Poll says half of Republicans would support postponing 2020 election if Trump did it.

[Flagg]

Do you not know how your government works? As Flagg pointed out, it's flat out fucking impossible for the President to postpone the elections, that power is delegated to the States and is completely beyond him. Trump has the same chance of postponing the elections that Cthulhu does of becoming an officially recognized candidate. Zero. The poll is dead on arrival. Might as well make a poll on Arnold Schwartzenegger vs. Dolph Lundgren for President.

Um ... I'm not sure what you are talking about. Article II (section 1; clause 4) of the Constitution explicitly gives the right for deciding the date of the presidential election to CONGRESS. The states only powers are vis-a-vis their electors for the Electoral College. So, yeah, Trump could propose to the Republican congress that the election be postponed, and they have the legal power to follow through with that. This is definitely a hypothetical scenario worth discussing because it is not outside the realm of plausibility, especially since Trump has already laid the groundwork in advance for doing so. (I don't think it's terribly likely Trump will be able to get Congress to do this, at the moment, but the Republican prerogatives are a bit unpredictable at this point)

Yeah, you're right about that. Dunce cap anyone?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Trump is already a lame duck who can't even pass his healthcare reform bill through Congress and you think he can somehow get them to postpone the elections. Again, if it gets to the point where he can postpone or try to postpone the elections you have much bigger problems to worry about.

I didn't say that, jackass. My post wasn't very long, I'd appreciate it if you could pull your head out of your ass for all of the 30 seconds it would take for you to actually read it and comprehend it before replying. You know, especially the last couple of sentences, where I pretty explicitly say that I don't think Trump actually could convince Congress to do this at the moment. But hey, way to avoid admitting that you were wrong about the way the government works, despite the condescending tone you adopted to admonish Simon.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, you're right about that. Dunce cap anyone?

To be fair, it actually is a rather complicated issue, and a quick Google search does find some sources saying that it is possible to make an argument for why that power would be vested in the states. So I don't think you were completely off base in believing that. A good source describing the complexity of the issue (and ultimately concluding the power is technically with Congress), is this 2004 Congressional Research Service report

[aerius]

I didn't say that, jackass. My post wasn't very long, I'd appreciate it if you could pull your head out of your ass for all of the 30 seconds it would take for you to actually read it and comprehend it before replying. You know, especially the last couple of sentences, where I pretty explicitly say that I don't think Trump actually could convince Congress to do this at the moment. But hey, way to avoid admitting that you were wrong about the way the government works, despite the condescending tone you adopted to admonish Simon.

Who the fuck cares? We're arguing over pointless details. So I was wrong in the interpretation of the US Constitution, it doesn't change the point of my posts. That is, it's a hypothetical situation (RAR!) that has as much chance of happening as me becoming POTUS. Besides being bored out of my skull at work, I don't see any point to continuing with this topic. It was a near worthless topic to begin with and it ain't exactly getting better.

[Flagg]

Yeah, you're right about that. Dunce cap anyone?

To be fair, it actually is a rather complicated issue, and a quick Google search does find some sources saying that it is possible to make an argument for why that power would be vested in the states. So I don't think you were completely off base in believing that. A good source describing the complexity of the issue (and ultimately concluding the power is technically with Congress), is this 2004 Congressional Research Service report

I was conflating the power of the states to essentially run the election as they see fit (with caveats) with the power to set the date. Which is fucking stupid as shit on my part because just looking at the party primary process makes clear that the states would try to one-up each other in some way to give themselves more power so clearly some federal body (congress being the obvious choice) would have to regulate that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Who the fuck cares? We're arguing over pointless details. So I was wrong in the interpretation of the US Constitution, it doesn't change the point of my posts. That is, it's a hypothetical situation (RAR!) that has as much chance of happening as me becoming POTUS. Besides being bored out of my skull at work, I don't see any point to continuing with this topic. It was a near worthless topic to begin with and it ain't exactly getting better.

You can feel free to 'agree to disagree' with me on this one, but I personally see a pretty huge difference between the statements "X happening is IMPOSSIBLE" and "X happening is possible, but given the facts as we know them now is probably not plausible". And I'm not sure you appreciate what a momentous event it would be for Trump to even PROPOSE such a thing, even in the absence of Congress actually going along with it. And even if you believe that this happening is extremely unlikely (as I have explicitly said I do), that doesn't mean it's completely meritless to discuss (if nothing else, it's actually a very interesting argument to have with respect to interpretations of constitutional law, as the link I proved in my post to Flagg illustrates, since the precise legal mechanisms involved are only very sketchily outlined).

And, well, you elected to engage in this argument in the first place, so it just seems pretty childish to respond to a countering argument by throwing up your hands and saying the whole conversation was pointless in the first place. If you are just interesting in alleviating your boredom without having to deal with the reality that not everyone is going to agree with you everything, there seem to be better ways you can spend your time than by actively engaging in political debates.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd also point out that, this specific example aside, just because something is blatantly unconstitutional doesn't mean it can't happen- the Constitution has been flagrantly ignored or "reinterpreted" by the unscrupulous in powerbefore- Dredd Scott comes immediately to mind.