Thanks Mr. New Republic writer for telling the people that have plainly said it for years that they can now plainly say it. I’m sure they’ll waste no time getting around to plainly saying it some more.
It's the Austin Powers steamroller joke. For some reasons, nothing can be done even though there is plenty of time.
"planning"
I'd say it's already done. No one with any power has the balls to remove him.
No one with any power has the balls to remove him.
Those with the power to remove him are benefitting financially and have no incentive to remove him.
Guess we're just going to need to remove him ourselves. Going out fighting is better than whatever future we're going to have at this point, tbh
Well, I guess we will see how far he will go and by he I mean THEM and by them I mean the republicans.
If that's NOT another reason to study and read socialist theory, then I don't know what is. Seriously! https://redsails.org/
He can “say”, “declare” and “decree” things all he wants, but for that to do anything requires that people up and down the system go along with it. Sure people with in the executive branch might even be legally obligated to do certain things if he tells them to, with in certain limits.
But most of the voting infrastructure is outside the federal executive, so it would require that a huge amount of local officials and administrators go along with that, some might be ideologically inclined to do so, but are there actually enough to overcome a groundswell of dissent?
“Oh he’ll just use ICE to bully them in to doing it” there literally are not enough ice agents for that to be even remotely practical. “Well they’ll just hire and deputize more” They’re trying to but they can’t get enough people in the door, and a lot of the people they have aren’t getting payed. Are they really gonna stick their necks out to help him break the law when he’s not even paying them?
This is not a masterful plan from an evil genius. This is a in denial old naracasist in way over his head surrounded by yes men who are saying what he want’s to hear so they can keep their positions and continue stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. It’s not that he doesn’t want to steal the election, it’s that he lacks the capacity to do so, and the people he’s surrounded him self with are not competent enough to build that capacity.
nobody has stopped him yet
What a nonsensical statement. It’s not about anyone “stopping him”, Everyone just need to not collaborate. Not nearly enough people are collaborating with him for anything he’s suggesting to be practical.
Back in 2024, Kamala Harris and the Democrats struggled to convince voters that a second Donald Trump term would constitute a serious threat to democracy. We can debate the effectiveness of her, and their, rhetoric. But on a certain level, it was a hard argument to make because it was hypothetical.
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.
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 🫣
I mean, before he become president the first time he literally said that he would only accept the results if he wins.
I too hate how obvious and predictable it all was but people finally getting it is surprisingly also very annoying.
He also said that if he was elected we would never have to vote again…
Can anyone tell me what's the big deal with voter ID? It's a standard in EU, Noone complains about it there.
A current example is states invalidating all Trans people's IDs during a primary election. That's happening right now.
Also - getting an ID is expensive and time consuming in the US. The cliche of spending 4 hours in line at the DMV to get a license even though you made an appointment ahead of time isn't an exaggeration, and applies to getting an ID as well. The reality is most people won't spend the time and money to do it just so they can vote every 2 or 4 years - especially people who can't afford to take a day off work and travel to do it.
But people will do it so they can drive their car every day - so people with IDs are more likely to have more money.
And for people who have driver's licenses that fall on hard times it's also a problem, because they stop paying for insurance (invalidates driver's license), lose their car (keeps them from paying for insurance or renewing license), or even lose their home (address change invalidates license). These are not people who can take a day to go pay to vote. And that's exactly what they'd be doing, because the new ID card they'd be buying would strictly be for voting. Aside from the cost of the ID, when I updated my DL in June I had to travel 80 miles round trip, and the process took about 7 hours - and I had a car to speed things up.
So it's effectively pay-to-vote system that only applies to poor people. People with money can vote for free through "motor voter" registration by checking a box when getting or renewing their driver's license.
In the US, there is no free option for public ID. Voting is a right. You are required to prove identity at the time of registration, which can be done using your birth certificate.
Essentially, the push for photo ID is a way to disenfranchise poor people, women and trans people, and other groups who may for whatever reason not have easy access to an “acceptable” ID.
Historically our courts have found that creating a financial barrier to voting is a violation of the constitution. The current Supreme Court, staffed entirely by far-right activists rather than serious jurists, is far less likely to rule that way, so anti-democracy folks are pushing to establish a new precedent before the court can be reformed.
The idea of not having a government issued photo ID in the US is inane to me. I didn't know it wasn't a basic thing as a us citizen.
In the USA the issuing of IDs will be made deliberately difficult enough to discourage cartain demographics in a way that favours Republicans. For example, it may carry a fee so poor people are discouraged, it may require your birth name and gender so trans people are discouraged, it will require birth certificates and marriage certificates so immigrants and women are discouraged. The whole thing will be used to erode the numbers of non-white-male voters and this disproportionately boost the right.
Kansas Republicans just invalidated the driving licenses of trans people overnight with no warning. We can expect the same kind of political shenanigans with Real ID.
In my experience in an EU country, sufficient ID was also provided freely by the government (eg a social security card).
This is not something in the US that is free. ID must also be a photo ID. So let's say you have a job where you work 7 days a week and take the bus because you don't have a driver's license. To get sufficient ID you must then: take unpaid time off of work, get to an office that issues ID, pay like $20 for such an ID... All to have the opportunity to exercise the right to vote.
This is both a tax and an unreasonable burden, effectively disenfranchising millions of poor people.
This is solvable though, if the government issues free IDs and sets something up to facilitate people getting their photos taken. However that would never be executed effectively, nor would people support paying the costs.
You omitted that in the US, employment is largely "at will", which means even taking a few hours off work, even asking for that, can result in that person being fired, and many won't take that risk.
This is solvable though
They don't want to solve it... the unreasonable burden and disenfranchisement are the point.
In the EU everyone is likely to have an official ID card, so it's a non-issue.
In the US this is not the case, and the people who do have an ID or who are likely to know what to do to get an ID probably skew a certain way. So requiring voter ID is a way of voter suppression to discourage disenfranchised groups from voting.
People in the English-speaking countries generally don't have government issued ID beyond a driver's license. That's also true for the UK. Historically, ID cards are connected to military conscription. The UK could rely on the Navy for defense and did not maintain vast land armies like the continental nations. Political initiatives to introduce ID cards are usually rejected by voters as totalitarian overreach.
The former slave states in the US have a history of using procedural rules to exclude blacks from voting. After the end of slavery, there was formally equality before the law. So, laws were created to maintain the status quo that were non-discriminatory on their face. EG literacy tests. This not only targeted blacks who were denied an education. Administering such tests was fully in the hands of local elites. They could be made arbitrarily hard to black people, while politically reliable white illiterates could be excused.
In addition to the bullshit “count the number of bubbles in this bar of soap” tests, the IDs required to vote are not free, making this a form of poll tax, which is illegal in the United States.
Democrats couldn't resist letting trump run again.
Non-voters couldn't resist letting him win again.
I have no idea why you were downvoted. If it weren't for the tRUMP voters AND the non/protest voters then the orange child rapist wouldn't have won.
(Though all that could've been avoided if biden had pushed for prosecutions on the insurrection stuff and top secret documents stuff almost immediately. Instead he tried the old route of "it's time to heal", which NEVER works. NEVER.)
He’s being downvoted because this was the democrats’ race to lose and they lost it spectacularly. Don’t blame non-voters for not turning up for the candidate that said “shut up about the genocide that we support and that i intend to confine to support”
Or for a party that abandons every campaign promise other than “things will not fundamentally change.”
The Democrats could try a little leadership for god’s sake. The top level comment blames the party, the comment you responded to blames the people. That’s why it’s downvoted, I think.
Because it's not a very compelling theory that people particularly say this one out over various reasons. The turnout was actually above average by a few percent. It also assumes that most of those non voters would have gone against Trump. Which is far from assured
Trump doesn't get to say shit about how the States run their elections. Even if he "Hereby Do Dee-clares it."
He isn't technically able to do most of the stuff he does do. He just does it, and then time passes and then it gets declared retroactively illegal... but it still happened. He'll probably get punished at some point... right?
Trump will never willingly step down.
Is this title suggesting that the only good Republican is a dead Republican? It sounds like this title is suggesting that the only good Republican is a dead Republican. I wonder if the only good Republican is a dead Republican. I'm going to need to think on whether the only good Republican is a dead Republican. Does anyone else have any thoughts on whether the only good Republican is a dead Republican to help me contemplate on whether the only good Republican is a dead Republican?
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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