Does it matter? We're gonna vote for them anyway, right?
Biden vs Trump 2024 from Now till November 5, 2024
- Thread starter Sixties Fan
- Start date
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #102
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #103
Part 1
Last night Democrats saw what happens when they run on the issues. When they run on who they are, instead of running away from it, they win.
Now Democrats need to take on an issue many would rather avoid: Donald Trump and the future of democracy if he’s re-elected. It may seem safer to stick to traditional kitchen table issues—don’t poke the bear—but it’s time to put the most important cards down on the table and have a serious conversation with the American people about what Donald Trump intends to do if he wins again. The writing on the wall is clear. But far too many people remain unaware of Trump’s 2025 plan, or they don’t take it seriously. People who love democracy need to make sure they do.
We all know the story about Ben Franklin emerging from the Constitutional Convention and telling a woman who asked what type of government they’d created, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The 2024 election is the moment where we find out if we can. If Trump wins in 2024, we lose the Republic. That’s not drama, and that’s not overstatement. That’s what Trump is promising.
On Sunday the Washington Post ran an article about Trump’s plans for a second term that’s a must read. It’s not the first time there has been reporting on Trump’s plans for 2025 if he wins a second term, but this article goes the furthest in laying out Trump’s plans in clear reporting. It starts like this: “Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.”
It sounds positively Stalinist. But, despite the cautionary tale of Trump’s first term in office, it garnered little attention. Here’s the article, with a gift link. But read on before you click.
The most frightening thing about this, to my mind, is that it’s not new. People simply aren’t paying attention. In October of 2020, before the last election, Trump was already taking steps in this direction. Trump signed an executive order making a change in civil service rules that made it possible to fire employees in policy positions “at will”—for no reason at all. Civil Service regulations are full of “schedules” for different types of personnel and classifications like “exempted service” that don’t mean much unless you’ve lived in the arcane world of federal employment. That made it difficult to understand what the executive order was about. More importantly, it was just too far in the weeds to resonate with folks at that time, when everyone was focused on more important matters like the upcoming election. But the order was characterized by people in the knows as a “‘stunning’” attempt to politicize the civil service and undermine more than a century of laws aimed at preventing corruption and cronyism in the federal government.” It was the logical outcome of Trump’s obsession with a “deep state” that he believed was out to get him.
joycevance.substack.com
Last night Democrats saw what happens when they run on the issues. When they run on who they are, instead of running away from it, they win.
Now Democrats need to take on an issue many would rather avoid: Donald Trump and the future of democracy if he’s re-elected. It may seem safer to stick to traditional kitchen table issues—don’t poke the bear—but it’s time to put the most important cards down on the table and have a serious conversation with the American people about what Donald Trump intends to do if he wins again. The writing on the wall is clear. But far too many people remain unaware of Trump’s 2025 plan, or they don’t take it seriously. People who love democracy need to make sure they do.
We all know the story about Ben Franklin emerging from the Constitutional Convention and telling a woman who asked what type of government they’d created, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The 2024 election is the moment where we find out if we can. If Trump wins in 2024, we lose the Republic. That’s not drama, and that’s not overstatement. That’s what Trump is promising.
On Sunday the Washington Post ran an article about Trump’s plans for a second term that’s a must read. It’s not the first time there has been reporting on Trump’s plans for 2025 if he wins a second term, but this article goes the furthest in laying out Trump’s plans in clear reporting. It starts like this: “Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.”
It sounds positively Stalinist. But, despite the cautionary tale of Trump’s first term in office, it garnered little attention. Here’s the article, with a gift link. But read on before you click.
The most frightening thing about this, to my mind, is that it’s not new. People simply aren’t paying attention. In October of 2020, before the last election, Trump was already taking steps in this direction. Trump signed an executive order making a change in civil service rules that made it possible to fire employees in policy positions “at will”—for no reason at all. Civil Service regulations are full of “schedules” for different types of personnel and classifications like “exempted service” that don’t mean much unless you’ve lived in the arcane world of federal employment. That made it difficult to understand what the executive order was about. More importantly, it was just too far in the weeds to resonate with folks at that time, when everyone was focused on more important matters like the upcoming election. But the order was characterized by people in the knows as a “‘stunning’” attempt to politicize the civil service and undermine more than a century of laws aimed at preventing corruption and cronyism in the federal government.” It was the logical outcome of Trump’s obsession with a “deep state” that he believed was out to get him.
Frogs Boiled: What Trump is Planning for a Second Term
Last night Democrats saw what happens when they run on the issues. When they run on who they are, instead of running away from it, they win. Now Democrats need to take on an issue many would rather avoid: Donald Trump and the future of democracy if he’s re-elected. It may seem safer to stick to...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #104
Part 2
The point of having a protected cadre of career civil service employees is to preserve expertise within government. But Trump’s executive order meant that any government employee involved in policymaking could be placed into a new Schedule F classification, a classification which left them vulnerable to evaluation based on their politics not their performance, and to dismissal for any reason. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but coming this late in the administration, the order could only be read as an effort to make sure Trump, in his next term (which thankfully didn’t materialize), could swiftly dispose of career employees he believed weren’t loyal to him. The order undid the pesky civil service protections that made it impossible to fire FBI agents who were investigating him or government lawyers who insisted he play be the rules. It was a harbinger of what Trump’s plans for 2025 would look like.
One of the first steps Joe Biden took after being sworn in was to rescind Trump’s executive order.
By the summer of 2022, there was reporting that top Trump allies were working on plans to radically reshape the executive branch of the federal government if Trump won in 2024. Among other things, they were preparing for purges in the ranks of career federal civil servants and lining up Trump loyalists to replace them. A number of the people working on the project are now well known because of their connection to the work done by the January 6 committee and Trump’s criminal prosecutions: Mark Meadows, Jeff Clark, Peter Navarro and Kash Patel are just a few.
Project 2025 is the official name for the plan, which is reportedly being run out of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The basic idea is to seat executive branch power firmly in the hands of the president. Among the goals are defunding the Justice Department and dismantling the FBI, breaking up Homeland Security, and doing away with Education and Commerce. The president would take complete control of agencies that currently operate with a great deal of independence, like the the Federal Communications Commission—all the rules for television and internet that Trump has publicly objected to would be his to change. In many ways, the plan runs in parallel to efforts to demolish the “administrative nanny state” in the Supreme Court this term.
But the Washington Post’s story brings new details to bear.
Among the ideas Trump and his allies have floated, according to the article:
Trump’s campaign spokesman declined to respond to the Post’s story, saying only, “President Trump is focused on crushing his opponents in the primary election and then going on to beat Crooked Joe Biden,” and “President Trump has always stood for law and order, and protecting the Constitution.” It reminds me of what we’ve learned this week in New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s courtroom: if a witness refuses to answer a direct question, the judge is entitled to draw a negative inference from that failure and reach the conclusion the witness isn’t answering because the answer would be damaging to him.
Donald Trump plainly wants to end democracy. That’s not being alarmist, it’s just the truth. The results on Tuesday at the polls suggest that we are prepared to say no. Women really do want and expect to have a right to choose for themselves. They don’t want House Speaker Mike Johnson, or anyone else, making their most important decisions for them. Americans, it turns out, like our form of democracy—a Constitutional Republic. So far, it has endured despite Trump, but it’s essential for people to be aware of what he intends to do if reelected. He is a malignant threat to democracy, and that has to be taken seriously. The singular challenge of the next election will be keeping the Republic in the face of Trump’s plans to take hold of power in a way that suggests he will never relinquish it.
joycevance.substack.com
The point of having a protected cadre of career civil service employees is to preserve expertise within government. But Trump’s executive order meant that any government employee involved in policymaking could be placed into a new Schedule F classification, a classification which left them vulnerable to evaluation based on their politics not their performance, and to dismissal for any reason. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but coming this late in the administration, the order could only be read as an effort to make sure Trump, in his next term (which thankfully didn’t materialize), could swiftly dispose of career employees he believed weren’t loyal to him. The order undid the pesky civil service protections that made it impossible to fire FBI agents who were investigating him or government lawyers who insisted he play be the rules. It was a harbinger of what Trump’s plans for 2025 would look like.
One of the first steps Joe Biden took after being sworn in was to rescind Trump’s executive order.
By the summer of 2022, there was reporting that top Trump allies were working on plans to radically reshape the executive branch of the federal government if Trump won in 2024. Among other things, they were preparing for purges in the ranks of career federal civil servants and lining up Trump loyalists to replace them. A number of the people working on the project are now well known because of their connection to the work done by the January 6 committee and Trump’s criminal prosecutions: Mark Meadows, Jeff Clark, Peter Navarro and Kash Patel are just a few.
Project 2025 is the official name for the plan, which is reportedly being run out of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The basic idea is to seat executive branch power firmly in the hands of the president. Among the goals are defunding the Justice Department and dismantling the FBI, breaking up Homeland Security, and doing away with Education and Commerce. The president would take complete control of agencies that currently operate with a great deal of independence, like the the Federal Communications Commission—all the rules for television and internet that Trump has publicly objected to would be his to change. In many ways, the plan runs in parallel to efforts to demolish the “administrative nanny state” in the Supreme Court this term.
But the Washington Post’s story brings new details to bear.
Among the ideas Trump and his allies have floated, according to the article:
- Have DOJ investigate former Trump administration officials and allies who have become critics of the former president
- Prosecute DOJ and FBI officials
- Appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family, based on unsupported allegations of corruption that Trump’s allies in the House are already moving forward with
- End the separation between the White House and DOJ that prevents presidents from using prosecutions as a tool for political advantage or personal revenge
- Draft an executive order to permit the military to be deployed in the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act. That would permit soldiers to be used against the protests that would be certain to break out if Trump were reelected—Jeffrey Clark, who is reported to be leading this work, was warned in the last days of the Trump administration by a deputy White House counsel that if Trump refused to leave office there would be “riots in every major city.” Clark replied, according to the Special Counsel’s indictment, “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
Trump’s campaign spokesman declined to respond to the Post’s story, saying only, “President Trump is focused on crushing his opponents in the primary election and then going on to beat Crooked Joe Biden,” and “President Trump has always stood for law and order, and protecting the Constitution.” It reminds me of what we’ve learned this week in New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s courtroom: if a witness refuses to answer a direct question, the judge is entitled to draw a negative inference from that failure and reach the conclusion the witness isn’t answering because the answer would be damaging to him.
Donald Trump plainly wants to end democracy. That’s not being alarmist, it’s just the truth. The results on Tuesday at the polls suggest that we are prepared to say no. Women really do want and expect to have a right to choose for themselves. They don’t want House Speaker Mike Johnson, or anyone else, making their most important decisions for them. Americans, it turns out, like our form of democracy—a Constitutional Republic. So far, it has endured despite Trump, but it’s essential for people to be aware of what he intends to do if reelected. He is a malignant threat to democracy, and that has to be taken seriously. The singular challenge of the next election will be keeping the Republic in the face of Trump’s plans to take hold of power in a way that suggests he will never relinquish it.
Frogs Boiled: What Trump is Planning for a Second Term
Last night Democrats saw what happens when they run on the issues. When they run on who they are, instead of running away from it, they win. Now Democrats need to take on an issue many would rather avoid: Donald Trump and the future of democracy if he’s re-elected. It may seem safer to stick to...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #105
Last edited:
Ringo
Platinum Member
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #107
[ If that is what MAGA wants, then what is next?
Way, way, far away from a President Reagan. Could not be farther]
Former President Donald Trump has never kept his admiration for some of the world's most feared and reviled dictators a secret; his repeated adulation for North Korea's Kim Jong Un reportedly left world leaders in stunned silence; he's heaped effusive praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin; and according to his own former chief of staff, Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly (Ret.), Trump once commended Adolf Hitler for doing "a lot of good things."
Throughout his administration and beyond, Trump has clearly cast himself as a fellow global strongman leader to those he's lionized — someone whose power is derived as much from sheer force of personality as it is from any legal framework.
With his 2024 re-election campaign underway — and decisively crushing the GOP field — Trump has leaned even harder into autocracy, with plans to "punish critics and opponents should he win a second term," and deploy the military against civil demonstrations," according to The Washington Post. And during his Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire this weekend, Trump offered a hint of what that might look like, vowing to the crowd that he would to "root out" his enemies that "live like vermin within the confines of our country" — in part to appease "capable, competent, smart, tough leader[s like] Russia, China, North Korea."
Trump's language — and in particular the use of the term "vermin" — had been "used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence," New York University History Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat told The Washington Post. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough agreed, telling historian Jon Meacham that Trump should "pay some royalties to Mussolini's family trust."
For Meacham, the threat from Trump's rhetoric was clear, in that it dehumanizes people to the point where you don't simply "open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes."
Trump's rhetoric was "straight-up Nazi talk, in a way he’s never done quite before," The New Republic's Michael Tomansky said, zeroing in on the term "vermin" as a unique invocation of past dictators, and calling it "Fascism 101." While in the past it's been "easy to think that when he hurls a historical insult, he just doesn’t know," Trump's remarks this weekend mean "we can now stop giving him the benefit of that particular doubt."
In a recent essay, Jay Nordlinger, Senior Editor of the conservative National Review admitted he'd "always assumed [Trump] was ignorant of the past — ignorant of the pedigrees of these words and phrases," in seeming agreement with Tomansky's point. "But," Nordlinger concluded, "to be honest, I’m not sure. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't." For Trump's "defenders and 'splainers" who accept Trump's rhetoric in exchange for the belief that he genuinely has the nation's best interests at heart, "let's hope they're right. A lot rides on it."
(full article online)
theweek.com
Way, way, far away from a President Reagan. Could not be farther]
Former President Donald Trump has never kept his admiration for some of the world's most feared and reviled dictators a secret; his repeated adulation for North Korea's Kim Jong Un reportedly left world leaders in stunned silence; he's heaped effusive praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin; and according to his own former chief of staff, Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly (Ret.), Trump once commended Adolf Hitler for doing "a lot of good things."
Throughout his administration and beyond, Trump has clearly cast himself as a fellow global strongman leader to those he's lionized — someone whose power is derived as much from sheer force of personality as it is from any legal framework.
With his 2024 re-election campaign underway — and decisively crushing the GOP field — Trump has leaned even harder into autocracy, with plans to "punish critics and opponents should he win a second term," and deploy the military against civil demonstrations," according to The Washington Post. And during his Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire this weekend, Trump offered a hint of what that might look like, vowing to the crowd that he would to "root out" his enemies that "live like vermin within the confines of our country" — in part to appease "capable, competent, smart, tough leader[s like] Russia, China, North Korea."
Trump's language — and in particular the use of the term "vermin" — had been "used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence," New York University History Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat told The Washington Post. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough agreed, telling historian Jon Meacham that Trump should "pay some royalties to Mussolini's family trust."
For Meacham, the threat from Trump's rhetoric was clear, in that it dehumanizes people to the point where you don't simply "open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes."
Trump's rhetoric was "straight-up Nazi talk, in a way he’s never done quite before," The New Republic's Michael Tomansky said, zeroing in on the term "vermin" as a unique invocation of past dictators, and calling it "Fascism 101." While in the past it's been "easy to think that when he hurls a historical insult, he just doesn’t know," Trump's remarks this weekend mean "we can now stop giving him the benefit of that particular doubt."
In a recent essay, Jay Nordlinger, Senior Editor of the conservative National Review admitted he'd "always assumed [Trump] was ignorant of the past — ignorant of the pedigrees of these words and phrases," in seeming agreement with Tomansky's point. "But," Nordlinger concluded, "to be honest, I’m not sure. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't." For Trump's "defenders and 'splainers" who accept Trump's rhetoric in exchange for the belief that he genuinely has the nation's best interests at heart, "let's hope they're right. A lot rides on it."
(full article online)
Trump's Veterans Day speech gives new urgency to an old dilemma
By vowing to 'root out' his enemies like 'vermin,' Trump's echo of Hitler and Mussolini raises the stakes for 2024 and beyond
theweek.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #108
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #109
This is totally true. But I think it's important to recognize what is driving people to turn to Trump as their "only hope".
Ringo
Platinum Member
This nazi camp survivor look at arming ukrainian nazis by the Biden administration as good? O.K. then.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #112
goodmedicine
Rookie
- Nov 16, 2023
- 15
- 3
- 1
two thirds of the usa wouldn't vote for trump in august of 2023
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they won't support ...USA Todayhttps://www.usatoday.com › politics › 2023/08/17 › tr...
trumps polling at 44 pct thats less than the gop share of the country in the latest vs Biden poll and bidens 42 pct beats trump unless recession or scandal
Biden wins that election 52 53 to 47 46 trump unless scandal or recession
also mitt Romneys 2012 immigration maneuver is still a loser the soviet dnc passes abortion in Mexico but will pretend to love immigrants until they become trump ish labor again
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they won't support ...USA Todayhttps://www.usatoday.com › politics › 2023/08/17 › tr...
trumps polling at 44 pct thats less than the gop share of the country in the latest vs Biden poll and bidens 42 pct beats trump unless recession or scandal
Biden wins that election 52 53 to 47 46 trump unless scandal or recession
also mitt Romneys 2012 immigration maneuver is still a loser the soviet dnc passes abortion in Mexico but will pretend to love immigrants until they become trump ish labor again
Ringo
Platinum Member
The closer we get to the US elections, the more the Western media scare the population with Trump.
Here on the cover of "The Economist" is the shadow of Trump, who, characteristically, is looking at America.
The point is simple - "it is his own country that Donald will take on".
Here on the cover of "The Economist" is the shadow of Trump, who, characteristically, is looking at America.
The point is simple - "it is his own country that Donald will take on".
presonorek
Gold Member
Is easier to work around the system than to work with it. If you really think about it, bad government doesn’t really affect your life all that much.
If you have a true American spirit then you can succeed under any administration whether it is bad or good. Voting really isn’t necessary to be successful in this country. You might actually feel better if you don’t vote and just avoid political discussion altogether. Personally I like it. I find it interesting. In centuries past people plotted to kill their sons, fathers, uncles, and nephews to gain political power. The dirty tactics used today are nothing in comparison to the thousands of years we have of the history of government. It used to be way worse and I don’t think we’ll ever get back to that. It’s fascinating. I was strongly disappointed when Trump refused to show up for the peaceful transition of power. I think that is the most beautiful symbol of how far we come. I was pretty pissed that Trump shit all over that symbol that I love most about our country.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #116
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #117
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #118
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #119
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,419
- 12,717
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #120
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Most Americans say: operation successful, 90% or MAGA supports it (on Islamic Republic)
- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
putin lawmaker claims Ukraine is using “Terminator robots” in combat- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
