So Donald Trump addressed the Believer's Summit at Turning Point Action last night. He rambled on for over an hour, and towards the end he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections, presumably with himself as dictator for life.
This I’ll push back against a bit. As far as I could find, he never actually said he’d end American elections. He said “you will never have to vote again.” That he wants to end elections is certainly a reasonable interpretation of his promise that “you won’t have to vote again,” given many previous statements and actions. It’s perhaps the most reasonable interpretation.
But what he said could also be interpreted as “we’ll fix all the problems so well that you on’t feel like you’ve got to vote to keep America great, and you can skip it if you want to.” Maybe not as reasonable an interpretation, but one that may be strengthened a bit by his comments on the right to vote just beforehand.
What he said—“In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.”—is quite egregious enough, and definitely ought to be getting grilled about it. But I’m not sure what’s gained by saying “he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections” when he didn’t actually say that.
Following up on Trump's promise to end future voting in the U.S., he was given the opportunity to deny that's what he meant on Fox News and he decided to double down.
Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday repeated his recent assertion that Christians will never have to vote again if they vote for him this November, brushing aside multiple requests to walk back or clarify the statement.
Mr. Trump’s initial comments, to a group of Christian conservatives on Friday, were interpreted by many Democrats as evidence he would end elections. On Monday, Fox News’s Laura Ingraham urged him to rebut that framing, but he offered instead: “I said, vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true.”
At this point the refusal to believe Trump means to do what he says is becoming downright pathological. For those who are interested the video of Trump verbally dancing around and doing everything except denying he wants to cancel future elections can be found here. Particularly brazen was his claim that voters he was addressing (Christian Nationalists attending a Turning Point Action event) are low turnout voters.
I really don’t think Trump was saying he’d suspend elections. I think he meant he doesn’t give a shit about elections once he can’t run again. For sure, he’s evil and doesn’t care about law, but it would take a constitutional amendment to grant him perpetual dictatorship, and I just don’t think Trump has the political wherewithal to make that happen. Also, I don’t think Trump cares that much. He’s motivated by grievance. He lost the last election and has to win to prove himself. He won’t go away quietly, and I bet he’ll run from a wheelchair in the 2028 election without a hint of irony, but he’s all Id without anywhere to put it.
So Donald Trump addressed the Believer's Summit at Turning Point Action last night. He rambled on for over an hour, and towards the end he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections, presumably with himself as dictator for life.
This I’ll push back against a bit. As far as I could find, he never actually said he’d end American elections. He said “you will never have to vote again.” That he wants to end elections is certainly a reasonable interpretation of his promise that “you won’t have to vote again,” given many previous statements and actions. It’s perhaps the most reasonable interpretation.
But what he said could also be interpreted as “we’ll fix all the problems so well that you on’t feel like you’ve got to vote to keep America great, and you can skip it if you want to.” Maybe not as reasonable an interpretation, but one that may be strengthened a bit by his comments on the right to vote just beforehand.
What he said—“In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.”—is quite egregious enough, and definitely ought to be getting grilled about it. But I’m not sure what’s gained by saying “he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections” when he didn’t actually say that.
Following up on Trump's promise to end future voting in the U.S., he was given the opportunity to deny that's what he meant on Fox News and he decided to double down.
Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday repeated his recent assertion that Christians will never have to vote again if they vote for him this November, brushing aside multiple requests to walk back or clarify the statement.
Mr. Trump’s initial comments, to a group of Christian conservatives on Friday, were interpreted by many Democrats as evidence he would end elections. On Monday, Fox News’s Laura Ingraham urged him to rebut that framing, but he offered instead: “I said, vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true.”
At this point the refusal to believe Trump means to do what he says is becoming downright pathological. For those who are interested the video of Trump verbally dancing around and doing everything except denying he wants to cancel future elections can be found here. Particularly brazen was his claim that voters he was addressing (Christian Nationalists attending a Turning Point Action event) are low turnout voters.
I really don’t think Trump was saying he’d suspend elections. I think he meant he doesn’t give a shit about elections once he can’t run again. For sure, he’s evil and doesn’t care about law, but it would take a constitutional amendment to grant him perpetual dictatorship, and I just don’t think Trump has the political wherewithal to make that happen.
I don't think anyone worried about a Trump dictatorship expects him to do it constitutionally. Suspended the constitution because of the "border crisis" or some other nonsense is far more likely.
Dictators tend to start of through legal or constitutional means. Gaining power through legitimate channels.
Then move on to stirring up hatred among embittered and disillusioned people. Finding scapegoats. 'Othering' peoples. Agitating for power. Organising rallies and insurgencies.
Becoming head of government. Then proceeding to consolidate unlimited power before the general public realises what is happening.
I really don’t think Trump was saying he’d suspend elections. I think he meant he doesn’t give a shit about elections once he can’t run again.
That doesn't fit with "we'll have it fixed."
What does he mean by that? Unlikely (even for him) that it means there won't be any elections. More likely that it means 'the system (including Supreme Court) will be "fixed" so that Republicans will always have a bias in their favour'. Electoral suppression (especially of the poor and of black and Hispanic voters) and blatant gerrymandering will be guaranteed by a Supreme Court that rejects any legal attempts to stop it.
After that, he'll happily step down, after nominating one of his children to be next President.
He's an open admirer of Putin and sees how a 'democratic system' can be fixed to always provide the 'right' result. i don't think that he wants to cancel elections and not even to be president for life. But he would love to think that the Trump family will still be in the White House long after he's gone. (Think North Korea)
I really don’t think Trump was saying he’d suspend elections. I think he meant he doesn’t give a shit about elections once he can’t run again.
That doesn't fit with "we'll have it fixed."
What does he mean by that? Unlikely (even for him) that it means there won't be any elections. More likely that it means 'the system (including Supreme Court) will be "fixed" so that Republicans will always have a bias in their favour'. Electoral suppression (especially of the poor and of black and Hispanic voters) and blatant gerrymandering will be guaranteed by a Supreme Court that rejects any legal attempts to stop it.
After that, he'll happily step down, after nominating one of his children to be next President.
He's an open admirer of Putin and sees how a 'democratic system' can be fixed to always provide the 'right' result. i don't think that he wants to cancel elections and not even to be president for life. But he would love to think that the Trump family will still be in the White House long after he's gone. (Think North Korea)
Spot on, I think.
The SC has already in various cases, massively enabled gerrymandering in various states.
I think it's easy to imagine 'constitutional' ways that Trump and the GOP with the help of SCOTUS could fix future elections.
Instead of people getting their knickers in a twist over some imaginary ploy to cancel elections, they should be ever more alert to the highly possible tactics I outlined above and be working NOW to try and prevent them.
(The most obvious way of preventing them is - of course - to ensure Trump doesn't get elected.)
Instead of people getting their knickers in a twist over some imaginary ploy to cancel elections, they should be ever more alert to the highly possible tactics I outlined above and be working NOW to try and prevent them.
(The most obvious way of preventing them is - of course - to ensure Trump doesn't get elected.)
Indeed.
Trump as president with Democrat control of both houses is very different to Trump as president with GOP trifecta. Hence working on other races - including state races is also important.
Vance’s whole spiel about how “we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it” because they’re childless is particularly rich coming from someone who converted to a church run by men (and women, if nuns are included) who don’t have children.
Weird indeed.
JD Vance is Roman Catholic, an organization led by childless men for 2000 years and never had to raise a family. (I know that's not quite right, but go with the thought.)
I mentioned earlier that JD Vance wrote the foreword to Dawn's Early Light, a book by Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation explaining why Project 2025 is a necessary and good thing for America. You can read Vance's foreward here if you are so inclined. As expected, Vance couches his support in violence-laden metaphors and apocalypticism.
I mentioned earlier that JD Vance wrote the foreword to Dawn's Early Light, a book by Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation explaining why Project 2025 is a necessary and good thing for America. You can read Vance's foreward here if you are so inclined. As expected, Vance couches his support in violence-laden metaphors and apocalypticism.
Circle the wagons, and load the muskets? Someone is skating on thin ice. (I can mix metaphors too.)
The system in place is that any Democrat could theoretically put their name forward for the nomination. To be considered they had to inform the party of their interest by last Saturday (27 July 2024), be legally eligible for the presidency (a natural born citizen at least thirty-five years old with at least fourteen years of U.S. residency), and submit a list of at least 300 convention delegates, no more than fifty from each state, who have signed a statement of support for their candidacy. The deadline to do that last bit was yesterday (30 July 2024) and it seems that Kamala Harris is the only one to submit such a slate of delegates.
I think he's just being mischievous in how he expresses it, knowing that people on the left will get their knickers in a twist about him trying to cancel future elections
Instead of people getting their knickers in a twist over some imaginary ploy to cancel elections, they should be ever more alert to the highly possible tactics I outlined above and be working NOW to try and prevent them.
It's not your elections potentially being canceled, so I'm going to go right ahead and have my feelings about this. Kindly stop telling others how to feel and what to do.
In the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, Rolling Stone and American Doom identified at least 70 pro-Trump election conspiracists currently working as county election officials who have questioned the validity of elections or delayed or refused to certify results. At least 22 of these county election officials have refused or delayed certification in recent years.
Trump is at times very ambiguous, trying to see how far he can push things and what he can get away with. When he gets lots of pushback, he can say he was misinterpreted, but when he doesn't, he knows he can keep going. So no, he didn't outright say he would cancel future elections; he just kind of floated a balloon. When he was convicted of fraud, he talked about how the public would take it: "There's a breaking point." Not directly calling on people to riot, but giving them his permission, seeing if they'll do it. In a debate in 2020 he said, "Proud Boys – stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." Ostensibly he was telling them not to do anything, but the Proud Boys understood it as validation of their aims and tactics, and they were thrilled at the shout-out on national television.
So those pro-Trump election officials hear "we'll fix it so you won't have to vote anymore" and they know what it can mean.
I don’t doubt that Trump is willing to violate any constitution, law, norm, or sense of decency to attain or hold onto power.
In the case of the telling the group of Christian supporters of his that they won’t have to vote again if they vote for him in this election, though, I think that he was having a bit of a stream of consciousness conversation with something someone told him or that he heard in the news, namely that some Christian voters whose only motivating issues are abortion, traditional views on sexuality, etc., feel that with the current Supreme Court and after the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade that they don’t need to be active in politics anymore, especially if they had found Trump a little distasteful but not abhorrent like the Religious Left does. Without providing this context, Trump was responding to this thing that he has heard (Biden did a bit of this too but Trump does it much more often). Trump was saying that he knows some conservative Christians think they can disengage with politics now but actually their votes are needed to defeat the enemy (the Democrats and their socially progressive allies) one more time. Then the subset of Christians who really don’t like engaging in politics or or perhaps even voting at all (not a majority of conservative Christians but a not insignificant minority) can go back to whatever state of being somewhat removed from electoral politics that they prefer.
That makes a lot of sense, and maybe it's the case. But it's not what the campaign said when asked for clarification. And look at all the ink and pixels spilled over interpreting that remark. If it were clear, we and the pundits wouldn't be having these discussions. I think ambiguity really works for him, and that what the things that he says actually mean sometimes depends a lot on how those things are interpreted by his listeners. Those interpretations matter as much as whatever was floating through his head when words came out of his mouth -- the meaning is constructed in the interplay between speaker and listeners.
That makes a lot of sense, and maybe it's the case. But it's not what the campaign said when asked for clarification. And look at all the ink and pixels spilled over interpreting that remark. If it were clear, we and the pundits wouldn't be having these discussions. I think ambiguity really works for him, and that what the things that he says actually mean sometimes depends a lot on how those things are interpreted by his listeners. Those interpretations matter as much as whatever was floating through his head when words came out of his mouth -- the meaning is constructed in the interplay between speaker and listeners.
Another thing about Trump is that he instinctively never, ever apologizes and his first reaction when criticized is to punch back, double down, or deflect rather than defend, explain, or justify himself. Defending your words seems to be a sign of weakness to him.
I think ambiguity really works for him, and that what the things that he says actually mean sometimes depends a lot on how those things are interpreted by his listeners. Those interpretations matter as much as whatever was floating through his head when words came out of his mouth -- the meaning is constructed in the interplay between speaker and listeners.
This. Trump knows how to use ambiguity in his communications, and he knows how various listeners will interpret what says.
I think ambiguity really works for him, and that what the things that he says actually mean sometimes depends a lot on how those things are interpreted by his listeners. Those interpretations matter as much as whatever was floating through his head when words came out of his mouth -- the meaning is constructed in the interplay between speaker and listeners.
This. Trump knows how to use ambiguity in his communications, and he knows how various listeners will interpret what says.
I think he also knows how to capitalize on ambiguity that arises at first unintentionally from his off the cuff remarks. His instinctual mode of speaking is rambling, vague, and provocative, and he sees what sticks. If the people his supporters hate get angry at something he says, he knows he must be doing something right.
I think ambiguity really works for him, and that what the things that he says actually mean sometimes depends a lot on how those things are interpreted by his listeners. Those interpretations matter as much as whatever was floating through his head when words came out of his mouth -- the meaning is constructed in the interplay between speaker and listeners.
This. Trump knows how to use ambiguity in his communications, and he knows how various listeners will interpret what says.
It has long been noted that Trump speaks like a mob boss, never directly saying what he means. "Nice shop you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it." Despite the surface meaning, that is not admiration for the shop or a sincere hope that nothing happens to it.
I'm sure we were all wondering how long it would take Trump to "go there".
Donald Trump falsely suggested Kamala Harris had misled voters about her race as the former president appeared before the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago Wednesday in an interview that quickly turned hostile.
“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump said while addressing the group’s annual convention.
Harris is the daughter of a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, both immigrants to the U.S. As an undergraduate, Harris attended Howard University, one of the nation’s most prominent historically Black colleges and universities, where she also pledged the historically Black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha. As a U.S. senator, Harris was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, supporting her colleagues’ legislation to strengthen voting rights and reforming policing.
Trump has leveled a wide range of criticism at Harris since she replaced President Joe Biden atop the likely Democratic ticket last week. Throughout his political career, the former president has repeatedly questioned the backgrounds of opponents who are racial minorities.
Video clip here for those who are interested. The whole interview is available on C-SPAN for those who can stomach it. Trump mostly did his petulant toddler routine that he does whenever faced with anything other than the most fawning questions.
I know he didn’t really do the couch thing, and even if he did it’s not at all what makes him awful, but the phrase just jumped out at me, because I’m twelve.
I am beginning to think I know why Trump said if he is elected we will not have to vote anymore, and it has to do with JD Vance. JD Vance has strong links to a group from Silicon Valley who are monarchists. See Politico There was a discussion today on an NPR program about how these people want to transform the presidency into a monarchy. I heard it this evening. It has yet to be released. That will likely be tomorrow.
When it is released, I will post a link. Stay tuned.
I am beginning to think I know why Trump said if he is elected we will not have to vote anymore, and it has to do with JD Vance. JD Vance has strong links to a group from Silicon Valley who are monarchists. See Politico There was a discussion today on an NPR program about how these people want to transform the presidency into a monarchy. I heard it this evening. It has yet to be released. That will likely be tomorrow.
🤣 Seriously?
...wait, he doesn't know that we have elections over here? Along with all the other European nations that still have monarchs?
I am beginning to think I know why Trump said if he is elected we will not have to vote anymore, and it has to do with JD Vance. JD Vance has strong links to a group from Silicon Valley who are monarchists. See Politico There was a discussion today on an NPR program about how these people want to transform the presidency into a monarchy. I heard it this evening. It has yet to be released. That will likely be tomorrow.
🤣 Seriously?
...wait, he doesn't know that we have elections over here? Along with all the other European nations that still have monarchs?
Well, if I'm reading @Gramps49 correctly, he didn't say that Vance wants to turn the USA into a European figurehead-monarchy circa 2024. Presumably, a monarchy where the the king has actual influence over government.
Yes, I took @Gramps49 to be referring to the pre-democracy type of monarchy, such as disappeared from this country several centuries ago.
For some reason, I'm reminded of this verse about King Charles II (1649-1685), allegedly pinned, by some wag, to his bedroom door:
Here lies our sovereign lord, the King,
Whose promise none relies on.
Who never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.
To which the amused Charles is reputed to have replied *My discourses are my own - my actions are those of my ministers...* (or words to that effect)
Even in those far off-days, the king did not have it all his own way, but presumably Trump would desire nothing less than absolute power.
If you click through to the Vanity Fair piece Politico cites, you'll see that Curtis Yarvin, the influence in question, has switched to saying monarch instead of the term he previously used: dictator. He "seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of authoritarianism... " it says.
Am I misremembering, or didn't Trump say something when he was president about what a good idea it was that [insert loony dictator* of choice] had declared himself ruler for life, and shouldn't he do the same?
* I think it was a real one, but I can't remember which one.
He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.
Trump spoke to the a national association of Black journalists and claimed that Harris did not identify as Black until recently and only identified as Indian-American before that. Of course this isn’t true.
But I’m wondering why Trump decided to try to delegitimize Harris’ racial identity now after years of gaining support among Black voters, especially Black men, and before an audience of Black journalists.
It could be that the Black supporters of Trump (which are still a small minority of Black voters - maybe 12 percent if he does well?) hate the news media and other parts of the liberal cultural and academic elite just like other Trump supporters.
But maybe he thought this was a way to win over Black supporters specifically? Or Black men in particular?
It seems clear to me that he thought he could delegitimize Harris amongst black voters if he suggested that she was essentially a recent convert. The same way he tried to delegitimize her amongst Jewish voters by saying that she hates Jews.*
And a side benefit to his comments is that the press is so focused on that, they are barely commenting on Trump's most recent evidence of cognitive decline. Yesterday he was campaigning in Pennsylvania on behalf of David McCormick and telling the crowd that McCormick would be their "next governor" and referring to McCormick as "Mr. Future Governor"... only trouble is that McCormick is running for the Senate. The gaffe is made more amusing by the fact that Trump started his babble by boasting that he could speak for two hours "without a mistake." Turns out, he can't. Source. Could you imagine the uproar if Biden were still running and he had made a similar mistake?
*Her husband is Jewish. Of course, Trump's wife is an immigrant and he hates immigrants, so I guess the whole "spouse" argument is not a true counterargument.
It seems clear to me that he thought he could delegitimize Harris amongst black voters if he suggested that she was essentially a recent convert. The same way he tried to delegitimize her amongst Jewish voters by saying that she hates Jews.*
In the interview, the Republican former president repeated comments he has made before lashing out at Jewish voters who back Democrats, saying anyone who does “should have their head examined” and “if you’re Jewish, if you vote for a Democrat, you’re a fool, an absolute fool. They have let Jewish people down since Obama at a level that nobody could believe.”
As Trump continued on, he again said of Harris, “She dislikes Jewish people and Israel even more than Biden did.”
The interview host, Sid Rosenberg, then mentioned Harris’ husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff and said, “He’s Jewish like Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Are you kidding me?”
“Yeah,” Trump said.
“He’s a crappy Jew,” Rosenberg said, continuing.
“Yeah,” Trump said again.
Rosenberg went on, saying of Emhoff, “He’s a horrible Jew.”
I think what we’re seeing is at a least in part some real scrambling and lack of focus as a result of Biden stepping out and Harris being at the top of the ticket now. My sense is that many in the Harris campaign are hoping that Trump keeps it up.
I also think he at least in part forgot his audience, or considered his base to be the real audience, despite the people in the room.
In the meantime, it’s interesting to me that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner seem to be keeping a fairly low profile.
@stonespring, @Hedgehog: Did you watch any of the panel? It's only a little over 30 minutes, and it's worth watching at least the first few minutes to get the tone and flavor. This was not some considered strategy; it was just Trump spewing whatever came into his head. His handlers pulled him out well before the scheduled hour was up because he was so far off the rails.
@stonespring, @Hedgehog: Did you watch any of the panel? It's only a little over 30 minutes, and it's worth watching at least the first few minutes to get the tone and flavor.
But I’m wondering why Trump decided to try to delegitimize Harris’ racial identity now after years of gaining support among Black voters, especially Black men, and before an audience of Black journalists.
Has Trump been gaining support among black voters? According to CNN exit polling, in 2016 Donald Trump received 8% of the black vote. By 2020 he'd gained enough to get . . . 12% of the black vote, according to CNN. Admittedly that 2020 number is about double the estimated 6% of the black vote that Mitt Romney received in 2012, but I think Romney's opponent may have contributed to that small percentage. A gain that is within the margin of error doesn't seem like Trump has been gaining support among black voters to any significant degree.
There always seems to be a poll or two that indicates the Republican presidential candidate is supported by 30% of black men (or some such number), but that supposed support never seems to materialize on election day.
At any rate, to ask the question why the king of the birthers would delegitimize someone's racial identity is to answer it.
It seems clear to me that he thought he could delegitimize Harris amongst black voters if he suggested that she was essentially a recent convert. The same way he tried to delegitimize her amongst Jewish voters by saying that she hates Jews.*
And a side benefit to his comments is that the press is so focused on that, they are barely commenting on Trump's most recent evidence of cognitive decline. Yesterday he was campaigning in Pennsylvania on behalf of David McCormick and telling the crowd that McCormick would be their "next governor" and referring to McCormick as "Mr. Future Governor"... only trouble is that McCormick is running for the Senate. The gaffe is made more amusing by the fact that Trump started his babble by boasting that he could speak for two hours "without a mistake." Turns out, he can't. Source. Could you imagine the uproar if Biden were still running and he had made a similar mistake?
*Her husband is Jewish. Of course, Trump's wife is an immigrant and he hates immigrants, so I guess the whole "spouse" argument is not a true counterargument.
He hates dark-skinned/non-European immigrants, though. He's not attacking the Norwegians.
Watched the full video at the NBJC. He could not get over how rude that one woman was, and how dare she delay his interview because of audio issues. As my Mother in Law would say. How Awe full.
Another idea JD Vance and the New Right believes in is the modern nation states will collapse and the billionaires will set up "Network States."
DURAN: The idea is called the Network State and there's a book about it. It's free to read online. It also is reflected in Curtis Jarvin's work. He calls them patchworks. The idea is that nation states like the United States and other established countries are going to collapse and that they should be divided up into much smaller political entities that would basically be corporate run dictatorships.
excerpt from WBUR On Point. This was the report I talked about yesterday. I had said once it was released, I would post a link. Pretty damning if you read through it.
So after all this time, some Americans have decided that the problem with George III was that he wasn't authoritarian enough?
...well, we too have our lunatic fringe...
Seems a good time to say that if the Lost Provinces aka the United States REALLY want a monarchy, they can repeal that dratted Declaration of Independence, apologize to HM Charles III for their gratuitious rudeness to His Late Majesty George III and compensate HM Government for ruining a boatload of good tea by tossing it in to Boston Harbour in 1773.
I am very sure His Majesty will duly appoint a Governor General to resume normal monarchial service which has been suspended since 1783.
The mandatory course on Parliamentarianism and Responsible Government will follow.
Comments
I really don’t think Trump was saying he’d suspend elections. I think he meant he doesn’t give a shit about elections once he can’t run again. For sure, he’s evil and doesn’t care about law, but it would take a constitutional amendment to grant him perpetual dictatorship, and I just don’t think Trump has the political wherewithal to make that happen. Also, I don’t think Trump cares that much. He’s motivated by grievance. He lost the last election and has to win to prove himself. He won’t go away quietly, and I bet he’ll run from a wheelchair in the 2028 election without a hint of irony, but he’s all Id without anywhere to put it.
I don't think anyone worried about a Trump dictatorship expects him to do it constitutionally. Suspended the constitution because of the "border crisis" or some other nonsense is far more likely.
Dictators tend to start of through legal or constitutional means. Gaining power through legitimate channels.
Then move on to stirring up hatred among embittered and disillusioned people. Finding scapegoats. 'Othering' peoples. Agitating for power. Organising rallies and insurgencies.
Becoming head of government. Then proceeding to consolidate unlimited power before the general public realises what is happening.
Sound like anyone we know?
That doesn't fit with "we'll have it fixed."
What does he mean by that? Unlikely (even for him) that it means there won't be any elections. More likely that it means 'the system (including Supreme Court) will be "fixed" so that Republicans will always have a bias in their favour'. Electoral suppression (especially of the poor and of black and Hispanic voters) and blatant gerrymandering will be guaranteed by a Supreme Court that rejects any legal attempts to stop it.
After that, he'll happily step down, after nominating one of his children to be next President.
He's an open admirer of Putin and sees how a 'democratic system' can be fixed to always provide the 'right' result. i don't think that he wants to cancel elections and not even to be president for life. But he would love to think that the Trump family will still be in the White House long after he's gone. (Think North Korea)
Spot on, I think.
The SC has already in various cases, massively enabled gerrymandering in various states.
I think it's easy to imagine 'constitutional' ways that Trump and the GOP with the help of SCOTUS could fix future elections.
AFZ
Instead of people getting their knickers in a twist over some imaginary ploy to cancel elections, they should be ever more alert to the highly possible tactics I outlined above and be working NOW to try and prevent them.
(The most obvious way of preventing them is - of course - to ensure Trump doesn't get elected.)
Indeed.
Trump as president with Democrat control of both houses is very different to Trump as president with GOP trifecta. Hence working on other races - including state races is also important.
Exactly.
And eliminating elections vs. eliminating fair and free elections is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Circle the wagons, and load the muskets? Someone is skating on thin ice. (I can mix metaphors too.)
The system in place is that any Democrat could theoretically put their name forward for the nomination. To be considered they had to inform the party of their interest by last Saturday (27 July 2024), be legally eligible for the presidency (a natural born citizen at least thirty-five years old with at least fourteen years of U.S. residency), and submit a list of at least 300 convention delegates, no more than fifty from each state, who have signed a statement of support for their candidacy. The deadline to do that last bit was yesterday (30 July 2024) and it seems that Kamala Harris is the only one to submit such a slate of delegates.
Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic election lawyer says, “I think we are going to see mass refusals to certify the election” in November.
Trump is at times very ambiguous, trying to see how far he can push things and what he can get away with. When he gets lots of pushback, he can say he was misinterpreted, but when he doesn't, he knows he can keep going. So no, he didn't outright say he would cancel future elections; he just kind of floated a balloon. When he was convicted of fraud, he talked about how the public would take it: "There's a breaking point." Not directly calling on people to riot, but giving them his permission, seeing if they'll do it. In a debate in 2020 he said, "Proud Boys – stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." Ostensibly he was telling them not to do anything, but the Proud Boys understood it as validation of their aims and tactics, and they were thrilled at the shout-out on national television.
So those pro-Trump election officials hear "we'll fix it so you won't have to vote anymore" and they know what it can mean.
In the case of the telling the group of Christian supporters of his that they won’t have to vote again if they vote for him in this election, though, I think that he was having a bit of a stream of consciousness conversation with something someone told him or that he heard in the news, namely that some Christian voters whose only motivating issues are abortion, traditional views on sexuality, etc., feel that with the current Supreme Court and after the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade that they don’t need to be active in politics anymore, especially if they had found Trump a little distasteful but not abhorrent like the Religious Left does. Without providing this context, Trump was responding to this thing that he has heard (Biden did a bit of this too but Trump does it much more often). Trump was saying that he knows some conservative Christians think they can disengage with politics now but actually their votes are needed to defeat the enemy (the Democrats and their socially progressive allies) one more time. Then the subset of Christians who really don’t like engaging in politics or or perhaps even voting at all (not a majority of conservative Christians but a not insignificant minority) can go back to whatever state of being somewhat removed from electoral politics that they prefer.
Another thing about Trump is that he instinctively never, ever apologizes and his first reaction when criticized is to punch back, double down, or deflect rather than defend, explain, or justify himself. Defending your words seems to be a sign of weakness to him.
I think he also knows how to capitalize on ambiguity that arises at first unintentionally from his off the cuff remarks. His instinctual mode of speaking is rambling, vague, and provocative, and he sees what sticks. If the people his supporters hate get angry at something he says, he knows he must be doing something right.
It has long been noted that Trump speaks like a mob boss, never directly saying what he means. "Nice shop you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it." Despite the surface meaning, that is not admiration for the shop or a sincere hope that nothing happens to it.
Video clip here for those who are interested. The whole interview is available on C-SPAN for those who can stomach it. Trump mostly did his petulant toddler routine that he does whenever faced with anything other than the most fawning questions.
🤣🤣🤣
I know he didn’t really do the couch thing, and even if he did it’s not at all what makes him awful, but the phrase just jumped out at me, because I’m twelve.
Carry on.
🤭🤭🤭
When it is released, I will post a link. Stay tuned.
🤣 Seriously?
...wait, he doesn't know that we have elections over here? Along with all the other European nations that still have monarchs?
Well, if I'm reading @Gramps49 correctly, he didn't say that Vance wants to turn the USA into a European figurehead-monarchy circa 2024. Presumably, a monarchy where the the king has actual influence over government.
For some reason, I'm reminded of this verse about King Charles II (1649-1685), allegedly pinned, by some wag, to his bedroom door:
Here lies our sovereign lord, the King,
Whose promise none relies on.
Who never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.
To which the amused Charles is reputed to have replied *My discourses are my own - my actions are those of my ministers...* (or words to that effect)
Even in those far off-days, the king did not have it all his own way, but presumably Trump would desire nothing less than absolute power.
...well, we too have our lunatic fringe...
No, no. He was authoritarian about the wrong things. Same complaint as Cromwell had with Charles I.
Is that actually possible? 🤔
Am I misremembering, or didn't Trump say something when he was president about what a good idea it was that [insert loony dictator* of choice] had declared himself ruler for life, and shouldn't he do the same?
* I think it was a real one, but I can't remember which one.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/trump-xi-jinping-dictators/554810/
[Emphasis mine]
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c06k07dn1zjo
But I’m wondering why Trump decided to try to delegitimize Harris’ racial identity now after years of gaining support among Black voters, especially Black men, and before an audience of Black journalists.
It could be that the Black supporters of Trump (which are still a small minority of Black voters - maybe 12 percent if he does well?) hate the news media and other parts of the liberal cultural and academic elite just like other Trump supporters.
But maybe he thought this was a way to win over Black supporters specifically? Or Black men in particular?
And a side benefit to his comments is that the press is so focused on that, they are barely commenting on Trump's most recent evidence of cognitive decline. Yesterday he was campaigning in Pennsylvania on behalf of David McCormick and telling the crowd that McCormick would be their "next governor" and referring to McCormick as "Mr. Future Governor"... only trouble is that McCormick is running for the Senate. The gaffe is made more amusing by the fact that Trump started his babble by boasting that he could speak for two hours "without a mistake." Turns out, he can't. Source. Could you imagine the uproar if Biden were still running and he had made a similar mistake?
*Her husband is Jewish. Of course, Trump's wife is an immigrant and he hates immigrants, so I guess the whole "spouse" argument is not a true counterargument.
I also think he at least in part forgot his audience, or considered his base to be the real audience, despite the people in the room.
In the meantime, it’s interesting to me that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner seem to be keeping a fairly low profile.
Fun thing I saw earlier today on social media: "I finally figured out what a DEI hire is: Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka."
There's a cut down version coming in at 11 minutes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFmvXQp6F8
Has Trump been gaining support among black voters? According to CNN exit polling, in 2016 Donald Trump received 8% of the black vote. By 2020 he'd gained enough to get . . . 12% of the black vote, according to CNN. Admittedly that 2020 number is about double the estimated 6% of the black vote that Mitt Romney received in 2012, but I think Romney's opponent may have contributed to that small percentage. A gain that is within the margin of error doesn't seem like Trump has been gaining support among black voters to any significant degree.
There always seems to be a poll or two that indicates the Republican presidential candidate is supported by 30% of black men (or some such number), but that supposed support never seems to materialize on election day.
At any rate, to ask the question why the king of the birthers would delegitimize someone's racial identity is to answer it.
He hates dark-skinned/non-European immigrants, though. He's not attacking the Norwegians.
excerpt from WBUR On Point. This was the report I talked about yesterday. I had said once it was released, I would post a link. Pretty damning if you read through it.
[edited for content warning - Alan Cresswell, Admin]
Seems a good time to say that if the Lost Provinces aka the United States REALLY want a monarchy, they can repeal that dratted Declaration of Independence, apologize to HM Charles III for their gratuitious rudeness to His Late Majesty George III and compensate HM Government for ruining a boatload of good tea by tossing it in to Boston Harbour in 1773.
I am very sure His Majesty will duly appoint a Governor General to resume normal monarchial service which has been suspended since 1783.
The mandatory course on Parliamentarianism and Responsible Government will follow.
I'll get my toque....
Nah, toques are republican. See Le Vieux de '37