Should Trump Step Down?

[Hidden In Him]

If the following were true:

I am going to present what I believe actually has taken place in the 2020 Election, but this is not intended as a debate over whether it has or not. The debate is over what you think a President should do IF this is what happened; i.e. what should ANY sitting President do if such a scenario actually took place.

The scenario: I believe genuine fraud took place on a large enough scale to turn the election, through mail-in ballots and corrupt computer software, as well as at the counting facilities. But to keep cases of voter fraud from reaching the courts, the powers that be managed to pack the numbers SO heavily in favor of Biden that cases could NOT and cannot be presented to the courts because ostensibly the numbers do not justify it, i.e. in light of Biden's "massive" win, such relatively small cases of voter fraud will not make a difference.

So in effect, the scenario is that voter fraud sufficient to turn the election has taken place, but cases for it will not be presented to the courts because the perpetrators have outsmarted the legal system. Thus, the implications are that if this situation is not somehow corrected in time, this may be the last genuinely Democratic election held in the country, given that they have now perfected a system for ensuring that every election from this point forward can be manipulated by one party in particular.

Given such a scenario, do you think a sitting President should step aside on January 20th, or refuse to do so and fight for the continuation of Democracy in the United States, even if it means war? This country arose out of war, so we are no strangers to it. The question is, do you think such a scenario would be proper cause for the American populace to go to war again?

God bless, and I will leave the thread to responses,
Hidden In Him

 

[lforrest]

Remember anything you say can and will be used against you in a Kangaroo court.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Remember anything you say can and will be used against you in a Kangaroo court.

LoL.

I agree with the above. This thread is not intended as a platform for inciting armed revolution. It's more of a poll really, just posted out of curiosity.

Any overt rallying cries for bloodshed from either side are not what I am asking for, and may be reported if they are too hateful or tend in the direction of inciting violence.
- H

 

[WaterSong]

Well, to answer the OP question itself, NO! Absolutely not!
The president takes an oath when entering the office that includes the promise to defend the United States of America and our Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
This election was corrupted by precisely those two actors. Enemies of the United States of America and who are both foreign and domestic.
For the domestic, that's treason!

So no, President Trump should never step down in light of that. Because, he would be violating his oath in letting American traitors and felonious actors here and abroad to steal the office of president, which is the seat of the highest power of any nation on earth. The things a corrupt immoral criminal treasonous felon can accomplish if given that seat under those circumstances is unimaginable for not only the free people of this Constitutional Democratic Republic but also for the world.

As to should the people go to war over this if necessary? In matters of armament of the citizens in comparison to the armament of the local governments, it would be over very shortly. This is something we have to remember. Under BHO, local governments in many states received military grade equipment including tanks.
Also, the government has weapons to use ostensibly for what they've called "crowd dispersal". This includes a weapon that, depending on the person manning the controls, has the capacity to cook you where you stand. Think the effect of a microwave oven on a hotdog. Like that.
That's just one weapon of that nature. These weapons were developed under the guise of fighting the war on terror. But as we know, "terrorist", is a relative term.
What we witness when we see broadcasts by National Geographic and others showing the newly developed American weapons for that war on terror, we're witnessing and also being forewarned as to what can be brought to bear against insurrection, or a new American revolution.

For a true revolution to work we would have to enlist the support of the warriors of the executive branch. That is, the domestic military and police. The good thing with regard to the latter? In the 1989 landmark decision in the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), declared the police are not obligated to protect and serve the public.
This is why we read news of the police being ordered to stand down in Seattle Washington and Portland Oregon when the domestic terror groups, ANTIFA and BLM, were acting out there.

This can be to our advantage too. If police are led to understand a revolution is necessary to secure the future of themselves and their families, parent(s), and children now and in future, they could not only stand down from acting against local pockets of revolutionaries, but also employ their equipment in support of them.
Local military, those states where bases are operational, are another matter.

But all this is conjecture. The real question comes when the rubber meets the road. When things become so intolerable action or inaction are the only option. Action, revolt. Or inaction, complacency and concession.
Then, as pertains to the former the next option comes into play. That's the big question. Are you (impersonal here but personal for each person considering that former option), ready to die or be tortured if captured by the enemy to carry forth this mission?

YES!
Is easy to say now.

 

[lforrest]

While I lothe to see the end of America, my first responsibility is to the Lord.

 

[WaterSong]

Remember anything you say can and will be used against you in a Kangaroo court.

Anything you say can and will be used against you until your case is adjudicated unto verdict or closure via a deal with the state.
That means, anything you say at any time to anyone anywhere as pertains to the particulars of the charge(s) against you.
Many a person have been nailed by the testimony of jailhouse informants and even friends and family. Because that person didn't take that part of Miranda to heart. DON'T SAY A WORD TO ANYONE!

Another way to insure your chances against a charge? Never ever sign anything when you're arrested. EVER! Don't sign the charging document, don't sign the personal property receipt at intake when you're arrested, even if they say you have to, they're lying! You don't have to. (5th amendment extends to intake). However, those at the jail who take possession of your personal property do have to catalog it and keep it safe for you. You do not have to sign a thing.
NEVER SIGN ANYTHING! EVER!
Then, get an attorney!
Preferably a private one, not a public defender. Public defenders are being paid by the same entity that is prosecuting you; the state. And, in some jurisdictions your defense budget, which comes through the state, is controlled by the judge presiding over your case! The state has an endless budget to prosecute you with. The public defender that works for the state does not.

There have been defendants who are actually not guilty of a murder charge who, on appeal, asked for DNA testing to be done on materials at the scene and to prove their innocence. The judge has to approve the expenditures for an appeal. Many people have been denied that.
I think it should be across the board, all 50 states, in a public defender defense, DNA on appeal or in the case of the first prosecution, must be allowed.
How many people are on death row because they had a public defender?
Too many!

 

[WaterSong]

While I lothe to see the end of America, my first responsibility is to the Lord.

With all respect, that's a cop out for the fainthearted.
Were the next American revolution to occur, it is a matter of self defense and perfectly permissible under God.
Proverbs 25:26
Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

Jesus, who was God, was no pacifist.

Luke 22:35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

And those Christians who give way before the wicked will answer for it when God asks them to account of their works and their lives as members of the Ekklesia.

God is honored all through the founding documents of this nation. When we witness the Democrats working to erode the religious freedoms of Christians our first amendment right, not privilege, is under attack.
Many a patriot who was Christian died to defend what is held sacred in our Constitutional rights. A civil contract that enumerates the rights of we the people in order to insure we are protected from government overreach.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

 

[WaterSong]

This is why the 2nd Amendment is a sham in modern times - the people of America need to have the ability to put up an armed revolution. Modern militias are a far cry from the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The U.S. government should have been supplying the militias with tanks and jet fighters and training for such high tech weaponry. I believe this is necessitated by the 2nd Amendment. Then, the people could wage a revolution.

On the other hand, Christians should not be part of such a revolution, IMO, because of the injunction to "resist not evil."

Were that to be employed America, founded on Christian Biblical principals, would have no military.

Remember, we are to discern the spirits. And not believe everything everyone tells us is of God.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Exodus 15:3
The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.

 

[historyb]

If the following were true:

I am going to present what I believe actually has taken place in the 2020 Election, but this is not intended as a debate over whether it has or not. The debate is over what you think a President should do IF this is what happened; i.e. what should ANY sitting President do if such a scenario actually took place.

The scenario: I believe genuine fraud took place on a large enough scale to turn the election, through mail-in ballots and corrupt computer software, as well as at the counting facilities. But to keep cases of voter fraud from reaching the courts, the powers that be managed to pack the numbers SO heavily in favor of Biden that cases could NOT and cannot be presented to the courts because ostensibly the numbers do not justify it, i.e. in light of Biden's "massive" win, such relatively small cases of voter fraud will not make a difference.

So in effect, the scenario is that voter fraud sufficient to turn the election has taken place, but cases for it will not be presented to the courts because the perpetrators have outsmarted the legal system. Thus, the implications are that if this situation is not somehow corrected in time, this may be the last genuinely Democratic election held in the country, given that they have now perfected a system for ensuring that every election from this point forward can be manipulated by one party in particular.

Given such a scenario, do you think a sitting President should step aside on January 20th, or refuse to do so and fight for the continuation of Democracy in the United States, even if it means war? This country arose out of war, so we are no strangers to it. The question is, do you think such a scenario would be proper cause for the American populace to go to war again?

God bless, and I will leave the thread to responses,
Hidden In Him

The election was never going to get decided by the courts it will get decided by the House of the Representative by the States sending two representatives from each state and the good guys win. I am very happy to go to war and send liberals to Satan

 

[Hidden In Him]

The election was never going to get decided by the courts it will get decided by the House of the Representative by the States sending two representatives from each state and the good guys win. I am very happy to go to war and send liberals to Satan

But it has to go through the courts in order to get to the House. Under the above theoretical scenario, it never gets there.

 

[historyb]

But it has to go through the courts in order to get to the House. Under the above theoretical scenario, it never gets there.

Nope, the 12th amendment can be invoked and the courts can be bypassed. If your watching things beside the legacy media you'll see that things are starting to going our way in courts now. Trump appointed more federal judges than any President besides George Washington and that is bearing fruit

 

[Enoch111]

... or refuse to do so and fight for the continuation of Democracy in the United States, even if it means war?

This is the only option. The Left had already declared war on America. However, it was not handled as warfare, so now we have this mess.

As soon as BLM and Antifa started destroying the country, it was a declaration of war. But Mr. Trump stood by, instead of mobilizing the National Guard, the US Marshal Service, or whatever other options he had under the Insurrection Act (while ignoring the FBI and DOJ) to deal with domestic terrorism.

As to the undermining of the elections, he had three full years to set up an independent investigative commission, with an independent special prosecutor, to root out all the rot, so that by November there would have been a reasonable expectation of free and fair elections

 

[Earburner]

I would suggest that we are looking at Supreme courts who are evading the Law!
And if so, then they must think that to evade the Law is justified, as opposed to being found that they are above the Law!

So therefore, its now no more about the voting process, but rather how deep the corruption really is in the swamp!

Unfortunately, the issues really are not about what the puppets and the handlers are doing on stage. Its about the puppet masters behind the curtain, who are pulling the strings. It is they who are working the plot, not the puppets.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Nope, the 12th amendment can be invoked and the courts can be bypassed. If your watching things beside the legacy media you'll see that things are starting to going our way in courts now. Trump appointed more federal judges than any President besides George Washington and that is bearing fruit

I'm listening. Under what circumstances would the 12th Amendment be invoked, and more importantly by whom?

 

[historyb]

This is the only option. The Left had already declared war on America. However, it was not handled as warfare, so now we have this mess.

As soon as BLM and Antifa started destroying the country, it was a declaration of war. But Mr. Trump stood by, instead of mobilizing the National Guard, the US Marshal Service, or whatever other options he had under the Insurrection Act (while ignoring the FBI and DOJ) to deal with domestic terrorism.

As to the undermining of the elections, he had three full years to set up an independent investigative commission, with an independent special prosecutor, to root out all the rot, so that by November there would have been a reasonable expectation of free and fair elections

President Trump just can't do what he wanted and he had to get the permission of the Govs first. He made a strategic decision as a war time President and it paid off, no one is fooled by the liberal states anymore. In the event of war the liberal states will be the first to go, you see we have all the cards on our side.

 

[historyb]

I'm listening. Under what circumstances would the 12th Amendment be invoked, and more importantly by whom?

When Trump decides to pull the lever.

 

[farouk]

I'm only Canadian, but if I'm correct in understanding the US Constitution, the outgoing, sitting President does not actually have to do anything to step down: if the electoral college has ratified a result and the Senate has received it, then the outgoing President automatically ceases to be President at noon on January 20.

 

[Hidden In Him]

When Trump decides to pull the lever.

You may need to establish that with a little more than your word, LoL. From what I've read it has only been invoked once, and that was because neither candidate wound up with enough electoral votes to win the election. Unless things can be reversed in the courts, that is not the case as it stands now.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm only Canadian, but if I'm correct in understanding the US Constitution, the outgoing, sitting President does not actually have to do anything: if the electoral college has ratified a result and the Senate has received it, then the outgoing President automatically ceases to be President at noon on January 20.

When I referenced not stepping down in the OP, Farouk, I was talking about potentially declaring martial law and sidestepping Constitutional government in the United States, and the transfer of power.

 

[farouk]

When I referenced not stepping down in the OP, Farouk, I was talking about potentially declaring martial law and sidestepping Constitutional government in the United States.

@Hidden In Him I'm not American, but Canadian; I'm assuming that such an unusual arrangement, if it were ever even enacted, would be as much an act of the legislature and judiciary as it would be by executive order. It would be hard to see the legislature and judiciary signing away their own powers in favour of perpetual powers exercised by a President and extending beyond January 20.