this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
222 points (90.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35755 readers
750 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eksb@programming.dev 159 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Same as happened in 2000, we'll get 8 years of the guy who lost.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 132 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We already had four years so technically we would only get another four.

Until SCOTUS says the constitution isn't constitutional and gives him a literal crown.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 86 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's the scary part. They'll gladly approve his term limit extension.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's how Putin did it; probably the guy guiding all of this.

They have term limits over there in Russia as well, but they have interpreted it as "only allowed X years in a row"...so Putin installs a crony for 1 session every X years, and then magically wins the votes by a landslide every other time.

That's what they'll end up doing. They'll 'interpret' it as consecutive terms, and we'll get 8 years of Trump, then 4 of Vance, then 8 of Trump, etc.

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Your scenario implies Trump lives to 98, and unless the preservatives in big macs are the key to longevity, I doubt he makes it that long.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I keep actually forgetting how fucking OLD that guy is...yeesh.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We're talking about Donald Trump here... you could replace him with an animatronic muppet and the only thing people would notice is that he looked healthier and didn't smell as bad.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pound_heap@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Russian Constitution literally had this phrase "A same person cannot be a President for more than two terms in a row", so it was already opened for an interpretation they did. This actually had changed for just "two terms" in 2020, but provided another excuse for Putin to be elected.

Anyhow, in US Constitution the 22nd amendment says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice", so there is no room for interpretation. Even conservative SCOTUS would not do that.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

They'd write off Trump by then anyway. They'd hand the reigns to Vance, and go FULL project 2025 while keeping the Magats allegiance to Vance, while extending HIS term limits.

Not that my scenario is any better.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

He's been saying that if he wins, nobody will ever need to vote again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 91 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

I believe the goal and intent is to get enough results into question that they kick it into Mike Johnson's hands - and that mfer has almost no history at all. No bank account, nothing. He'll do the thing, it'll be contested, it'll go to supreme court, where -- surprise surprise, they'll rule in favor of Donald J Trump and he will be elected our new Dictator. At which point he'll be sworn in, because - Dems have never had any backbone - and then he'll proceed to gut every institution which questions him, and turn this nation into an autocracy.

What people don't realize yet, is that the election doesn't matter unless Kamala wins by such a large margin that they can't pull this off. They require the veil of uncertainty for this all to work. But since we're on razor-thin margins, it's going to happen anyways.

We're already boned, and nobody realizes it yet. The playbook is out in the open and the media has stopped calling this out. They're complicit in it, because they think the leopards won't eat their face too. So they're cozying up early.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bonus: I believe they'll be doing something wild with Vance as well - probably temporarily making him president, while he pardons Trump for any past crimes, and then giving the presidency back to Trump.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hmm, we learned in 2022 that the House can't do anything until a Speaker is installed. And the new Congress is seated a few days before the EC votes are counted. What if Kamala wins the election, but the House declines to elect a Speaker? Can they even convene to count the votes? I hope so, since the VP president over the counting of votes, not the Speaker.

Still, a Kamala win will be a lot more bullet-proof it it comes with a Democratic House and Senate, too. Then there is far less that Mike can do to fuck it up.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'd like to believe that the only reason 2020 got so ratfucked in the first place was that Trump was intentionally not putting the screws on anybody to do their jobs.

A second Jan 6th won't happen, at least not this year. A MAGA mob will show up at the capitol and be met by a fully prepared and well armed national guard, because Biden is the commander in chief and he's going to take threats like that seriously.

If the house declines to elect a speaker, Biden could in theory put pressure on them to pick one. The constitutional crisis can swing both directions - yes the Republicans will likely try to avoid certification, but then Biden could threaten to not step down unless the certification happens, or hand over the reigns to VP Harris anyway by resigning. I don't see it working in their favor to try something like not certifying or not electing a speaker, because they don't have the luxury of Trump in the white house to look the other way at their bad behavior.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

There is still something the American People can do in such an undemocratic maneuver. Its the single action that we've built all of this bureaucracy to avoid. But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy and neither should the Speaker. It should be counted until the counting is done, thats it. I will be razing hell the moment they try to remove our own agency and place it into the hands of their cronies. I've got a megaphone ready and all the PTO in the world.

Edit: raising, not raze. I'd rather not make it worse.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy

That already happened in Bush v. Gore

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Yeah and look at the bullshit we're still dealing with from that era.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 66 points 1 week ago (15 children)

The scary thing about elections is that, by design, nobody can ever "prove" they won.

Votes are designed to be anonymous. They have to be. If they're not, they're very vulnerable to manipulation. If someone can prove how they voted, then they can either be bribed to vote a certain way, or threatened to vote a certain way. If you can check that your vote was counted successfully for the candidate you chose, then someone else can check that you voted for the candidate they chose.

That means that, by design, the only security that elections can have is in the process. In a small election, like 1000ish votes or fewer, someone could supervise the whole thing. They could cast their vote, then stand there and watch. They could watch as other people voted, making sure that nobody voted twice, or dropped more than one sheet into the box. They could watch as the box was emptied. Then, they could watch as each vote was tallied. Barring some sleight-of-hand, in a small election like that, you could theoretically supervise the entire process, and convince yourself that the vote was fair.

But, that is impossible to scale. Even for 1000 votes, not every voter could supervise the entire process, and for more than 1000 votes, or votes involving more than one voting location, it's just not possible for one person to watch the entire thing. So, at some point you need to trust other people. If you're talking say 10,000 votes, maybe you have 10 people you trust beyond a shadow of a doubt, and each one of you could supervise one process. But, the bigger the election, the more impossible it is to have actual people you know and trust supervising everything.

In a huge country-wide election, there's simply no alternative to trust. You have to trust poll workers you've never met, and/or election monitors you've never met. And, since you're not likely to hear directly from poll workers or election monitors, you have to instead trust the news source you're using that reports on the election. In a big, complex election, a statistician may be able to spot fraud based on all the information available. But, if you're not that statistician, you have to trust them, and even if you are that statistician, you have to trust that your model is correct and that the data you're feeding it is correct.

Society is built on trust, and voting is no different. Unfortunately, in the US, trust is breaking down, and without trust, it's just a matter of which narrative seems the most "truthy" to you.

[–] cowpattycrusader@thelemmy.club 17 points 1 week ago

This makes me think we are on the same path as many countries who routinely have significant civil conflict every election cycle.

Not a great look for a country. Not a great group to join. Yet here we are.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

You know how people outside the USA vote? They go there, show their ID, get a tick on the list of voters, and do the voting.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If we're saying "Trump won" what do we mean? The election is certified and he gets to be sworn in? If that's the case then there is absolutely nothing that can be done. We'll have PBS and 60 minutes stories about what happened and we'll just have to suffer the reality that they got what they wanted.

If he claims to have won on Tuesday, but the results aren't in completely then there is room to argue. It would just be bluster, it wouldn't be officially recognized as a victory. When he does that it will be to ensure he can cry foul if the final results don't go his way. He 100000000% will be doing this.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have just watched the Legal Eagle video about the various law-related things that happened around the 2020 election.

It served as a reminder that the plan had apparently been to claim to have won before all the votes were counted - something about doing so in the interim between two sets of votes being counted (I want to say mail-in versus in-person, but I might have misunderstood) and then act as if Trump had actually won at that point, thus giving legitimacy to any later cry of foul that was almost sure to be needed.

Which is precisely what Trump did.

... my point being that it would be foolish to assume it wasn't in the play book for this time around as well.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 11 points 1 week ago

What I'm interested in seeing is if fox news will be willing to cast off any remaining semblance of fairness in favor of calling the election for him as well.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Remember Bush v Gore?

Just like that.

[–] tomcatt360@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 week ago

Nope, I was 3

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First, don't panic. Harris and her staff, and Democrats around the country, they have planned for many shady actions on Trump's part. Details are scarce because they don't want Trump staff to have a heads up.

And then everything depends on the details.

But remember, anything that looks like a coup d'etat could easily get the military or spy agencies involved. And if they move, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS says. As a result, it's very hard to predict what would happen in various extra dramatic situations. There is no precedent; precedent wouldn't mean anything anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (6 children)

They won't.

It's like MLK said - the white liberal will always prefer "a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice."

That's the whole reason they didn't bat an eyelid when Neo-Nazis and KKK-boys were marching under open police protection back in 2016 but collectively lost their shit when antifa showed up to physically confront them.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Nytixus@kbin.melroy.org 24 points 1 week ago

It will exactly be a repeat, for sure. It'll be like the new inaugural routine, where a portion of the population will rise up for their murderous conman and try to overthrow a government. So long as he's alive.

It's still funnily ironic how this is the party, the GOP, that told Democrats in 2016 to just "accept it". But when it was their turn to, no, they start an insurrection.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The premise here is that Trump loses but refuses to back down, attempting to forcibly claim victory. If Trump legitimately wins, there is a different path. Then...

Assuming multiple systematic failures occur simultaneously, including any of: actual voter fraud, fraudulent electors, congress refusing to certify, a captured supreme court acting in favour of Trump, or actual insurrection on or before Jan 6th.

I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I'd expect them to step in to restore it.

Failing that, the US likely fractures and we leave the Republic phase.

[–] vzq@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I'd expect them to step in to restore it.

Have you met the Oathkeepers?

If shit goes down, assume anyone with a uniform is going to throw in with the authoritarian despot.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, Biden has the power to do whatever he wants now and could potentially overturn the results in the interests of national security or whatever. He won't, but it's nice to think that he could do something to avert a fascist takeover. Democrats will take the high-road into letting democracy die.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

depends how close it is and which state acts like shit

load more comments
view more: next ›