No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting.
-
@mattblaze @cstross @mkilmo @dominykas
Serious sincere question: what is the mechanism for forcing Vance to certify if he refuses?
@FediThing @cstross @mkilmo @dominykas in practice, they’d probably just ignore him, but it could presumably end up being resolved in the courts.
-
@mattblaze
It aeems to me that his "power" across the board (that is, irrespective of which elections & where they occur) appears to be theatrical declarations to the press & on social media — which do affect many people when they hear/read them — and the general ability to create chaos and more intimidation by, for example, putting any sort of "enforcement" agents on streets & around polling places. Those could be ICE, National Guard, regular military, et al., legal or not.Correct assumption?
@RunRichRun he has an enormous platform to promote chaos, as we saw on Jan 6. But that’s not unlimited. Being able to summon an angry mob to break things isn’t the same as being able to take over and actually run complex systems.
-
@theklan ok, bye
Hi, historian here! Not the first time in history that a professor got the future wrong. Many colleagues from Russian studies were also saying that Russia wouldn't launch a full-fledged war on Ukraine and that Putin's Russia wasn't a dictatorship. Now they have become experts on Ukraine.
-
Hi, historian here! Not the first time in history that a professor got the future wrong. Many colleagues from Russian studies were also saying that Russia wouldn't launch a full-fledged war on Ukraine and that Putin's Russia wasn't a dictatorship. Now they have become experts on Ukraine.
-
@mattblaze @blasen and that's why I followed you, because the information was interesting (also the great BW photos). The problem is answering rudely to anyone making a valid point. You don't need to be harsh against people for that.
-
@mattblaze @blasen and that's why I followed you, because the information was interesting (also the great BW photos). The problem is answering rudely to anyone making a valid point. You don't need to be harsh against people for that.
-
@mattblaze @blasen not worth if you want to engage in polite discussion with people who thinks alike. If you want to have only people who want toxic relations, then it's worth.
-
-
@mattblaze @blasen if you were uninterested you wouldn't be answering. That's the point. You don't need to be rude. You wouldn't answer like that to people in your workplace, grocery or village.
If you don't want to have interactions with people, the I have bad news for you from the Internet.
-
@mattblaze @blasen if you were uninterested you wouldn't be answering. That's the point. You don't need to be rude. You wouldn't answer like that to people in your workplace, grocery or village.
If you don't want to have interactions with people, the I have bad news for you from the Internet.
@theklan bye bye little troll
-
@mattblaze @blasen if you were uninterested you wouldn't be answering. That's the point. You don't need to be rude. You wouldn't answer like that to people in your workplace, grocery or village.
If you don't want to have interactions with people, the I have bad news for you from the Internet.
@theklan @mattblaze @blasen You are an idiot, and he does. (Matt is a highly visible public expert on his day job and gets an ENORMOUS amount of abuse: he doesn't need random fools like you telling him to be polite to idiots.)
-
@mkilmo @dominykas Elections are simply totally outside of what the president controls, not to mention what anyone involved in them thinks he controls. This is very different from almost everything else he’s done, which involved misusing or abusing existing presidential power in some way.
It’s like if he declared that Rhode Island is no longer a state. Everyone would just shrug.
Normally speaking. But aren't things changed now? His personal law firm, also known as DOJ is putting the screws on blue states to get voter data. And his personal police force, also known as FBI, has taken actual physical voter material from a state.
-
Normally speaking. But aren't things changed now? His personal law firm, also known as DOJ is putting the screws on blue states to get voter data. And his personal police force, also known as FBI, has taken actual physical voter material from a state.
@gvenema @mkilmo @dominykas I see no indication that anything has changed or shifted in the foundational principle that states run elections.
Feel free to worry about whatever you want, but this just seems wildly implausible to me.
-
@gvenema @mkilmo @dominykas I see no indication that anything has changed or shifted in the foundational principle that states run elections.
Feel free to worry about whatever you want, but this just seems wildly implausible to me.
That they run them, yes. But personally I feel doubtful that they are still safe from federal executive interference, combined with the present #scotus. If he tries, can you be sure he will fail?
-
No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting. Elections are governed by states, and, to a limited extent, Congress. Not the executive branch.
There are plenty of very real, immediate threats to democracy to get worked up about right now. This isn’t one of them.
@mattblaze the sheer amount of nonsense that comes out of that man, gets "supported" by the GOP, and amplified by a credulous press is just astounding. He has weaponized the signal to noise ratio and is using it to his own benefit (and his supporters lack the critical thinking skills to realize it's all misdirection)
-
That they run them, yes. But personally I feel doubtful that they are still safe from federal executive interference, combined with the present #scotus. If he tries, can you be sure he will fail?
@gvenema @mkilmo @dominykas you’ve lost me. this is too vague for me. Please explain exactly what you worry will happen, and how it would be brought about.
-
It’s hard to overstate just how huge this system is, or how many moving parts are involved. And almost all of it operates at the local level, governed by state laws and local practices and tied to the structure of local government.
This is not something you can just snap your fingers and take over by fiat or force, not to mention the fact that it’s all deeply embedded in federal and state constitutional structures.
One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.
This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.
-
@gvenema @mkilmo @dominykas you’ve lost me. this is too vague for me. Please explain exactly what you worry will happen, and how it would be brought about.
Well, say the DOJ detected "irregularities in voting", some "foreign interference" perhaps or suspected "antifa activity", and they send the FBI to impound the voting source material, is it then impossible for them to tamper with it and give it back?
-
One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.
This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.
But this is far fetched and almost certainly counter to Trump’s interests, which presumably include not getting himself killed in a coup if he fails. And again, disrupting elections isn’t really essential for this.
-
One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.
This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.
He incited Jan 6 without having to face any consequences, might he think he can incite something similar during elections? ( i.e. Violence from third parties incited by him but not part of any formal structure governed by him? )
If this was done in specific places as a form of voter suppression?
