A potential plan by Republican leaders to steal the 2024 presidential election. The plan involves delaying the certification of election results in key battleground states, potentially decreasing the overall number of electors appointed and allowing Donald Trump to win the presidency through a contingent election, whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president.

  • zephorah
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    173
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    They’ve said it out loud. Heritage foundation guy has been saying we’re in the middle of a bloodless coup, bloodless if the left allows it.

    The historian, Heather Cox Richardson, can walk you though the legal channels for an election steal, provided the Speaker of the House is on board. I’m not going to dig to find it again. She’s on YouTube.

    This is going to be like Roe, isn’t it? Where people know exactly what’s about to happen then act surprised when it does.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      bloodless if the left allows it.

      The left should not allow a coup.

      • zephorah
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Please. We will sit at home and cry. Or go wave signs in a street somewhere. And neither of those things will change anything.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Idk I seem to remember a lot of “cities burning” or something during some nationwide protests a few years ago after cops killed another person, I don’t think those people have gone anywhere.

            • nomous@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Rome wasn’t built in a day as the saying goes. Because we make incremental progress shouldn’t mean we stop fighting. Defeatism and apathy has never won anyone anything.

                • nomous@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Police violence has been an epidemic for decades, ask the nearest brown guy. What we’re seeing now isn’t necessarily the increase in violence itself, but a rise in reporting and accountability, people are becoming aware of it and how often it actually happens.

                  An increase in awareness doesn’t mean you lost or that it’s over.

      • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I don’t think that the military would fall in line with it. There would be grave concerns

          • Entropywins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            You greatly underestimate our men and women in the service…it’s alright you probably haven’t served or been exposed to many service members, but if you can trust an internet stranger slightly I hope I can put your mind at ease by saying I have 100% faith from the top down in our military up holding the oath we all took.

            • fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              They don’t need the military. The police have already been militarized and have zero issue using violence against the populace as has been demonstrated time and time again.

              Also respectfully, as a vet, the military is not homogenous and Trump will absolutely find the people in the military that will listen to him and put them in charge

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Ok, but this “bloodless coup” will theoretically be following the letter of the law.

            • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              You have read meanings into my comment that aren’t intended and have presumed I lack a career in military service. The U.S. military is forbidden from enforcing policy on U.S. soil by the Posse Comitatus Act.

              The military is not going to do anything about election issues or any other issues unless leadership has been compromised at large. I doubt they will be compromised.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The marines won’t, but pentagon leadership and the army, along with the NY and CA National guards may be enough.

    • EatATaco
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      2 days ago

      They didnt say it was a bloodless coup. They said if they get a Republican elected there will be sweeping changes, akin to another revolution. The statement about the left was a warning that the left might become violent if they try it.

      And you’re proving their point pushing for violence.

      When one lies about what another has said in an attempt to basically call for violence, it’s incredibly sus.

      • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re right, he didn’t outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.

        Everything you said after that is complete bullshit though

        • EatATaco
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re right, he didn’t outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.

          In refence to how they were going to reshape the executive after they win the election. Calling it a coup is just outright lying about what was said, as what they claim they are going to do will be perfectly legal. It’s scary enough on it’s own. Trying to paint it as if they are openly claiming they are going to steal the government is just dishonest. Why defend this, I have no idea.

      • zephorah
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        And this will be the twist around, the sophistry applied to objections going forward. An accusation of violence where there is none. Granted, that’s the cluster B personality playbook: accuse others of what you yourself are doing. (See: DSM-V). And since MAGA republicans are embracing the cluster B playbook, the above is not surprising, but expected.

        Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube. The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025. Context: discussing Supreme Court decision re presidential immunity paving the way to what is needed for the bloodless coup.

        https://imgur.com/gallery/S8zn4oo

        • EatATaco
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          And this will be the twist around

          It’s funny being accused of twisting something around when I’m pointing out that the poster is lying about what was said, and implicitly making calls to violence over that lie.

          Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube.

          Except the poster didn’t say “I heard this on some far right youtube thing” but made a claim about what the head of the heritage foundation said.

          The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025.

          And how does that make the lie the top level poster made about what he said any more true? I don’t follow your logic here.