Trump Declines To Promise Peaceful Transfer Of Power After Election

CW3 Harvey K. - It isn't accounted for in the elasticity of the various states. That only accounts to the House, it still ripples into the Senate and electoral college in ways that the house representation doesn't account for. Yes, the arbitrary nature of Maine is exactly what I'm talking about.

A valid question is at what level of inequity is too much that breaks the original design, because the level of inequity that exists today is far beyond what existed at the founding. Could we have a state with five citizens and another with 100M? Is there some level where we have to say, "hey this isn't working"? If so, what is that level? A state voter inequity of 10:1 (about what we had at the founding), 20:1? 30:1? 50:1, 100:1? 1000:1?

SPC Kevin Ford -
“That [the variance of state congressional power based on population] only accounts to the House”.

Which is precisely what effect population of a state should have. That is why we have a bi-cameral Congress (even though Sen. Schumer said the Senate and HOR were two of the three “branches of Government”), so that states of the Union are on equal footing in the Senate, two senators each regardless of their population, and the more populous states wield more power in the HOR.

If you find that to be a growing “inequity”, then continue to dream of tearing the Constitution into confetti, and forcing the people of North Dakota and South Dakota to merge into a single state to advance your idea of “equity”. Indeed, why not throw in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as well? They are all sparsely populated neighbors of the Dakotas.

Suppose you continue that folly, and I'll work on my scheme to establish the new state of “Megalopolis”.

CW3 Harvey K. The folly is to think things can continue indefinitely simply because they benefit us. As pressure mounts we as a nation will have to either bend or break. I suspect there are enough like minded people to you where the answer will be break.

SPC Kevin Ford - I see no “inequity” in the representation of the states in Congress, which you decry. Nor do the people of those states, whose opinion on their “just/unjust” representation in the Union I would give far more credence to, than your opinion.
Any perceived “inequity” among the people appears to be of an intrastate nature, with regional dissatisfaction with state government, and expressed desires to secede from the state, either to become part of a neighboring state, or a new star in the American constellation. For example, there have been rumblings about a state of South Jersey seceding from New Jersey, and the people in the upper peninsular of Michigan, a geographical extension of Wisconsin, have not been pleased with their situation in the Wolverine State.
It appears the “pressure” you describe is more a matter of rabble-rousing, than a justifiable grievance of the people. You are welcome to attempt to enforce the folly of your “merger” plan on the people of North Dakota and South Dakota.
We will see who “breaks”.

Neither did Trump (say that there should not be a peaceful transition of power once the votes are fully counted). He said NO SUCH THING. I'm not justifying, not rationalizing, I am stating a fact. He refused to say whether there would be a peaceful transition or not. That does not equate to "I am planning a violent response if I lose". None of us know what will happen.

You also have to determine what constitutes Clinton's or the DNC's definition of fully counted (which she didn't say in that report either by the way). Her exact words speculated on what she THINKS Trump and the GOP will do (which funny enough sounds a lot like what I've seen the DNC do). She said this specifically:

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances," Clinton said. "Because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win, if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is." There is nothing in that statement, which ended there, saying "because all the votes will not be counted then."

So per her own suggestion, Trump likely intends to not concede until all the votes are properly counted. Once again, you tag me up with being a Trump "cult" member highlighting once again your childish approach to responding to a point I disagree with from the article. You push all this talk about violence and to me that sounds like this is what you want, just so you can for once be proven right about your feelings of Trump. I don't want violence, I would never be one to start or encourage violence should Trump lose, and I also don't think Trump wants any violence either. He's trying to tell you that irregularities with the masses of mail in ballots (valid or not) will create enough perceptions (right or wrong) in many people's minds to potentially enact violence. Regardless of who comes out on top.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - This gets into why character counts and why statements like "2nd amendment solutions" deteriorate the confidence of the electorate. Trump has shown himself to have no character, no moral compass and no ethical constraints. So when you say, "He said NO SUCH THING." his history shows that he will indeed float ideas that can be walked back later to see what his supporters and the country as a whole will tolerate. If he thinks he can get away with it and if he thinks it will benefit him, I have no doubt he won't turn over power. It's the "if he can get away with it" question that is the interesting one.

The 35% of his core supporters will get behind him no matter what he does. He could take a literal dump on the Constitution and they would find a way to justify it. It's weather the rest of the country will tolerate it.

Yeah, the left lost that debate on character a long time ago. You can continue to rant about the 35% of Trump's base all you want, what you are missing are the folks who are not excited about him and yet all we have as a choice is Biden. For all Trump's faults, he fights, he speaks his mind (saying the things many of us assume the others think or would say if not handled as most are), and he is producing results in areas I support. Biden is more of the same that got us where we are. The DNC has moved much further to the left and I want nothing to do with that.

Once again I am faced with a frustrating decision for a presidential election but the difference is now, I have a history of results to look at from one of them. Biden's accomplishments are lack luster at best and few align to anything I support. As you go on to challenge Trump's character (which I do not entirely argue with) you fail to note Biden's own character flaws. You speak of the 35% and you don't seem to realize that a very significant amount of the so called support for Biden is based solely on the fact people and the media tells you Trump is bad. They have no clue on the issues, they no nothing about Biden's own faults, and they have no idea what Trump accomplishments have actually helped them.

I'll leave you with this. I went on record in the 2016 primaries fully against Trump. I did not like the man and I still don't. The ultimate choices offered for the election left me with a man I don't like and a woman who I fully believe broke the law. But I have carefully watched and read the reactions of the left, which has far surpassed an unhinged level. Every time you or someone else on places like this site, the media, and general jump on an issue about Trump which turns out to be false, out of context, made up, or incomplete information, I become more inclined to support him. From Russian collusion to an unwarranted impeachment, to a highly flip flopped reaction to the Covid response, the left has completely demonstrated to me they cannot be trusted to take control once again. People like yourself are so busy assuming a good number of people like me are blind Trump supporters, that you have no idea how relate to those of us who do pay attention and understand what's going on. The Democrats are literally painting themselves into a corner by patronizing the hard left, so much that eventually those closer to the center will have zero control of their party.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Biden is a well meaning guy who has a bit of an Irish temper and a serious gaff problem. That's who he is. But he is also an ethical person who has a moral compass. Maybe the ethics and moral compass don't always point in the direction I'd like, but I'll take that every day including Sunday over a candidate that who has no moral compass and only thing he weighs in a situation is how it benefits him. That's Trump.

When it comes to any situation, Trump will chose himself and his family over everything else. Over me, over you, over the country, over humanity, over everything. If Trump thought he could profit from tearing down our entire Constitution, he'd do it without a second thought and it is likely his supporters would let him.