96
submitted 1 week ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/42694823

Trump has no power to “decree” that voters must present ID or to end mail-in balloting. But that doesn’t mean he can’t at least try both. Under the Insurrection Act or some other dusty statute, he can declare a state of emergency. Then he can decide that said state permits, nay requires, him to take extraordinary measures. On October 5, say, that might mean outlawing early voting. By October 13, it might mean no mail-in voting. By October 29, a reminder that all voters must present ID to vote. And by Sunday, November 1, two days before the election—an announcement that all these “reasonable” measures have alas failed, and he is now forced, against his will, to postpone the election.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] johncandy1812@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Considering how abusive he is towards members of the military, I think he will find himself frog-marched out of office.

[-] doesit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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 🫣

load more comments (31 replies)
[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

He also said that if he was elected we would never have to vote again…

[-] minorkeys@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Was the 2020 coup attempt too tough to figure out?

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Democrats couldn't resist letting trump run again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

Trump doesn't get to say shit about how the States run their elections. Even if he "Hereby Do Dee-clares it."

[-] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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?

[-] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The states run elections, lease the voting places and employ all the staff.

Unless the federal govt replaces all of them, just waving a chicken leg around and declaring stuff won't do anything.

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Or you know he could put ice officers outside strategic polls and block anyone he doesnt like from entering.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

He and Pete Hegseth have no legal say in how the Scouts should run their affairs, too, but see what happened today?

[-] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Trump says a lot of stupid crap. What you do is ignore him. Or say, "no" to him. But never give up without a fight.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

That's true. The states can constitutionally tell him to go fuck himself. But I read a key phrase in another article that I tried to find and can't, to the effect that his plan involves ally states.

So lets say all but five states tell him to fuck himself and hold their elections. Five do not. They have just thrown the entire election and its results into massive constitutional confusion, with lawsuits for years to come while he just sits up there shitting his Depends and grinning. And it would work: whatever anyone says should be the answer, someone else will sue over.

Elections are a huge power grab for anyone who wants even a little power. No one is going to let their piece of the pie go easily, whether that means holding an election or not holding an election, or fighting those who want the opposite, in court, forever.

All he has to do is introduce confusion, and then it will be up to SCOTUS to decide.

And SCOTUS is as corrupt as the day is long.

[-] jif@piefed.ca 7 points 1 week ago

Trump will never willingly step down.

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Pedolini is at war with everyone

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MyPetCumsock@hilariouschaos.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's if they even lose. They've taken away a lot from me already and conservifascits are loving it. Gen Z swung red because they thought this was an ideology to get behind. You're supposed to trust in God for your healthcare plan if you weren't born rich. This is a Christian nation. I fucking hate my life.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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.

I don't think anyone in the political space failed to recognize it as an existential threat; its that Harris didn't campaign as if it was an existential threat.

If it was such an existential threat, why would you actively disenfranchise your base?

If it was such an existential threat, why would you say things like "I would do nothing fundamentally different than the current administration", when the administration was DEEPLY unpopular?

If it was such an existential threat, why did you spend 1.5 billion dollars trying to court voters which you have never been able to get, specifically by elevating some of the least popular voices within their own party (eg, Liz Cheney and Republican voters)?

Nothing about how the Harris campaign operated beyond selecting Walz as VP demonstrated that they recognized Trump as an existential threat to Democracy. Voices were, in the course of the campaign, CLAMORING, for them to do better. They didn't listen and they chose the approaches they did.

[-] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Because they didn't realize how many idiotic left leaning Americans there are.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because they didn’t realize how many ~~idiotic left leaning~~ reactionary centrists Americans there are.

ftfy.

[-] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

They knew that their base wouldn’t turn out for a candidate who supported a genocide. They decided to run one anyways. They thought making sure Israel could continue its genocide was more important than winning against Trump. But yeah sure blame the people who aren’t sociopaths.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

They knew that their base wouldn’t turn out for a candidate

Bro, we are not their base.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

"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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 2piradians@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

6 years ago I posted on FB that any qualms over mail-in ballots should have already been raised and in the process of being addressed ahead of the 2020 election. A large portion of my friends and family were MAGA, or at least dem-hating, so they inundated me with conspiracy theory rubbish.

I knew he would pull some shit, somehow. Then J6 came to pass.

So now he's blatantly planning to fuck with the election 8 months ahead of time. Nothing has changed in terms of protecting voters, and it's as predictable now as it was in 2020.

But I think the fucker underestimates us and his base on this. As serious as 2A advocates are about guns, there are more of us by orders of magnitude who value our voting rights.

[-] Ghostie@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Jan 6th happened once, it can happen again..

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

J6 was a trial run.

They learned their lessons and they will do something else to usurp the democratic process. And this time it will work.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

A trial run without guns, at that.

This time they will be heavily armed and won't wait until people have voted.

They'll have ICE and other federal oppression agencies preventing eligible voters from exercising their rights.

Primarily nonwhite people and people who have ever been observed protesting injustice, but no vote is safe under fascism.

[-] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Except with the good guys leading the charge

[-] ReginaPhalange@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Y'all need another south/north civil war, then invent other political parties

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
96 points (99.0% liked)

politics

28823 readers
916 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS