His policy of splitting migrant families resulted with many children being interred away from their families. — Wayfarer

I have followed southern border politics for decades. Here's how it works. I am going to explain some things to you now.

An adult shows up at the border with a kid. The adult says, "This is my child." The kid is tired, hungry, scared, and doesn't say a thing. The adult has no documentation.

You are the administration in charge of border policy. What do you do?

If you say, "Ok, you can both come in," then you turn a lot of kids over to traffickers.

So what do you do to avoid turning children over to traffickers? You separate the kids from the adults until you can contact the authorities in their claimed home country, and find out who they are. If they are a legit family, you reunite them and send them on their way. If not, you just stopped a trafficker and saved a child.

Now, what do you do with the kids? If you put them in a big dormitory, they will be assaulted by sexual predators. So you put chain link around the kids to protect them.

In 2014, Obama had a huge refugee crisis. He "put kids in cages." Photos circulated on social media of the kids in chain link enclosures, with each kid wrapped in a space blanked looking like a baked potato in foil. The images shocked people.

So what did Obama do? Well, optics are everything in politics. They started separating fewer families, stopped putting "kids in cages," and turned a hell of a lot of children over to traffickers. The Washington Post wrote a story about Obama's trafficking problem, but mostly the story got no play.

Fast forward to Trump. Trump does not like traffickers. He tried to protect the kids. He did separate families, to determine if they really were families. Photos were circulated on social media -- the same Obama kids in cages photos. Liberals were outraged till they found out those were Obama's kids in Obama's cages. More photos circulated. Again -- Obama's kids, Obama's cages.

Bad optics. "Trump put kids in cages." So fucking ignorant. A lot of liberals -- ok a lot of people in general -- lead with their emotions, especially when they are ignorant of the facts. So "kids in cages" became the attack on Trump, when in fact the whole idea is to separate traffickers from children and keep the children safe from sexual predators until the true family status can be sorted out.

Now Biden comes in, rescinds all of Trump's border policies including Remain in Mexico. Biden now has a massive immigration crisis on his hands. But the optics are the most important thing. So what does Biden do? He just lets all the adults stay with the kids and lets them in to the country.

What is the result? Biden has lost track of 85,000 children. Most likely turned over to traffickers as sex and work slaves, as you and I speak tonight. Here, read this.

https://cis.org/Arthur/Did-Joe-Biden-Lose-85000-Migrant-Kids

The House Oversight Committee’s National Security Subcommittee held a hearing this week on the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. Robin Dunn Marcos, director of the office, appeared, but if you watch that hearing you’ll learn a lot more from the questions than the answers — because there weren’t many answers on key issues, such as the fate of 85,000 children the office has apparently lost contact with. Someone needs to put a up a large “Help Wanted” sign in Washington, because the American people are desperately in need of accountability on migrant children — both in the government and in the media.

I told you a few posts ago, in a post you never replied to, that Joe Biden is running the largest child trafficking operation in the world. It is true. It is a moral outrage. Nobody gives a shit.

Now you know what "separating families" and "kids in cages" are all about. You separate kids from adults until you can determine who's a parent and who's a trafficker. And you keep the kids behind chain link fences to protect them from sexual predators.

But kids in cages makes for bad optics. So Biden just turns the kids over to traffickers, and ignorant liberals know nothing about it, and STILL THEY BITCH ABOUT TRUMP'S CAGES.

Liberals still do not know that those were Obama's cages, Obama's family separation policy, and that once the optics got bad, Obama just said fuck it, and turned the kids over to traffickers. No more bad optics. And that's Biden's policy too. No cages. Just trafficked children.

Get a clue, brother. Get a moral clue. I explained this to you two weeks ago and you never acknowledged the post. Joe Biden is a child trafficker. Because the optics are better than "kids in cages," which upsets ignorant liberals.

My liking him or not is irrelevant. His danger to democracy is not a matter of opinion. He’s not only a terrible person, he’s a dreadful leader, his only policy is retribution. His speeches are horrific and contain nothing about policy as such, only threats and fear-mongering. How you can fall for his schtick beats me. — Wayfarer

Ok. I could, for sake of argument, stipulate to all that. I can still talk politics! I can still talk about Joe Biden's mental impairment. I do believe you said to me earlier that you can't even talk about the Biden pickle unless I hate Trump as you do. Some people feel that way. Myself, I'll talk politics to talk politics. I don't have to love or hate Trump to talk about the mess the Dems got themselves into this week.

I would be glad to explain to you "how I can fall for his schtick," but that's more for the Trump forum. In this thread I'm trying to focus on the topic, the 2024 US election. Or as Joe Biden puts it: "I'll beat Donald Trump again in 2020." It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, and if old age and sickness didn't eventually catch up with us all.

I'll be happy to argue the merits of Trump with you if you'd like, but it's not really all that productive. I did write you a long-assed post a couple of weeks ago about my journey from dedicated liberal to the politically homeless, reluctant Trumper than I am today. I could write more. It's been decades in the making. It started when Teddy Kennedy killed a girl and the left rallied around him. It was my first sense of a disturbance in the liberal force. There were many other such moments over the years. This Biden fiasco is just the latest.

Biden is not ‘a husk’. He’s been an effective senator and president, but he needs to pass the torch. — Wayfarer

Man even the New York Times thinks he's a husk. I don't even have to make the case. Biden's own "friends" are making that case with sharp knives. Julius Caesar never got it so bad on the floor of the Roman senate. George Stephanopoulos said today that he doesn't think Biden can make it another four years. Et tu, George.

I note today that Gavin Newsom is acting as party whip for Biden. I believe he’s totally sincere in so doing, but also that he’s ideally positioned to step up if the torch is passed. — Wayfarer

Newsom is too smart and too ambitious to touch the current mess with a ten foot pole. Whitmer too. Any Dem who's viable for 2028 is going to show loyalty to Biden and stay out of 2024. Why go down with this sinking ship, when a brand new ship is arriving in four years?

I appreciate the opportunity to chat. I really did take it to heart a few weeks ago when you expressed disappointment in my political sentiments, in light of my math-related content. I'm always willing to talk politics with people who don't share my opinions. I'm not blind to Trump's many flaws, but IMO he really is not the monster the Dems have made him out to be. I'm always happy to explain myself.

Bottom line: The Dems and the left have deeply lost their way; and Trump is the only alternative. I'm not for Trump. I'm against what the Dems and the left have become. I saw what the Dems had become in 2002, when Hillary made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in favor of the war in Iraq. The Democrats could have stopped that war. They were looking to Hillary for leadership. She chose the path of war. So when 2016 showed up and it was Trump or Hillary, I chose Trump. And why did the Dems nominate a corrupt, warmongering, unlikable, lousy politician like Hillary? As Obama said when he destroyed her in 2008: "You're likable enough, Hillary."

And as I pointed out in my latest reply to @Mr Bee, Trump is a monster of the Dems' own making. If the Dems had (1) Totally ignored Trump starting in 2022: no lawfare, no rhetoric; and (2) run open, competitive primaries; then today, as we speak. Gavin or Gretchen would be handily beating DeSantis.

The Democrats turned Trump in to a martyr. I was sick of the guy myself before the Dems turned the apparatus of the American justice system on him. That Mar a Lago raid put Trump into the White House.

What did Trump do that was authoritarian? Seriously? He tried to pressure the Republican Georgia secretary of state to "find" exactly the number of votes he needed to win. He tried to pressure his own VP to not certify the election (Pence had to call Dan Qualye, of all people, for moral guidance), and he spread and continues to spread lie after lie about the election he lost. You should listen to Bill Barr's testimony about the aftermath of the election. Total banana republic stuff. We dodged a serious bullet. Had Pence not certified, or had Raffensperger gone along with the attempt to steal the election (he says he felt threatened by Trump), it could have gotten a lot uglier than it was. And then there's the fake elector scheme, and of course Jan 6th. — RogueAI

Ok so it's all J6. Bunch of unarmed people are invited in by the Capitol cops, and Pelosi and the hysterical Dems whip up a national hysteria. In the end, it's J6. A Reichstag fire for our times. I find myself wondering what the left will do if Trump wins in November. I expect the left to riot, as they do whenever they don't get their way. Maybe you missed the George Floyd riots. $1-2B in damages, "the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history" according to Wiki. And who supported a fund to bail out the violent rioters? Kamala Harris.

So if that's all you got, what about the rest of Trump's four years in office? "Republicans are authoritarians," is what you said. I list all the postwar GOP presidents and all you've got is J6. As a matter of logic, can you see that you have not made your point?

Except for 2008 & 2020, I've only voted for progressive alternatives to our governing corporate duopoly ...

You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit). — Benkei

I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse. It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics. — Benkei

:100: :up:

I hardly see the GOP as authoritarian. Going back a ways, which of these postwar GOP presidents were authoritarians? Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian. I opposed the hell out of 43's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars never could have happened without the enthusiastic consent of the top Dems such as Hillary, Schumer, Biden, et. al.

In theory, the GOPs should be for free enterprise. Not that they really are, but that's more of libertarian sensibility. But I'm open to understanding you observation. When Obama ruled "with a pen and phone," was that the unitary executive? Or when the Supreme Court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loans to the taxpayers and he did it anyway, was that the unitary executive? — fishfry

You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:

• Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
• Veto legislation.
• Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)

Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further.

What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there?

re Michelle Obama

Apart from general Democrat programs, she hasn't aired much I know of, though she's associated with her husband and his administration. Yep, she comes across as smart, knowledgeable, strong, present, "heart in the right place", not a serial bullshitter (or liar for that matter), she could stand up to, and be respected by, the world. I don't think that's an obsession, more like a contrast that perhaps many would welcome.

She'd get under the microscope, though, face extreme scrutiny, whether from political opponents, foreign (covert) campaigns, tabloids seeking to make a buck, mudslingers, 1-shot magnification of some issue, heck racists even, ... (From memory, there was one bullshit story about one of their kids narrowly escaping that horrible horrible family; OK, I'm exaggerating, yet that's the kind of thing associated with that crap.) I can see why she wouldn't want to put her and her's through that.

A lot of Dem voters would be unhappy and confused. — fishfry

Actually I'd say alot of them would be relieved if Biden were replaced right now. Like I said alot of Dem voters didn't want Biden to run again and the debate has been spread around so much that people know what's going on with Biden. Most of the in person takes from Democrats I've seen seem to be "yeah I'll vote for Joe over Trump because Trump, but honestly I think I will prefer anything else".

Biden had a bad approval rating and was losing the election to Trump even before the debate. — fishfry

Part of what makes me see the debate as a blessing in disguise. I thought Biden's campaign was a dying campaign that was gonna lose before anyways so a disastrous debate performance was just the sort of jolt needed in desperate times. I mean Biden may still stay in but if things were going in a bad direction already then hey gotta take a chance right?

Many of the Dems' policy results such as inflation, unchecked immigration causing blue cities to be overrun with a humanitarian and financial disaster; the two wars, etc etc, are quite unpopular. And Kam is to the left of Joe. I don't see how this solves the Dems' electoral problems. — fishfry

I'm not gonna argue policy but politically Kamala would be wise to try to distance herself from the unpopular policies of Biden's administration and tie herself to the more popular aspects. The Gaza issue for instance is something that is splitting the base right now for Biden, so another candidate who isn't as tied to Biden's actions would be better, if simply for the fact that they won't be seen as having Palestinian blood on their hands as the chief director of an administration's foreign policy.

Trump is 100% the Democrats' fault — fishfry

I don't think alot of Democrats would disagree with that, particularly on the progressive left (the "Bernie would've won" types). The Dems utter incompetence in running an effective candidate against an easily beatable buffoon like Trump is what got us here and may get us to another Trump term. Hilary was unpopular but the DNC decided it was her turn and she was the nominee. Biden was also uninspiring but the DNC decided it was his turn and pulled alot of strings to get more popular candidates like Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him before Super Tuesday, winning him the nomination. And now the DNC is again ignoring the will of it's voters by putting up a man the majority of the country think is too old.

It's funny how apart from Biden the two candidates who won the general elections since 2008 were dark horse candidates in Obama and Trump who genuinely built up a base of support from the ground up. Maybe the Democrat party should take some lessons from that or maybe they'll try to force Kamala down our throats in 2028 since it's her turn next.

The Democrats created all of this. They made a martyr then a hero out of Trump; and they refused to confront reality about Biden's condition. The Dems did this. Not the GOP. Most of the GOP hate Trump, they'd love an alternative. The Democrats forced the GOP to rally around Trump. — fishfry

I'd say the GOP also bears some of the blame too for what happened post Jan 6. They condemned Trump and what he did, rightly so. They could've impeached and gotten rid of him forever but they chickened out, perhaps because they thought that he was gonna go away on his own. The Dems thought the same and also did nothing too.

You may have your own ideas on why it took Garland so long to start an investigation into Trump but I think it's just because they had the same mindset as the GOP: That Trump would simply go away and disappear because there's no way the people would flock back to a loser who tried to pull off that, right? There was no need to start a politically charged investigation into a highly controversial figure which would probably just anger the people at Jan 6. It was just pure incompetence and trust in the public to move on when they clearly seem unable to.

Like I said before, courage is a rare thing for elected officials, and nobody has the guts to actually go after Trump effectively and snuff him out for good, causing him to come back as he always has. It's not that Trump is invincible but everyone else is a coward.

I wouldn't mess with Jill and Hunter. — fishfry

Well at this point they have to talk as much sense into Jill as they do to Joe.

And just now we have Pelosi coming on to Biden's favorite show Morning Joe and laying out that this issue is clearly not over right to Joe's face. She is still saying Biden "needs to make a decision" after he decided to stay on, which is essentially code for "we'll let you do it on your own terms, but get the hell out or else more people will lose confidence in you".

I truly do not understand that talking point. Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy. On the contrary, he got rolled by the bureaucrats and most of the people who worked for him. — fishfry

Well that's the idea. He clearly has a tendency for dangerous ideas given Jan 6, but was stopped by some of the people who were working for him like Mike Pence. I guarantee you whoever he picks for his running mate and his administration won't be professionals who would keep him in check like last time.

I assume we probably are gonna disagree here but I'll just leave things there. I'm not looking to debate Trump's policies or Project 2025 right now.

He's the president of the United States. He doesn't have to do or say a damn thing. He said something the other day I really liked. He said, "If someone wants to challenge me at the convention, let them." He's a tough old bird. I don't like the guy but this might be his finest hour! — fishfry

Similarly nobody in the Biden White House can truly stop the congressional Dems from coming out and distancing themselves from the president, which is clearly something Biden is working hard to avoid. Both sides are lobbing threats at each other and Biden according to one article is promising mutually assured destruction if he is attacked. Of course if the Dems are in a sinking ship anyways then why not pull a mutiny?

The 1968 Democrats had a wild primary that ultimately drove LBJ out. — fishfry

LBJ stepped aside and a chaotic primary ensued where RFK was assassinated.

Wouldn't have to. He can run then turn it over to Kam in 2025. Would have made his point. Kam is not any more likely to win the election than Biden. Kam has high unfavorability. She's a lousy politician, the 2020 primaries showed that. She had to drop out in 2019. She is not the Dems' savior. — fishfry

The average voter just cares about who is at the top of the ticket and a bit about who is running with them. They're not gonna think that far ahead like you are. In fact I imagine alot of them are ignorant of how succession works. Plus it's very unlikely a narcissist like Biden would just hand over the presidency to Kamala as soon as he is inaugurated. He will be in the office most likely until he dies partway through the term at 85.

The party will look like a clown show if they throw over Joe after telling us he was "sharp as a tack" for three years. People will not like that.They don't have to vote for Trump, but enough of them might just stay home.

The message would be, "We said Joe is sharp as a tack but we were lying, so here, vote for highly unpopular Kamala." I don't think that's a winning message for the Dems. Not a partisan point. Biden has a better shot to win than Kamala. It doesn't matter that his mind is gone. He's not Trump, AND the DNC isn't pulling a last-minute switcheroo.

I don't think the voting public is going to like a switcheroo on top of the fraud they've already seen. Hope I made my point that I'm not talking partisanship. I think Kam's a terrible candidate. Her negatives don't go away if they elevate her. — fishfry

I don't think the party will spin it that way. Biden won't make a speech saying "Yeah I've been lying about having dementia for 2 years now so I'm stepping aside", but probably saying something along the lines of "I believe I can serve another 4 months, but not another 4 years, so I'm renouncing my candidacy". The GOP will probably continue with the narrative but as far as the Dems are concerned, they didn't lie and they Biden is just making a personal decision about his next 4 years.

Also more would stay home if given the choice between Biden and Trump. Sure people hate Trump but the DNC is essentially making them walk through glass to vote against him by making the alternative just as despised and with crippling flaws of his own.

Ok, so that's a point we disagree on. But not a partisan point for me. If Trump didn't exist, the Dems should still run Joe. The swicheroo factor, I'll call it. People will feel that they've been played. — fishfry

My perception is people would just be relieved that they won't have to vote for a criminal geriatric and a senile one. You can say the scandal and the coverup is a bad look and the right wing circles will certainly go wild with that, but in an election full of conspiracies and scandals about laptops and documents that people seem to care very little about, at the end of the day the inattentive swing voter will just care about who they're voting for at the top of the ticket. Kamala isn't great, but she's not a corpse or a convicted felon.

I am pretty sure Biden is way beyond embarrassment at this point. And Jill and Hunter surely have no shame. But I see your point. At some point he'll cave to the political pressure of being so unliked. Could happen. Or it could just make him dig in more. He's been in politics over 50 years. Survival is an instinct. We see it all the time. His body knows how to be a politician even if his mind is gone. — fishfry

Yeah Biden has been in politics for 50 years but that has made him an institutionalist. Unlike Trump, he is a man who highly values norms, running on "restoring normalcy" as his 2020 pitch. The idea of running without the full support of your party is certainly breaking one of those norms and sure he may continue to soldier on as the donor network and congressional support dries up, but that is not easy for someone who's been a lifelong Dem. Trump certainly would since he never was a traditional politician, but as much as he tries to imitate him would Biden?

Could happen. And Trump is no spring chicken either. One more Big Mac could do it. — fishfry

If the lord almighty visited Biden and Trump the same day that would be the greatest day in American history where we're saved from this nightmare of an election.

What did Trump do that was authoritarian? Seriously? He tried to pressure the Republican Georgia secretary of state to "find" exactly the number of votes he needed to win.

Trump pressured Raffensperger to find the illegal votes, that is, he pressured him to find crime, as per his duty and mandate.

Imagine that.

Essayist George Clooney drops some new propaganda.

George Clooney: I Love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/joe-biden-democratic-nominee.html

We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate. This isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and congress member and governor that I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.

That’s not how this works. Even though Democrat insouciance regarding democracy is well known, it becomes quite glaring when it is held against their rhetorical defense of it, something they’ve used to great effect in the ears of their base over the last few years.

Is it advisable for elites like Clooney to subvert the will of the voters at the same time they feign to protect us from threats to democracy? Probably not. But that’s the unprincipled and wind-sock mentality of that party in particular. Now that their great dictator isn’t operating at full steam, power escapes their grips, and power is the only thing they’ve wanted this whole time.

So what do you do to avoid turning children over to traffickers? You separate the kids from the adults until you can contact the authorities in their claimed home country, and find out who they are. If they are a legit family, you reunite them and send them on their way. If not, you just stopped a trafficker and saved a child. — fishfry

The Trump admin separated kids from families as a deterrent. All families were separated. It wasn't for the good of the kids. The policy ended a short time later when the public found out.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-family-separations-deter-illegal-immigration-idUSKCN1MO00C/
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/16/trump-administration-knew-family-separations-harm-migrant-children/

It sounds like you're getting your information from places like Townhall, TheFederalist, Breitbart, and Redstate. Am I correct on that?

What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there? — Benkei

It was a Republican primary. They were all Republicans. Therefore, they all had pretty much the same political views. America runs a primary election before the general election so the people can vote for which candidate will represent their party.

Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy. — fishfry

Some tend to conveniently forget that. Trump made an attempt to control the border, then when Biden came into office he made that infamous comment, "storm the border". And don't forget the Afghanistan debacle.

Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
Veto legislation.
Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war) — Benkei

Many of these were because of the failed government right after the Revolutionary War. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_(1786)

And then called the more famous Constitutional Convention in 1787 which was held in secret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)

Many of what? I'm talking about contemporary history; I didn't go further back than Reagan for my list!

It looks like Trump's second term will be very different from his first. Although he denies it, the implementation of the game plan, Project 2025, will make all the difference. Trump will, of course, not change, but with his king makers behind him, those who want authoritarian rule will rejoice. Those who just want change may come to rue the day.

The powers and growth of the executive branch over time. This started because a weak executive branch failed on various fronts. Also, arguably, it was Europe and WW1 that pulled America onto the world stage beyond, though a strong case can be made with the Spanish American war and gunboat policy.

I have followed southern border politics for decades — fishfry

So you'd know the name Senator James Lankford, and why he made news a couple of months back.

Bunch of unarmed people are invited in by the Capitol cops — fishfry

So you think Mike Pence should have hung?

Trump will, of course, not change, but with his king makers behind him, those who want authoritarian rule will rejoice — Fooloso4

I'm convinced that most of Trump's backers are not in because they like Trump or think that he's any good but because they can use him to pursue their own nefarious ends. And the only way that works is by sucking up to him and telling him how great he is. That's how Putin and Kim Jong Un have played him like a fiddle. Works every time, but only if he thinks you're someone who's opinion counts.

You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:

Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
Veto legislation.
Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)

Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further. — Benkei

Ok. You started out saying that Republicans are authoritarians. Then you reverted to Trump alone, and only because of the American Reichstag fire that Democrats seized upon to go on yet another of their post-2016 Trump hysterias.

And now you make a very different point. You say that the American executive, as defined by the US Constitution, is inherently authoritarian.

Now this of course is an interesting theses that we could discuss in a forum on political philosophy. Perhaps in a different thread. Quite a bit has been thought and written about the subject since we yanks tossed King George's tea into Boston harbor.

But we are in the thread on the US election. Two men are vying to be president, unitary or not, morally-defined presidency or not.

So I think you've undermined your own point. Although in the end, you came to a very interesting subject. In theory the three branches of the US government are co-equal. But in recent decades the president has become way too powerful. I tend to agree with you. But that's not what we were talking about. It's not even what you were talking about. You wanted to bash Republicans, or Trump; and in the end, it's the role of executive power in theory and practice under the US Constitution.

I sure as hell opposed Bush's torture. And I equally strongly opposed Obama's coming into office and, by not holding the Bush administration accountable for their many abuses, institutionalizing the torture.

That was, by the way, yet another of my many data points along the way to being a disaffected liberal Democrat. Bush was a criminal when he tortured people. But Obama was worse, because when he chose (for good political reasons) not to hold Bush accountable, he turned the US into a torture regime.

I agree with you about all your particulars. The Constitution does not allow the president to start wars without a declaration of war from Congress. But the last time the president got a Congressional declaration was in World War II. Every single war since then has been illegal. I'm quite unhappy about that. But it's a bipartisan affair, hardly limited to one party.

And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump. A point totally lost on the "Orange Hitler" brigade. I just don't know what happened to my former fellow liberals. Trump's victory over Saint Hillary drove them quite insane. They now love the national secuity state, the wars, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the lying, the spying. Back in the day they opposed all that. I still do.

And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump. — fishfry

False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool.

And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that?

Actually I'd say alot of them would be relieved if Biden were replaced right now. Like I said alot of Dem voters didn't want Biden to run again and the debate has been spread around so much that people know what's going on with Biden. Most of the in person takes from Democrats I've seen seem to be "yeah I'll vote for Joe over Trump because Trump, but honestly I think I will prefer anything else". — Mr Bee

Chuckie Schumer is said to be "privately" open to opposing Biden. Pelosi gave an ambiguous statement coded to mean she's sticking in the knife, but very subtly.

But the big news of the day was that the Democrats brought out their big gun. Their nuclear weapon. Their neutron bomb. Yes, I mean George Clooney. A few weeks ago Clooney organized a $30M fundraiser for Biden complete with Julia Roberts and all the other beautiful people. Today, Clooney stabbed Biden in the back with a NYT op-ed. I tell you it's sickening to watch. I hope never to have "friends" like that. And Clooney said that when he saw Biden three weeks ago, Biden was not the same man as he was in 2010 or even 2020. So Clooney knew. And Clooney still raised the thirty mil. And today Clooney jumped on the Judas bus and stabbed his former friend in the back. These people are lower than low.

But in the end, the Dems have no leverage. And as I say, they can swap in Kam and they'll have a whole new set of problems.

Part of what makes me see the debate as a blessing in disguise. I thought Biden's campaign was a dying campaign that was gonna lose before anyways so a disastrous debate performance was just the sort of jolt needed in desperate times. I mean Biden may still stay in but if things were going in a bad direction already then hey gotta take a chance right? — Mr Bee

Right. Some say the Dems deliberately set him up to get him out. But it's not quite working the way they thought it would. I don't think they planned on Joe digging in and daring them to move him out.

I'm not gonna argue policy but politically Kamala would be wise to try to distance herself from the unpopular policies of Biden's administration and tie herself to the more popular aspects. — Mr Bee

She's way further left than Biden, and Biden has governed from the left. Are you saying Kamala should turn into Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand? Ain't happenin'. She's a hard core leftist and would be a disaster for the country.

The Gaza issue for instance is something that is splitting the base right now for Biden, so another candidate who isn't as tied to Biden's actions would be better, if simply for the fact that they won't be seen as having Palestinian blood on their hands as the chief director of an administration's foreign policy. — Mr Bee

No, they'd have Israeli blood on their hands. Kamala is married to a nice Jewish guy but she's a Hamasnik all the way. Just yesterday she said she "understands" the Gaza protesters. That's code for Death to Israel in my book. By the way I stand with Israel, just so you know. And I will say, this issue has split a lot of people. Some of my favorite political commentators have horrified me with some of their rhetoric. Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Maté. The Gaza war has been a terribly divisive issue. And Kam is way on the wrong side of it IMO. But we can agree to disagree on that. I don't talk about it much, it's just so emotional and so divisive for everyone. The Middle East has been a bloody mess all my life and I don't have any answers.

I don't think alot of Democrats would disagree with that, particularly on the progressive left (the "Bernie would've won" types). — Mr Bee

I wish that were true. The TDS brigade would not take any responsibility for the Trumpenstein of their own creation. I wish Bernie and his supporters had been a lot more vocal when the DNC screwed them over in 2016 and again in 2020.

The Dems utter incompetence in running an effective candidate against an easily beatable buffoon like Trump is what got us here and may get us to another Trump term. — Mr Bee

It's funny. In 2016 the Dems found the only candidate in the country who could lose to Trump. In 2024 they're about to do it again.

Hilary was unpopular but the DNC decided it was her turn and she was the nominee. Biden was also uninspiring but the DNC decided it was his turn and pulled alot of strings to get more popular candidates like Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him before Super Tuesday, winning him the nomination. And now the DNC is again ignoring the will of it's voters by putting up a man the majority of the country think is too old. — Mr Bee

They didn't think he was too old when they gave him 3986 delegates. And why not? Because the Dems and the media gaslit the hell out of them. And again -- my ongoing thesis -- Kam would be worse. And nobody can leapfrog Kam. So in the end they stay with Biden. There is no alternative.

It's funny how apart from Biden the two candidates who won the general elections since 2008 were dark horse candidates in Obama and Trump who genuinely built up a base of support from the ground up. Maybe the Democrat party should take some lessons from that or maybe they'll try to force Kamala down our throats in 2028 since it's her turn next. — Mr Bee

By then Gavin and Gretchen will be fresh and ready. Kam will be yesterday's news. She's never been very popular and she's a terrible politician.

I'd say the GOP also bears some of the blame too for what happened post Jan 6. They condemned Trump and what he did, rightly so. They could've impeached and gotten rid of him forever but they chickened out, perhaps because they thought that he was gonna go away on his own. The Dems thought the same and also did nothing too. — Mr Bee

I better take a pass on J6. I regard it as the Democrats' Reichstag fire. Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued. What ever happened to, "A riot is the voice of the unheard?" That was the Dem line when the Floyd protesters caused $2B in property damage and killed 20 people. The Pelosi and Cheney J6 psy-op was a fraud. Trump has called for military tribunals. I disagree about that. In this country we use the civilian system of justice. But I do hope Trump gets some revenge on the Dems who have so abused our system of justice. Garland and Wray for two. The impeachments were totally fraudulent. It was Biden who was seen on video extorting the Ukrainians to get rid of the prosecutor investigating his money laundering scheme there. We better not get onto this topic, you know how I feel now.

You may have your own ideas on why it took Garland so long to start an investigation into Trump but I think it's just because they had the same mindset as the GOP: That Trump would simply go away and disappear because there's no way the people would flock back to a loser who tried to pull off that, right? There was no need to start a politically charged investigation into a highly controversial figure which would probably just anger the people at Jan 6. It was just pure incompetence and trust in the public to move on when they clearly seem unable to. — Mr Bee

I want Garland and Wray in jail. Let's agree to disagree on that. J6 was a psy-op, a fraud, a Reichstag fire for our time and place. You can't have an insurrection with a bunch of unarmed people peacefully wandering around an office building. Compare and contrast to the Floyd riots. Voice of the unheard and all that. If anyone's unheard in this country it's the rank and file middle Americans. The people Trump has activated and drawn to him.

Like I said before, courage is a rare thing for elected officials, and nobody has the guts to actually go after Trump effectively and snuff him out for good, causing him to come back as he always has. It's not that Trump is invincible but everyone else is a coward. — Mr Bee

The Democrats have disgraced themselves. Trump is a reaction to that. He has many flaws but he is the only alternative to the corrupt, warmongering status quo that the Democrats (and Republicans!) have turned into. Let's agree to disagree again. We're not doing policy here, only the politics of the Biden dilemma.

Well at this point they have to talk as much sense into Jill as they do to Joe. — Mr Bee

Jill does not strike me as someone amenable to logic. Or political pressure. She's dug in. The Dems can impeach Joe or 25A him or they can pound sand. George Clooney's not going to do it.

And just now we have Pelosi coming on to Biden's favorite show Morning Joe and laying out that this issue is clearly not over right to Joe's face. She is still saying Biden "needs to make a decision" after he decided to stay on, which is essentially code for "we'll let you do it on your own terms, but get the hell out or else more people will lose confidence in you". — Mr Bee

Right. Caught that. But she's wrong too. Joe is not "making a decision." He's made his decision. Now the Dems have to make theirs. Impeach, 25A, or stab him to death on the floor of the Senate à la Julius Caesar. Strongly worded editorials and vaguely worded statements on Morning Joe aren't going to cut it.

And George Clooney. That really cracked me up today. What a slime ball. Joe's best friend three weeks ago.

Well that's the idea. He clearly has a tendency for dangerous ideas given Jan 6, but was stopped by some of the people who were working for him like Mike Pence. I guarantee you whoever he picks for his running mate and his administration won't be professionals who would keep him in check like last time. — Mr Bee

I'd hang Mike Pence AND the fly he rode in on. 'Nuff o' J6.

Professionals? Milley is a treasonous bastard who belongs in prison. Mattis, useless. Barr, useless.

The reason the Dems are afraid of Trump is that they realize he's probably learned a few things about how Washington works. I truly hope so.

I assume we probably are gonna disagree here but I'll just leave things there. I'm not looking to debate Trump's policies or Project 2025 right now. — Mr Bee

Likewise. I really do try to avoid policy in this thread. But P2025 is not Trump's platform. P2025 is yet another TDS hysteria. Trump's platform is his actual platform. And it's surprisingly centrist, moderate, and popular. Here's Brit right-of-center website Spiked on the subject:

The truth about Trump? He’s a moderate

And here's The Guardian making the same point.

The Republicans’ new party platform is scary – because it can win

They made the point that Trump's platform is very 1990's Democrat centrist in nature. Jobs. Border control. Peace.

P2025 is another left wing hysteria. It's not Trump's platform at all.

Similarly nobody in the Biden White House can truly stop the congressional Dems from coming out and distancing themselves from the president, which is clearly something Biden is working hard to avoid. Both sides are lobbing threats at each other and Biden according to one article is promising mutually assured destruction if he is attacked. Of course if the Dems are in a sinking ship anyways then why not pull a mutiny? — Mr Bee

Attacks on Biden weaken him if he's the eventual nominee. Some Dems see that. Kamala is no panacea.

LBJ stepped aside and a chaotic primary ensued where RFK was assassinated. — Mr Bee

That was a bad bad day. If one is conspiratorial-minded, one would say that they killed Bobby because as president, he was going to get to the bottom of his brother's murder at the hands of the CIA. I'm conspiratorial-minded in that regard. More shots were fired at Bobby than Sirhan's gun held. The coroner said he was shot at close range from behind, but Sirhan was several feet away, in front.

Terrible day. Awful. So many hopes were on Bobby. Making me sad now for what might have been.

The average voter just cares about who is at the top of the ticket and a bit about who is running with them. They're not gonna think that far ahead like you are. In fact I imagine alot of them are ignorant of how succession works. Plus it's very unlikely a narcissist like Biden would just hand over the presidency to Kamala as soon as he is inaugurated. He will be in the office most likely until he dies partway through the term at 85. — Mr Bee

Yeah you're right. A career politician does not give up power willingly.

I don't think the party will spin it that way. Biden won't make a speech saying "Yeah I've been lying about having dementia for 2 years now so I'm stepping aside", but probably saying something along the lines of "I believe I can serve another 4 months, but not another 4 years, so I'm renouncing my candidacy". The GOP will probably continue with the narrative but as far as the Dems are concerned, they didn't lie and they Biden is just making a personal decision about his next 4 years. — Mr Bee

I don't think they'd say it out loud, but many voters will read it that way. They shut down competitive primaries, foisted Joe on the Dem voters, and now this? What a mess.

Also more would stay home if given the choice between Biden and Trump. Sure people hate Trump but the DNC is essentially making them walk through glass to vote against him by making the alternative just as despised and with crippling flaws of his own. — Mr Bee

Anything can happen.

My perception is people would just be relieved that they won't have to vote for a criminal geriatric and a senile one. — Mr Bee

The TDS crowd thinks Trump's a criminal. The other half of the country sees the Bragg prosecution as totally illegitimate. Nelson Mandela spent 28 years in jail but they didn't call him a felon when he became president. They recognized the legal process against him as unjust. Trump same, for half the country.

But I do agree that Trump is old and leads an unhealthy lifestyle. He could keel over too. I wonder what this is like for the young people of this country. They must be appalled.

You can say the scandal and the coverup is a bad look and the right wing circles will certainly go wild with that, but in an election full of conspiracies and scandals about laptops and documents that people seem to care very little about, at the end of the day the inattentive swing voter will just care about who they're voting for at the top of the ticket. Kamala isn't great, but she's not a corpse or a convicted felon. — Mr Bee

In 2020 a poll showed that 17% of the electorate would have changed their vote if the'd known that the laptop was authentic. And that's another thing. "51 former intelligence officials" said the laptop was Russian disinformation. It wasn't.

Why do people support Trump? Because he is the only alternative to the culture of official corruption that's seized this country. When the CIA and the FBI lie to the public to help a political candidate, that is a very serious problem. Trump stands opposed to that. A lot of people, such as myself, support Trump for what he stands for, not for who he is. He stands in opposition to this massive corruption of our government.

Yeah Biden has been in politics for 50 years but that has made him an institutionalist. Unlike Trump, he is a man who highly values norms, running on "restoring normalcy" as his 2020 pitch. The idea of running without the full support of your party is certainly breaking one of those norms and sure he may continue to soldier on as the donor network and congressional support dries up, but that is not easy for someone who's been a lifelong Dem. Trump certainly would since he never was a traditional politician, but as much as he tries to imitate him would Biden? — Mr Bee

Biden campaigned on normalcy, then ran as a corrupt leftist authoritarian. Lot of people see that.

If the lord almighty visited Biden and Trump the same day that would be the greatest day in American history where we're saved from this nightmare of an election. — Mr Bee

I'm kind of enjoying it. Just want to see the Dems get their comeuppance.

It sounds like you're getting your information from places like Townhall, TheFederalist, Breitbart, and Redstate. Am I correct on that? — RogueAI

Decades of interest in Mexico, traveling in Mexico, living in Mexico, paying attention to border politics. If you don't know about Biden's trafficking operation, hardly anyone does. If you don't care now that I've drawn people's attention to it, you should demand more of yourself re this moral atrocity.

I haven't read Townhall in years. Redstate, maybe the occasional article if it's linked from an aggregator. Don't recall last time I read it. Breitbart most definitely never writes about the cages and separation policy the way I've explained it. Don't recall The Federalist writing on immigration. Most of my political orientation these days comes from the disaffected liberals (like I am). Greenwald, Dore, Maté, lot of Substackers. They don't write about border issues either.

In the immigration issues as I explained them -- the cages and the separation policy -- I got that on my own from factual reporting on the subject. I was living in Mexico in 2014 when Obama had a terrible humanitarian crisis down there and built the cages. I followed the issue. I don't recall where it got reported. The MSM barely reported on it till the photos of the kids in cages covered in foil blankets started hitting social media. A lot of information not in the MSM is nonetheless true. That's a problem in itself. You can always say, "Well XXX is a scurrilous right wing rag." And maybe it is. But a lot of alt media covers stories the MSM won't touch.

Such as Biden's senescence. People were calling Jill Biden Edith Wilson in 2020. But in the alt media, not in the New York Times. But the alts were correct, and the MSM were lying. I hope there's a reckoning about that soon. You can't run a decent society without a truly free press.

And if the New York Times doesn't tell the truth about the border (or anything else), why is that? I read very widely, from the left-wing wackos to the right-wing wackos. But my knowledge of the border comes from a very long personal interest and involvement with the subject.

From the Reuters piece you linked: "In June, Trump abandoned his policy of separating immigrant children from their parents on the U.S.-Mexico border after images of youngsters in cages sparked outrage at home and abroad."

Exactly the same reason Obama and Biden decided to stop the caging and just turn the kids over to traffickers. Cages generate bad optics. Nobody sees the trafficked kids. That scandal's waiting to explode.

I'll stipulate that Trump said what the Reuter's piece says. Not a good look, I agree. It doesn't detract from my point. Obama put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Trump put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Biden just let everyone in and is running a massive trafficking operation. He'll be out of office before people come to find out what he's done.

So you'd know the name Senator James Lankford, and why he made news a couple of months back. — Wayfarer

Had to look that one up, perhaps I missed your point.

So you think Mike Pence should have hung? — Wayfarer

Along with the fly.

False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool. — Benkei

Threat. He's a negotiator. He lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He used threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Big difference. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that. No new wars.

I do not believe he initiated any military interventions. You say that's false. Names and dates please. Trump started no new wars. As far as I know, no new military interventions at all. Did a quick lookup, couldn't find any.

And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that? — Benkei

Unitary executive is a little inside baseball. It doesn't mean "all powerful president." According to Wiki: "The unitary executive theory is a controversial legal theory in United States constitutional law which holds that the president of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch."

It does not say anything about going to war. It says essentially that the prez is in charge of the people who work for him. I think you might be conflating different things. If you're referring to the recent Chevron decision, it's a good thing. The underlying case was a fisherman who had to pay $700 per day to have government inspectors on his boat. If Congress wants to pass a law to make him do it, let them pass a law. The agencies don't have the right, so say the Supes. Tell it to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, she's the one who stayed too long, expecting Hillary to win. Not my fault, not Trump's fault.

Who can argue with who's more authoritarian? The Supreme court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loan debt to the taxpayers. He did it anyway. Obama bragged about ruling "with a pen and phone." He held weekly Kill List meeting where he decided which American citizens to drone-bomb without due process. Going back in time, LBJ lied the country into the Vietnam war. There was no attack on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and that was known at the time. Reagan sold arms to Iran to fund his secret war in Nicaragua. Ok a GOP you got me there. I mean, you look at recent history, it's hard to tell one authoritarian from another. Trump was arguably less authoritarian than any of them, simply because he knew so little about how the government works that he got rolled by the bureaucrats and betrayed by the people who worked for him.

So you'd know the name Senator James Lankford, and why he made news a couple of months back.
— Wayfarer

Had to look that one up, perhaps I missed your point. — fishfry

Senator James Lankford is a strict conservative GOP member who was on a bipartisan committee tasked with addressing border issues. He drove a very hard bargain and got many more concessions out of the Democrats than anyone had expected, getting them to agree to what many of them thought were overly harsh measures that the GOP had been demanding for years. But then before it went to a vote, Trump got wind of it and said he didn’t want it to go ahead. Why? Because it would take away his talking points about the country being flooded with Mexican rapists. So Lankford was then pressured to vote against his own hard-fought legislation, rather than bring it to the floor - because it might have been a solution. Trump would rather keep his talking points than actually solve the problem. For his trouble, Lankford was then censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party, for the mortal sin of working with Democrats.

Trump was arguably less authoritarian than any of them, simply because he knew so little about how the government works that he got rolled by the bureaucrats and betrayed by the people who worked for him. — fishfry

That probably also explains why 24 previous aides and allies went on the record saying he was unfit for office and a danger to democracy.

Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued. — fishfry

:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays.

Threat. And he lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He uses threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that. — fishfry

Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force. This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts.

I'll stipulate that Trump said what the Reuter's piece says. Not a good look, I agree. It doesn't detract from my point. Obama put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Trump put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Biden just let everyone in and is running a massive trafficking operation. He'll be out of office before people come to find out what he's done. — fishfry

Motives matter. Separating families for the good of the kids is one thing. A zero tolerance policy separating all families to deter would-be immigrants is evil, unprecedented, and was quickly stopped when the public found out what was going on. And yes, Biden's record on the border is awful. We're not doing people any favors when we make it easy for them to come here illegally and then live in the shadows and be exploited.

I'm convinced that most of Trump's backers are not in because they like Trump or think that he's any good but because they can use him to pursue their own nefarious ends. — Wayfarer

I agree. I think they are mistaken however. Trump's own ends begin and end with Trump. They cannot control him. When their ends conflict with his ... Well I hope we will not have to find out.

Bunch of unarmed people are invited in by the Capitol cops — fishfry

:lol:

You really do come up with amazing twaddle.

Senator James Lankford is a strict conservative GOP member who was on a bipartisan committee tasked with addressing border issues. He drove a very hard bargain and got many more concessions out of the Democrats than anyone had expected, getting them to agree to what many of them thought were overly harsh measures that the GOP had been demanding for years. But then before it went to a vote, Trump got wind of it and said he didn’t want it to go ahead. Why? Because it would take away his talking points about the country being flooded with Mexican rapists. So Lankford was then pressured to vote against his own hard-fought legislation, rather than bring it to the floor - because it might have been a solution. Trump would rather keep his talking points than actually solve the problem. For his trouble, Lankford was then censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party, for the mortal sin of working with Democrats. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that summary. I apparently missed this story. I did a quick search and evidently the GOP Senators rejected his bill. I looked at a couple of articles and they didn't mention Trump's influence, even though "Trump" was one of my search terms.

If you happen to have a reference to Trump's influence on the GOP abandonment of Lankford's bill I'd appreciate it. Pending that, and taking your word for it, I'll grant you your point. I've never said Trump isn't a flawed man. I've only said that he's the only alternative to the wrong turn the Dems have taken the past couple of decades and especially the past eight years.

I agree that the GOP are useless. They get nothing done at all. I'm saddened but not surprised to learn they killed a chance at sensible immigration reform, with or without Trump's pressure.

That probably also explains why 24 previous aides and allies went on the record saying he was unfit for office and a danger to democracy. — Wayfarer

The word authoritarian is lacking in your talking point. For sure he's a danger to the status quo in Washington, so it's not difficult to find people to throw rocks at him. I just don't see how a guy who got so easily subverted by his underlings could be an authoritarian. Joe Stalin was an authoritarian. He killed his enemies and friends alike. His critics didn't go to the press, they went to the Gulag.

If you happen to have a reference to Trump's influence on the GOP abandonment of Lankford's bill I'd appreciate it — fishfry

Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career

Former President Trump on Monday railed against the bipartisan border agreement and took aim at Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a key negotiator, for his role in brokering the deal.

In an interview on “The Dan Bongino Show,” Trump denied endorsing Lankford’s candidacy in 2022 — despite doing so publicly — and did not rule out endorsing a primary opponent when Lankford is up for reelection in 2028. ...

Ahead of the bill text’s release, Trump had attacked the prospect of the legislation, branding it as a political victory for Democrats ahead of the 2024 election — a message he repeated in Monday’s interview.“This is a gift to Democrats, and this, sort of, is a shifting of the worst border in history onto the shoulders of Republicans. That’s really what they want. They want this for the presidential election, so they can now blame the Republicans for the worst border in history,” Trump said. — Feb 2024

As mentioned, Lankford was then censured by his own party. This for a straight up-and-down Republican who has toed the party line on every single issue.

I just don't see how a guy who got so easily subverted by his underlings could be an authoritarian. — fishfry

And I just don't know how you can say that. He's on the record suggesting, for instance, that the constitution ought to be suspended, that he plans to purge the civil service and stock it with his operatives, and intends to use the Department of Justice against his enemies. The last few weeks, there's been a lot of press over Project 2025, which likewise plans to implement plainly authoritarian policies - Trump has been trying to disassociate himself from it, but it is almost entirely composed of ex-Trump aides and staffers, and he's spoken at the Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions. But then, you know, but seem to downplay or rationalise, that Trump sicked his mob on the Capital Building, leading to multiple deaths and hundreds of arrests and jail sentences, one of the darkest days in American history. Why you're OK with that I can't fathom.