US Politics

I don't think either campaign is about trying to persuade voters at this stage. It is about getting out the people who will vote for you.

I think I read a while back that Kamala still had a lot more cash than Trump. Hopefully the weight of advertising in battleground states will tip the balance in the final days.

Great sound bites from Trumpers onstage in NYC.
Puerto Rico is garbage for one.
His whole platform is hate and vengeance, and his supporters are scum.

Puerto Rico is garbage for one.

...and Pennsylvania has a massive PR population. It would be hilarious if this race rally cost Trump one of the most-prized swing states.

Mind you, I'm clutching at any straw because I'm getting the fear about this election. Midsummer, I honestly thought that once the Dems had put in a non-senile head, and Trump kept being Trump, only angrier at being beaten by a Black woman, voters would incrementally start edging away from the howling extremists. Honestly expected she'd win by 5-6%, so clearly even the fixed election nonsense claims wouldn't get any purchase. Not seeing that now.

Should Harris have done the Joe Rogan podcast?

If she was running against anyone else then I'd say she should but against trump there's no upside to the interview. Even if it goes perfectly, the long form non structured nature of Rogan's interviews lends itself perfectly to being chopped up by disinformation trolls to paint what ever narrative they want so they can flood the right wing outlets. Negative clips about Trump whether in or out of context don't do anything to damage trump's credibility with people who'll vote for him.

Harris won't win this election by converting Trump voters, the most important thing for her is to convince her base to not think fuck it, it won't make any difference so I'll just stay at home. The Joe rogan podcast is not the best use of time for that.

his supporters are scum.

A basket of deplorables if you will?

the long form non structured nature of Rogan's interviews lends itself perfectly to being chopped up

Great point.

Thoroughly enjoying EK's interview with Maggie Haberman
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0dM3QTrITI9H7AkkEQ6R3K?si=WSkRz_xWTUaHF7yCwQh8Bg

1 Attachment

Anyone who can should watch the rally.
It is exactly the same as a Hitler rally.
Full of hate, hating everyone.
Scary as hell.
Yeah they are deplorable and it’s no joke.
If Trump loses I could see Jan 6 again but way worse. Trump is telling them they are justified in hating immigrants/visible minorities/dems/libs/gays.

Based on that post I'm genuinely interested in your take on the following (I've numbered them and phrased them as yes/no where possible to make answering them low effort):

1. In his first term, was it those around Trump who prevented him from carrying out the more extreme actions? (thinking of shooting protestors in the leg)
   
2. Do you assume Trump just won't do the more extreme things he says?
   
3. How do you distinguish or identify between things he will do and won't do?
   
4. Do you think the checks and balances in the US are sufficient that Trump simply would not be able to do anything fundamentally fascist?
   
5. Do you think that Trump will almost always make the correct decisions?
   
6. Do you think Trump puts America ahead of his own personal interests?
   
7. Without any controls preventing him, do you think he would use his power to make life harder for his political or media opponents?
   

You have half an hour, please use one side of the paper only. All phones must be turned off.

.

1 Attachment

1) no
2) no
3) maybe
4) yes
5) no
6) no
7) yes

sir sir sir * hand straight up as far as it will go ..... sir sir i'm finished

can i go and play now

1: He was constantly firing staff who didn’t follow orders.
4: By stacking the Supreme Court Trump has removed one of the two checks.
The other - the Legislative- is evenly split.

Are you ok?

Questions above still stand. Curious to understand other people's perspective.

Nah it was early and I didn't fact check fully. This wasn't my source but this was a bunch of what I was seeing being reported online. Didn't twig it was talking about "over the weekend" instead of last night.

“Proud Boys” is trending on social media, here’s why… https://imgur.com/gallery/zr1pyXF

What are the chances this was done by Trump supporters?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/28/ballot-box-on-fire-washington-oregon

100%?

But seriously, you've clearly got strong opinions and feel that comments about Trump's fascist tendencies are unreasonable, so why not engage with my questions?

1. In his first term, was it those around Trump who prevented him from carrying out the more extreme actions?
   
2. Do you assume Trump just won't do the more extreme things he says?
   
3. How do you distinguish or identify between things he will do and won't do?
   
4. Do you think the checks and balances in the US are sufficient that Trump simply would not be able to do anything fundamentally fascist?
   
5. Do you think that Trump will almost always make the correct decisions?
   
6. Do you think Trump puts America ahead of his own personal interests?
   
7. Without any controls preventing him, do you think he would use his power to make life harder for his political or media opponents?
   

It's 2. and 3. I'm most interested in.

Here’s a detailed analysis of each question, touching on checks and balances, individual motivations, and institutional limits:

1. Did those around Trump in his first term prevent him from carrying out more extreme actions?

   There’s evidence that some advisors, like former Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House Counsel Don McGahn, did curb Trump’s impulses on several occasions. For example, Mattis reportedly countered Trump’s musings about using military force against civilian protesters. Trump also mentioned wanting to fire FBI director James Comey early on, which his team initially slowed down to avoid immediate backlash. So yes, his more extreme ideas often faced internal pushback.

2. Is it reasonable to assume Trump won’t follow through on his more extreme statements?

   While Trump has made provocative statements, his actual follow-through has been inconsistent. For example, although he frequently spoke about building a "border wall," much of it remained incomplete due to logistical, legal, and funding challenges. Given this track record, some might assume he wouldn’t act on certain threats. However, assuming he "won't" act might underestimate his willingness to test limits, especially if he perceives fewer constraints or more public support.

3. How do you distinguish between things Trump will do and won’t do?

   His pattern often suggests he acts when actions align with personal interests, require minimal opposition, or fulfill his base’s core priorities. For instance, Trump prioritized actions like tax cuts and conservative judicial appointments, which aligned with his supporters' expectations and faced less institutional resistance. However, initiatives requiring extensive cooperation, funding, or facing strong institutional resistance (like repealing the Affordable Care Act) often stalled.

4. Are US checks and balances sufficient to prevent Trump from implementing anything fundamentally authoritarian?

   The US system has a robust structure designed to prevent unilateral actions by the executive branch, including Congress, the judiciary, and federalism itself (state powers). While checks and balances can limit authoritarian measures, they aren’t absolute. Certain executive powers—like issuing executive orders, commanding the military, or influencing regulatory agencies—can be used to substantial effect within those checks, especially if branches of government don’t actively counterbalance the executive.

5. Do you think Trump will almost always make the correct decisions?

   "Correct" decisions are subjective, depending on one’s perspective. Trump often values decisions based on his self-assessed "success metrics," such as loyalty and personal gain. Supporters may argue he pursues outcomes they favor, like economic deregulation, while critics often argue his decision-making prioritizes personal interests over national welfare, particularly regarding policies or actions with divisive effects. So "correct" here largely depends on one’s priorities and expectations.

6. Do you think Trump puts America ahead of his personal interests?

   Trump’s actions often indicate that personal interests are a priority. His business interests, refusal to divest from his companies, and recurring focus on loyalty within his administration suggest a significant self-oriented decision-making process. While he promotes policies beneficial to certain groups, it’s frequently debatable whether they align more with national interest or personal brand.

7. Without any controls, would he use his power against political/media opponents?

   Trump has often voiced contempt for specific media and political opponents and has taken various actions that reflect this disdain, such as attempting to revoke press credentials and promoting investigations into opponents. Without institutional controls, it’s plausible he would escalate efforts to suppress opposition voices and critics. His past statements and behavior suggest that, with fewer checks, he might leverage power more directly against opponents.

In summary, Trump’s first term showed that while he’s constrained by both institutions and key advisors, he often pushes against these limits. His motivations appear to mix personal interests with political ones, and without checks, he may well act more forcefully against opponents or critics. The robustness of checks and balances remains a central guardrail, but they’re effective only when actively exercised by each branch of government.

Time to change your name to soh-AI?

Ha!

I dgaf what 99.9% of posters here think. I want to know what mr alias thinks.

I want to understand from someone who leans into Trump how they decide which policies are trolling and which are genuine. How they rationalise all those card carrying Republicans who worked with him saying he's dangerous. How you square the circle of someone who thinks they should have all the executive powers they want without checks, but who at the same time cannot be infallible.

Funny how chat gpt’s native ‘voice’ is so identifiable.

Fuck off