• Poayjay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      3 months ago

      Could he even do that? I mean JD is the official nominee for VP. It doesn’t seem right that Trump could just change his mind. Not to mention early ballots are starting to go out in 2 weeks. If you vote for Trump/VD that wouldn’t count for Trump/Kennedy. Right?

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he can and will do whatever the fuck he wants, consequences be damned. I think he is intrinsically aware that JD is a fucking dead weight around his ankles at this point, and that RFK actually has some potential electoral upside. Whether he is willing to trade the twink (JD) for the cuck (RFK) remains to be seen, but I think it would be totally on brand.

        • mriguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          3 months ago

          Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he can and will do whatever the fuck he wants, consequences be damned.

          There are never any consequences. Until there are, his whole circus will continue and get worse.

          • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            At this point he has to. He has to get elected. If he doesn’t, he’s very likely going to jail, facing many more charges, and will have to avoid going near windows above ground level for the rest of his life.

            • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, his only out at this point is to get into power again.

              Failing that, I think he’s probably going to try something that forces Biden’s hand simply to cause chaos. Like, outright telling the proud boys / 3%ers / etc to execute whatever violent terroristical plans they may have come up with, so Biden is forced to choose between arresting him and his co-conspirators outright (thus activating the “political prisoner” trap card for all of the wingnuts who are still ride-or-die for him, thus causing more chaos and violence) or letting it slide (thus implicitly giving him carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of legality).

              And I do want to underline that the situation evolved to where it is now specifically because Biden’s AG pick was a fox in the henhouse - genuinely, I expect history books to regard Garland as perhaps the most catastrophically awful pick for AG in the context of the January 6th aftermath. This happened because nobody in charge took the threat fucking seriously, and now we’re all going to have to pay the price for that myopia.

              • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                The threat this time will be taken very seriously though. I’m not that worried. I’m concerned, but not that worried. I don’t think people want to die for him as much as they did. He’s looking weak and like a clown.

      • jagermo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think he cares or would get any pushback

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think the pushback would come from the really big donors in the tech sector that are funding PACs. From the reporting I’ve seen, they appear to be the ones that were really pushing for Vance, since otherwise he seems like a terrible choice. (Well. He seems like a terrible choice, period. But tech bros like him.) If Trump dropped Vance and took Kennedy, he risks losing their support entirely, and that’s a lot of advertisement off the table going into an absolutely critical phase of the election.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        All that matters is the Elector you cast your ballot for. As for the nomination process, the RNC can just change the rules if they want.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      The only thing more electable than one brain rotted old fuck is two brain rotted old fucks… I don’t think it’s impossible that Trump will replace his VP but Kennedy seems extremely unlikely.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t it too late to change VP candidate? I saw speculation on this before and the issues were around the need to reconvene delegates for the RNC to approve the change and also to be on the ballot? Early voting starts in September so October is also too late?

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The deadline is when ballots are printed/state laws and what political parties do is according to custom not law. If the RNC, or even just the Trump campaign, reached out to each states’ election committee it could register the new information then it just needs to be mindful of state laws.

        Now, let’s say Trump tries this shit in mid October- people like me (overseas mail in voters) will already have our ballots so our vote will be recorded for (assuming I voted Republican which I’m fucking not) Trump/Vance, if the majority of a state submits a ballot like that the laws around faithless delegates might not allow electors to actually cast their ballots for whatever the ticket is. This could absolutely cause a constitutional crisis.

        It could also happen that Trump/Kennedy gets 43% of the votes in a state, Trump/Vance gets 10% of the votes, and Harris/Walz gets 47% of the votes… this would likely be a state constitutional crisis.

        I suspect Trump isn’t going to replace Vance because, for logistical reasons, he’d want to have done it as soon as fucking possible to.

        • A lot of times what state parties do according to their charters are because that’s what’s required by what state law says. Sometimes the things State parties did as customs were enacted into statutes. Election law is a mishmash. Just with regard to your first paragraph, I don’t think you can say anything is a brightline rule without going state by state.