What does he think he's gonna do, declare a national curfew and order the MAGAs sportsbars all closed at 7pm lol?

Ha.

Who does he think he is, an oligarch?

I have marked your words.

Our role is to be naive - "don't be ridiculous! He can't do that!" - and then surprised - "he did what???"

We can't have Fascism unless everyone does their part.

Only YOU can prevent democracy!

He could never overthrow Roe!
The US would never commit murder and piracy on the high seas!
The US would never enable genocide!
No new wars!

Only he can fix it.

A stroke so big, so massive, all the doctors say, “We’ve never seen a stroke like this before!” .

...to enforce the No Dancing in the Streets regulations.

Remember how folks were attacked after Kirk died? That times one hundred, using your tax dollars.

All I have when it comes to tomorrow are guesses... and I'm wrong about half the time.

Nationwide martial law is a physical impossibility, made even more impossible by the fact that most of our troops are currently deployed overseas,

You haven’t been paying attention to the pushback against Trump, not only from Dems, but his own party and the courts, which have stalled, stymied or restrained his administration numerous times (yes, he has obeyed court orders the vast majority of the time).

Never forget this one absolute truth:

Trump is not omnipotent, and the states and the people are not powerless

but if our law enforcement and courts are still functioning, then the declaration of Martial Law would be illegal and I highly doubt any court would uphold it.

It never ceases to amaze me that most people don't seem to grasp this.

AND FAIL to have a significant fraction of the military support him.

They really are not at all Dan Bongino knock-offs.

I don't really think Trumps administration wants to be present as unwanted, essentially tourist protestors in cities where they try to enforce the unpopular order that would be.

It would be Minneapolis upped a couple of orders of ten. Of course, we must remember that the revolution started with a riot (boston massacre) and although not much taught in public schools, this nation has a reoccurring bend into rebellion in the face of what was seen as authoritarian over-reach

nationwide, but only in areas with significant populations of citizens who vote for or historically support Democrats, most of whom are concentrated in urban areas. In the Federal system, the Court primarily relies on the US Marshals to enforce those failing to comply with their orders and his lackeys control this organization.

Just because somebody imagines something and types it on the internet does not make that thing plausible, possible or probable.

In elections over the past year, 2024 Trump +20 districts have swung 15-30 points towards Dems, making a strategic deployment of forces to so-called blue areas ineffective.

There are hundreds of thousands of precincts across the US, and there simply aren’t enough troops/ICE/Proud Boys to control or even disrupt enough of them to affect the outcome.

10,000 ICE agents couldn’t control Minneapolis. Thousands of National Guard troops couldn’t control L.A.

This absolute truth still stands:

Trump is not omnipotent, and the states and the people are not powerless

but in our present society the erosion of civility, reason. logic, courtesy, truthfulness, common sense, intelligence, integrity, ethical behavior, compromise and, most importantly, the Rule of Law over the past several decades does not support such a positive and hopeful outcome in my estimation. Stay strong, carry on, and I wish you well, but I'm preparing for the worst case scenario.

That means examining all the evidence, not just the events that tickle our amygdala the most.

For much of the twentieth century, authoritarian movements often depended heavily on projecting an image of competence, discipline, and inevitability. They needed the parades, the uniforms, the spectacle, the carefully crafted image. To this day, documentaries about Nazi Germany use footage from the film Triumph of the Will, which was staged to make the Nazis look efficient and organized. They were organized, yes—for the film. The story behind the scenes was often one of chaos, incompetence, and failure.

Failure? Yes, of course, ultimately. But after how many lives were lost?

As historians have pointed out, the reality behind the imagery was often far more chaotic—not just in Germany in the 1930s, but in many other authoritarian regimes. There were rival power centers, bureaucratic infighting, overlapping jurisdictions, contradictory directives, opportunism, corruption, and a great deal of confusion.

What if that appearance of competence isn't as necessary anymore? What if the environment has changed? What if fragmentation itself works? What if constant contradiction, endless controversy, improvisation, norm-breaking, and a flood of conflicting narratives create their own kind of resilience?

Dangerous movements often project competence they do not possess, sometimes through propaganda and spectacle, and sometimes because opponents mistake confidence for capability. But the reverse can also happen. People mistake visible incompetence for harmlessness.

Both are serious errors.

The Trump administration has plainly exhibited genuine incompetence. There have been legal defeats, internal feuds, policy reversals, staffing turmoil, and implementation failures. Those aren't illusions. They're real.

But there is something deeper at work here. We may have inherited from the twentieth century a mental image of what danger is supposed to look like: disciplined, organized, efficient, polished. Perhaps we've become accustomed to reassuring ourselves by saying, "Well, they don't look like that."

The absence of polish doesn't necessarily answer the question. It may simply mean that we don't yet understand the form that power is taking. The fact that something appears chaotic, amateurish, or incompetent doesn't automatically make it harmless any more than the appearance of efficiency makes it inevitable or unstoppable.

Triumph of the Will still makes the Nazis look efficient, nearly a century later, whether they were or not. The Trump administration often looks chaotic and incompetent, which may or may not tell us as much as we think it does about the risks involved.

The image is not the reality.

Being part of the reality-based community also means taking historical context seriously. I have trouble with calls for less vigilance because the last hundred plus years have shown us some of the worst outcomes human societies are capable of producing. Again and again, people reassured themselves that institutions would hold, that norms would constrain behavior, that the people involved were too incompetent, too ridiculous, or too marginal to pose a serious threat. Sometimes those reassurances proved correct. Sometimes they proved catastrophically wrong.

I'm not arguing for panic. Panic and vigilance are not the same thing. I'm not saying the worst outcome is inevitable. I'm saying that history has expanded my sense of what is possible. The lesson I draw from that history is not despair. It's attentiveness. Take threats seriously. Stay engaged. Don't assume that because a danger hasn't fully materialized, it cannot. But don't assume that because a danger exists, the outcome is predetermined.

To me, that's what it means to remain both reality-based and historically informed.

WHAT should the rest of us be doing?

to sustain and defend my family both from a static location and by mobile means if necessary (non-perishable food, water purification, alternative energy sources, medical supplies, camping equipment, firearms, ammo, defensive weapons, ballistic protection, go bag, etc.). About a decade ago, I never imagined that I would ever need to even remotely consider such drastic measures, but was once only a fleeting nightmare is now real. I apologize for being so dark and cynical, but that's how I see our reality and future prospects. Others must do what they believe is most beneficial for themselves, family members, community, and society according their conscience. Best wishes.

There's a vast amount of acreage between "Trump might do something that's just another step along the path he has already taken" and "Trump is omnipotent."

But you know that

I don't think you're actually responding to what the first poster said.

They didn't say Trump was omnipotent. They didn't say the states were powerless. Did anyone here say either of those things? I think not. They didn't say martial law would be successful or that the entire country would simply comply. I don't think anyone here said either of those things, either. They said Trump would declare it, and that he viewed that possibility as a serious threat. Those are different claims.

It is certainly within the powers of the presidency to declare emergencies, invoke extraordinary authorities, and deploy troops domestically. Whether those actions would withstand legal challenge is another matter. They almost certainly would be challenged. But the fact that they might ultimately fail doesn't mean they aren't a threat.

More importantly, it isn't necessary to impose nationwide martial law to affect election outcomes.

The efforts we've already seen haven't been randomly distributed across the country. The allegations of fraud, the pressure campaigns, the focus on election officials, and the push to place "observers" at polling places have repeatedly been concentrated in places like Fulton County, Georgia, and Wayne County, Michigan—electorally significant jurisdictions with large Democratic constituencies. You don't have to control every polling place in America to influence an election. You target leverage points.

January 6 changed many people's estimates of what is possible. That doesn't mean Trump will attempt something similar again. But neither can we confidently say that he won't. So I don't think the choices are "It definitely will happen" or "It definitely won't happen."

The existence of courts, states, and institutional pushback doesn't eliminate the threat. It means the outcome isn't predetermined. Those are not the same thing.

I understand the impulse to push back against panic and paranoia. There are legitimate reasons for doing so. Fear can lead people to fatalism, disengagement, recklessness, and the belief that outcomes are inevitable. Institutions do matter. Courts matter. States matter. Voters are not powerless. Not every alarming prediction comes true.

At the same time, over the last ten years I've repeatedly heard variations of "Don't be silly. That won't happen."

Don't be silly, he wouldn't send troops into American cities.

Don't be silly, he wouldn't try to overturn the 2020 election.

Don't be silly, he wouldn't encourage a mob to march on the Capitol.

Don't be silly, he wouldn't ignore a court order.

There are many other examples. One thing we can say about the Trump administration is that again and again, they do things that were previously unthinkable.

• A president wouldn't openly encourage efforts to overturn a certified election.
• A president wouldn't summon supporters to Washington and then direct them toward the Capitol while Congress was counting electoral votes.
• A president wouldn't repeatedly refuse to commit to accepting election results.
• A president wouldn't publicly pressure state officials to "find" votes.
• A president wouldn't speak casually about using troops domestically.
• A president wouldn't flirt so openly with ignoring norms that had constrained previous administrations.

Many things once dismissed as unimaginable have, in fact, happened. So when someone says with complete certainty, "Mark my words, he absolutely won't do this," I find that confidence harder to share than I once did. I believe that is true for many.

That doesn't mean I think every alarming prediction will come true. It doesn't mean Trump is omnipotent or that the states and courts are powerless. It means experience has changed my estimate of what is possible.

I don't think complacency is any more justified than panic. The existence of institutional constraints doesn't eliminate the threat. It means the outcome isn't predetermined. To me, that's exactly why people should pay attention and remain engaged.

if you want to talk about a real long shot, a real impossibility, how about the Leafs getting into the Stanley Cup finals?

pardoned his shock troops and offered them money.

How many times does he have to violate ALL norms, laws, rules, guard rails, and "common sense" before we believe him?

Do we just forget things after a week or so?

I'm with you.

to give to this post.

in large blue cities, like NYC, Chicago, LA?

If he is desperate enough to protect his ass by preventing a majority Dem Congress, would he continue to obey court rulings?

I think that he will try to make some kind of show of force to save his ass. I just don't know what it will be.

I agree that he is not omnipotent, although he tries to give the impression that he is. But he does like to use brute force when he can, or when he thinks he can. He's emotionally unbalanced and nobody in his regime will say no to him. Some, like Hegseth, are just as eager to use physical force on civilians as Trump is.

I don't know what he will try, but past and present behavior indicate that he will not accept any Dem wins and will be happy to use whatever means he can to prevent Dem control in Congress. He might not succeed, but I believe that he will try something.

Silly prediction.
Anybody can predict anything. That doesn't mean there is a likelihood of it being accurate.
Unless said prediction is supported by facts & logistical pathways, it is increasingly unlikely to come to pass.

Trump seemed to express some interest in canceling or at least interfering with the mid terms a while ago. It’s not like they are pulling this out of thin air. However, I do agree the chance of it happening now is very very slim - especially given how limited the Trump Admin has been these days.

They did definitely try for a power grab. They just fell flat, luckily.

I think a more likely scenario would involve ICE agents at polling places, though, I’m not convinced that will happen either. The Trump admin seems to throw out ridiculous ideas, if even to posture to their base, while knowing they won’t be able to do any of them.

The fact that something is possible doesn't increase the likelihood.
It also doesn't make the "how" magically appear.

With a long, long history of failures.

They only things they succeed at is getting attention and creating destructive chaos.

(See: Iran war)

That won’t be enough to stop the Blue Tsunami in November.

Anything is NOT possible.

I’m filing it under “Kooky defeatist doomer nonsense”.

Their complete incompetence is a major argument against the OP, and, why Trump will be seen as the worst President in US history. They completely fumbled in Minneapolis and made everyone hate them, and, never seem to do anything right.

They lose every case in court. I’m not even convinced they could interfere with an election at this point meaningfully, even if they wanted to.

Legislate voter suppression

Whine and complain loudly when they lose nevertheless.

Try to find lawyers willing to risk disbarment by taking fraudulent, evidence-free cases to court, which will also lose.

The exceptions may be in places like Texas, where Paxton is a known, ruthless criminal. Even there, I think his efforts will be caught and fail in the end.

smash and grab so far. Billions richer, deeply entrenched, immune to consequences.

But he has very little actual physical control over anything outside the executive branch.

Witness all his unenforceable EO’s that the majority of the states ignore.

Even within the executive branch, which leaks like a sieve, his orders are frequently stalled, stymied or restrained by the states, the Congress or the courts (despite popular perception, his administration obeys the vast majority of court rulings- injunctions and stays pending appeals notwithstanding), and the rest of the time his orders are executed with bumbling incompetence.

Who is allowed to vote by mail?

That if you weren’t on the pre approved mail in ballot list, they will not deliver your ballot?

I don’t know how you can put anything past them

But, I think what the OP is predicting is impossible.
They are a devious bunch, not omnipotent.

he won't.

“Seek to develop a bipartisan coalition to find consensus on whether he should eff himself with a rusty chainsaw”

That’s a true centrist approach.

Can't leave out "policies"

I do not believe you have filed the requisite petition to form a standing committee to seek to develop a bipartisan... etc.

Most posters who claim Trump is about to declare martial law ..or sometimes "marshall law" -- and there have been many such predictions -- don't know what martial law is.

he Supreme Court long ago explained what martial law is and the limits of its implementation under the Constitution:

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

You stated it far better than I did up thread.

But facts cannot coexist with dystopian fantasies!

The Supreme Court has precedence.

Granted he still has some, but, the courts have been severely limiting the Trump admin. They especially fell on their own sword with the ICE wannabe Nazi antics.

We still aren’t safe yet, but, I would say martial law and a cancelled election are less likely now.

That includes mass persecution and arrests, crashing the stock market, or attacking Cuba. He will make our lives much more miserable but, as others note, there’s a low probablility of actual martial law.

A Reichstag fire could change that, though.

"Homeland Security" or such.

threatened by Epstein disclosures. Another reason the oligarchy aka "Epstein class" would back drastic steps.

Wouldn’t last as the military would lock up the unstable moron for treason same day.

Now it's pretty iffy.

Fuck 'em all, they deserve to be in prison for life.