this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
843 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2136 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xantoxis 141 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

He can do that by officially assassinating the conservative SC justices, nominating new ones, and then having armed marines inside the senate comittees to ensure they are confirmed immediately.

There's probably a few more steps, but this would get us back on track. He would have to be willing to give up his powers at a certain point, which means installing the legal apparatus (in the form of government officials) with the will to strip those powers.

[–] [email protected] 146 points 4 months ago

Justice: “Don’t kill me, it’s illegal!”

Assassin: “I’m on orders from the president.”

Justice: “Oh, well, go ahead then.”

[–] SkybreakerEngineer 62 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Ah yes, the classic play in which you acquire unchecked power, exercise it to get rid of all your political rivals, then somehow use it to restore democracy. Occurs once in an anime about giant robots and psychic powers, and never in history.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] aodhsishaj 6 points 4 months ago

Tankies gonna tank

[–] Snowclone 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree no one is ever letting go of power unless they are explicitly required to do so.

[–] btaf45 62 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree no one is ever letting go of power unless they are explicitly required to do so.

George Washington did that twice. But he was the anti-Trump.

[–] negativenull 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

"Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius's violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equally enforced laws"

Hey, he had at least one thing in common with The Cheeto Man.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

The one thing we have going for us is that it'll be a race against mortality to accomplish these things. And I don't think his failson is likely to be installed as the next Great Leader. Usually the dictators start much younger.

[–] pressanykeynow 1 points 4 months ago

Isn't it word to word exactly what Sulla did?

[–] PugJesus 0 points 4 months ago

King Juan Carlos of Spain.

[–] Makeitstop 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The next steps would be ordering the justice department to prosecute him, going to court, and appealing all the way to the new Supreme Court so they can overturn the precedent. Which would require either moving very quickly or preventing the other side from taking power, one way or the other.

Of course, by then pandora's box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing. It's a slippery slope not unlike the one that caused Rome to go from being a republic that viewed regicide as a fundamental virtue to an empire that would persecute groups for denying the divinity of the emperor.

[–] btaf45 58 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing.

It would be a genius move for Biden to arrest Trump right now as a terrorist enemy combatant, but give hints that he's doing this because of the supreme court ruling. And then in order to be prosecuted, the Supreme Court would need to completely reverse this ruling and restore democracy. Even if Biden went to prison after a total reversal of the ruling, he would be regarded by history as a saviour of the country on par with Lincoln.

[–] atx_aquarian 7 points 4 months ago

I could've sworn Lemmy added a "upvote multiple times" feature, but I can't find it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

That'd be fine, but simplest move for Biden is to install Hunter as Veep, then have Hunter declare Joe the winner of the election next January. When Joe kicks the bucket a few months later, the presidency gets handed down from father to son as God intended.

[–] problematicPanther 11 points 4 months ago

What's most worrying is that this hasn't happened yet. Once Trump gets elected, it's all over, folks. Time to pack it in.