Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shpriest]

I mean, he could say “I want to postpone the elections” but like… that has no actual bearing on anything. States could literally say “that’s nice, fuck off” and just… hold elections.

He’d have to physically stop them from holding elections. Which maybe he could try that, but him just saying “there will be no elections because I decree it, I signed a bigly executive order” won’t cut it.

What's stopping him and his fellow fascists in the house and senate from just ignoring what a bunch of blue states are doing? You thowing a piece if paper into a ballot is gonna do what exactly at this point?

[btlcryct]

I mean, he could say “I want to postpone the elections” but like… that has no actual bearing on anything. States could literally say “that’s nice, fuck off” and just… hold elections.

He’d have to physically stop them from holding elections. Which maybe he could try that, but him just saying “there will be no elections because I decree it, I signed a bigly executive order” won’t cut it.

This is all true. But Congress counts and certifies the votes in January. What's stopping him from ordering Congress not to? So yes, the states could still hold elections, and electorals could cast their votes. But then the process could be stopped by Congress. At that point the only options are do nothing, because there's nothing states could do. They can't force Congress to certify it and SCOTUS isn't going to step in most likely. Or civil war.

So while yes, the states run the elections, the federal government is the final stop for those votes.

[Draco-Onis]

This is all true. But Congress counts and certifies the votes in January. What's stopping him from ordering Congress not to? So yes, the states could still hold elections, and electorals could cast their votes. But then the process could be stopped by Congress. At that point the only options are do nothing, because there's nothing states could do. They can't force Congress to certify it and SCOTUS isn't going to step in most likely. Or civil war.

So while yes, the states run the elections, the federal government is the final stop for those votes.

Fascist don't care about rules Trump has the guns that's all that matters, congress and SCOTUS are complicit and democrats are weak and feckless by design. We are in dark times and the worse part is that Trump has made 5 billion dollars plus so far. He doesn't care about destroying the country because fuck you I got mine is the republican motto.

[btlcryct]

Fascist don't care about rules Trump has the guns that's all that matters, congress and SCOTUS are complicit and democrats are weak and feckless by design. We are in dark times and the worse part is that Trump has made 5 billion dollars plus so far. He doesn't care about destroying the country because fuck you I got mine is the republican motto.

This is exactly it. The Constitution is supposed to be the ultimate law of the land. But in the end, it really is just a piece of paper built on principals. If those in charge either don't uphold those principals, or choose to outright violate them and no one goes against them, it might as well be written on a roll of Charmin toilet paper.

[Tech614]

Why would his federal regime recognize those state elections, if he's declared that there's no more elections?

You can't rely on the normal systems of government as the check on federal power when the federal power is being used to suborn those very systems. It's like Breonna Taylor's ghost arguing that the cops can't shoot her; she's innocent and not even suspected of any crime. When the systems are already broken, you can't expect those systems to fix themselves.

There wasn't really any legal path for Hitler to declare himself the sole power in Germany and suspend elections, either. He still did it, because by the time he got around to doing so, there wasn't anyone left to argue against it. That's the path you're on. Your systems are just as fragile as the Weimar Republic's were.

You are talking about a civil war, not a Jan 6th to be clear if you think this ever comes true. And no blue states are not gonna just bow down like Nazi germany did, as you can see by blue cities fighting back against ICE already.

The elections will happen. That is the point, claiming Trump can stop them from happening is a fantasy. If they want to try and stop elected people from taking their offices, that will be when blue states are no longer part of the union.

Nobody is talking about this hypothetical. The elections will happen and Trump can't stop them, that was the point. Not to delve deep into a bunch of what ifs that lead to war hawks wet dreams.

[Kaleredar]

This is all true. But Congress counts and certifies the votes in January. What's stopping him from ordering Congress not to? So yes, the states could still hold elections, and electorals could cast their votes. But then the process could be stopped by Congress. At that point the only options are do nothing, because there's nothing states could do. They can't force Congress to certify it and SCOTUS isn't going to step in most likely. Or civil war.

So while yes, the states run the elections, the federal government is the final stop for those votes.

And at that point states have no reason to recognize the federal government as a solvent institution.

If your contention is that civil war is inevitable, then there’s no reason to sit around bitching about it.

[Tech614]

And at that point states have no reason to recognize the federal government as a solvent institution.

If your contention is that civil war is inevitable, then there’s no reason to sit around bitching about it.

Literally this.

If the federal government forcefully blocks representation elected by states that is the end of the union.

This isn't Trump stopping elections, this is Trump starting a civil war. He can't stop the elections.

[btlcryct]

And at that point states have no reason to recognize the federal government as a solvent institution.

If your contention is that civil war is inevitable, then there’s no reason to sit around bitching about it.

I don't know if civil war is inevitable. But things, at least to me, are pointing that way. There's really nothing stopping him from allowing the elections to happen (because he can't stop them, as has pointed out here, the states run them) but then just not recognizing the results or not allowing Congress to certify them. At that point, the options are basically:

- States do nothing and just accept that he's now leader for life. Sadly, this is probably the most likely because most states by themselves don't the ability to match what the federal government can do. California might be an exception because of their GDP.
- National level of divorce, where we now have the Red States of America (RSA) and Blue States of America (BSA), for simplistic purposes. This would come with many problems, such as who controls the military in the divided country? I would expect Trump and his cronies all say it belongs to the RSA and BSA get nothing. Heck, this meeting next week could be the start of this as the higher ups are made to swear fealty to Trump or be replaced by someone who will. Then he'll decree BSA is an enemy country and invade it. Now we're back to one country but anyone from BSA will be treated as a traitor.
- Civil war. Same as option 2, but with bloodshed.

With the Right controlling everything, they basically have carte blanche to do as they please, with almost no peaceful means to oppose them. Let me be crystal clear, I do not want this. But this feels like the way things are headed at this rate.

[Tech614]

- States do nothing and just accept that he's now leader for life. Sadly, this is probably the most likely because most states by themselves don't the ability to match what the federal government can do. California might be an exception because of their GDP.

It's not just California, the majority of blue states are earners and the majority of red states are welfare states that survive from government funding so I don't even know what you're talking about with this shit.

If you're talking about military capability then lets factor in people that won't fight their country men, or flip sides due to family and on top of this the US military couldn't even defeat fucking farmers in Vietnam or ranchers in Afghanistan.

Thinking blue states won't fight back against this nonsense is silly as fuck. And no you can't point to anything currently happening as an equivalent to denying your elected representation into the federal government. There is no coming back from that, and if you think it happens regardless then you also think a civil war is inevitable because these 2 things are literally the same picture.

[Breccia]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Thursday, per a Public Telegram Board, that NATO and the European Union are waging war against Russia “using Ukraine as a proxy” and are “directly participating” in the conflict. Lavrov’s comments follow repeated Kremlin claims that Western military and financial support for Ukraine amounts to direct hostility toward Russia.

Trump seems to agree. That's why his help, so far, has been selling weapons to Ukraine or to NATO to give to Ukraine, not so much actually giving anything to Ukraine.

I do like the argument that the EU is using Ukraine as a "proxy". Sir, you invaded the country. EU didn't choose shit, you did.

[Tech614]

I do like the argument that the EU is using Ukraine as a "proxy". Sir, you invaded the country. EU didn't choose shit, you did.

Not that I'm saying you should agree with the russian propaganda bot but you can absolutely choose to fight a proxy against a country that invaded before the proxy began.

The soviets did it to the US in Korea and the US did it to soviets in afghanistan.

EU did choose to fight a proxy against Russia, but it was also for the right reasons and not the wrong ones. Proxy itself is not inherently a bad word.

[btlcryct]

It's not just California, the majority of blue states are earners and the majority of red states are welfare states that survive from government funding so I don't even know what you're talking about with this shit.

If you're talking about military capability then lets factor in people that won't fight their country men, or flip sides due to family and on top of this the US military couldn't even defeat fucking farmers in Vietnam or ranchers in Afghanistan.

Thinking blue states won't fight back against this nonsense is silly as fuck. And no you can't point to anything currently happening as an equivalent to denying your elected representation into the federal government. There is no coming back from that, and if you think it happens regardless then you also think a civil war is inevitable because these 2 things are literally the same picture.

Yes, I was more speaking militarily. And yes, I would hope a vast majority of the men and women would strongly oppose fighting/killing fellow citizens. But they're also trying to build up the image that the Left is the enemy, just going off them trying to deem any Left organization as domestic terrorist groups. You are right, that is an option I should've listed. That he orders the military to real action against blue states, and the military 'nopes' out of that. Let's hope that prevails.

But I'm also fearful of those not directly in the military but would fight other citizens. There were countless cries to eradicate the Left after the Kirk shooting. People were posting to take up arms against them.

[Endus]

You are talking about a civil war, not a Jan 6th to be clear if you think this ever comes true. And no blue states are not gonna just bow down like Nazi germany did, as you can see by blue cities fighting back against ICE already.

Y'know there's a reason Trump's already mobilizing military forces into cities that are opposing him, right?

You're poo-pooing the possibility of a thing that's already in its beginning stages. Trump is already mobilizing the military against his domestic enemies. It's not a hypothetical. It's not a "civil war" because States are, thus far, accepting the demonstration of force against them. It takes resistance against that show of force for this to become civil war. And yes; States insisting on election results that the federal government won't accept would lead to civil war. Those election results will only matter if A> the feds recognize them and accept the results voluntarily, or B> the States win the resulting civil war if the feds don't.

The elections will happen. That is the point, claiming Trump can stop them from happening is a fantasy. If they want to try and stop elected people from taking their offices, that will be when blue states are no longer part of the union.

I wasn't saying the elections wouldn't happen. I was pointing out that if the Federal Government doesn't give a shit about those elections, they don't matter.

"But the Constitution" doesn't apply if the Federal Government doesn't give a shit about what it says.

Election results that aren't recognized by the Federal Government are a historical anecdote, not something that makes for effective change. You seem to be under the impression that if the elections are conducted, the Federal Government is obligated to accept their results, and that's simply not the case. They're legally required to, but the only legal entity that holds them to that is SCOTUS, which is already suborned and ruling in the regime's favor. If SCOTUS (which is part of "the federal government" in everything I'm saying here) won't support your elections, and Congress won't affirm them, they don't matter.

This is what J6 was about; the idea that getting Pence to disavow election results would prevent Trump from leaving office.

Again; you cannot rely on suborned systems and legal structures to defend the function of those same systems and legal structures.

It's like saying "any President who supports war crimes like torture would, obviously, be impeached for it and removed from office." And yet, George W. ran out his two terms without any such consequence and still has never faced any real consequence for those war crimes and atrocities. It doesn't matter how things should work if nobody's gonna apply those standards.

[Rasulis]

Mississippi State Department of Health Declares Public Health Emergency on Infant Mortality

Taken straight from the MSDH website.

The Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) today declared a public health emergency in response to rising infant mortality rates across the state. Mississippi's 2024 data shows the overall infant mortality rate has increased to 9.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is the highest in more than a decade. In Mississippi, 3,527 babies have died before the age of 1 since 2014.

“Too many Mississippi families are losing their babies before their first birthday,” said State Health Officer Dr. Dan Edney. “This is deeply personal to me — not just as a physician, but as a father and grandfather. Every single infant loss represents a family devastated, a community impacted and a future cut short. We cannot and will not accept these numbers as our reality. Declaring this a public health emergency is more than a policy decision; it is an urgent commitment to save lives. Mississippi has the knowledge, the resources and the resilience to change this story. It will take all of us — policymakers, healthcare providers, communities and families — working together to give every child the chance to live, thrive and celebrate their first birthday.”

Infant deaths include those occurring within the first year of life. The leading causes in Mississippi include congenital malformations, preterm birth, low birth weight and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

“Improving maternal health is the best way to reduce infant mortality,” Dr. Edney added. “That means better access to prenatal and postpartum care, stronger community support and more resources for moms and babies. Healthy women of childbearing age are more likely to have healthy pregnancies, which in turn lead to healthier babies.”

Since infant mortality is a multi-dimensional issue, MSDH is leveraging clinical leadership to coordinate intra-agency resources to develop a united system to address this public health emergency, while seeking to reinvigorate interventions that will enable children to see their second birthday.

MSDH urges other clinical champions to join in the effort to reduce infant mortality across Mississippi. In direct response to this emergency, a multi-pronged strategy includes:

• Activating an OB (Obstetrics) System of Care, which standardizes and regionalizes maternal and infant care, improves transfer systems designating levels of care and expedites transfers to appropriate facilities.
• Eliminating “OB deserts” by increasing prenatal care opportunities utilizing targeted county health departments.
• Expanding community health worker programs to connect mothers and babies with care and resources where they live.
• Strengthening Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies, a care management and home visiting program that supports expectant moms and infants at risk, providing safer birthing experiences and healthier infant development.
• Partnering with hospitals and medical providers to address gaps in maternal care and to reinforce the importance of early prenatal visits.
• Educating families on safe sleep practices to reduce preventable infant deaths.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish national and Mississippi infant mortality data later this year, MSDH recognized the urgency of this crisis and could not wait to take action. The emergency declaration allows MSDH to mobilize resources more quickly and work with partners across Mississippi to reverse these devastating trends.

Mississippi is one of 10 states that refused to expand Medicaid under ACA. It has been shown that infant mortality rates in states with expanded Medicaid drop by 25 to 50%.

The medicaid cut under Trump's big beautiful bill is expected to hit US infant mortality rates hard. As it is, 90% of Mississippi is already considered maternity care desert. Only one high-risk pregnancy facility in the whole state.

[Edge-]

That's extremely "pro-life" of Republicans controlling Mississippi.

[Paranoid Android]

The Liberal intuitionalist in here swearing the Constitution, the states and courts are going to be the bulwark of Trump stopping an election is a Big problem with the opposition today. All I heard and read during Biden was that this was all going to be stopped from Garland and the courts. This is the problem with centrist, Liberalism believing that the other side follows the rules and thus the Institution will survive.

[Breccia]

Trump threatens to move 2026 World Cup games out of Chicago.

"But they're not in Chicago."

No.

“As you probably know, we’re going into Memphis, and we’re going into some other cities, and very soon we’re going to go into Chicago. It will be safe for the World Cup,” he said.

“If I think it’s not safe, we’re going to move it out of that city. So if any city we think is going to be even a little bit dangerous for the World Cup, or for the (2028) Olympics, you know where they have Olympic overthrow right, but for the World Cup in particular, because they’re playing in so many cities, we won’t allow it. We’ll move it around a little bit. But I hope that’s not going to happen.”

"Does Trump have any role in FIFA that would allow this?"

No. FIFA could move them on their own, although there isn't a ton of times they've moved any matches because Trump said a city wasn't safe. Typically they decide that when cities bid. Also,

Should matches be relocated, Vancouver, Canada, which is set to host seven games up to the Round of 16, is ready to welcome further matches.

Sports Illustrated thinks they'd just go to Canada. Which Trump could yell about and try to evict the other games out of spite. Basically, he's just screaming at passing clouds at this point. Everything has to be about how he's the best and everyone else is the worst. I don't think Trump even likes football.

[Endus]

The Liberal intuitionalist in here swearing the Constitution, the states and courts are going to be the bulwark of Trump stopping an election is a Big problem with the opposition today. All I heard and read during Biden was that this was all going to be stopped from Garland and the courts. This is the problem with centrist, Liberalism believing that the other side follows the rules and thus the Institution will survive.

But surely the President who got SCOTUS to agree he can't be held responsible for any laws he breaks as President will surely take pains to ensure he follows all the laws he made very sure he had legal authority to violate, right?

[Breccia]

Not that I'm saying you should agree with the russian propaganda bot but you can absolutely choose to fight a proxy against a country that invaded before the proxy began.

Perhaps, but the assignment of blame is hypocrisy. The EU and NATO would not be helping Ukraine with weapons and funds if Ukraine had not been invaded. Russia invaded unilaterally, they don't get to complain that other countries helped the victim.

[Mekh]

Looks like they're calling in the boys to kiss the ring.

Best case scenario anyway. But they're itching to start a war to justify their constant state of """emergency,""" so we'll see what happens soon, I guess...

edit: I do appreciate that CNN, at least, didn't go along with that "department of war" bullshit. At least not yet.

Calling all the generals into one room and having them blown up is literally the plot of Star Trek Into Darkness. So glad information about this meeting is public.