Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
"Rising fascist dictator considered 'offputting' to some voters"
He's mildly distasteful. Also, "geNocIdEjOe" and #BidenIsSoOld....
It's like people don't get that the choices this year are democracy or political opponents and those who support them start being defenstrated
I don't find the two comments aren't equally valid as critique. Trouble is, the other guy is at least equally subject to the same critique.
Opposition to genocide is valid even when you like who's supporting it.
No one ever said it isn't.
You put it in sarcastic mixed case. If you think opposition to genocide is valid, act like it for the first time.
The only way to meaningfully oppose genocide this year is voting against ideas like Muslim ban "finish the job" (Donald) "send in the National Guard on those students" "use our weapons to flatten Rafah also" (Mike) and "nuke Gaza" (Lindsey).
Already doing that. Voting for Biden. But anyone who wants me to shut up about genocide can go all the way to hell where the weather's too good for them.
Unfortunately fascism isn't nearly offputting enough to what seems like almost a majority if not even the majority
He definitely wouldn’t leave. He even said it. And the republicans would jump at the concept of appointing, instead of electing, future presidents.
Yep. Actions speak (even) louder than words, and his track record on leaving office without a tantrum is... not great.
This is why they love to get into the WellAktualleeItzNotUhDehmahcraceeeUGuyz! thing all the time....
Well it’s a valid concern. So I should fucking hope so.
It's what he tried to do last time, but what are the chances the same guy would do it twice?
Susan Collins assured me that he's learned his lesson.
I am sure they are very low. I am sure that was a moment of introspection learning.
Just like how he learned from his first bankruptcy.
Yep, yet somehow he's allowed to run again instead of being behind bars.
That and the fact that way more of us Americans hate Trump, are sick to death of his bullshit, and want him gone should help Biden too.
As long as those people actually vote for Biden and don’t waste their vote on a protest…
I mean, that's why most people are voting for him in the first place
Only one thing is sure--he won't leave willingly, he's as much as said so, as alluded to in the article.
He'd have to be removed in a forceful manner but after another 4 years of him and his minions in control we can't be sure that our institutions, e.g., courts and military, would be able or willing to do that.
So sad that it's a "could help".
I can see it now:
January 2029, President Trump, at 82—over 10 months older than Biden is now—refuses to leave. His supporters surround the White House and storm Capitol Hill.
Trump says it's an emergency, and thus only temporary.
The very rich and military do nothing.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden has consistently claimed that Donald Trump is "determined to destroy American democracy," and it appears that such a fear is slowly spreading among some voters in crucial swing states.
They are worried that the former president would refuse to leave office at the end of a second term if he were reelected to the White House in November, Bloomberg reported, citing political researchers.
He said that the "greater worry" was Trump "declaring a national emergency and refusing to allow the transition," particularly if the Democrats were to win the 2028 presidential election.
Concerns over the possibility that he could violate the 22nd Amendment appear to be very real, leading some toward the idea of voting for Biden despite of significant apprehension about his age, rampant inflation, and the US's continued support for Israel in the Gaza conflict, the Bloomberg report said.
In a video shared by Longwell, Bloomberg said a moderator asked a group of undecided swing-state voters: "Does anybody think he may not abide by the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution and leave office after the 2028 election?
Seiji Carpenter, a vice president at David Binder Research with 10 years of experience running Democrat focus groups, also told Bloomberg that his firm had seen the issue cropping up: "We were talking to Latino men and Asian American-Pacific Islander women in battleground states, and they went straight to the issue of, what if Trump won't give up power?"
The original article contains 709 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Sounds like some other extreme measure to make him leave when his time is up is 100% warranted if he refuses. I could care less if he leaves unharmed.
It doesn't matter if he refuses, once the next guy is sworn in trump would no longer have any presidential power. Articles like this are fear mongering gas lighting.
That assumes nothing would happen to prevent the "next guy" from being sworn in.
Or that there will be a next guy at all. He could cancel the elections. Make himself president for life.
That's nothing but hyperbole bullshit.
I disagree. It's an projection from positions in Project 2025, Trump's own desire for presidential immunity, the No More Political Prosecutiins Act and his admitted wish to be a dictator (for a day).
He did an insurrection. SCOTUS is still thinking about if Presidents are accountable to the law or not. Like how many more steps do you think are between a beer hall putsch and a night of long knives? Please get a clue.
Your party doesn't think he committed insurrection. Garland has yet to bring charges for it. They may talk about Jan6 as if they believe it meant something but their inaction illustrates the dog and pony show that it is
Strawman and changing the subject, good stuff.
The subject YOU brought up was insurrection. I pointed out your government does not think it was insurrection, otherwise they would have charged him with it. They've had over 3 years, and nothing
Have you been living in a cave the last four years?
We are talking about future trump. What does for life even mean in that context. If he survives to finish his term I'll be surprised.
In this scenario, he could just name a successor
His supporters surround the White House and storm the Capitol.
The generals don't want a shoot-out at the White House as many of his supporters are armed.
What does the newly-elect do?
Make like Mussolini
Flatten it? That would solve both Trump and his moron following.
But what if Trump's henchmen refuse to certify the election results where he lost, and refuse to swear in the new guy? Does the new guy get sworn in by a splinter group thereby locking the country with 2 non functional presidents? (Giving Trump even more opportunity to spout more lies that the election was a fraud and the opposing president is trying to take over the country, declaring martial law "for the sake of the country")
Ofcourse Trump is not going to leave, it will always be a severe downgrade for him if he leaves, he'll lose so much status, power and opportunity to do what he wants, and gains a chance he loses his freedom/money if he did not get to give himself a get out of jail free card somehow...
He'll die in the saddle, or make sure someone within his family will take the throne so Trump can stay shielded 'till he dies.
...Take his barely veiled threats seriously...
Ridiculous
This begs a question:
Should those of us who do not wish to see Trump back into office support a peaceful succession of power? I am asking this academically, not seriously. It IS something to consider.
As with most situations I'm in the middle for the moment, leaning towards yes to the succession and also yes to mass marches once it is handed over. There are issues with this as well.
Thoughts?
Trump must not be allowed into office under any circumstances. If it comes down to it, Biden should have him assassinated. Fuck the high road; we've seen where it gets us.