thebeave
Contributor
Oh brother, these puns are getting out of control. I will give you a thumbs up on that one, but that's it for a while.
-
Features
Trump said the radical left should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military
- Thread starter Axulus
- Start date
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
The 25th Amendment was poorly conceived and written, probably because those who created it were so badly conflicted on what to do about a rogue president like Trump who could not control himself. It would require the cooperation of Vance and of Trump's handpicked cabinet, but Trump would easily be able to dispute, and possibly block it, from removing him. I can see the possibility of that happening, especially if the cabal to Silicon Valley billionaires backing Vance want to remove Trump in order to get Vance installed in his place. They are basically funding Trump's reelection campaign and legal expenses now, because they see him as a solid investment that can be reasonably managed by stroking his ego and appealing to his greed. However, if they feel their control slipping, they might look for a 25th Amendment solution that would install someone they trust better. Vance is Peter Thiel's creature, not Musk's, but these guys can put aside their past differences to ensure that their own fortunes are kept secure.
Elon Musk has given $75 million, so far, to put Donald Trump back in the White House
Opinion: Elon Musk and Peter Thiel backed Trump and Vance. What would their ticket do for tech?
Last edited:
ideologyhunter
Contributor
Trump's legal team could simply put together a portfolio of his "extreme" (code for delusional) notions from the past 8 years, and note that his party fully supported him as he made each and every extreme assertion -- Muslims rejoicing in Jersey City, Obama born in Kenya, Mexico pays for the wall, the undocumented = a crime wave, climate change = hoax, size of inauguration crowd, windmills cause cancer, raking stops forest fires, murderous skinheads = very fine people, covid will go away like a dream, phone call to Zelensky was perfect, phone call to Raffensperger was perfect, 1/6 rioters are unbelievable patriots, sex change operations during the school day, covfefe is a word..."Plaintiff represents to the Majority Leader and Speaker that, if he was mentally competent to serve subsequent to these statements, and fiercely celebrated as his party's standard bearer, what makes him a nutburger now?"
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
They wouldn't 25th Amendment him. They'd just let him be who he is, end voting, and that'll be that. Fundies in positions of power don't care who Trump is. It's not about consistency or upholding their interpretation of their holy book. Trump is their catalyst to install a religious theocracy or least as close as they can get to it, which is more possible than most people understand.
It takes only a relatively small portion of any population to effectively carry out authoritarian polices. History shows this time and time again.
It takes only a relatively small portion of any population to effectively carry out authoritarian polices. History shows this time and time again.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
by what mechanism would they “end voting”?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,098
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The usual method is not to end voting, but to instead permit only approved candidates on the ballot.
Once voting is thus rendered meaningless it will wither away on its own.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
sure, but how exactly would that be done? within the system that the US currently has, by what means would they exclude candidates. There's a lot of hypothetical talk about this, but the US still has a legal system that doesn't change quickly, so I am curious by what actual means this would happen.
If they wanted only Republican candidates to win all elections, how would they keep Democrats and members of other parties off the various State ballots?
If there's no real mechanism possible here, then all this talk is simply a scare tactic.
Simply don't count the ballots.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
And how would Trump convince all the state governments to not count the ballots?
If there are only stupid answers to this question then I’m not particularly worried about this coming to pass.
Axulus
Veteran Member
It's not that far fetched. There are a few scenarios. He can declare voter fraud. Say the radical leftists are plotting against him and send in the FBI to investigate and make arrests of election officials for supposed fraud. He could also invoke the insurrection act and quell any protests with the national guard or even the military. Create maximum confusion and uncertainty and claim indefinite "investigations". Every possible conspiracy theory he can spin up will be believed by at least 40% of the country, and that 40% will have control of all branches of government: the Supreme Court, the presidency, the senate (almost guaranteed republician majority or split with JD tie break), and high probability house goes to him as well.
MAGA diehards will embrace a dictator Trump with great ecstacy comparable to the second coming of Jesus, and willingly give up their life for him that would put a Hamas suicide bomber or a Jonestown koolaid drinker to shame. That is how committed the cult members are to him.
Last edited:
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Or, he could employ the same tactic he tried with Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, only this time with a credible threat of having the person in charge of a state's election arrested by the military police as a "dangerous Leftist" if s/he doesn't "find" the votes Trump wants included in the official tally. Granted, it's not convincing states to not count ballots at all, but it is a deliberate miscount with the same end result.
Once Trump has the power to take official actions as President, nothing is off limits for him.
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
"It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury vs. Madison (1803).
What this means in practice is that the law is what SCOTUS says it is. It's supposed to comport with Constitutional rules and concepts, but we've already seen what the current SCOTUS has done e.g. granting power to the Executive to realistically do anything and not be able to be held accountable and overturning Roe v. Wade.
Throw in the statements that Trump has made regarding the willingness to use the military to punish "radical leftists" and political enemies, along with the promise to fire federal employees and replace them with Trump loyalists it's easy to see how, if SCOTUS determines it's an official act, then the right to vote could either be blunted or outright banned.
How would this look in practice? Saddam Hussein's Iraq comes to mind. Only those who swore loyalty to the Baath party could hold government positions. Also, Saddam used to hold "elections" where he would win 95%+ of the vote. He also used the military to suppress the citizenry. Certainly there would be some differences in how this would be done in the U.S., but it's a solid comparative potential model.
Turning our democracy into an utter sham could happen and it could happen faster than people realize.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
In the USA, the federal government doesn’t run the elections though. The states do. So, in this scenario, I am to believe that federal agents will be going to the states and arresting state officials that run elections? This is happening at the county level? And are the feds doing this with warrants and grand juries? I am to assume that the corruption is already so nearly complete that the installation of Trump will bring down the whole system? We’ve already seen even Trump-appointed judges go against him. Do we expect the military will gladly become Trump’s hit squad? Is that how all the current leaders feel? Or are they more likely to follow Milley’s lead?
I can see how you all can imagine it but it requires a corruption so vast that I don’t see it. At least half the government is not a Trump follower so even if he can ultimately make this happen it will be extremely tough going and more likely would lead to a dissolution of the Union. You think state like California will go along with utter lawlessness and the suspension of the Constitution? California could handle being its own country far better than most (if not all) red states.
I can see how you all can imagine it but it requires a corruption so vast that I don’t see it. At least half the government is not a Trump follower so even if he can ultimately make this happen it will be extremely tough going and more likely would lead to a dissolution of the Union. You think state like California will go along with utter lawlessness and the suspension of the Constitution? California could handle being its own country far better than most (if not all) red states.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,098
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I don't know the fifty different sets of details, but I assume that every state has various criteria that disqualify people from being on the ballot - and these can be weaponised against anyone.
For example, in a state where convicted felons are debarred from running for office, it would be easy to convict any undesirable candidate on trumped up charges*, thereby preventing their run.
Extending this, a sitting President with a compliant congress could have a federal law passed that prohibits a convict from running for office**, and then use the above technique to get candidates off the ballot even in states where no such state law exists.
Another option would be to attack the citizenship angle. A non-citizen cannot run for office, nor even vote; So declaring that enemies of the state have, by their actions or by their mere existence, forfeited their citizenship, would neatly excise them from the democratic process.
For example, one could pass a law that stripped citizenship (or merely specific rights associated with citizenship, such as the right to vote, or to run for office) from any person convicted of terrorist acts against the USA (such a law would likely be very popular with voters anyway); And then pass a second law declaring a list of organisations, that includes opposing political parties, to be terrorist organisations - membership of which constitutes a terrorist act.
Or you can introduce documentary barriers - make it a legal requirement for candidates to prove their eligibility (for example by providing a citizens identity card), and then not issue (or cancel) that ID for declared "enemies of the state".
If such laws are technically unconstitutional, that's not a problem as long as the job of determining their constitutionality lies with a compliant Supreme Court.
*Pun intended
**Obviously they would have to avoid making this retroactive
For example, in a state where convicted felons are debarred from running for office, it would be easy to convict any undesirable candidate on trumped up charges*, thereby preventing their run.
Extending this, a sitting President with a compliant congress could have a federal law passed that prohibits a convict from running for office**, and then use the above technique to get candidates off the ballot even in states where no such state law exists.
Another option would be to attack the citizenship angle. A non-citizen cannot run for office, nor even vote; So declaring that enemies of the state have, by their actions or by their mere existence, forfeited their citizenship, would neatly excise them from the democratic process.
For example, one could pass a law that stripped citizenship (or merely specific rights associated with citizenship, such as the right to vote, or to run for office) from any person convicted of terrorist acts against the USA (such a law would likely be very popular with voters anyway); And then pass a second law declaring a list of organisations, that includes opposing political parties, to be terrorist organisations - membership of which constitutes a terrorist act.
Or you can introduce documentary barriers - make it a legal requirement for candidates to prove their eligibility (for example by providing a citizens identity card), and then not issue (or cancel) that ID for declared "enemies of the state".
If such laws are technically unconstitutional, that's not a problem as long as the job of determining their constitutionality lies with a compliant Supreme Court.
*Pun intended
**Obviously they would have to avoid making this retroactive
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Fascist take-over is already in progress in Red states. Teachers and obstetricians are already fleeing from Red states. The idea "it can't happen here" is just wishful thinking.
The question is: How fast will the descent to utter fascism be? It will probably be somewhat gradual, but in this post I try to show how easy it would be for a very rapid fascist take-over to be.
At present, Trump is considered a 3-2 favorite to win the White House; the Rs are heavy favorites to win the Senate (only 50 Senators are needed for total control, not 60); control of the House of Reps is a toss-up. But even if both Houses and SCOTUS have Red majorities, there are likely to be enough anti-fascist Reds to give Trump's opposition majorities. But would that be enough to prevent fascist take-over?
We know that Trump, whatever his views on Project 2025, has vowed to fire many thousands of federal employees and replace them with Trump loyalists. Imagine the Dept of Justice, Homeland Security, IRS and other important agencies all managed and staffed by loyalists to the fascist cause. Do not expect the Judiciary to check this power. The fascists can change rules and laugh at judges' orders ("Let them enforce it"). If one of the Houses of Congress tries to resist, they can similarly be ignored. Will the military be a counter-force? Trump can install loyalists as Chiefs, under orders to remove disloyal officers. All of this will cause huge chaos, but that chaos will benefit the fascists.
Trump seems bent on retribution and will want to make an indelible mark in history. He will maximize his own power by following the prescriptions of Project 2025 and other institutions financed by Charles Koch and that ilk.
Hitler and Mussolini both organized private militias to help their take-overs. We've seen that hundreds of thousands of Americans are ostensibly willing to take up arms in support of Trump. They do not need military training to be effective: They just need to intimidate and to contribute to the chaos. Trump may order the so-called Fake News channels to stop reporting. He may send troops to take control of key institutions like the FRB-NY.
How exactly will all this play out? Nobody knows. The situation will almost certainly not be as bad as I imply above, but such take-over is possible; and even baby steps toward fascism will be disastrous.
Hard-core Christians may be important players in the impending fascism, but I expect greed, racism and sheer stupidity to dominate the "ideology."
Yes. Replacing even a few hundred top Federal administrators will wreak huge damage.
Several states are already under control of fascist-aligned Reds. There are various ways a Trump dictatorship could bring Blue states to heel. Their bank accounts can be seized. Trumped-up charges of election fraud might be grounds for Trump's DoJ to assume control of state elections. Defiance might provoke military response.
Perhaps.
"Badges? We don't need no steenking badges!"
The Trump-47 Administration will be VERY different from Trump-45. Replacing the top military brass with loyalists will be one of the first things Trump does.
??? Project 2025 and their ilk already have long lists of loyalists ready to take over top Federal posts. Expect drastic changes beginning in January.
The question is: How fast will the descent to utter fascism be? It will probably be somewhat gradual, but in this post I try to show how easy it would be for a very rapid fascist take-over to be.
At present, Trump is considered a 3-2 favorite to win the White House; the Rs are heavy favorites to win the Senate (only 50 Senators are needed for total control, not 60); control of the House of Reps is a toss-up. But even if both Houses and SCOTUS have Red majorities, there are likely to be enough anti-fascist Reds to give Trump's opposition majorities. But would that be enough to prevent fascist take-over?
We know that Trump, whatever his views on Project 2025, has vowed to fire many thousands of federal employees and replace them with Trump loyalists. Imagine the Dept of Justice, Homeland Security, IRS and other important agencies all managed and staffed by loyalists to the fascist cause. Do not expect the Judiciary to check this power. The fascists can change rules and laugh at judges' orders ("Let them enforce it"). If one of the Houses of Congress tries to resist, they can similarly be ignored. Will the military be a counter-force? Trump can install loyalists as Chiefs, under orders to remove disloyal officers. All of this will cause huge chaos, but that chaos will benefit the fascists.
Trump seems bent on retribution and will want to make an indelible mark in history. He will maximize his own power by following the prescriptions of Project 2025 and other institutions financed by Charles Koch and that ilk.
Hitler and Mussolini both organized private militias to help their take-overs. We've seen that hundreds of thousands of Americans are ostensibly willing to take up arms in support of Trump. They do not need military training to be effective: They just need to intimidate and to contribute to the chaos. Trump may order the so-called Fake News channels to stop reporting. He may send troops to take control of key institutions like the FRB-NY.
How exactly will all this play out? Nobody knows. The situation will almost certainly not be as bad as I imply above, but such take-over is possible; and even baby steps toward fascism will be disastrous.
Hard-core Christians may be important players in the impending fascism, but I expect greed, racism and sheer stupidity to dominate the "ideology."
Yes. Replacing even a few hundred top Federal administrators will wreak huge damage.
Several states are already under control of fascist-aligned Reds. There are various ways a Trump dictatorship could bring Blue states to heel. Their bank accounts can be seized. Trumped-up charges of election fraud might be grounds for Trump's DoJ to assume control of state elections. Defiance might provoke military response.
Perhaps.
"Badges? We don't need no steenking badges!"
The Trump-47 Administration will be VERY different from Trump-45. Replacing the top military brass with loyalists will be one of the first things Trump does.
??? Project 2025 and their ilk already have long lists of loyalists ready to take over top Federal posts. Expect drastic changes beginning in January.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.
aa
aa
Elixir
Made in America
If Trump wins I doubt that any existing failsafes will help. States can elect whoever they want, to State positions. They can send whoever they want to Washington. But Trump will be armed and ready to override Congress, the DOJ, annd everyone else. Trump will control every facet of the federal government, and can do so with impunity, thanks to SCOTUS. If a State (CA) gets out of hand and doesn’t want to comply with his wishes he won’t hesitate to send Natl Guard or US military assets to eliminate the problem.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,098
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.
And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.
BH
Veteran Member
And you could be a citizen protesting and you could get slandered to some soldiers who will shoot you not knowing you are being lied about.