• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Postpone the 2020 election, now that is spooky!

The poll is stupid. Believing that that anything of value can be drawn from the poll, even more stupid.

It's stupid to believe that asking people what they think might tell you what people think?

Polls can be poorly constructed. Sample sizes can be too small or poorly picked. But the concept is definitely not "stupid".





I'll tell you what's stupid - horrifically, frighteningly, disgustingly stupid - is when a person dismisses something because they don't want to hear the thing. Enough people do it and we'll lose the democracy that I rather doubt we still deserve to have.
 
Yep. It's like saying "slightly liberal lesbians choose to pee their pants" because someone polled them about whether they would crap their pants or pee them if they were faced with a real live zombie hoard. Since 53% chose "pee my pants", suddenly they get to spin the poll to say "slightly liberal lesbians choose to pee in their pants".

You people really need to try reading a link before criticizing it. The Post tells you what questions they asked and so forth. "Spin" would be if they didn't do that and misrepresented the results. They didn't.
 
It's stupid to believe that asking people what they think might tell you what people think?

Polls can be poorly constructed. Sample sizes can be too small or poorly picked. But the concept is definitely not "stupid".





I'll tell you what's stupid - horrifically, frighteningly, disgustingly stupid - is when a person dismisses something because they don't want to hear the thing. Enough people do it and we'll lose the democracy that I rather doubt we still deserve to have.

The idea that there is something to be gleaned from a poll which questions if people would support something that is an impossibility is stupid.

They could have just as well conducted a poll which asked if they would support the deportation of zombie aliens without due process.
 
The idea that there is something to be gleaned from a poll which questions if people would support something that is an impossibility is stupid.

They could have just as well conducted a poll which asked if they would support the deportation of zombie aliens without due process.

It's highly improbable, perhaps, but not impossible. It would be unwise to simply assume that no real threats to American democracy could ever arise because we don't want to think it ever could happen.
 
It's highly improbable, perhaps, but not impossible. It would be unwise to simply assume that no real threats to American democracy could ever arise because we don't want to think it ever could happen.

Here are the two questions asked...


If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Each scenario is unconstitutional and would most likely lead to revolution if attempted. Saying it is "unlikely" is a gross understatement. Impossible is much closer to reality.
 
Here are the two questions asked...




Each scenario is unconstitutional and would most likely lead to revolution if attempted. Saying it is "unlikely" is a gross understatement. Impossible is much closer to reality.

Which makes one wonder if any of the people polled knew this when they chose to vote yes to the questions asked.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.6c2f7954b658
Apparently half of the Gopers would support postponing the 2020 election if Trump proposed it. Why you ask, because they believe that the voter fraud is sooo bad that they would want the election postponed until we "fix" a problem that doesn't really exist. This is getting really spooky. These people are really crazy and seem to want a dictator as long as he tells them that he is a Republican and a Christian.

Just and FYI...

There was a rumor that Nancy Reagan also propose to extend the Presidential term to 12 years....Not true.... I think!

The same was rumored about Clinton and Obama...Not true on Both Sides..

With Trump...he constantly confuses being President and govern with Being a Ruler and Rule...So I wouldn't pass him....but this has extremely low probability of ever passing

Diving Mullah
 
Which makes one wonder if any of the people polled knew this when they chose to vote yes to the questions asked.

I kinda doubt they thought it through to that extent. Trump supporters(and by that I mean people who supported him from the beginning and all the way through the primary process) were never too big on thinking.
 
Here are the two questions asked...

Each scenario is unconstitutional and would most likely lead to revolution if attempted. Saying it is "unlikely" is a gross understatement. Impossible is much closer to reality.

1. I know what the questions were. I posted them just a few posts back.

2. I said "highly improbable" and didn't attach a percentage estimate.... let's not split hairs. The point was that it's not an "impossibility."

3. Revolution? Again, it's a mistake to assume that if something like that ever did happen that someone would be around to stop it. I'm not saying I think it's going to happen or anything like that, but it's absurd to dismiss the possibility. A strongman with a military behind him could pull it off. Congress and SCOTUS could harrumpf, and those who seized power would ignore them, then remove them. It's been done many times over in history and there's nothing magical about America that makes it impossible.

As for a "revolution", do you really think that civilians could taken on the U.S. military in all it's present might, with all its equipment, etc? Sure, they might put up insurrections terrorist-style. We know our army cannot completely deal with that situation. But, that situation would not be expected to result in the power-grabbers being kicked out. At best, we'd turn America into a sort of Syria. To actually take such rulers out of power, the "revolution" would have to make frontal assaults on it. And guns aren't much against tanks, howitzers, bombers, etc etc etc.




So again, very very unlikely, but not impossible. And of course, the poll was simply designed to test how many people would actually say they would support a postponement of an election. It ties in with other polls that show large percentages of people believe Trump's completely unfounded and unproven lies about "millions" of illegals voting.

Nevermind, of course, that the last time someone with an interest in proving voter fraud - the BUSH DOJ - searched for it, they came up with effectively nothing.

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - The New York Times

"Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year."

Regardless of the probability of a postponed election, it's worth knowing how many people think like this because these screaming imbeciles actually get to vote.
 
Last edited:
Introducing this anti-democratic idea into the public consciousness will increase credibility for the idea, not reduce it. They have just manufactured a poisonous concept and validated it in one fell swoop.

Wapo has done extraordinary damage here.

I suppose we get to wait and see how long it is until talking heads across conservative media start suggesting the idea.
 
Here are the two questions asked...




Each scenario is unconstitutional and would most likely lead to revolution if attempted. Saying it is "unlikely" is a gross understatement. Impossible is much closer to reality.

The problem with this poll isn't that it suggests an impossible outcome but that it is tailor made, in all of the leading questions asked, to engender more distrust in our political system which already is taking a beating from the phony voter fraud claims pushed by the White House.
 
Last edited:
I suppose we get to wait and see how long it is until talking heads across conservative media start suggesting the idea.

They will. And it will be the Washington Post's fault. If anything, Trump and Fox News are kicking themselves for not thinking of it first.
 
1. I know what the questions were. I posted them just a few posts back.


The problem with this poll isn't that it suggests an impossible outcome but that it is tailor made, in all of the leading questions asked, to engender more distrust in our political system which already is taking a beating from the phony voter fraud claims pushed by the White House.

Let's try it this way.

If a poll were conducted of registered Democrats and the question was something like "Would you support the immediate removal of Donald Trump from office?" it would be just as stupid of a poll. The President can't be removed from office "just because" so what is the point in even asking the question?

All these things are is fodder for the pundits to demonize the opposition with.
 
Let's try it this way.

If a poll were conducted of registered Democrats and the question was something like "Would you support the immediate removal of Donald Trump from office?" it would be just as stupid of a poll. The President can't be removed from office "just because" so what is the point in even asking the question?

All these things are is fodder for the pundits to demonize the opposition with.

One poll is directed negatively at a person, one is directed negatively at a democratic system of government.
 
One poll is directed negatively at a person, one is directed negatively at a democratic system of government.

Both polls deal with hypothetical situations that have no basis in reality.
 
They will. And it will be the Washington Post's fault. If anything, Trump and Fox News are kicking themselves for not thinking of it first.

Trump, et al, are probably feeling grateful. What could be better than to have a liberal newspaper get their ball rolling.

I was thinking earlier about the 1864 election. If there was ever an election to tempt the national government into suspending it was that one. But as far as I know Lincoln never considered it. He did suspend the habeas that year, or tried to.
 
No one wants to postpone the election.

You've literally never clicked a link to an article in your life, have you?
 
Let's try it this way.

If a poll were conducted of registered Democrats and the question was something like "Would you support the immediate removal of Donald Trump from office?" it would be just as stupid of a poll. The President can't be removed from office "just because" so what is the point in even asking the question?

All these things are is fodder for the pundits to demonize the opposition with.

You're wrong there. Impeachment and resulting conviction cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Democrats, had they the power, could remove Trump for farting at the wrong time if they so pleased "high crimes and misdemeanors" be damned; they could remove him for looking stupid.

No review = do what you want.
 
You're wrong there. Impeachment and resulting conviction cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Democrats, had they the power, could remove Trump for farting at the wrong time if they so pleased "high crimes and misdemeanors" be damned; they could remove him for looking stupid.

No review = do what you want.

Hmm...

I'm not an expert in these matters but I do know how to use Google!:D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Impeachable offenses

The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[26] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[27] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Are you relying on the interpretation of Gerald Ford here?
 
I'm relying on the constitutional mechanics of impeachment. Look 'em up.

No thanks. I'll just rely on my stupid belief that the President can't be impeached "just because".
 
Back
Top Bottom