After 2028 elections, all of that umbrella cover will go away. Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms).
And think about what would need to happen if you'd like to see actual change in leadership of the executive branch. You'd need the House comfortably controlled by Democrats, with the Senate controlled by a supermajority of Democrats. I think that you'd need both the President and Vice President impeached, convicted, and removed from office, while preventing the current/acting President from having a new VP nominated and confirmed, so that the Speaker of the House became acting President. This seems even less likely.
Your numbers are on point. But, there's another Math that could take us on that path leading to the same goal: A lot of republican lawmakers aren't happy currently. Although it's a long shot, some of them could join Democrats in impeaching those two clowns.
PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS
~ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres...
The sweeping 12-page order contains a number of provisions, including a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections as well as a requirement that all ballots be received by Election Day – both of which fall outside of the executive branch’s authority to mandate.
But, there’s also a section, buried deeper in the order, that, if implemented, would give Trump’s Justice Department the authority to pick and choose what states get federal funding for election administration. It would require states to loop the DOJ in on supposed violations of election law that it encounters. But it also mandates that basic information about voter roll maintenance be shared with the DOJ as well.
If states are unwilling to enter into what is referred to as an “information-sharing agreement” with the Attorney General regarding “suspected violations of state and federal elections laws,” the Attorney General is allowed to withhold grants and other funds from those states, the executive order says.
There are several commentaries at length going into the hidden traps and pitfalls of this latest executive order kicking about, so far it looks loaded.
When I watched the video, I saw no malice.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE&pp=ygUqdHJ1bXAgc2F...
"In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you'll not gonna have to vote."
Unlike with Musk's "heart goes to you", if there is some context that can turn this into a benign remark it would have to be truly radical. Any takers?
>He added: "I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. 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," Trump said.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...
What on Earth are you talking about?
https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/
> An estimated 69 million American women and 4 million men do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name, according to the liberal Center for American Progress.
You need to be registered as a voter, which requires that you be a citizen. How that is enforced varies.
There are also ID requirements at the poll site. Again, those vary.
In every state I've lived in voting was in some way (optionally) tied to your driver's license. But the body issuing the license has always known whether or not I was a US citizen so it boils down to the same thing.
The OP would say these people are being deliberately disenfranchised. Personally I’ve long since given up judging these things based on what I think may or may not be in the hearts of those writing it. We don’t know so it just becomes an endless back and forth. Instead I look to the facts: the SAVE act would make it more difficult for many people to vote, with an aim of stopping those who are unauthorized to vote from doing so. There’s never really been any solid evidence of the latter happening in notable numbers so to me the trade off doesn’t feel worth it.
IMO something like the SAVE Act needs to also legislate the process by which a citizen can easily get an ID in order to vote. But it doesn’t, it just says that states would manage it. Given that some states used “literacy tests” to disenfranchise black people not so long ago I personally don’t trust they would all approach ID access in a fair and equal way.
> Yes. All states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories are REAL ID compliant and issuing REAL ID compliant driver’s licenses and IDs.
I have a DL in US and I'm not a citizen. It says on the license that it's only for driving and not for employment or voter registration.
> IMO something like the SAVE Act needs to also legislate the process by which a citizen can easily get an ID in order to vote
That sounds like real id to me?
According to https://www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs "Yes. All states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories are REAL ID compliant and issuing REAL ID compliant driver’s licenses and IDs."
So from my understanding all DLs would qualify too (Except maybe older ones that were issued before real id?)
I’ve tried to get one twice since they started doing them, in two different states, and failed to have one thing or another on the bills and paystubs and such that I took in, so don’t have one. My wife’s got it even worse, they need an original of our marriage certificate (due to the name change) and that’s gone missing. She hasn’t bothered to screw with it, because she’s got a passport anyway (which, as you note, will do after all, I was wrong)
Let me give you a better one.
Trump can arrest the electoral college members from the blue districts under the guise of election fraud. And if that doesn't work, Vance can just pick his own set of electors. Remember, the Supreme court made it legal for Trump to literally drone strike US citizens without legal recourse.
Of course this will cause a bunch of Tumroil, which is good for Trump, because he can just holdon to power.
If you think that has no chance in happening, I envy your optimism.
The midterms are Congressional elections. There is no Electoral College. The Electoral College only functions when electing a President.
That's only if the SAVE Act passes, or whatever else they dream up passes. The House can pass whatever MAGA wants, but the Senate needs votes from Democrats to clear the filibuster.
Unless of course the GOP yet again does what they say they'll never do, and drop the filibuster.
I actually expect Republicans to do so soon enough now that their control of the Senate is virtually guaranteed for the foreseeable future, and they are reaping all of the disadvantages of the filibuster without the benefits.
The midterms could have some meaningful effect a lot sooner than that if we start seeing across-the-board primary challenges of pro-Trump Republicans. Of course, all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.
> Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset.
Replying to both of you. It has started -> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james...
The attacks members of Congress are troubling, but in a way don't matter too much: the deciders for control of the Senate or House are swing voters in swing states and districts. Whether or not the Republicans in Congress are MAGA adherents or older-school reasonable Republicans matters less than you'd think (and less than I'd like).
The one wrinkle in that is the Senate filibuster: if Democrats regain control there, depending on their margin, they could need up to 10 reasonable Republicans in order to make progress on most things. 60 Democratic Senators is unlikely.
What has Trump done to take away votes from people? Every election is still happening. US citizens are still able to vote.
Seems to be absolutely no basis for that assumption. His approval ratings are in the mid 40s, and the people that vote in primaries aren't exactly the waverers and independents that just wanted a change from Biden.
It could change when he properly tanks the economy, but association with Trump isn't likely to be a problem in primaries when you've got more than half a party's membership so immune to reality they'll insist that not only was Trump doing a good job of running the country in 2020, but he also won that election...
US is going to do the same thing Russia did with Putin.
If we end up having elections, its actually gonna be worse of long term, because despite tanking economy, most people aren't going to suffer that much, which means the pattern of Dems inheriting a shit economy, everything getting blamed on them again like with Biden, and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032.
Solidly red states don't need election interference; they're going to vote red. Solidly blue states aren't going to tolerate interference. The handful or so of swing states will be watched incredibly closely by everyone else for even a hint of interference.
> and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032.
I mean, this is just how American politics works now, and has worked since extreme political polarization took root. That's what happens when you have FPTP voting and a two-party system, where members of each party show complete disdain (justified or not) of members of the other party.
Look at what Dems are doing now. AoC and Bernie are hosting rallies - i.e being worthless.
States will roll over, because day to day business is gotta continue.
These types of speculative remarks insinuating trump is a dictatorial nazi is very lazy. If you disagree with his policies, debate the policies.
>This is not theoretical, we know how he reacts when he looses a election.
It sounds like from your perspective, the sequence of actions should be pretty obvious: create a market on polymarket or something for Trump to not acknowledged a loss, put up some money on it, and at the expense of people who perceive this question as theoretical you should easily get your x20-x30 insurance if something like that happening and can go to live in Europe in your own mansion (or even castle, there are many of them in Europe).
I don't know how much I would gamle in such a case. There are many outcomes compatible with his previous actions. Maybe he gets a heartattack. Maybe there is no election. Maybe the election process is manipulated so he wins. Maybe he actually wins, fairly or 'fairly'. Maybe they find a way for him to run, maybe it's Vance. Maybe someone else.
The important thing is that we should prepare that shitt will happen, and democracy don't survive automatically. We literally have him on tape, pressuring Georgia secretary of state to "find 11,780 votes" and overturn the state's election results. And it is not 'lazy' to prepare (intellectualy and physically), and when it happens it's too late to 'discuss the politics'.
You are probably not aware of this, but these are the events on and leading up to Jan 6.
* Trump calls fraud on elections with no real evidence. Lawsuits are filed. Every single one of them gets dismissed except like one, which ends up turning more votes for Democrats anyways
* Some adviser puts in an idea in Trumps head that Pence can reject the results and send them back to the states
* Trump basically gathers a crowd together, tells them to march to the capital to save our country. As the protesters are breaking in, there are records of him just calling different senators and asking "are you sure you don't want to delay the certification of the vote", all while being told that protesters are breaking in and getting hurt.
* Trump sends a fake set of electors from key states, calling on Pence to "do the right thing". Those fake electors were of course arrested and prosecuted.
None of this is disputable, undeniable, as it was brought up in a republican controlled supreme court hearing, which you can read for yourself. Supreme court decided that President is basically immune from legal punishment as long as he is acting within official capacity.
So saying he is gonna do more shit this time around, granted that he has legal immunity to do so is about as speculative as saying the guy who does 2 Nazi salutes probably believes that the Nazis were right in a lot of things.
Care to place a wager on it? I precisely bet you will ignore this offer though.
He knows without presidential immunity he risks prison. And he has previous for trying to steal an election.
I have no doubt he'll see to it that he never faces the risk of prison, and this is the most obvious way to go. That and he's clearly a power hungry megalomaniac.
I think it'd be more informative to ask why he wouldn't try to get this.