824
Trump plan to end free elections in 2026 and 2028 revealed
(www.peoplesworld.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
824 points (100.0% liked)
News
31974 readers
2298 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Beginning to question the inherent wisdom of "Normal transition of power" when Biden handed the keys of the kingdom to a guy who openly planned to lock all the doors and shoot the next guy elected to walk through them.
But hey, I guess it would have been against the rules not to meekly empower a fascist dictatorship.
Probably what will happen is anyone who might challenge them will suddenly be arrested on Trumped-Up charges.
So what. You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship. Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
Once people who've sworn to end democracy are given the power to end democracy, then it's game over for democracy.
Preventing a corrupt criminal who's a known agent of a hostile foreign powers from becoming president is a healthy thing to do.
If the electorate in a democracy want to end democracy, then it's game over. You can't save that.
As would be preventing officials voted into office in a democracy but sooner. There is still a chance as of now as he has not stopped elections yet.
nah, it's over. It was gg for elections in November, and so many people like you didn't realize this. It's to late to prevent this. All we can do now is rebuild.
We realize and so do you since you talk of rebuilding.
Congratulations, you just discovered the paradox of tolerance.
And, yeah, essentially, in order to survive, a democratic society cannot allow those who seek to destroy it to participate in the democratic process.
Nope. I have been aware of the paradox of tolerance for awhile and its a little shoehorning to put this situation into it. Your talking about a case of allowing an elected official to take office not tolerating speech.
An elected official who repeatedly stated and demonstrated his intention of preventing any future elections and destroying democracy.
An elected official, therefore, who should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place (this isn't the only reason he shouldn't have been allowed, of course, in a sane country he'd also been unelectable due to his criminal record, lack of any semblance of mental health, and intellectual insufficiency, but it's the most important).
Ill agree he should not have been able to run but that was a failure of congress or in other words other people elected under the democracy to office. Not allowing him to run would have been great but not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous.
It would have been many orders of magnitude less disastrous than the alternative.
Sure, cutting off your cancerous hand would've been traumatic. But survivable.
Now, however, said hand is so far up your arse that it's ripped apart your colon in several places and you're bleeding to death while experiencing horrible agony, and spraying all your neighbours with blood and feces.
You could have recovered from getting rid of Trump, but there's no coming back from what you've allowed him to do to your country, and the world.
No. No it would not have. Your talking about doing something trump has not done yet. It would accelerate the problems by putting us at worse case in january of 2025 rather than in late 2026.
Have you been living under a fucking rock‽
no. I have not he has not prevented elected officials from taking office.
🤦♂️
Given the current state of affairs, I'm not clear how a Permanent Biden-o-cracy was supposed to be worse.
Well, thank god we don't officially lose our Democracy for another eighteen months.
its worse because it would be 18 months sooner. Its like climate change. It won't help if we were at 5 degrees now instead of 1.5. That would not fix it.
Weird you would mention that in the context of a presidency that's effectively set himself to the task of nationally Rolling Coal.
its hard to mention anything he is not making worse.
It has always been a dictatorship of the rich.
This is just taking the mask off.
I wanted the traitor coward Merrick Garland to do his motherfucking job and prosecute that POS and throw him in federal prison while making him completely unable to appear on any ballot.
Thanks for asking.
Garland did what he was hired to do. He slow walked the investigations so biden could run against trump again because biden knew he couldn't beat anyone better.
That's right, if it's allowed to happen, it's pretty hard to come back from that
I hope you are being cheeky by saying 'beginning to', it was immensely obvious this was the plan going back to, at bare minimum, about a year before the election, when Trump just kept saying he was gonna serve 3 terms, his supporters wouldn't have to vote again, etc.
I disagree with Biden's handling of the transition, but it's definitely internally consistent with his beliefs. He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
I would not be surprised if part of the intention here was to maintain legitimacy during the initial transfer, so that when the monsters refuse to do the same, it will lend legitimacy to a global response to assist the people in reclaiming their democracy.
Now, you could also call that 'passing the buck' and... Well, yes. He did seem to do too much of that, imo. Or not enough, depending on how you look at it.
No, Biden did not. He actively broke it by financing Israel's genocide against international and domestic law.
Sorry US law, that's where the US can do whatever it wants in the rest of the world but at home there is a rule book (allegedly)
I do find it strange that the people down voting are more upset about someone pointing out how Biden broke International and Domestic (Leahy) Law to finance a genocide than the actual genocide itself
You're right, that was awful and idealogically-rooted behavior justified in the name of liberal statecraft.
US support of Israel is a huge problem, and needs to stop. I am with you, and he should be held accountable for the part he played in that.
Hence backing Al Qaeda in Syria, fleecing Afghanistan of it's currency reserves to kick off a famine, propping up a military dictatorship in The Philippines, all while continuing a 70 year old illegal blockade of Cuba? Never even mind the Holocaust in Gaza.
Come on, dude. The US has always been playing Calvinball with Rule of Law. If Biden made noises about it, that's just him delivering the company line one last time to the liberal rubes.
That's pure cope.
Biden bent over backwards for the Silicon Valley mega-donors practically from day one, and they took full advantage until he was used up and disposed of.
He wasn't secretly plotting a resistance movement, he was carving up the country in advance so that Trump could sell it off easier.
I love these comments that always place the blame on Biden, instead of you know, the actual fucking fascists. JFC.
For the record, the "actual fucking fascists" didn't materialize during this last election, or the one before it, or the one before it.. etc. I remember when the dems campaigned on "no human is illegal" in 2016 but by time of this last cycle, they were capitulating on immigration and the border to attract the elusive moderate republican to vote democrat.. a strategy that failed our democracy in the end.
I think it is because you can't reason with these idiot fascists, but we could have reasoned with Biden.
biden was happy as long as netanyahu was happy.
"How dare you break the laws - we should have broken the laws to stop you from breaking the laws."
This, but unironically.
What a stupid argument. Like Biden refusing to cede power to an elected opponent wouldn't be one of the largest abuses of power in US history.
It would.
It would also be several orders of magnitude less harmful than everything Trump's done.
All Biden needed to do was have Trump assassinated - as an official presidential action, it would have been perfectly legal according to Trump's precedent.
Follow that up with a "Y'all see why this is maybe not the greatest idea to give the ol' prez this much power? Repeal it, then I'ma fuck off to some beach somewhere."
Boom. Democracy saved, all without breaking the law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla
How would it have been breaking the law? According to the Supreme Court long before the election, any act a President does while in office is legal.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It's illegal to donate or hand out food from your garden to the homeless - as pertains to the law stating that it's illegal to provide a better service than the government.
Uh huh.