4 ms·

> even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback. But that doesn't change their goal. Th

> even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback. But that doesn't change their goal. They have openly stated what they want, the fact that courts have sometimes intervened or that fig leaves have been given doesn't change the long-term goal. Were they retreating on ICE when they said they want them at polling stations? It seems like an escalation to me.

andsoitis 8mo ago
> But that doesn't change their goal. OK, let's assume that. Goal is one thing. How far they're willing and able to go (and hence be effective in getting that goal) is a different matter. That's my argument. The current adminitration has shown that their ego (adoration) is a limiting factor in what they're willing to do for power. To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? Is it just political theater?
- 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
  > OK, let's assume that. No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! > To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? This isn't about "Top Republicans," it is about the administration. The same administration that is actively trying to nationalize elections to prevent that bloodbath. Secondly, is it conceivable that Republicans fearing an electoral bloodbath would make them more likely to support aggressive election interference (ICE a polling stations, new election laws, Federal takeover of elections, re-litigating 2020 Georgia results)?
  - andsoitis 8mo ago
    > > OK, let's assume that. > No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement? The Trump administration's official executive orders and fact sheets repeatedly state their goal is to have "free, fair, and honest elections". They have specific policy proposals around voter ID, citizenship verification, and election integrity measures. I will concede that what they think is free and fair, others might not, like legal ID requirement, so that's a requirement reasonable people can disagree on. But I do think, but am very open to be proven wrong, that they explicitly state that they want to do away with free 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... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-protects-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
    - 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
      Other people have already shared the multiple statements Trump has made, I've added some below. > “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election...” > "You Won't Have to Vote Anymore" > "The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,"
      - andsoitis 8mo ago
        That's not the same thing as policy. That's not the same thing as goal. Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc. To argue against myself, one could take it at face value. If you do, then you are saying you are near 100% confident that's the goal in which case you ought to do something about it. The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal. You could maybe accuse me of being naïvely hopeful.
        5upplied_demand 8mo ago
        You asked for statements and I provided them. Now you are pivoting to "policy" as if authoritarians would release policy papers about how they want to end free and fair elections. Please cite some of those examples if you can find them. One the other side, we have many historical examples of authoritarians claiming elections to be free and fair in order to cement power. The rest of the world knows Putin isn't receiving 88.5% of the vote in a free and fair election. Stalin and Mussolini also held elections. None were free, fair, or honest and that is the entire point. > Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc. Why ask for the statements in the first place if they don't matter and can be waved away? > The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal. This isn't about whether "enough people truly think it is the goal." It is about the stated claims and goals of the administration, which have been shared with you multiple times in this thread. Please stop with the red herrings.
        hackyhacky 8mo ago
- kenjackson 8mo ago
  The administration realizes that they need some goodwill to get power. They can’t simply say “no more elections” and start executing political enemies. While that maybe what they want to do, they realize that this would actually hamper their goal of accumulating power.
  - andsoitis 8mo ago
    > The administration realizes that they need some goodwill to get power. You mean, they know they need to be voted in! I.e. elections.
    - kenjackson 8mo ago
      No. They know they currently don’t have enough power to end elections. But they are working on it and started this as a desire.
    - hackyhacky 8mo ago
      > You mean, they know they need to be voted in! I.e. elections. They know that they don't need to legitimately win elections to stay in power. All they need to do is keep the support of their base sufficiently to prevent any investigation into their election manipulation. They've already lost the good will of the majority, so they have to find a way to win with a minority. That means placating their wealthy supporters with giveaways, i.e. the recent NLRB decision that conveniently solves Elon Musk's union problem. [1] That means helping pliant local officials stay in power, by gerrymandering among other methods. That means maintaining the support of ICE, who have proven themselves able to use violence against critics of the administration. [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/nlrb-dismisses-spacex-case-over-fired-engineers-signals-no-future-enforcement-action-report https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/nlrb-dismisses-spacex-c...
- kenjackson 8mo ago
  Here’s a recent example of him stating the lack of need for elections: “He boasted that he had accomplished so much that ‘when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.‘“ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-interview-president-trump-2026-01-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-inte...
  - andsoitis 8mo ago
    But you left out: The president expressed frustration that his Republican Party could lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate in this year’s midterm elections, citing historical trends that have seen the party in power lose seats in the second year of a presidency. “It's some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don't win the midterms,” Trump said. He boasted that he had accomplished so much that “when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.” There's a difference between what he believes or wishes for and what you know the reality. He is self-aware enough to know that Americans will only put up with so much. When you look at his rhetoric in totality and actions, you quickly realize he is paying attention to where the voter is and knows that he cannot do just whatever he wants, no matter what he might wish for.
    - kenjackson 8mo ago
      Re-read what you wrote. Nothing you said helps your point. We are talking about his desires. And yes, he’s not a complete idiot - of course he realizes that he can’t implement whatever he wants to right now. But his stated and implied desire is to end elections, which is the point of this thread.
      - andsoitis 8mo ago
        > But his stated and implied desire is to end elections, which is the point of this thread. We're debating two different things. I'm arguing that the adminstration's goal is not to get absolute power no matter the cost. The thread started because I pushed back agains the assertion that the administration is willing to inflict unlimited pain on Americans (no electricity, no water) to get and maintain power. The evidence points in the other direction. You, and others, have latched narrowly on "goal".

andsoitis 8mo ago

> But that doesn't change their goal. OK, let's assume that. Goal is one thing. How far they're willing and able to go (and hence be effective in getting that goal) is a different matter. That's my argument. The current adminitration has shown that their ego (adoration) is a limiting factor in what they're willing to do for power. To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? Is it just political theater?

5upplied_demand 8mo ago
> OK, let's assume that. No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! > To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? This isn't about "Top Republicans," it is about the administration. The same administration that is actively trying to nationalize elections to prevent that bloodbath. Secondly, is it conceivable that Republicans fearing an electoral bloodbath would make them more likely to support aggressive election interference (ICE a polling stations, new election laws, Federal takeover of elections, re-litigating 2020 Georgia results)?
- andsoitis 8mo ago
  > > OK, let's assume that. > No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement? The Trump administration's official executive orders and fact sheets repeatedly state their goal is to have "free, fair, and honest elections". They have specific policy proposals around voter ID, citizenship verification, and election integrity measures. I will concede that what they think is free and fair, others might not, like legal ID requirement, so that's a requirement reasonable people can disagree on. But I do think, but am very open to be proven wrong, that they explicitly state that they want to do away with free 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... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-protects-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
  - 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
    Other people have already shared the multiple statements Trump has made, I've added some below. > “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election...” > "You Won't Have to Vote Anymore" > "The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,"
    - andsoitis 8mo ago
      That's not the same thing as policy. That's not the same thing as goal. Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc. To argue against myself, one could take it at face value. If you do, then you are saying you are near 100% confident that's the goal in which case you ought to do something about it. The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal. You could maybe accuse me of being naïvely hopeful.
      - 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
        You asked for statements and I provided them. Now you are pivoting to "policy" as if authoritarians would release policy papers about how they want to end free and fair elections. Please cite some of those examples if you can find them. One the other side, we have many historical examples of authoritarians claiming elections to be free and fair in order to cement power. The rest of the world knows Putin isn't receiving 88.5% of the vote in a free and fair election. Stalin and Mussolini also held elections. None were free, fair, or honest and that is the entire point. > Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc. Why ask for the statements in the first place if they don't matter and can be waved away? > The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal. This isn't about whether "enough people truly think it is the goal." It is about the stated claims and goals of the administration, which have been shared with you multiple times in this thread. Please stop with the red herrings.
      - hackyhacky 8mo ago
kenjackson 8mo ago
The administration realizes that they need some goodwill to get power. They can’t simply say “no more elections” and start executing political enemies. While that maybe what they want to do, they realize that this would actually hamper their goal of accumulating power.
- andsoitis 8mo ago
  > The administration realizes that they need some goodwill to get power. You mean, they know they need to be voted in! I.e. elections.
  - kenjackson 8mo ago
    No. They know they currently don’t have enough power to end elections. But they are working on it and started this as a desire.
  - hackyhacky 8mo ago
    > You mean, they know they need to be voted in! I.e. elections. They know that they don't need to legitimately win elections to stay in power. All they need to do is keep the support of their base sufficiently to prevent any investigation into their election manipulation. They've already lost the good will of the majority, so they have to find a way to win with a minority. That means placating their wealthy supporters with giveaways, i.e. the recent NLRB decision that conveniently solves Elon Musk's union problem. [1] That means helping pliant local officials stay in power, by gerrymandering among other methods. That means maintaining the support of ICE, who have proven themselves able to use violence against critics of the administration. [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/nlrb-dismisses-spacex-case-over-fired-engineers-signals-no-future-enforcement-action-report https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/nlrb-dismisses-spacex-c...
kenjackson 8mo ago
Here’s a recent example of him stating the lack of need for elections: “He boasted that he had accomplished so much that ‘when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.‘“ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-interview-president-trump-2026-01-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-inte...
- andsoitis 8mo ago
  But you left out: The president expressed frustration that his Republican Party could lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate in this year’s midterm elections, citing historical trends that have seen the party in power lose seats in the second year of a presidency. “It's some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don't win the midterms,” Trump said. He boasted that he had accomplished so much that “when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.” There's a difference between what he believes or wishes for and what you know the reality. He is self-aware enough to know that Americans will only put up with so much. When you look at his rhetoric in totality and actions, you quickly realize he is paying attention to where the voter is and knows that he cannot do just whatever he wants, no matter what he might wish for.
  - kenjackson 8mo ago
    Re-read what you wrote. Nothing you said helps your point. We are talking about his desires. And yes, he’s not a complete idiot - of course he realizes that he can’t implement whatever he wants to right now. But his stated and implied desire is to end elections, which is the point of this thread.
    - andsoitis 8mo ago
      > But his stated and implied desire is to end elections, which is the point of this thread. We're debating two different things. I'm arguing that the adminstration's goal is not to get absolute power no matter the cost. The thread started because I pushed back agains the assertion that the administration is willing to inflict unlimited pain on Americans (no electricity, no water) to get and maintain power. The evidence points in the other direction. You, and others, have latched narrowly on "goal".