People Twitter

That is correct; as I already said, I think this particular thing is very unlikely.

Edit: For whatever reason, I read your last sentence as "How're you going to stop him?" and it didn't sound like a genuine question so much just being confrontational.

Clearly, it's too late for me, right now, and I should probably go to bed but you deserve a genuine answer.

While the taped together structure of the U. S.'s government between on-the-fly institutions and convention/norm.s is clearly not the best at stopping an individual who doesn't feel the need to abide by them, it's also not the best at providing a central mechanism for authoritarianism.

Elections are largely controlled by the states and, while he was able to ride a mix of reactionary xenophobia and a more traditional strain of American conservative tradition, people from that latter group were still the people largely who'd had the control of the party before he overtook it.

This hasn't been a problem when it comes to the deference for Big Business that the Reaganite conservatism of the old Republican party favors but it's still a group that believes in restricted governance (except when providing welfare for corporations, of course) and a deep belief in representative democracy (so long as the scales are appropriately stacked so the right sort of people are able to represent the general people).

Having grown up around these people in my community, notions like straight up suspending elections is beyond the pale; going beyond the pale is what Trump excels at but politicians generally will feel comfortable with following the crowd like that when they feel they have the crowd. Trump has not built up any kind of sense of good around that concept.

Additionally, he had a habit of picking true believers; and, unfortunately for him, the conservative moment – before becoming popularist – was deeply built around this sense of reverence for the history of the nation (the real one, they'd tell you (of course), that liberals don't understand; that conveniently also favors Big Business).

If he had a court stacked with Alitos and Thomases, I might feel differently. But Gorsuch is a Real Believer originalist. And Barrett and Kavanaugh have broken with his line when it comes to things like this, as well; because, while I find their political beliefs reprehensible and incoherent, they still do believe in some of these notions. And Rogers has no spine but does believe in the court and, so, tries to find a middle ground, even if signing on to opinions he might not fully share.

And this extends to other positions, as well; the people Trump didn't appoint.

Basically, you would need to strip out the strict reading of the constitution – which leaves voting to the states – that the old Republican party built its entire identity around and all the arguments they've made for (their idea of) small governance and the many years of precedent by conservatives arguing this very point to literally move against democracy itself and I don't think true believers like the sort of Gorsuch are really there, yet.

Waging war? Sure; we've (unfortunately) been watering down the restrictions on that power for decades, now (and neocons love war so there's probably some reason they've concocted as to why it's not a violation of small governance). Etc. Etc.

But literally suspend democracy itself? I don't think, with the people he has in power right now, he could do that. Try to influence individual states on the ground (because they control their own elections)? Sure. Outright suspend elections? I don't think he's built the infrastructure and packed the various offices enough, yet (and, unfortunately for him, this isn't something handled by the Executive branch, which he has (unfortunately) largely overtaken).

It'll be harder for him to pull that one off. Possible; but I don't think likely.