Again, I normally try to ignore Politics — Gnomon

Based on what you've said here, a sound practice.

Trump is routinely reported as propagating 'disinformation' or 'making claims without evidence', but in plain language, he lies - repeatedly and prolifically, nearly every time he speaks. — Wayfarer

There's no doubt about the abundant dis/mal/misinformation.

Reporting on False or misleading statements by Donald Trump 4-5 years ago, which might already have been a record back then:

Reporter to Trump: 'Do you regret all the lying to Americans?'
^{— Shirish V Dáte, Brianna Keilar · CNN/youtube · Aug 14, 2020 · 4m:14s}
_{(apologies in advance if the CNN youtube goes against the rules, it's direct and relevant, though)}

When speaking with Trump followers, I found that some say "He's just trolling, you have to read him right", some dodge/divert or refuse to comment or turn my inquiry into a semantics game, some dismisses with a "They all lie" handwave (and fail to address the amount), some double down (into Alice's proverbial rabbit hole), ... I suppose Trump is free to lie, it's not illegal; it becomes a problem when lots of people (always) trust his word more than "mainstream media" or whatever. How to characterize this aspect of those people? Puzzling that it continues.


^{A standard phrase of his for years}

How to characterize this aspect of those people? — jorndoe

It truly is an alternative reality. Some of the apologists for Trump on the Forum seem quite earnest, and pained as to why critics (like myself) are so hostile. I guess you will find many analyses of the social and political dynamics behind it if you searched for them. But I think, philosophically speaking, it is something like 'false consciousness':

In Marxist theory, 'false consciousness' refers to a distorted understanding of social reality, especially by members of the working class, that prevents them from recognizing their true interests. It’s a way of describing how ideology—the dominant ideas of a society—can mask the real conditions of exploitation under capitalism.

The term itself was popularized not by Marx himself but by later Marxists such as Engels and thinkers from the Frankfurt School. It describes how people may come to accept the values and interests of the ruling class (bourgeoisie) as if they were their own.

For example, a worker who believes that capitalism is fair because “anyone can make it if they work hard enough” may be said to be under the spell of false consciousness.

Likewise, many disillusioned with politics as usual seem willing to believe that Trump will improve the economy or their lives, presumably because he's so good at appealing to their fears and depicting himself as a 'victim' of 'the establishment'. They fall for it over and over. It has been dissappointing in the extreme to see it.

The other point is, Trump is purging the Government and Administration of anyone who would challenge his false claims. Would-be employees are subjected to scrutiny to see if they have any record of criticizing Trump or MAGA before being hired. He's hand-picked only people who will agree with him that the 2020 election was stolen. He's excluding independent media from the WH press pool, and so on. He's really worked at creating an 'alternative reality' in which most of the media and the news it reports can be dismissed as 'fake'. And his voters believe it.

One example would be male transgender athletes not allowed in women sports. — philosch

As it happens, that is one subject where I agree with the conservatives. I think the Left's fixation with trans rights is one area where they've lost a lot of the electorate (not that it's an argument I want to pursue.)

//

Comment on a YT video about Musk:

"I cannot tell a lie" - George Washington
"I cannot tell the truth" - Donald Trump
"I cannot tell the difference" - MAGA

//

How do you know what the "majority" wants? — Paine

Simply based on the majority voting for someone who made his agenda known and he then obtained a majority vote. Does that mean every move made has been pre-approved by the majority by no means. Have some of the changes made been clumsy certainly, but the overall agenda and policy direction can be "factually" stated as a majority position.

One example would be male transgender athletes not allowed in women sports. 80-20% issue without question or debate. Now in taking that position a person will be labelled as a transphobic or any number of other labels. But one can stand and argue they are for equal rights for all, regardless of the gender identity and still hold a perfectly rational position to protect women in their sports based strictly on the science that tells us that men even undergoing hormone therapy have 16% greater physical ability (on average) then women. This is a factual generalization. No reason to label people who support the logical position to keep transgender males from being in women sports without that meaning they are bigoted.

And one fact everyone needs to acknowledge is that the Trump administration is built on lies. Trump is the one who insists that the 2020 election was 'rigged' even after 60 lawsuits brought against it were basically laughed out of court. Trump is the one who summarily pardoned 1500 odd felons who had among other things beaten police unconscious with fire extinguishers and flag poles. — Wayfarer

Take this statement as you right it: That means 1500 people beat cops. That's just absurd. A few people may have but certainly but not 1500. I think Jan 6 was an unfortunate riot that got out of hand but was no worse than any of the other 500 or so riots the previous summer. Certainly not an insurrection as no one was even charged with that crime. Trump is on record of asking his followers to protest peacefully which was their right. The fact that some did not if unfortunate. I don't think he should have protested so much to the results but I do not believe he wanted a violent over throw of the government. I can take the middle view without making ridiculous claims. As for pardoning, Joe Biden's record on pardoning is even more inexcusable.

The way the riot was characterized by the media compared to the way the many other riots like burning down courthouses and police precincts is the key to understanding the bias present across this discussion. You see I do not think Trump is some great savior, I held my nose and voted for him as I believe in his overall policy direction. When Biden got elected I was pretty down as I could easily see he was weak and mentally incompetent. But I didn't panic. The pendulum swings back and forth and has been doing so for as long as I can remember, but referring to Musk because of an arm gesture as a Nazi or Trump as a threat to democracy because you don't like his policies are just ridiculous hyperbolic statements that are not based in fact and people who say such things have a profound misunderstanding of what the Nazi's did and I find that kind of statement needs to be challenged as the ignorant statement it is. Trump or Musk haven't killed anyone or put them in ovens. They are not responsible for 60 million deaths! The comparison is abhorrent. Nazi holocaust survivors I imagine find these proclamations quite offensive and ignorant as to the plight they faced.

Funny that you state the 60 lawsuits brought by Trump agents did not demonstrate that Joe Biden's administration was a threat to democracy but the 50 lawsuits brought by Trump opponents demonstrate he is a threat to democracy. Neither of those facts represent a threat to democracy, on the contrary they are examples of democracy in action. You will only conclude there's a threat to democracy if Trump wins those current lawsuits but if he loses them, democracy is working. There in lies the telling fallacy of your bias. Yes I'm assuming your position. Orange man bad and every single thing he does is bad whether it ends up having a good outcome or not. Every single thing. You realize how ridiculous and narrow, inflexible of a position that is to take? You have TDS so there's no real point in debating with someone who cannot accept any contrary evidence or thought to shake them from their religiously held belief.

Now let me ask you, what do you think of people destroying Tesla's and fire bombing dealerships?

Take this statement as you right it: That means 1500 people beat cops. That's just absurd. — philosch

I said '1500 odd felons who had among other things beaten police with fire extinguishers and flag poles.' Which is fact.

I think Jan 6 was an unfortunate riot that got out of hand but was no worse than any of the other 500 or so riots the previous summer. — philosch

This is classic 'whataboutism'. 'What about all the other riots'? Well, the other riots were not held to disrupt the transfer of Presidential power nor did they result in the desecration of the US Capital Building. Rioters were chanting Hang Mike Pence, and assembled a mock gallows, as depicted in the photo I showed. Seven people died as a consequence of the actions of that day.

Certainly not an insurrection as no one was even charged with that crime. — philosch

As of January 20, 2025, 1,575 people were charged in connection with the January 6 attack. The FBI has estimated that around 2,000 people took part in criminal acts at the event. The two Oath Keepers leaders were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. Others were convicted of various felonies. It met the definition of insurrection 'a violent uprising against an authority or government'.

Trump is on record of asking his followers to protest peacefully which was their right

As Mitch McConnell said on the US Senate Floor after the event '“The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.” More's the pity he didn't follow through and convict after the second impeachment, it would have put an end to all this nonsense before it took root again.

When Biden got elected I was pretty down as I could easily see he was weak and mentally incompetent. But I didn't panic. — philosch

Biden left the US economy in much better shape than it is ever going to be under Trump. All the signs are that recession is imminent, unemployment is growing, and inflation rising. There is not a single reputable economist who will support the Tarrif War, with most of them warning it is going to cause profound economic disclocation.

Trump as a threat to democracy because you don't like his policies are just ridiculous hyperbolic statements that are not based in fact — philosch

I never compared Trump to nazism, that is a total red herring. But Trump's threats to democracy are real and documented. Just some examples from the last few weeks:

* Extensive use of so-called 'executive actions', amounting to 'rule by decree', many of which are subject to legal action, as per the previous list.
* threatening of law firms who were associated with January 6th prosecutions or investigations into Trump by banning them from Government contracts and revoking of security clearances.
* withholding and withdrawing constitutionally-approved funds for all kinds of agencies and programs in defiance of the Congressional 'power of the purse'
* firing of Department Inspectors General in defiance of the constitutional requirement for 30 days notice and adequate grounds for dismissal (also making it much harder to detect the 'fraud and waste' that Trump keeps bleating about, as that is what they are appointed to monitor)
*rounding up and illegally deporting immigrants with no hearing or opportunity for them to present a defense.

There are more examples. Trump makes no secret of his desire for absolute personal loyalty to him over the Constitution. He shows no interest in or respect for the principles of constitutional democracy.

Funny that you state the 60 lawsuits brought by Trump agents did not demonstrate that Joe Biden's administration was a threat to democracy but the 50 lawsuits brought by Trump opponents demonstrate he is a threat to democracy. — philosch

The '60 lawsuits' (actually 62) in the first instance, were brought by Rudy Guiliani, Sidney Powell, and a cohort of other lawyers on the fallacious grounds that the Electoral College count for the 2020 election were somehow corrupted or false. Remember Guiliani's hysterics about having 'absolute proof' of electoral fraud? Every one of those cases was dismissed. Remember the ridiculous lies about Dominion Voting Systems? And the fact that Fox News paid the largest-ever settlement in legal history for propogating those lies.

The current 50-odd lawsuits against Trump's executive actions have been, by contrast, lodged by all kinds of parties, against the perceived unconstitutionality and illegal nature of some of Trump's executive actions, and they are having an effect. Musk and Trump are now saying that judges who oppose Trump's orders ought to be impeached - another example of his threat to democracy and contempt for the rule of law.

Now let me ask you, what do you think of people destroying Tesla's and fire bombing dealerships? — philosch

Dreadful. Absolutely reprehensible and should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. There's only one means of protest against Tesla required, and it is perfectly legal: don't buy one.

Trump as a threat to democracy... — philosch

President Donald Trump on Sunday declined to rule out seeking a third presidential term — an unconstitutional act explicitly barred under the 22nd Amendment — saying that “there are methods which you could do it.”

In a phone interview with NBC News’s Kristen Welker, Trump suggested that multiple plans have begun to circulate for him to run for a third term. He pointed to unspecified polling as an indicator of his popularity and claimed he had the “highest poll numbers of any Republican for the last 100 years.”

“A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said. — WP

I suppose Trump is free to lie, it's not illegal; it becomes a problem when lots of people (always) trust his word more than "mainstream media" or whatever. — jorndoe

:roll:

So, what I pre-empted. Okay.

The former. But not particularly strongly. Anything could happen. I'm a pretty seriously doubter though.

You see I do not think Trump is some great savior, I held my nose and voted for him as I believe in his overall policy direction.

Did you vote for MAGA to pivot to MRGA(make Russia great again), or the annexation of Canada and Greenland? For a vindictive trade war with every other country, except Israel? For hire and fire policies where you are vetted for any critical opinions about Trump, before you are hired, or fired, or Trump looking to run for a third term? I could go on, but this is a fair summary of his policy direction.

If this continues to morph into a new Trump thread, I'm going to close it.

As for the rest of your quote in regards to Musk you once again rely on that bastion of unbiased and objective reporting..."The Guardian"....enough said. You once again speak from your echo chamber. — philosch

As for 'the media bubble': The Guardian has what Americans call 'liberal bias'. So what? I can easily make the distinction between their editorial slant, and the facts they report. So too with the other 'liberal media' - NY Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic. They stand up for liberal values, no question, but they're also capable of balanced writing and reporting, and they do attempt to report the facts. — Wayfarer

Very well said. It is independent journalism. The Guardian reports the latest news from the UK, America, and around the world, from different perspectives. There's more to it than politics. Keeping to the topic:

Elon Musk hands out $1m checks to voters amid Wisconsin supreme court election race

Musk denied he was buying votes but said the court election outcome would be critical to Trump’s agenda and ‘the future of civilization’

Elon Musk gave out $1m checks on Sunday to two Wisconsin voters, declaring them spokespeople for his political group, ahead of a Wisconsin supreme court election that the tech billionaire cast as critical to Donald Trump’s agenda and “the future of civilization” [...]

Musk’s attorneys argued in filings with the court that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and US constitutions.
The payments are “intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate,” Musk’s attorneys argued in court filings.

Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1m a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second amendments. — The Guardian

More about Musk's interests - unfortunately, it ties in with Trump.

Since taking office, Trump has withdrawn the US from what is considered the most important global climate pact, the Paris Climate Agreement. He has also reportedly prevented US scientists from participating in international climate research and removed national electric vehicle targets.

Plus, he derided his predecessor's attempts to develop new green technology a "green new scam".

Trump has been eager to make a deal with the Ukrainian president on critical minerals. He has also taken a strong interest in Greenland and Canada – both nations rich in critical minerals.

***

The Elon Musk effect?
Trump's right-hand man understands more than most the importance of critical minerals in the green transition. Space X and Tesla – the companies Elon Musk leads - rely heavily on critical minerals like graphite (in electric vehicles), lithium (in batteries) and nickel (in rockets) [...]

Such has been Musk's concern with getting hold of some of these minerals that three years ago he tweeted: "Price of lithium has gone to insane levels! Tesla might actually have to get into the mining & refining directly at scale, unless costs improve." — BBC News

If this continues to morph into a new Trump thread, I'm going to close it. — Baden

You are quite right. Unfortunately, given Musk's position it is difficult to keep Trump out of it.

I wouldn’t disagree. Or merge it.

So, what I pre-empted. Okay. — AmadeusD

Not at all - I stated your views amusingly coincide with your geographic distance, not that your geographic distance engenders your views or precludes you from commenting or caring.

Again, I normally try to ignore Politics — Gnomon
Based on what you've said here, a sound practice — Wayfarer

Thanks. I try to know my own limitations.

Perhaps, if I was a member of a powerful political party I could change the system. But as a lone militant moderate, I avoid aligning with Left or Right Wing factions. World polity has always oscillated between top-down & bottom-up government, waging warfare by "other means", while a few in the moderate middle follow the philosophical Golden Mean --- content to interpret the world, without taking-up arms to change it by violent means. How well did Marx's "practical action" work out?

If you fight against a populist demagogue, you are aligning yourself against the majority of your fellow citizens. Perhaps heroic, but not a winning strategy. As I said before, I'm a curious observer of partisan politics, not a player on the field. :cool:


The famous quote "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," attributed to Karl Marx, emphasizes the importance of practical action and social transformation over mere philosophical contemplation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=marx+the+point+is+to+change+it

Very well said. It is independent journalism. The Guardian reports the latest news from the UK, America, and around the world, from different perspectives. There's more to it than politics. Keeping to the topic: — Amity

You can pretend all you want to that it's just a different perspective and you're able to distinguish between real news and slanted reporting but it's liberal trash propaganda through and through and not worth debating about any of it's opinions in a forum that's supposed to be based on real evidence and facts wear possible. As you can see from below they are fond of reporting stories without sources which I have already pointed out to Wayfarer after they used the same publication as reference. No worries I'm out of this thread. It's of no real philosophical value, it is as I have said, an echo chamber of hyperbolic nonsense.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian

"The Guardian Moved from Lean Left to Left: Nov. 2024 AllSides Editorial Review
The Guardian was moved from Lean Left (-2.4) to Left (-3.5) following a Nov. 2024 AllSides Editorial Review."


"Reviewers on the left, center, and right noted that there was much evidence of Left bias in The Guardian. The panel noted:

Story choice was not just leaning left, but actively demonizes American conservatives/Republicans
consistent sensational language

Analysis of President Trump cabinet picks was clearly Left; it described Tulsi Gabbard in the following slanted way, while not including links to sources to back up the claims: "Gabbard, the proposed director of national intelligence, has been accused of having links to the Kremlin while spouting pro-Russian views – an allegation that could complicate her being cleared to oversee sensitive national secrets."

Middle East coverage often has anti-Israel slant

At the time of review, a new newsletter was titled, "Fighting Back: a pop-up newsletter on defending democracy under Trump"; The Guaridan is actively opposed to/biased against Trump

The Guardian's Call to Action asking for donations was clearly against the right, reading, "This is what we're up against," with photos of figures like Elon Musk and others aligned with Trump looking sinister. "From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy."

"Lots of sensationalism in stories about Trump, e.g. a piece that noted a "flurry of lawsuits" and actively tried to negatively polarize the reader against Washington Post when bringing up its nonendorsement of a 2024 presidential candidate."

funny how left-leaning coincides with favouring human rights, the rule of law and possibly not wanting foreign spies in government positions. If that's leftist, it's because the right is going insane.

You said a lot more than that.

That's not correct, at all. Violation of human rights, when you're grop thinks it's ok, is the MO of 'leftist' thinking (i don't put you in this category, btw). Murder, when the group think it's ok, is leftist thinking. Crime, when you think it's Ok, is leftist thinking. Fraud, when the group thinks its OK is leftist thinking. Authoritarian behaviour "under the right circumstances" if leftist thinking. Censorship, when the group agrees, is leftist thinking.

These are anti-democracy. I make no further comment, other than to say your disingenuous description tells me you reject all of the above. And so, in turn, should probably be rejecting leftism.

At least on the right, these are still a violation, just a(n intensely) hypocritical one.

You said literally more than that, and it was what I pre-empted. That's ok, fella.

Please do. It's already bringing the level of discourse down. At least move it to the lounge.

That's not correct, at all. Violation of human rights, when you're grop thinks it's ok, is the MO of 'leftist' thinking (i don't put you in this category, btw). Murder, when the group think it's ok, is leftist thinking. Crime, when you think it's Ok, is leftist thinking. Fraud, when the group thinks its OK is leftist thinking. Authoritarian behaviour "under the right circumstances" if leftist thinking. Censorship, when the group agrees, is leftist thinking. — AmadeusD

That's entirely correct based on the quoted text on why the Guardian is "left" . Your straw men are irrelevant especially if you think they don't pertain to me.

They aren't strawmen. They are how leftists behave, en masse, where their behaviour can be reviewed (interviews, protests, news reports, instagram content etc...). If you're not aware of this, that's fine, but it is the case.

Aside from that, which I understand could just be that you've not seen the above in action, which is fine, to your initial response, I don't think you're really being genuine here. That's why I called is disingenuous. "favouring human rights" could be the label for any number of things. In practice, it tends to far overstep the concept of human rights. That's an entirely different discussion, but just something to understand why I think that description is disingenuous.

Musk's USAID Cuts - Where The Rubber Doesn't Meet the Road

Three days after the Myanmar quake, there are no U.S. teams on the ground in Myanmar, a stark illustration of how Trump has upended America’s role in disaster response.

Hours after a 7.7-magnitude earthquake devastated Myanmar on Friday, sending dangerous tremors across Southeast Asia, the American officials charged with responding to the disaster received their termination letters from Washington.

Most of the personnel who would have made up a U.S. response team, including security and sanitation experts, were already on indefinite leave. Many of the U.S. programs that would have provided lifesaving materials, including fuel for ambulances and medical kits, were shuttered weeks ago. U.S. planes and helicopters in nearby Thailand, which have been used before for disaster relief, never made it off the ground.

America’s response to the catastrophic earthquake has been crippled by the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to eight current and former USAID employees who worked on Myanmar, as well as former State Department officials and leaders of international aid agencies. Three days after the disaster, American teams have yet to be deployed to the quake zone — a marked contrast with other similar catastrophes, when U.S. personnel were on the ground within hours.

The Trump administration has promised $2 million in aid, saying, “The United States stands with the people of Myanmar as they work to recover from the devastation.” But distributing this relief will be more difficult than ever, USAID officials said, because the U.S. has severed valuable ties with local organizations and fired staff who could have restored relationships. The U.S. commitment so far has also been dwarfed by the $13.7 million pledged by China, which borders Myanmar and is one of the few remaining allies of its military junta.

The situation unfolding in Myanmar, which has been battered by years of civil war and was the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in Southeast Asia last year, is the clearest demonstration to date of how Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service has upended the global aid system — allowing Beijing and other rival powers to take the lead in providing relief.

“This is what the world looks like when the U.S. is not a leadership role,” said Chris Milligan, who served as USAID’s top civilian official until he retired in 2021 and was USAID’s top official in Myanmar under President Barack Obama. “Other countries have mobilized, and we have not, and that’s because we have shut down parts of the U.S. government that have the capability to respond.” — USAID cuts cripple American response to Myanmar earthquake

No reason to label people who support the logical position to keep transgender males from being in women sports without that meaning they are bigoted. — philosch

Very good to keep in mind. Probably something for Wayfarer, but he's also explained himself in a way that makes me far, far less bristly at it (I have made clear elsewhere, but I am not a Trump supporter in any way other than it's entertaining, and I don't take life seriously enough to be like others hereabouts when it comes to 'existential crisis').

an echo chamber of hyperbolic nonsense. — philosch

Is what political discussions tend to be.

Very good to keep in mind. Probably something for Wayfarer, but he's also explained himself in a way that makes me far, far less bristly at it (I have made clear elsewhere, but I am not a Trump supporter in any way other than it's entertaining, and I don't take life seriously enough to be like others hereabouts when it comes to 'existential crisis').

an echo chamber of hyperbolic nonsense.
— philosch

Is what political discussions tend to b — AmadeusD

Ah finally a light in the wilderness, I couldn't agree more

They aren't strawmen. They are how leftists behave, en masse, where their behaviour can be reviewed (interviews, — AmadeusD

Denial isn't an argument and the second sentence is a dumb strawman again. That you have zero grasp of what actual "leftist" thinkers have written about is your problem. Either you realise you're making dumb generalisations or you don't.

They aren't strawmen, because they are actual behaviours of leftists. Again, that you are not aware isn't an excuse. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt on that.
If you're not aware, you're not aware. But you can still not be an absolute idiot and respond in such a childish, ignorant way.

Everything i said is outright, 100% true. BLM riots= justified. Luigi Mangione(murder) = justified. Defrauding hte IRS (Patrisse Cullors) = justified. Abusing, assaulting and literally 'hate speech'ing your political opponents = justified. Property damage (lets just use the moment, and think Tesla) = justified.
Censorship (COVID, Biden laptop etc..)=justified.

If you disagree with all the above, its rich calling yourself leftist. Not even aware of what the label captures.

And before you do something supremely ignorant, what the Right do is utterly irrelevant to this exchange. I even noted that at least when the right do similar things, its openly hypocritical. Leftists just move the goal post and then insult you when you point it out (as you do, constantly - so maybe I was wrong).

So, yeah. If you don't know what you're talking about it's best not to talk.

They aren't strawmen, because they are actual behaviours of SOME leftists. — AmadeusD

Fixed it for you, which makes the statement uninteresting without any idea how to identify one from the next. Stop sharing your opinions. It's uninteresting.

Do notice that many people who consider themselves to be either left / progressive or right / conservative are actually moderates and quite centrist, that do oppose violence and breaking the law, be it arson or vandalism by protesters or officials not caring about due process or rights when deporting people.

Actually many people are disgusted about both sides.

Despite Musk ploughing $140 million into the vote for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and even handing out $1 million dollar checks to a couple of voters (what? me? corrupting the process?), the liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, will win (taking over the seat vacated by the retiring liberal judge.)

Crawford and her Democratic allies also worked to turn the election into a referendum on Trump ally Elon Musk, who poured millions of his personal fortune into the race. It quickly became the most expensive judicial contest in US history.

At a victory rally in Madison Tuesday night, Crawford thanked supporters, saying their votes helped send a message to the country.

“Today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our supreme court. And Wisconsinites stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price – our courts are not for sale,” she said. — CNN

The election was seen as a litmus test for the Trump/Musk power duopoly. Wisconsin is a real bellwether state.

Beginning of the end for Musk?

US President Donald Trump's billionaire advisor Elon Musk said on Saturday he hopes in the US and Europe could eventually establish “a very close, stronger partnership” and reach a “zero-tariff zone situation.”

Musk was speaking via video link the party congress of Italian far-right party League, which is in a ruling coalition led by Premier Giorgia Meloni.

"I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America," Musk told Matteo Salvini, the LEGA party leader, via video conference.

Where did all the bellicose MAGA rhetoric go? Assuming Trump would be logical, this is totally against what the US President wants. After all, according to the Trump, the EU was formed to screw the US.