this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
561 points (99.1% liked)

politics

28633 readers
2515 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 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 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago

What a nonsensical statement. No one needs to stop him, they just need to not collaborate. Not nearly enough people are collaborating with him for anything he’s suggesting to be practical.