.

 

[Richard T]

The U.S. Constitution or laws do not have much to do with the selection of a candidate for a particular political party. Thus, changes and rules are left to the party. Over the years political parties selection processes have changed. At one time in history many of the delegates were picked through state or district conventions instead of a caucus or primary. Currently, Trump does have enough delegates, in fact far more than required. Even some states that did not vote at all have awarded them to Trump. These delegates are typically picked from Trump supporters, so a coup is unlikely, though they sort of tried that in 2016 when there were other candidates with some of their own delegates.
Still, there are rules at every national convention and though these rules can change, for the most part, the Trump team has changed them to his advantage. Republicans Changing Delegate Rules to Prevent Discord at Convention
Thus, I would say it is near impossible for the Republicans to choose anyone other than Trump. There would be more chance of removal from the 25th amendment, where the VP and a majority of the cabinet would have to see him as unfit for office. So You Want to Use the 25th Amendment to Get Rid of Donald Trump? Here Are the Hurdles to Removing a Mentally Impaired President.

 

[disciple Clint]

You made a very clear claim that states threatened immediately to take the government to court if they tried to control the pandemic response. Either back up that claim with links or withdraw it.

POINTS

• New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Saturday he does not believe President Donald Trump has the authority to impose a quarantine on New York, New Jersey and parts of Connecticut to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
• Cuomo, in an interview with CNN, said that preventing people from moving in and out of the tri-state would amount to a federally imposed lockdown, which he believes is illegal.
• Cuomo suggested he could sue if the administration did follow through. “I’ve sued the federal government a number of times over the years. I do not believe it’s going to come to that on this,” he said.
• New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose quarantine: 'It would be illegal'

 

[Kentonio]

POINTS

• New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Saturday he does not believe President Donald Trump has the authority to impose a quarantine on New York, New Jersey and parts of Connecticut to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
• Cuomo, in an interview with CNN, said that preventing people from moving in and out of the tri-state would amount to a federally imposed lockdown, which he believes is illegal.
• Cuomo suggested he could sue if the administration did follow through. “I’ve sued the federal government a number of times over the years. I do not believe it’s going to come to that on this,” he said.
• New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose quarantine: 'It would be illegal'

What does that have to do with the federal government coordinating the pandemic response? This was about Trump musing about quarantining one of America's largest cities, something that no he probably doesn't have the authority to do.

All you've done here is taken one extreme example where Trump talked about doing something over the top, and used it to justify his lack of action on a whole raft of actions that a normal federal government would have taken the lead on, such as the purchase and distribution of equipment, activation of the defence production act, coherent lockdown advice and early and effective mass testing etc.

I don't actually know why I'm bothering though, because we both know your hero can do no wrong in your eyes.

 

[disciple Clint]

What does that have to do with the federal government coordinating the pandemic response? This was about Trump musing about quarantining one of America's largest cities, something that no he probably doesn't have the authority to do.

All you've done here is taken one extreme example where Trump talked about doing something over the top, and used it to justify his lack of action on a whole raft of actions that a normal federal government would have taken the lead on, such as the purchase and distribution of equipment, activation of the defence production act, coherent lockdown advice and early and effective mass testing etc.

I don't actually know why I'm bothering though, because we both know your hero can do no wrong in your eyes.

You asked for evidence that the governors had threatened to take Trump to court if he tried to control their states. I have provided the evidence. I am still waiting for evidence from you for the post you made, why not just admit that it does not exist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think you have most of the MSM talking points.

And you have nothing.

 

[wing2000]

well yes there is a reason, China produces those masks, China was buying up all the supplies of those masks when they knew there was a big problem. I do not think that anyone has checked on this but no doubt China made a fortune selling masks once they created the shortage.

...thank you for making the point for the President to invoke the Defense Protect Act back in February. When face with a threat, competent leader's ask:
1. What do we need?
2. Do we have it?
3. Let's secure it.

 

[Kentonio]

You keep forgetting that you are supposed to be providing evidence for your post where you declared that the president is required to read the daily security brief...I am waiting .. why waste the time of other people by posting things that you cannot provide evidence to confirm.

Ah yes, you think that for the president to need to read national security information there needs to be a law that forces him to read the short daily briefing otherwise its just fine that he doesn't bother. Despite national security literally being the number one duty the guy has.

Ok then..