i think that one thing people have completely twisted is that, no, he does not intend to leave but, yes, "ten thousand new gestapo" is two and a half orders of magnitude smaller than what he would need to seize power by force.
Replies
I’m not comfortable making a prediction about what will happen if he tries to run and loses. I think the headline result will be that he leaves office one way or the other. It will be a lot uglier the next time, should it come to that, but he will go.
aug 23, 2025, 3:56 pm • 0 0 • view
I’d be a lot more worried about this if he was 49 rather than 79, odds are high he dies before the next election even if he doesn’t, he won’t survive long past that and I hope he fucking buried conservatism in this country absolute fucking fascist, garbage humans all of them
aug 23, 2025, 6:13 pm • 1 0 • view
He probably thinks he can intimidate any armed opposition while at the same time offering a deal that would still get him 70% of what be wants in exchange for not forcing a bloody and destructive confrontation that would result otherwise.
aug 23, 2025, 4:01 pm • 0 0 • view
Which is what he ALWAYS does. He's never strong enough to WIN any of the fights he picks. He just arranges things so that the cost of beating him is slightly higher than paying him off.
aug 23, 2025, 4:03 pm • 0 0 • view
Also, people keep talking about what he "intends" to do or "wants" to do. He tried to stay in office in 21. Failed. He tried to end Ukraine war. Failed. Having intentions is not the same as having power (or competence)
aug 23, 2025, 4:32 pm • 0 0 • view
If you want to really control a country you need a Stasi not a Gestapo
aug 24, 2025, 11:36 am • 0 0 • view
300,000,000 is a really big number and it's in the denominator of pretty much every political equation.
aug 23, 2025, 3:25 pm • 18 0 • view
It's enough to control DC and all the power (real & ritual) that comes with it. That's a hard nut to crack. Who's going to storm the capital when trump & co technically still control... everything? From the safety of a heavily armed DC?
aug 23, 2025, 5:38 pm • 0 0 • view
Trump would not need anything like three million men to seize power by force. He can seize power and secure DC with much fewer. What you’re thinking of is the manpower he’d need to subdue an actively revolting country, which is no sure thing. And for that, he has the world’s most advanced military.
aug 23, 2025, 4:45 pm • 0 0 • view
People are also SERIOUSLY underselling his visible decline. It's a lot harder to get people to cross Rubicons for a feeble, old man than it is a vital, younger person. People aren't really preparing enough for Trump not making it to his Trump III plan and the succession crisis which will ensue.
aug 23, 2025, 5:04 pm • 1 0 • view
They're also National Guard, who aren't exactly going to be the most loyal to essentially being deployed.
aug 23, 2025, 3:16 pm • 6 0 • view
I think this will all entirely depend on if gov institutions continue to be as anemic as they are now. In a fight where the institutions are actually trying Trump probably loses even with everything that’s already happened but if the institutions continue they’re “let’s just roll over and die”
aug 23, 2025, 4:03 pm • 0 0 • view
schtick it’s uncertain to me that their will even need to be a fight.
aug 23, 2025, 4:03 pm • 0 0 • view
but not too little to do a successful j6!! (absent a counter-mobilized mass of people)
aug 23, 2025, 3:15 pm • 45 0 • view
What Republicans do not understand is that a successful J6 would have led to Americamaidan. I would have personally driven to DC to possibly die for my country. Millions more would have joined me.
aug 23, 2025, 3:29 pm • 15 1 • view
look i think this very well might be true. i just dont consider that a definite win scenario for american democracy lmao, because i don’t think anyone can say with confidence what happens after that
aug 23, 2025, 4:33 pm • 12 0 • view
and to be clear, you and i have argued on here before but i will absolutely be right next to you at the capitol if it comes to that!
aug 23, 2025, 4:48 pm • 1 0 • view
i think "a successful J6" is the empty set.
aug 23, 2025, 3:16 pm • 42 0 • view
How so? Seems like slightly more organized group would have been able to either kill enough members to flip the chamber or force reluctant members at gunpoint to give them what they want.
aug 23, 2025, 3:19 pm • 3 0 • view
what makes you think that any person in this country would consider that legitimate
aug 23, 2025, 3:43 pm • 4 0 • view
If it’s considered legitimate by enough people with arms, it’s not really important whether or not you or I would consider it legitimate.
aug 23, 2025, 3:44 pm • 0 0 • view
i would consider reading literally any work on this topic before commenting on it.
aug 23, 2025, 3:46 pm • 2 0 • view
I would suggest saying it couldn’t have been successful because a counter-revolution may have been successful isn’t a strong argument.
aug 23, 2025, 3:49 pm • 1 0 • view
idk, i could easily see dems in congress folding under the pressure to formalize a 3rd term for trump because of obviously fake concerns about fraud. that doesn’t sound implausible to me if there are troops lining the streets and ICE at the capitol building
aug 23, 2025, 3:19 pm • 27 1 • view
I don't think all of this is going to be over when Trump goes, but a third term for him would definitely be a ticking clock for him because of his clear future of Alzheimer's. I think twerps like Miller and Noem are going to face a "death of Stalin" situation the longer this continues.
aug 23, 2025, 3:28 pm • 4 0 • view
sure like even if that happens i can imagine huge swaths of the public rejecting it, but then we are in something approaching a fragmented state that’s way too chaotic to make an confident predictions of how it’d play out
aug 23, 2025, 3:23 pm • 14 0 • view
He's making lots of friends among the military brass by having Drunk Pete fire people for giving him a sad
aug 23, 2025, 3:29 pm • 4 0 • view
I really really can't easily see Democrats in Congress conceding the Oval Office in an election that they appear to have won, or even conceding the right to run. This isn't an unprecedented constitutional provision, this is the same limit every president since Roosevelt has adhered to
aug 23, 2025, 3:35 pm • 48 1 • view
I would like to point to the Ohio dems choosing to legitimize the flagrantly unconstitutional maps (as ruled as a matter of law) under threat of worse overreach
aug 23, 2025, 4:33 pm • 2 0 • view
I dont think its particularly likely, but there is recent parallels.
aug 23, 2025, 4:34 pm • 2 0 • view
I certainly don’t see them conceding to a third Trump term. The 22nd is extremely clear and its intent is even more clear. I just don’t see a series of events short of literal guns to their literal heads where they give in on that
aug 23, 2025, 3:42 pm • 5 0 • view
the 14th amendment is also clear! he’s already serving in open violation of the constitution!
aug 23, 2025, 4:13 pm • 28 0 • view
I get what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree, but 3 terms is different. It’s basically the only unwritten rule of American politics we ever got around to writing down. He may very well knock it over, but I don’t think the Dems will just get out of his way
aug 23, 2025, 5:18 pm • 1 0 • view
Incredibly easy to expect this court to roll out some non-consecutive term bullshit to let him stay in office
aug 23, 2025, 4:22 pm • 2 0 • view
idk man “all these institutions that already folded to him multiple times will definitely stand up to him when there are guys with guns hovering over them” just isn’t very convincing to me. that doesn’t mean life goes on after such a scenario but what follows isn’t pretty and is actually really bad
aug 23, 2025, 4:17 pm • 15 1 • view
Also, to be clear I do think they’d fold if actual guns were pointed at them
aug 23, 2025, 5:23 pm • 0 0 • view
Bush v. Gore should have driven us over this ledge, but Dems gave up a stolen 8 years. And for what? Current congressional leadership would roll over. Think our current slate of governors might react differently, but that leaves us in a tenuous place.
aug 23, 2025, 4:37 pm • 7 1 • view
four. as baffling as W winning in 04 is, it did happen.
aug 23, 2025, 4:43 pm • 4 0 • view
I presume this is a "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument
aug 23, 2025, 4:43 pm • 7 0 • view
Talk about norms you're willing to violate, 'counting votes until you're done' is something we do infinitely more often than selecting a president.
aug 23, 2025, 4:40 pm • 0 0 • view
I get what you're saying but I think the definition of "insurrection" is actually harder to define than "three", even if I think he was guilty and justice was not done.
aug 23, 2025, 4:36 pm • 4 0 • view
To the reverse, I think it’s meaningfully harder to create a legalistic dispute over “3 actually means 3 consecutive” or whatever they land on. We’ll see, I guess. They have won the media though, which would both-sides the story if they claimed π=3
aug 23, 2025, 6:23 pm • 0 0 • view
They conceded the Oval Office in an election they appeared to win in 2000. Not saying nothing has changed, but the baseline scenario has a precedent
aug 23, 2025, 3:48 pm • 2 0 • view
You mean an election where the Republican led in the decisive state throughout the entire contested period? That's an awfully flattering definition of "appeared to win"
aug 23, 2025, 3:53 pm • 7 0 • view
hold on a second, what lol
aug 23, 2025, 4:35 pm • 1 0 • view
democrats thought they may have won for long enough to take it to SCOTUS, who gifted it to the republicans on some bullshit, and D's folded immediately. I don't think it would go the same way today, but I think there's a real analogy to be made there
aug 23, 2025, 4:26 pm • 1 0 • view
They won’t have a choice on the right to run. Roberts will absolutely green-light it.
aug 23, 2025, 3:36 pm • 3 0 • view
I won't pretend it's impossible for John Roberts to so wholly compromise his position, but I would not make this prediction with any confidence if I were you
aug 23, 2025, 3:39 pm • 14 0 • view
Have you seen anything from Roberts to suggest he won’t give Trump what he wants?
aug 23, 2025, 3:41 pm • 1 0 • view
the fact that he categorically refused to do this in 2020.
aug 23, 2025, 3:43 pm • 12 0 • view
He didn’t have a vehicle for it in 2020.
aug 23, 2025, 3:43 pm • 0 0 • view
what the fuck are you talking about.
aug 23, 2025, 3:44 pm • 5 0 • view
The elite media will put on a full court press like nothing we’ve seen before demanding that Dems acknowledge fake slates of electors for national unity’s sake
aug 23, 2025, 3:25 pm • 2 0 • view
The Democratic Congress will simply have to meet in Chicago under the protection of the Khan.
aug 23, 2025, 3:16 pm • 49 0 • view
To correct the timeline after 2016, the certification must happen at Wrigley Field.
aug 23, 2025, 3:20 pm • 13 0 • view
Wonder if there's a member of the Adams family still bopping around.
aug 23, 2025, 3:26 pm • 6 0 • view
Big pritz needs to make sure to support Chicago as it prepares for an assault by Trump. Hope he has his goons locked down
aug 23, 2025, 3:32 pm • 1 1 • view
People's Liberation Congress in Exile colocated with the Chicaho Mercantile Exchange.
aug 23, 2025, 3:21 pm • 8 0 • view
Could also go here www.atptour.com/en/tournamen...
aug 23, 2025, 3:27 pm • 8 0 • view
Coruscant vibes.
aug 23, 2025, 3:56 pm • 1 0 • view
What does a "successful j6" look like to you, though? Say they take the Capitol building. This isn't a game of King of the Hill. It's not "I'm sitting in the chair, so I run the country". You have 80 million voters watch a coup occur by roughly a few thousand rednecks and they just accept it?
aug 23, 2025, 3:59 pm • 1 0 • view
It might be enough to start a civil war though.
aug 23, 2025, 3:29 pm • 0 0 • view
With fucking who man
aug 23, 2025, 4:06 pm • 0 0 • view
The military is not going to 100% follow that order, you might get like 10-15% at best and they can just be eaten by the other 90%
aug 23, 2025, 4:07 pm • 1 1 • view
All he needs to do is direct them to whack any opposition people within the District and then pardon them, and he's got de jure power. Of course, having that is different than having public credibility, but it would be enough that the military wouldn't have an institutional excuse.
aug 23, 2025, 3:45 pm • 1 0 • view
Based on our recent track record of normalizing the abnormal I’m a little worried it could be enough if it isn’t confronted by some kind of mass countermobilization. Ideally non-violent, but organized.
aug 23, 2025, 3:30 pm • 3 1 • view
Not trying to be a doomer but wondering who can marshall civil society to that banner when shit hits the fan.
aug 23, 2025, 3:30 pm • 2 2 • view
at some point a couple million will have to march on washington. it's definitely doable, we just haven't hit it yet.
aug 23, 2025, 4:08 pm • 0 0 • view
I read this backward and was trying to understand how you could pull a coup with 50 guys
aug 23, 2025, 6:06 pm • 0 0 • view
Here's the thing: WE DON'T KNOW if that is all it will take. What we are learning now is that the vast vast majority of the population of this country has barely been inconvenienced by his actions. That the vast vast majority of this country believes the system is self regulating and that if /1
aug 23, 2025, 4:28 pm • 0 0 • view
they wake up in the morning and the wifi is working and the traffic on the commute is the same, THEN NOTHING FUNDAMENTALLY BAD HAS HAPPENED, that whatever *some* ppl might be freaking out about is silly b/c there would be tanks in the streets or the MSM anchors would have their hair on fire. But /2
aug 23, 2025, 4:30 pm • 0 0 • view
that isn't happening, ergo everything is fine. Self regulating system works! If Trump wasn't supposed to have a 3rd term, why did SCOTUS OK it? One guy on TV saying its a constitutional crisis a another guy saying its what the founders wanted? Sure SOME ppl are protesting but that always happens.
aug 23, 2025, 4:38 pm • 0 0 • view
I will point out that Trump was cowering in the presidential bunker during the last time there was actual mass protest against him. The median voter is a clueless rube, true, but the last time a fraction of what was required for regime change mobilized, he was pissing himself in fear.
aug 23, 2025, 5:35 pm • 2 0 • view
I cannot stress enough how much people are radically underestimating what it's going to ultimately take to dislodge Trump & his enablers. People keep acting like they'll need massive amounts of troops to "put down" protests, when they will most likely ignore them because they simply don't matter 1/7
aug 24, 2025, 3:46 pm • 0 0 • view
THEY DO NOT NEED BROAD POPULAR SUPPORT to do what they are doing, because the US doesn't know how to react to an illegitimate regime once it has all the formal levers of power in its control. We simply have no experience w/removing a regime extralegally. What if Dems win enough seats to be the 2/7
aug 24, 2025, 3:47 pm • 0 0 • view
majority in Nov. 2026, but Trump spends the next 2 months saying the midterm results from CA and WA are invalid b/c of mail-in voting, SCOTUS issues a shadow docket ruling that its not up to them, and Mike Johnson orders the Capitol Police to deny the CA and WA delegations entry to the building 3/7
aug 24, 2025, 3:48 pm • 0 0 • view
then he gavels in the 120th Congress with a 30 vote GOP majority saying, "we will seat the CA and WA delegations only after they fix their corrupt election systems." What then? If you say that "Oh, there will be huge protests! It would never stand!" I would respond with so what? Why would Trump 4/7
aug 24, 2025, 3:49 pm • 0 0 • view
and his regime care? Especially if protests in big cities turn violent and destructive - that would be fine with Trump. Police in smaller, redder towns will gleefully use extreme violence against the (much, much smaller) protests there. Meanwhile the MSM would STILL be platforming people saying 5/7
aug 24, 2025, 3:50 pm • 0 0 • view
"This is Gov Newsome's fault, if he would've switched to paper ballots - and which 88% of voters support doing, btw - then the CA delegation would've been seated. It just that, without all the cheating from mail-in ballots, it would be mostly Republicans." and the CNN host would respond with 6/7
aug 24, 2025, 3:53 pm • 0 0 • view
To me, the risk is less that they can establish totalitarian control nationwide—it’s that they could control DC to such a degree that a new government could not assemble there
aug 23, 2025, 5:41 pm • 17 0 • view
This liminal state we're in now that hasn't triggered full resistance/war (but where he controls $, troops) is actually a weirdly strong position for him bc everyone's still betting on waiting out the next few years. If he's outright makign the military decide like that ... I dunno, it's a risk!
aug 23, 2025, 5:55 pm • 2 0 • view
I agree with you, but I think we’re in big frog boil territory rn. Military gets more and more used to doing things it really shouldn’t be doing
aug 23, 2025, 5:58 pm • 6 0 • view
Yep, agree. I mean I guess to your point and the OP's, imo the only real way to cement an autocracy is to build it on top of the already existing structure. If we elect a congress and they refuse to seat it such that it causes secession etc. then they've already lost consolidation bc it's just war
aug 23, 2025, 6:06 pm • 3 0 • view
(But obviously I don't really trust my fuzzy analysis of the situation bc [gestures wildly])
aug 23, 2025, 6:06 pm • 0 0 • view
One could imagine the 121st Congress assembling in Philadelphia or Baltimore and having to organize a coalition of blue state national guards to take control of DC back
aug 23, 2025, 5:43 pm • 13 1 • view
There are plenty of blue state NG in new England, any sort of trumpist military stronghold would be in either Texas (which would have to suppress internal dissent) or, like, Montana I do not like making these sorts of considerations
aug 23, 2025, 7:19 pm • 1 0 • view
MAGA cannot win a civil war. They can, however, start one at basically any time.
aug 23, 2025, 7:20 pm • 1 0 • view
Yeah I’m not actually too worried about a (durable) Trumpist dictatorship. I am worried that America’s cold civil war finally goes hot.
aug 23, 2025, 5:44 pm • 11 0 • view
Way too many people who think govt is just capture the flag. Just because you're physically in the White House doesn't mean everyone will listen to you
aug 23, 2025, 3:24 pm • 15 1 • view