And yet I did a search just now for “don’t worry” in this topic and got three results - you accusing me of saying it, me asking you where I said it, and you quoting me asking you.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Can Donald Trump eat the Moon? Yes or no, please.
So you’re not saying “don’t worry”?
It is perfectly reasonable to be worried. Trump is likely to try lots of things. None of the things he can try are things we lack the power to stop.
Believing that we can fight and win is not the same thing as not worrying.
The “power” is totally useless without the willingness to act.
10 years ago, he wasn’t President. You honestly think he had more power then than he does now? 10 years ago, he didn’t have the power to blow Venezuelan ships out of the water. He does now. 10 years ago, he didn’t have the power to damage our National Parks. He does now. 10 years ago, he couldn’t send FBI agents into Georgia after voting records. He can now.
And you might ask yourself, if “we” had the power to stop him from killing all of those people on those Venezuelan boats, why didn’t we? If we had the power to stop him from sending FBI agents into Georgia to nose through the voting records, can you offer an example of someone who even tried? And what makes you think, “we” will stop him from the shit is doing now. Because “our” track record isn’t quite as good as you portray. Yes, you’ve listed a bunch of things that he was hindered (for now) from doing. But you ignore all of the things that he’s been successful at.
Pretty much what he is actually doing right now, not to mention the shit we haven’t heard about yet. You think he’s out of gas. I think he’s just getting the engine warmed up.
You look at that and see power. I look at that and see a sad, pathetic, dying old man who’s breaking things to try to produce the ILLUSION of power because he knows he’s running out of time and can’t admit it. 10 years ago he wasn’t falling asleep during press conferences. He does now. 10 years ago he wasn’t shitting himself on live TV. He does now. 10 years ago he didn’t need signs all over the place to remind him of where he was. He does now.
Yes, he’s president. So was Nixon in August 1974.
None of which have been changing the outcome of an election.
Then the result will be a blue tsunami.
Something about horses and what was it again…
DC is the only place he was able to do this, because it isn’t a state and has no governor to command the National Guard.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/17/trump-national-guard-washington-dc-court-ruling-00694754
The panel said Washington’s unique position as a federal enclave, which lacks the sovereignty of a state, gives Trump virtually unilateral control to deploy guard troops in the nation’s capital. But it said his power was significantly more constrained in the states.
It’s worth noting that even there, what he did is controversial and legally questionable.
Neither the D.C. Circuit nor U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, the Biden appointee who issued the decision the appeals court disagreed with Wednesday, addressed whether the guard deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act — a federal law limiting use of the military in connection with law enforcement.
But the point is that DC is uniquely vulnerable to Trump nationalizing without resistance.
In particular, the judges said it would be “constitutionally troubling” for the president to borrow National Guard troops from one state to conduct law enforcement missions in another “non-consenting” state. That’s precisely what Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did in Oregon and Illinois before federal judges intervened to restrict the deployments.
And since that article, SCOTUS did indeed rule against Trump and said he can’t do this in the states.
Lest it get lost in the “is Smapti too pollyannish?” bickering — which is getting old — here’s my post summarizing, and linking to, a video discussion that’s really worth digesting for the purposes of this thread:
He cannot legitimately run. He cannot legitimately be on the ballot. But if enough states and their representatives and courts decide he’s on the ballot and Congress elects him, then he will have been made President by duly constituted authorities, and will be illegitimately President. And you could point your finger and say he holds all the power illegitimately, but it won’t matter. Power is power, whether the wielding authority is legitimate or not.
Again I’d point out there are no magical “Constitutional police”, no electric fence that will automatically zap him if he declares he’s running for a third term. Someone, enough people, have to say no, and this has to include sycophants in positions of power like SCOTUS and Congressional Republicans. It’s not guaranteed by any means, but it’s foolish to pretend like the magical self-executing Constitution will stop it.
Hypothetically (since we don’t allow betting on the board) I’d lay a monthly-grocery-level wager that at least one red state will put Trump on the ballot for a third presidential term, and if he wins that state election, he’ll get their electoral votes. I think it’ll be more than one. Which states, or if it’s enough to tip the election, I don’t know. But there’s definitely a path for Trump to unconstitutionally and illegally get some red-state electoral votes this time around.
Not at all. Your question is silly because a cursory search will show many occasions where votes from particular polling places were rejected. It’s not an especially interesting question and I’m not interested in investing effort that will only end in you quibbling over the exact definition of “thrown out”.
The more intelligent question here is, can unprecedented illegal power grabs happen? Yes, of course, because precedented power grabs have happened, and every precedent was once unprecedented.
OK yes, but:
Absolutely. It sucks. It’s good that it’s limited, but specifically where it’s limited to is pretty awful. On the other hand, if it gets to the point where he’s willing to use the National Guard in DC against Democratic legislators, we’re already past the point where voting matters anyway.
No, because that’s a legitimate use of federalization. Of course, I’m going to swing back to what I just said; if it gets to that point, we’re already on the brink of civil war anyway and democracy is already failing, so it’s probably moot.
Trump doesn’t even need to federalize the NG there. He can just direct to governors to do what he wants, and they give the orders. In fact, I’m certain that’s exactly what Trump would do because that’s exactly how he operates. He’d rather make other people do what he wants in almost every circumstance.
I leave you with this before I exit this thread. Do you think the families of the people he had killed see this as power or as an illusion?
Not that it’ll happen, but it would be good to have international observers from democratic nations present at key polling places.
As a volunteer election worker, I don’t think this is necessary. At the local level, the voting mechanisms almost always go just fine. Each precinct (neighborhood) runs its voting, and the totals are fairly reported to the county and the to the state. There are often poll watchers present (they need to apply, but anyone can), but by midday they are usually so bored, they go home, with nothing amiss to report.
Or do you mean international observers outside the polling places, trying to document the presence of ICE or other agents of the government that might intimidate some from voting (likely, disproportionately citizens who “look foreign”)? I suppose that could be helpful, but I’m not sure international ones would be any better (or worse) than domestic observers.
Again, I highly recommend listening to the 30-minute NY Times conversation I linked to above – twice. 
The main problem is in the attempts at discrediting results, before and after Election Day, and much of this will happen at the level of election officials (county and state), YouTubers, elected officials (Congresscritters, etc.), etc. – not venues where international observers on Election Day would matter.
“If”.
AFAIK, all 50 states have laws requiring that in order to be listed on a ballot, you need to be eligible to run for that office. I don’t see any state’s SecState deciding to break the law and put an ineligible Trump on the ballot, and I don’t see any state legislatures trying to change those laws. If they were to do so, it would be challenged in court and almost certainly the courts would rule against Trump.
Yes, this is the word typically used to explore hypotheticals and contingencies.
sigh this again. The magical, incorruptible, self-enforcing laws of the state of Alabama (for example) will certainly save us.
Virtually every piece of Trump corruption and lawlessness is something that nobody saw happening until it eventually did. When it did, it happened by Trump going to court and tying up things long enough for it to become a fait accompli, or by simply litigating it on Fox until the public accepted it as the state of things.
“If”. We’re back to that. We’re back to supposing that a federal court, a Supreme Court, that saw fit to let Trump skate on hoarding literal nuclear weapons documents, that creatively interprets the Constitution to mean whatever helps Republicans, isn’t going to find a creative interpretation to own the libs.
If you think SCOTUS is going to come riding to the rescue of liberal democracy, compelled purely by a desire to avoid the shame of hypocrisy and the appearance of corruption, I don’t know what to say except that you must be quite well-rested from sleeping through the past 10 years of political events.
They probably can’t corrupt procedures inside the polling stations so they’ll resort to having agents pulling minority-appearing voters out of line for “questioning” (only to be released right after polls close). And then subpoena-armed officials will seize batches of ballot, only coincidentally from heavily blue precincts.
It could be just enough in closely contested states like Georgia and Arizona.
Hey, ICEhole: Try that shit at MY polling place, where I am one of the two top officials (we call them “Chief Inspectors” in my state), and see how fast your ass is out of there – in shackles, if necessary.
Seriously. Just try.
(We are trained to first try to resolve a situation like this firmly but quietly. If the person persists, we then call the local police. In nine years of doing this I’ve never had to go to step B, but we — and the police — are ready if we need to. And, like nearly all local police, ours are generally not happy about illegal and unnecessary federal-level intrusions.)
Wouldn’t you worry about the ICEhole resisting arrest, creating a scene and perhaps enough of a disturbance to accomplish their objective?