823
Trump plan to end free elections in 2026 and 2028 revealed
(www.peoplesworld.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
823 points (96.2% liked)
News
39328 readers
2139 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Not sure how much I can trust that source. And no right-winger will ever accept it either.
Anyone with a more direct link to a source about this?
Agreed, that article was kind of a mess., and you really have to already agree with it to stay along for the ride. Even as someone who shares their general perspective, I can't help but to get the same vibe as I do reading unhinged conservative outlets, just from a different side. The wiring style evokes a feeling more of unsubstantiated unhinged conspiracy theory than a concrete writeup.
A lot of time is spent name dropping organizations and you have to already know them to have any idea why you might want to care about them, but not saying concretely what exactly it is, just that it is hard right nonsense that every acronym they can mention is outraged over. They even name drop the UAW in a way that lets them type it in but without citing then on the actual current reality, because the UAW hasn't really come out against Trump.
When it gets to describing the actual "plan", it mostly still didn't explain exactly what it is talking about. It eventually gets to concretely mentioning two precise things, the requirement to prove citizenship in way that may be disproportionately difficult for people who had a name change, and an onerous voting certification. The rest of the elements are left too vague to try to understand.
This article may help keep up the attention and energy of folks already keeping up with this stuff, but anyone vaguely on a fence won't make it through the first paragraph without getting a bit skeptical, and almost certainly won't make it to the meat of the article before giving up and moving on to other articles.
Funny, the moment I read 'radical right' I got the exact same sense you did.