6 ms·

> Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him After 2028 elections, all of that umbrella cov

> Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him After 2028 elections, all of that umbrella cover will go away. Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms).

nprateem 2y ago
If you don't believe he'll find a way to get a third term like every other dictator, you're living in a fantasy.
- crackrook 2y ago
  Do you truly believe this will happen? I know these are crazy times but the idea of a then-82 year old man realizing a third term for himself seems a little absurd to me. Or do you mean this in a less literal sense, e.g. in the sense that he'll get a figurative "third term" by handing the reigns over to someone in his club without a fair election?
  - nprateem 2y ago
    No I mean literally. Or he'll do what putin did and find a puppet to take the reigns for a term. He knows without presidential immunity he risks prison. And he has previous for trying to steal an election. I have no doubt he'll see to it that he never faces the risk of prison, and this is the most obvious way to go. That and he's clearly a power hungry megalomaniac. I think it'd be more informative to ask why he wouldn't try to get this.
- nprateem 2y ago
  Downvoted but he even admits it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-term-president https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-...
zozbot234 2y ago
> Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms). The midterms could have some meaningful effect a lot sooner than that if we start seeing across-the-board primary challenges of pro-Trump Republicans. Of course, all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.
- SonOfKyuss 2y ago
  More likely is that competitive districts flip blue. Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset. They’re getting what they wanted. It’s independents/undecideds that flip flop every election that could sway back against the GOP after getting tired of democrats in 2024
  - mandeepj 2y ago
    > all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption. > Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset. Replying to both of you. It has started -> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james-malone-wins-pennsylvania-senate/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james...
    - Alive-in-2025 2y ago
      So you're saying there's a chance that democracy can hold?
      - arandomusername 2y ago
        democracy has been holding. The democratically elected president is in charge.
        Alive-in-2025 2y ago
        I don't think it's really pushing things to say that President Trump is taking actions to destroy democracy in America. Basically he's step by step attacking the institutions that might be able to stand against him or resist him. He attacks judges that rule against him, he attacks congressman on the Republican side if they look like they might go against him. That's anti-democratic
KerrAvon 2y ago
On what basis do you think 2028 elections will be free and fair? Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record. Dems aren't going to gain control of congress in the upcoming special elections. We're totally fucked economically and otherwise unless Democrats in congress -- mainly the Senate -- can get a fucking grip, pay attention to what's happening, and be the opposition party we need.
- User23 2y ago
  > Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record. What on Earth are you talking about?
  - afavour 2y ago
    I assume they are talking about the SAVE act: https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/ https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/ > An estimated 69 million American women and 4 million men do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name, according to the liberal Center for American Progress.
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      Isn't an ID, like a driving license/passport, enough to vote?
      - afavour 2y ago
        Driving license, no, because non citizens can get one. Passport, yes. But plenty of Americans don’t have a passport. The OP would say these people are being deliberately disenfranchised. Personally I’ve long since given up judging these things based on what I think may or may not be in the hearts of those writing it. We don’t know so it just becomes an endless back and forth. Instead I look to the facts: the SAVE act would make it more difficult for many people to vote, with an aim of stopping those who are unauthorized to vote from doing so. There’s never really been any solid evidence of the latter happening in notable numbers so to me the trade off doesn’t feel worth it. IMO something like the SAVE Act needs to also legislate the process by which a citizen can easily get an ID in order to vote. But it doesn’t, it just says that states would manage it. Given that some states used “literacy tests” to disenfranchise black people not so long ago I personally don’t trust they would all approach ID access in a fair and equal way.
defrost 2y ago
The elections are already being taken over .. in newspeak of course. PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS ~ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres... The sweeping 12-page order contains a number of provisions, including a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections as well as a requirement that all ballots be received by Election Day – both of which fall outside of the executive branch’s authority to mandate. But, there’s also a section, buried deeper in the order, that, if implemented, would give Trump’s Justice Department the authority to pick and choose what states get federal funding for election administration. It would require states to loop the DOJ in on supposed violations of election law that it encounters. But it also mandates that basic information about voter roll maintenance be shared with the DOJ as well. If states are unwilling to enter into what is referred to as an “information-sharing agreement” with the Attorney General regarding “suspected violations of state and federal elections laws,” the Attorney General is allowed to withhold grants and other funds from those states, the executive order says. source~ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-order-includes-provision-that-could-punish-states-for-not-ceding-authority-over-election-admin-to-doj https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-order-includes-prov... There are several commentaries at length going into the hidden traps and pitfalls of this latest executive order kicking about, so far it looks loaded.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  He already said if he won you would never have to vote again but for some reason people didn't take him seriously.
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    Is that true/source?
    - Rzor 2y ago
      >Trump said: "Christians, get out and vote, just this time. "You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians." >He added: "I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote," Trump said. https://youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE https://youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-vote-after-this-election-2024-07-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...
saxonww 2y ago
Re: 2026, it's possible Democrats could take back the House, and then be able to impeach the President. But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely. And think about what would need to happen if you'd like to see actual change in leadership of the executive branch. You'd need the House comfortably controlled by Democrats, with the Senate controlled by a supermajority of Democrats. I think that you'd need both the President and Vice President impeached, convicted, and removed from office, while preventing the current/acting President from having a new VP nominated and confirmed, so that the Speaker of the House became acting President. This seems even less likely.
- mandeepj 2y ago
  > But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely. Your numbers are on point. But, there's another Math that could take us on that path leading to the same goal: A lot of republican lawmakers aren't happy currently. Although it's a long shot, some of them could join Democrats in impeaching those two clowns.
  - Applejinx 2y ago
    It happened over Nixon, whose crimes were much less serious… relatively trivial, even.
  - matteotom 2y ago
    The next test of this will be the WI Supreme Court election - if the Musk-backed candidate loses (after Musk spends millions of dollars on the campaign, possibly illegally), it might start to break the hold Musk+Trump have over Republican elected officials.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Wasn't Trump impeached twice already last term without any consequences?
ActorNightly 2y ago
Which is precisely why there won't be 2026 and 2028 elections. I dunno why people are pretending this is just 4 years of Trump. He tried to overthrow the results before, and this time around, he has support of all 3 branches and players like Elon Musk. US is going to do the same thing Russia did with Putin. If we end up having elections, its actually gonna be worse of long term, because despite tanking economy, most people aren't going to suffer that much, which means the pattern of Dems inheriting a shit economy, everything getting blamed on them again like with Biden, and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032.
- kelnos 2y ago
  The main difference between the US and Russia in this regard is that the US federal government has very little say or control over what are state-run elections. Solidly red states don't need election interference; they're going to vote red. Solidly blue states aren't going to tolerate interference. The handful or so of swing states will be watched incredibly closely by everyone else for even a hint of interference. > and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032. I mean, this is just how American politics works now, and has worked since extreme political polarization took root. That's what happens when you have FPTP voting and a two-party system, where members of each party show complete disdain (justified or not) of members of the other party.
  - ActorNightly 2y ago
    Ok and what are states gonna do when Trump arrests the electors? Secede? Look at what Dems are doing now. AoC and Bernie are hosting rallies - i.e being worthless. States will roll over, because day to day business is gotta continue.
    - jocaal 2y ago
      > Trump arrests the electors? These types of speculative remarks insinuating trump is a dictatorial nazi is very lazy. If you disagree with his policies, debate the policies.

nprateem 2y ago

If you don't believe he'll find a way to get a third term like every other dictator, you're living in a fantasy.

crackrook 2y ago
Do you truly believe this will happen? I know these are crazy times but the idea of a then-82 year old man realizing a third term for himself seems a little absurd to me. Or do you mean this in a less literal sense, e.g. in the sense that he'll get a figurative "third term" by handing the reigns over to someone in his club without a fair election?
- nprateem 2y ago
  No I mean literally. Or he'll do what putin did and find a puppet to take the reigns for a term. He knows without presidential immunity he risks prison. And he has previous for trying to steal an election. I have no doubt he'll see to it that he never faces the risk of prison, and this is the most obvious way to go. That and he's clearly a power hungry megalomaniac. I think it'd be more informative to ask why he wouldn't try to get this.
nprateem 2y ago
Downvoted but he even admits it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-term-president https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-...

zozbot234 2y ago

> Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms). The midterms could have some meaningful effect a lot sooner than that if we start seeing across-the-board primary challenges of pro-Trump Republicans. Of course, all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.

SonOfKyuss 2y ago
More likely is that competitive districts flip blue. Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset. They’re getting what they wanted. It’s independents/undecideds that flip flop every election that could sway back against the GOP after getting tired of democrats in 2024
- mandeepj 2y ago
  > all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption. > Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset. Replying to both of you. It has started -> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james-malone-wins-pennsylvania-senate/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james...
  - Alive-in-2025 2y ago
    So you're saying there's a chance that democracy can hold?
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      democracy has been holding. The democratically elected president is in charge.
      - Alive-in-2025 2y ago
        I don't think it's really pushing things to say that President Trump is taking actions to destroy democracy in America. Basically he's step by step attacking the institutions that might be able to stand against him or resist him. He attacks judges that rule against him, he attacks congressman on the Republican side if they look like they might go against him. That's anti-democratic

KerrAvon 2y ago

On what basis do you think 2028 elections will be free and fair? Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record. Dems aren't going to gain control of congress in the upcoming special elections. We're totally fucked economically and otherwise unless Democrats in congress -- mainly the Senate -- can get a fucking grip, pay attention to what's happening, and be the opposition party we need.

User23 2y ago
> Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record. What on Earth are you talking about?
- afavour 2y ago
  I assume they are talking about the SAVE act: https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/ https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/ > An estimated 69 million American women and 4 million men do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name, according to the liberal Center for American Progress.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    Isn't an ID, like a driving license/passport, enough to vote?
    - afavour 2y ago
      Driving license, no, because non citizens can get one. Passport, yes. But plenty of Americans don’t have a passport. The OP would say these people are being deliberately disenfranchised. Personally I’ve long since given up judging these things based on what I think may or may not be in the hearts of those writing it. We don’t know so it just becomes an endless back and forth. Instead I look to the facts: the SAVE act would make it more difficult for many people to vote, with an aim of stopping those who are unauthorized to vote from doing so. There’s never really been any solid evidence of the latter happening in notable numbers so to me the trade off doesn’t feel worth it. IMO something like the SAVE Act needs to also legislate the process by which a citizen can easily get an ID in order to vote. But it doesn’t, it just says that states would manage it. Given that some states used “literacy tests” to disenfranchise black people not so long ago I personally don’t trust they would all approach ID access in a fair and equal way.

defrost 2y ago

The elections are already being taken over .. in newspeak of course. PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS ~ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres... The sweeping 12-page order contains a number of provisions, including a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections as well as a requirement that all ballots be received by Election Day – both of which fall outside of the executive branch’s authority to mandate. But, there’s also a section, buried deeper in the order, that, if implemented, would give Trump’s Justice Department the authority to pick and choose what states get federal funding for election administration. It would require states to loop the DOJ in on supposed violations of election law that it encounters. But it also mandates that basic information about voter roll maintenance be shared with the DOJ as well. If states are unwilling to enter into what is referred to as an “information-sharing agreement” with the Attorney General regarding “suspected violations of state and federal elections laws,” the Attorney General is allowed to withhold grants and other funds from those states, the executive order says. source~ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-order-includes-provision-that-could-punish-states-for-not-ceding-authority-over-election-admin-to-doj https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-order-includes-prov... There are several commentaries at length going into the hidden traps and pitfalls of this latest executive order kicking about, so far it looks loaded.

9283409232 2y ago
He already said if he won you would never have to vote again but for some reason people didn't take him seriously.
- throwaway290 2y ago
  Is that true/source?
  - Rzor 2y ago
    >Trump said: "Christians, get out and vote, just this time. "You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians." >He added: "I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote," Trump said. https://youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE https://youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-vote-after-this-election-2024-07-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...

saxonww 2y ago

Re: 2026, it's possible Democrats could take back the House, and then be able to impeach the President. But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely. And think about what would need to happen if you'd like to see actual change in leadership of the executive branch. You'd need the House comfortably controlled by Democrats, with the Senate controlled by a supermajority of Democrats. I think that you'd need both the President and Vice President impeached, convicted, and removed from office, while preventing the current/acting President from having a new VP nominated and confirmed, so that the Speaker of the House became acting President. This seems even less likely.

mandeepj 2y ago
> But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely. Your numbers are on point. But, there's another Math that could take us on that path leading to the same goal: A lot of republican lawmakers aren't happy currently. Although it's a long shot, some of them could join Democrats in impeaching those two clowns.
- Applejinx 2y ago
  It happened over Nixon, whose crimes were much less serious… relatively trivial, even.
- matteotom 2y ago
  The next test of this will be the WI Supreme Court election - if the Musk-backed candidate loses (after Musk spends millions of dollars on the campaign, possibly illegally), it might start to break the hold Musk+Trump have over Republican elected officials.
LunaSea 2y ago
Wasn't Trump impeached twice already last term without any consequences?

ActorNightly 2y ago

Which is precisely why there won't be 2026 and 2028 elections. I dunno why people are pretending this is just 4 years of Trump. He tried to overthrow the results before, and this time around, he has support of all 3 branches and players like Elon Musk. US is going to do the same thing Russia did with Putin. If we end up having elections, its actually gonna be worse of long term, because despite tanking economy, most people aren't going to suffer that much, which means the pattern of Dems inheriting a shit economy, everything getting blamed on them again like with Biden, and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032.

kelnos 2y ago
The main difference between the US and Russia in this regard is that the US federal government has very little say or control over what are state-run elections. Solidly red states don't need election interference; they're going to vote red. Solidly blue states aren't going to tolerate interference. The handful or so of swing states will be watched incredibly closely by everyone else for even a hint of interference. > and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032. I mean, this is just how American politics works now, and has worked since extreme political polarization took root. That's what happens when you have FPTP voting and a two-party system, where members of each party show complete disdain (justified or not) of members of the other party.
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  Ok and what are states gonna do when Trump arrests the electors? Secede? Look at what Dems are doing now. AoC and Bernie are hosting rallies - i.e being worthless. States will roll over, because day to day business is gotta continue.
  - jocaal 2y ago
    > Trump arrests the electors? These types of speculative remarks insinuating trump is a dictatorial nazi is very lazy. If you disagree with his policies, debate the policies.