• weremacaque@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’m fucking tired of this fucking dumbass and everyone who enables him by saying he’s just joking. Sometimes, people are not joking. It’s not just a fucking prank, bro. And even if it was? What kind of professional politician just pulls pranks nonstop?

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      He’s never joking. He’s a genuine psychopath, he has no sense of humor. He’s just learned to pretend like he has one to fool the normal humans without broken personalities. If he says it, he’s serious.

      • iridebikes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        He only presents it like a joke to get people used to the idea. Anyone that reacts with outrage at his statements are immediately mocked and denigrated as dramatic nonsensical leftists. Then when they actually do the thing they claimed would never happen, the tune changes from accusing the left of senseless hysteria to them accusing them of being anti-American, Pro-crime, etc etc.

        Every step they take with the federalization of armed forces is to get the populace used to the idea of it happening. And, so far, that has been largely successful. So when they actually mobilize, there will be far less pushback.

        • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Okay, so you’ve clearly been paying attention. Keep it up brother, I’m sure you’ve already figured out that there’s a LOT of trouble ahead. We’re not getting out of this without violence.

          • iridebikes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            They will continue to escalate things until they take a major action like the Nazis did with the Night of Long Knives. It’s just a matter of what that will be. I’m expecting something with Mexico. Since he has started talking about military incursions to deal with cartels, if applied to the strategy aforementioned, he’s conditioning the public to get used to the idea. Then, when he invades Mexico and pisses off even more Americans, I think they’re expecting riots in response. Once the riots happen, he will send in military not to occupy cities but to completely take them over.

            • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Yeah, it will be Mexico. He can rally a significant portion of the population against “cartel terrorists,” but he would have a hard time doing that against Canada. Plus, Canada is essentially England, and even an ignorant moron like him can figure out why that would be a bad idea.

              And yeah, they are already staging it, “leaking” details, etc.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 days ago

    One of the reasons he’s so desperate to end the Ukraine War is so he can collect his Nobel Peace Prize, freeing him to start his war with Mexico, and have a draft, essentially enslaving the entire young male demographic so they can’t be used against him in a Civil War.

    Then he can use the Mexican War as an excuse to suspend elections, even though we’ve never cancelled an election in our history, not even during the Civil War.

    The fact that he lept on Z’s remark about no election, illustrated that he’s been giving this a lot of thought, wondering what might work as a reasonable excuse. Dems love Zelensky, and he cancelled elections because of the war, so if America is in a war, he can cancel elections, and the Dems will have to accept it. It won’t occur to him that there’s a difference between fighting a war in a separate country, and fighting a war within your own capital city.

    It also won’t occur to him that just because something happened in a different country, doesn’t mean we have to accept it here. We have a Constitution, that’s the rule book, not some nation on the other side of the world.

    • breecher@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      It also won’t occur to him that just because something happened in a different country, doesn’t mean we have to accept it here. We have a Constitution, that’s the rule book, not some nation on the other side of the world.

      It boggles my mind that there are still Americans who cling to legalism as some kind of saviour, even after all the months of proof that it is absolutely no barrier to the fascists doing exactly what they want.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Just because they want to pretend the Constitution doesn’t exist doesn’t mean we have to accept it.

        We don’t have to match the MAGAs immorality to beat them, we just have to play Hard Ball, and force them to follow the rules, and the rules are the Constitution. If they refuse to follow the rules, we can’t just say “Oh well, we tried,” and give up. You FORCE them to adhere to those rules, whether they like it or not. And if they won’t cooperate, you keep pushing, and you NEVER stop demanding that they follow the rules.

        Make them obey, period. You don’t disparage those that are advocating for forcing them to follow the Constitution. That’s just weak, and that kind of Democratic thinking is what allowed MAGA to rise, take power, and then take power AGAIN!

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Too many people do not want violence of any form ever, so they’ll just let maga do what they want.

          If the rules prohibit something, and they do it anyway, you need to stop them. Much like the paradox of tolerance, the rules are a treaty not a suicide pact.

          • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            Being committed to Peace doesn’t mean that violence is off the table. It is absolutely last resort, but history often puts humanity in a position of having to defend peaceful people against Monsters who are equally committed to violence and oppression. It’s an unfortunate position, but we did not choose this, the Monsters did, and therefore we have to meet them on their terms.

            The difference is that if our violence wins, it’s over, and Peace is restored. If the Monsters win, they are just getting started.

    • S0ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      We have a Constitution, that’s the rule book, not some nation on the other side of the world.

      It’s just words on paper if not enforced. And Republicans haven’t been keen on enforcing it when it comes to him, not specifically but especially.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Enforcing it is the Democrats’ responsibility, but Schmuck Schumer is literally the weakest, most cowardly Democratic leader I’ve seen in my long lifetime. He is so ineffective, and he has become so wealthy from insider trading, that I am honestly starting to suspect that he is working with the MAGA Nazis, or at least actively unopposing them.

        His weakness is a major reason that MAGA was able to rise, get elected, and rise again to get elected AGAIN. He is as reliable to MAGA as any of HitlerPig’s trusted henchmen.

        If Schmuck Schumer isn’t a secret MAGA, he is just the same as one. It’s long past time to kick him out.

    • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      essentially enslaving the entire young male demographic so they can’t be used against him in a Civil War.

      Ever heard of mutiny? Because that is how you get a mutiny.

  • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    Oh hey look, it’s exactly the thing I was talking about when Trump ran for a second term the first time.

    “If Trump wins this election, there won’t be any more elections.”

    • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      That was Musk on Biden of course. Nothing could have been more obviously bullshit. But half of your voters still got taken in by it all.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    155
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    We’ve had elections during a war before and we can do it again. Ukrainian laws don’t apply to the US.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Yeah, the law pertaining to not holding elections during martial law in Ukraine was created during another person’s presidency as well. He didn’t make that. (It stemmed from Russias invasion into Ukraine in 2014, law made in 2015). Zelensky didn’t become president until 2019.

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      If the war was closer or even inside the US, it might be a different thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could still consider it though.

        • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I can’t help but feel like a civil war is a different scenario. Russia currently controls 20% of Ukraine. For the sake of simplicity, that’s 10 US states. I have a very hard time believing that if a foreign country had complete control of 10 states, and the majority of the people of those states, for all intents and purpose were unable to vote, an election would go over smoothly. I have to imagine it would be an utter shitshow.

          • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 days ago

            Practically, if the US was actually occupied by a foreign force (having a puppet president doesn’t count), then the occupied areas will not be able to cast their ballots, and the states being partially occupied will have a biased result and electors will be appointed by those living in unoccupied areas. If a whole state is occupied, they probably would have electoral votes that are not cast (since they wouldn’t have a certificate of ascertainment from the now defunct state government). Election would get very ugly even if its a 51/49 split in the remaining electoral college votes since if, say, a state with 18 electors is occupied, one side could get 265 electoral votes and the other gets 255 electoral votes, so there would be a constitutional crisis on whether this counts as a majority (265/520) or not a majority (265/538).

            But I’m guessing they’ll go by Civil War precedent and just exclude the occupied states from being counted so its probably 520 as the total electoral votes using that same example.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            I see where you’re coming from, though I would argue that if we’re at war in '28 it won’t be because the US was invaded by a foreign power.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    He is NOT JOKING. This is his plan.

    You think he’s deploying the military on US soil because he gives a fuck about law and order? Guess again. He’s testing the waters now to see what he can get away with when the time comes.

    Federal elections have never been cancelled or postponed in the history of the nation. Not even for the Civil War, or WWII. It’s mandated by the constitution.

    • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 days ago

      Same how the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is basically invalidated as long as some states hold off on challenging his EO undoing it.

      He’ll do some “Elections will happen, but only in states that are nice to me and I expect to win” EO and will basically take CA and IL out of the results, and their results won’t be certified by Congress. Because right now it’s a race to rig 2026 to save donor campaign money.

    • CircaV@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      He is a dictator. There will be no more elections. America is an autocracy.

  • CircaV@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    8 days ago

    He’s telling everyone what his plan is. War incoming by Jan 2029.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    8 days ago

    lol cool so he just said the quiet part of the playbook out loud.

    For those in the back: he’s gonna get the US in to a Serious Fucking War right before the next election so that he can pretend he’s got justification to call off elections.

    Pay no mind to the fact that FDR won his third term at the peak of WW2.

    Come to think of it: that’s probably why he wants to do it: he knows he probably can’t win another election (putting aside the illegality of running and serving for a third term), and doesn’t want to think about himself being overshadowed by “some old librul Democrat from the 1940s”. And yes, that is a completely serious guesstimate on orangeboi’s rationale for this.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      8 days ago

      Legally, it won’t matter. He doesn’t hold office until the next guy, his term ends in 2029. If there is no replacement, the office is simply vacant, and we already have processes for that.

      Legally, it won’t matter. If (when) he’s ignoring the laws to that level, it doesn’t matter what anyone pretends happened with an election. The laws will have no bearing anyway.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        8 days ago

        Most importantly, the states run the elections.

        So he can “cancel” the election, but only red states would listen. Blue states would still hold elections and report results. And with red states not holding elections, it’s safe to say any election would lean heavily left.

        So republicans would only lose seats, and trump would get zero electoral college votes. Well, most likely every red state would still try to send electors for trump

        After midterms we’ll be able to see what’s gonna happen if that plays out.

        But honestly, blue states should be prioritizing building up their own NG the next three years just in case.

        • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 days ago

          Or alternately-

          1. He cancels/delays the election due to a national emergency. He could potentially delay until the following Jan 20, arguing all the while that he’s “cancelled” the election. Shifting, contradictory public statements muddy the waters.
          2. Some blue states move ahead with elections anyway, arguing that the delay is unconstitutional.
          3. The supreme court rules that delay is constitutional with a dissenting democrat minority.
          4. Red states claim blue state elections are invalid and an attempted coup (because after January 6th, they love applying that word to things).
          5. Blue states select a president, Trump denies the results (we have a precedent for this now) and refuses to cede power to the president elect.
          6. As the January 20th deadline rolls around, Trump jails the new president as a traitor, following up on the claims from his base that the election was a coup.
          7. January deadline passes, Trump arguing simultaneously that the election was a Democrat takeover AND that the Democrats cheated because red states didn’t hold elections.
          8. With no (free) political opponents, Trump releases an executive order stating that the office of the presidency must be filled at all times, and remains in office.
          9. Multiple court cases are filed and allowed to creep through the courts before being dismissed for various reasons.
          10. People begin to adapt, normalize the situation, and eventually become distracted by a new scandal.
      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        It’s cute that you think laws matter to the fascists.

        That’s the entire gist of what I’m trying to point out here. You’re stuck on what “legality” means. I’m saying they’re changing the definition.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      That’ll be before the midterms, in case anyone wasn’t clear about that.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      He truly just cannot help himself… Could be our one saving grace. That and the sheer incompetence.

    • CircaV@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      “Serving” LOL as of Trump is serving anyone but himself. He’s made billions in bribes since taking power. He doesn’t serve Americans, he serves himself to what lever he wants. Mostly golf and killing people.