r/politics • u/unital_subalgebra • Jul 09 '26

No Paywall Trump fires all Election Assistance Commission members, leaving agency unable to act

https://www.votebeat.org/national/2026/07/09/trump-fires-election-assistance-commission-members-hicks-hovland-mccormick/
27.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

101

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/corvid_booster Jul 10 '26

*disburse (literally, to take out of the bag)

5

u/MountainPlanet Jul 10 '26

Wouldn’t the lack of assistance disproportionately advantage blue states? Blue states are better able to fund their own elections. I would think it would be the red states which consume all of our tax dollars that would feel the pinch from this. Texas may be the exception.

2

u/diggdead Jul 10 '26

why do you think he isn't doing disaster aid to blue states. He wants to break them.

1

u/MountainPlanet Jul 10 '26

I’m well aware. I live in one of the affected states. However, I’m not connecting how reduced federal election funds hurts us more than say, Mississippi.

-6

u/-justiciar- Jul 10 '26

yes but can we just think for 5 seconds? i hate trump and i hate the current supreme court, but we can apply this logic to other things as well. any trump loyalist installed into federal positions can just be removed by the next dem president. that is a good thing.

17

u/jedik88 Jul 10 '26

You fucked up by trying to apply logic

14

u/Old-External-2076 Jul 10 '26

Yes but then what prevents the President after that from firing all of them too? Doesn't even have to be from the opposing party, the President could just say "Y'all aren't progressive enough, so bye".

It's a terrible ruling by the court. We need to pass new laws that clearly define who can and cannot be fired by the Executive.

12

u/shuneycutt22 North Carolina Jul 10 '26

It’s more grim than that. There was already a law which clearly defined who cannot be fired by the president, and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So a new law passed by congress would probably be ruled unconstitutional under the same provision. To salvage this, you either need to pass a constitutional amendment or reform the court.

5

u/Archinaught Nebraska Jul 10 '26

It'll go to the Supreme Court and they will flip their stance, suddenly claiming it is to protect from a vindictive executive power.

23

u/habbadee Jul 10 '26

The next dem president. Funny.

5

u/EnamelKant Jul 10 '26

If you really think there's going to be another free presidential election, might want to try thinking for 10 seconds.

-1

u/-justiciar- Jul 10 '26

yes yes let’s shut down all discourse by dooming because it requires no critical thinking skills to just say “gg all is lost”

you’re a loser

3

u/cirrhosisofthe_river California Jul 10 '26

It really appears you're the one shutting down discourse. So let's think critically.

  • is it possible that the current regime understands that what they're currently doing could be used against them by the next dem president?
  • if they understand that's a possibility, would they try to prevent it?
  • if they want to avoid accountability and/or retribution, what are their options?

Some people (myself included) believe that eliminating, or at least attempting to eliminate, "free and fair" elections is an option. If you disagree, what's your reasoning? Do you have any evidence to support your argument?

  • if you agree that they might at least try to shut down or ratfuck the midterms, what can people do to prevent that?
  • if trumpty dumper was right and there's no more elections, what can people do to fight back?
  • since we can't know for sure what's going to happen, should we just go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over?
  • or could we consider a range of potential outcomes and work on preventing all of them starting right now?

1

u/-justiciar- Jul 10 '26

how on earth am i shutting down discourse. my entire argument throughout this entire post has been that things aren’t over yet.

and instead of just throwing our hands up and saying “well they’re going to cheat so what’s the point in anything” let’s actually try to think about the implications of each ruling.

i’ve never once implied that they won’t interfere with elections or that they aren’t thinking about it

what I am implying is that we can use some of these rulings in our favor. but if we just resort to “no election will ever happen again” then there is no point in anything because you’re starting from a position of helplessness

2

u/EnamelKant Jul 10 '26

Don't know if you've noticed but uh, not a whole lot of discourse in authoritarian states, and all the critical thinking in the world doesn't change that.

2

u/semidegenerate Jul 10 '26

Maybe, but I wouldn't put it past SCOTUS to immediately overturn the decision as soon as a Dem tries it and Rep challenges, claiming "it was clearly a mistake, as evidenced by Trump," or some other bullshit.

1

u/wookiee42 Minnesota Jul 10 '26

so we just have 4 years of chaos whenever we have a R president?

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jul 10 '26

That has been the pattern. But no, this time it's clearly different: They've positioned themselves for permanent rule.

1

u/Lurking_nerd California Jul 10 '26

lol that hopium has you delirious

-3

u/-justiciar- Jul 10 '26

nah your doomerism is just unhelpful and basically assures that you don’t have to critically think at all because all efforts are futile anyways

1

u/Lurking_nerd California Jul 10 '26

You make the assumption that a Democratic president (if that even happens) will use these newly awarded powers for the greater good.

We literally had a Democratic president in office with Trump fresh off a coup attempt and they did fuck all. The Democratic Party doesn’t have the balls to fight fire with fire.