this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
700 points (99.6% liked)

politics

28600 readers
3145 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
700
It Can Now Be Plainly Said: Trump Is Planning a November Coup d’État (newrepublic.com)
submitted 1 day ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/42694823

Trump has no power to “decree” that voters must present ID or to end mail-in balloting. But that doesn’t mean he can’t at least try both. Under the Insurrection Act or some other dusty statute, he can declare a state of emergency. Then he can decide that said state permits, nay requires, him to take extraordinary measures. On October 5, say, that might mean outlawing early voting. By October 13, it might mean no mail-in voting. By October 29, a reminder that all voters must present ID to vote. And by Sunday, November 1, two days before the election—an announcement that all these “reasonable” measures have alas failed, and he is now forced, against his will, to postpone the election.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

He can “say”, “declare” and “decree” things all he wants, but for that to do anything requires that people up and down the system go along with it. Sure people with in the executive branch might even be legally obligated to do certain things if he tells them to, with in certain limits.

But most of the voting infrastructure is outside the federal executive, so it would require that a huge amount of local officials and administrators go along with that, some might be ideologically inclined to do so, but are there actually enough to overcome a groundswell of dissent?

“Oh he’ll just use ICE to bully them in to doing it” there literally are not enough ice agents for that to be even remotely practical. “Well they’ll just hire and deputize more” They’re trying to but they can’t get enough people in the door, and a lot of the people they have aren’t getting payed. Are they really gonna stick their necks out to help him break the law when he’s not even paying them?

This is not a masterful plan from an evil genius. This is a in denial old naracasist in way over his head surrounded by yes men who are saying what he want’s to hear so they can keep their positions and continue stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. It’s not that he doesn’t want to steal the election, it’s that he lacks the capacity to do so, and the people he’s surrounded him self with are not competent enough to build that capacity.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

nobody has stopped him yet

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

"planning"

I'd say it's already done. No one with any power has the balls to remove him.

[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 hours ago

No one with any power has the balls to remove him.

Those with the power to remove him are benefitting financially and have no incentive to remove him.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

All those guns and bullets and "don't tread on me" but yet so flaccid.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Every person that has ever tried to assassinate him has been a republican, they're just incredibly dumb about it.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

... So a Republican

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 hours ago

If that's NOT another reason to study and read socialist theory, then I don't know what is. Seriously! https://redsails.org/

[–] Ghostie@lemmy.zip 20 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks Mr. New Republic writer for telling the people that have plainly said it for years that they can now plainly say it. I’m sure they’ll waste no time getting around to plainly saying it some more.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 3 hours ago

Exactly. The media is finally getting around to warning us about what we've been screaming about for years. Welcome to the party, dipshits.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 27 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's the Austin Powers steamroller joke. For some reasons, nothing can be done even though there is plenty of time.

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Plenty of time? You mean 3 like elections and attempted coup later? You're pretty hard on americans, how could they have seen this coming?

[–] Ranulph@thelemmy.club 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well, I guess we will see how far he will go and by he I mean THEM and by them I mean the republicans.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There are no Republicans any more. That was just the larval stage before they morphed into their final form - MAGA.

The Republican Party is as dead as the Whigs, and should only be referred to in a historical or scholarly context.

They're all MAGA now.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like Newt Gingrich was the first MAGA.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

IN Politics yes, for sure, but I'd say the first one was Rush Limbaugh. His radio show became the gathering place for Conservatives, and was the recruitment and indoctrination center for millions of new Conservatives.

Those new Limbaugh conservatives not only voted in Newt Gingrich, but a LOT of other like minded radical Republicans for him to use as a club to beat America with.

But, yeah, that's where it all started. Gingrich and Limbaugh were the Proto-MAGAs.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I think "maga"/Nat-Cs are just Republicans unmasked, that's all. The party has always been full of these types (basically RWAs - Right Wing Authoritarians as described by Altemeyer). You had the John Birch Society going way, way back.

Democracy in Chains traces some of the threads related to the university level spread of this stuff. There are people that have discussed the Chicago School of Economics. I've not read it yet, but Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics gets mentioned a lot. I'm sure there are some other good docs/books that might cover this long-running tradition, and I'd love to hear about them.

load more comments
view more: next ›