700
It Can Now Be Plainly Said: Trump Is Planning a November Coup d’État
(newrepublic.com)
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 27 Feb 2026
700 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29920 readers
1597 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
On what planet was it hypothetical.
Honestly. It's like everyone's still using fucking Windows. Fuck levels critical.
He couldn't have made his intentions any clearer. I think people just figured the Senate, SCOTUS and the DOJ would keep him in check. They didn't see him taking control of those to this extent.
Now people are about to find out just how much control he has over the military.
Frankly, I don't really blame people for having faith in the guardrails. Generally speaking, whenever any truly progressive legislation (often labeled as "extremism") has been pushed forward, those guardrails have come up real quick. I understand why people thought that that would hold true for extremism in any direction. But it... well, doesn't.
I think with the DOGE data (it was always about access to all the mainframes) and Palantir's AI, it's perfectly possible to know who will be loyal and who not. From the top of the miltary to the last redneck in Dumbville.
If I was in the States, I wouldn't be writing these things here.
Considering how abusive he is towards members of the military, I think he will find himself frog-marched out of office.
I had hoped that even the maga members of Congress still had enough spine and self respect to put the rule of law over the promise of power, influence, and the ability to shape their christo-facist state. What a naive fool.
It's like people don't understand what happened and almost happened on J6.
If all fails he'll definitely do this again.
edit : grammar 🫣
"Trust me", said pro-genocide candidate Kamala Harris, who shows no interest in reigning in the billionaires and corporations rushing to support fascism. "I'm better than Trump. I support US imperialism politely."
You're right. This is so much better.
Taps sign https://mander.xyz/post/48072666
The meme has a point, but thinking there are not degrees of undesirability and instead equating everything undesireable is downright retarded.
And even on the genocide, Trump is still worse
Yeah, quite obviously
FUCKING. THANK. YOU. ❤️
I wonder if there is an option beyond simply picking between fascism and blue fascism
Harris was imperialist and colonialist, but not fascist. It's ludicrous to equivocate trump and Harris as both being fascist.
And in any case, yeah, vote for progressives in primaries. I know that there wasn't a real primary for 24, but that has more to do with Biden not stepping aside soon enough than anything else. Dem voters are getting tired of establishment enablers, and DNC leadership is no longer interfering to pick favorites (see Mamdani's victory) so we could actually see progressives taking over the party.
You're painting a false equivalency (both sides the same) and pining for other options without actually offering a solution for how to get there, implying that we just stay home and not vote at all. You're the problem. If you don't like the fascism, vote against the fascist. If you don't like the non fascist option, tough shit because there may not be a next time if the fascist wins (and he did and here we are talking about suspending elections). If you actually want better Democrats in the general for the 26 elections, you need to start paying attention now because it's primary season already, and you can and should be donating/volunteering for who you believe in.
If you're being serious about wanting an option outside of the two parties, only one of them is open to things like ranked choice to get rid of first past the post and eliminating the electoral college so that it's people and not land doing the voting. Spoiler alert: convincing people to withhold their vote helps the other guys win, and they're thrilled to keep it a two party system. You may not like somebody milquetoast like Biden, but he course corrected and arrested the slip into fascism while getting some progressive stuff through. Not enough, but it's fucking silly to say that Harris was the same as Biden and also Harris is the same as trump.
Oh no a reasonable rebuttal! Look at ‘em go! They cleared the fence!
They are both capitalists and will therefore both trend toward fascim, albeit at different rates. But that trend toward is a very slippery one way street with entire world wars being necessary to only temporarily revert it and try new ways.
This is why it’s such a depressing mindfuck that the dems would rather remain the way they are instead of change. They want it. Just in a gaslit “guess we gotta be fasc” manner instead of trump’s “we are” manner.
Imperialists and colonialists share the same beliefs as fascists. They just disagree on whether or not it’s time to turn the violence of the imperialist machine in on itself. As the decline of America continues, eventually the imperialist are guaranteed to relent and side with the fascists.
On top of that the DNC no legal obligation to run democratic primaries. Regardless of whatever wins democratic socialists have made, they’re so far from actually wielding enough power to meaningfully reform the American system. If they had any chance of success under the current rules then the DNC would just change them. The obvious conclusion is that voting alone will not stop the rise of fascism. It literally the least you can possible do.
Gotta break the two party system and the electoral college for it to be feasible. I would love for that to happen.
"Yes, of course I will choose the pile of rusty nails dipped in horseshit over the stale sandwich for lunch. As the sandwich is not very appealing, this seems like the logical choice," said the well-balanced, rationally thinking individual.
The point isn't to choose the rusty nails, it's to settle for better than a stale sandwich. I thought that was obvious. You deserve a candidate who actually represents your interests.
Okay sure, definitely a good idea to change the menu, and make it so that there can be more than just 2 options.
But you still have to choose something to eat today.
"Better than a stale sandwich" wasn't an option. I thought that was obvious. You had two choices. You refused to pick one, so you got the worst of the two.
And now everyone who didn't pick is still screaming at all the people who were going "Just eat the stale sandwich, we'll work on expanding the menu for next time."
The DNC should've had a primary, yes. But that's not how circumstances played out. There will be a primary next time, and that's the time to make your voice heard on who should be nominated. The general election is a zero-sum competition in which, unfortunately, practically speaking there are only two options and can only be one winner.
Ive noticed that these guys are trying to start the same moral panic shit among Democratic voters to demotivate them this time around. For example, with Talarico - a key senate seat flip.
It’s definitely going to happen again. So-called moderate trump voters and our own LemLeft have learned nothing.
Yeah with that attitude you're exactly right. That's the problem
Shove it up your ass. We tried to save the Democrats from themselves in 2024 and people like you ran static interference so that the Dems could run on "more of the same" and ultimately lose the election.
Funny, I don't remember seeing you promoting any progressive candidate for the the primaries.
Saw you wokescolding Kamala voters a lot though...
Must just be that you do the first part in communities I'm not in.
My entire comment history is right there buddy. Its all in there. Go take a look instead of relying on your clearly faulty memory.
I love that word. I'm going to take that word.
And again, instead of reacting to your impression of what you think I said, go through my comment history and find examples of that. If you need tools to better access them, I can provide that to you. I've got my entire comment history also available in JSON format, if that makes it easier for you, and you also have no excuse. In other words, put the fuck up or shut the fuck up, because I know precisely what I've said this entire time, and you are responding to your emotional impression of what I've said, not actually what I've said.
My criticisms have been explicitly focused on the maneuvers of the party, the Biden campaign, the Harris campaign, and those who shield the parties or the campaigns from criticism
All of this is based on the central thesis I offer, which is:
That its functionally and practically impossible to move an electorate over the course of a campaign which only lasts a couple of months. There are no mechanisms or tools available to campaigns to do so. Focusing critiques on individual voters when there is no function mechanism to change the minds of millions of voters is counter productive and loses you voters. The Harris campaign lost 6 million votes while not understanding this.
The only path to winning an election is to move a candidate to a set of popular enough policy positions they win the majority of factions necessary to capture the electoral college.
Any one saying that voters just need to "do better" while defending or apologizing for Candidates or campaigns with unelectable policy positions is a dangerous provocateur who, by shielding campaigns or politicians from criticism is operating on behalf of the opposition.
If a candidate holds a policy position which will prevent them from winning the election, voting for them isn't "strategic"; its irrelevant. The only options you have is to move politicians to electable positions. There is no other way to win.
Hit me with some keywords I can use to find the candidate who's campaign you vocally and regularly supported through the DNC primaries in that JSON dump.
Lol says a lot versus a reply like “I supported Smith and/or Johnson”
Yeah you tried real hard, great fucking job
Y'all wanted to lose the election, so thanks for ensuring that outcome.
This is the dumbest fucking take on the planet. Shut the fuck up.
No u.
Oh did you?
Yes. We gave the Democrats a straight-forward path to winning. They simply needed to shift their policy on Gaza. We communicated that here, there, everywhere. We got kicked out of the DNC convention saying it. We said it before Biden stepped down, after. We wrote articles about it. We did podcasts. We wrote editorials. We made it so incredibly clear, that there is really no excuse for not knowing that it was a choice on the part of the campaign to maintain an electable position.
Yeah, dude, you made a lot of people sit at home so that they lost. You have the mentality of an early adolescent - selfish and with little wisdom or perspective.
No it's that I actually wanted to win the election and I appreciate that I don't control the behavior of others. I have to live in reality, where you need to to motivate voters to show up.
Instead of you, living in fantastic delusion of your own creation, where you some how expect to just guilt and shame voters into doing what you want them to do. And to be clear, the exact strategy you are advocating for is what the Harris campaign did do in 2024, and what the Clinton campaign did in 2016. They simply expected voters to show up, and tried to use same or guilt as the motivater.
It. Doesn't. Work.
You lose elections doing that.
Also, if I'm some how so fucking powerful and have such masterful control of millions of voters, why wouldn't you just listen to me and advocate that the candidate change their policy?
If you can't win the election without meeting my demand, shouldn't that be your priority? This is obvious, since, you won't win the election without doing so.
I think in this case, hypothetical just means it was an "if, then" statement. As in, "if he wins, then his second term will constitute a serious threat to democracy." He hadn't won the election yet, so the electoral outcome was still hypothetical and therefore so were all of its effects.
I agree that the wording is quite terrible though.