• Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    In your honest opinion do you think he will try to get rid of voting so he can remain in power like Hitler did?

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ll be surprised if he lives long enough for that - he’s old and has a terrible diet - but he said at a fundraiser that people would only need to vote one more time, which many took to mean that’s all he’d need to stay in power. He tried a failed coup in 2020, so clearly doesn’t care if it’s lawful or not. Would anyone be surprised?

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      I would definitely not put it beyond him. The only thing that could really prevent this would be his death. Be glad that Trump is way older than Hitler was in 1933.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      30 days ago

      He doesn’t need to. Elections will happen as usual, but states with Republican-led governments will report favorable results for Republicans regardless of the reality.

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      30 days ago

      We are already well along the road of elections being fairly meaningless. Not because the results aren’t counted accurately but because elections can be swayed by numerous mechanisms including voter suppression (voter ID laws, redistricting, restrictions on polling places and methods, etc) and propaganda. Combine that with economic suppression via wealth inequality that results in low-information voters being the norm and you have a relatively easy mechanism to “win” elections that’s legal and constitutional.

      Hitler didn’t get into power by being a dictator, he became one through a series of events. The Reichstag fire was a pretext Hindenburg declaring a state of emergency which not only gave Nazi’s the ability to frame and dissent or opposition as traitorous, it also lent “credence” to their propaganda about the threat of communism, allowing them to further consolidate power in the 1933 election.

      History rhymes.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Absolutely. If Trump dies till then someone else will just take over. America wont have free elections for decades to come.

    • HomesliceAbe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The scary thing is that Republicans have the holy political trinity right now. Control of the executive as well as both legislative branches. They could easily pass an amendment to nix the 22nd.

      • ZekeSulastin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s not how the amendment process works. They’d need a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and the Senate to launch a proposal or 2/3 of the states to hold a constitutional convention; once the amendment is proposed, 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it.

        Besides, even a simple majority requirement wouldn’t guarantee success - for example, see the clown show for the GOP House speakership, Senators Manchin (I; D before 2024) and Sinema (I; D before Dec 2022) voting no on various Democratic initiatives, or Senator McCain (R) voting no on the ACA repeal.

        There was actually a point where we were two state governorships away from the GOP being able to hold that convention, but that’s still just the proposal.

        • Fontasia@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          He’s got the supreme court on his side, what stopping him making up just forcing things through as emergency measures?

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            30 days ago

            Nothing. The Supreme Court has no oversight whatsoever and can rule that anything is legal (or illegal) with no way to challenge it.

        • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          It doesn’t matter how things are should work or how they used to work. Nothing and no one will stop the repugs from doing anything they want.